District Leadership
The district has set ambitious goals for student achievement and program improvement indicating a commitment to improved results for all students, including children with disabilities. It is clear from interviews and focus groups with administrators, including the Superintendent’s cabinet, that this goal is shared across general and special education leaders in the district. All are concerned about
and committed to the pursuit of excellence and equity for all students across the district’s programs and services. Leaders also express strong commitment to parent involvement and to making sure that all parents have an equal voice. As one administrator expressed it: “Communication out to the
community…we can’t communicate enough. We need to be better at how we explain what the special education program is.”
District leaders as a group see the need for greater collaboration between general and special education at all levels and the importance of increasing the capacity of the overall general education system to support the diverse needs of all students. This is perceived as both a “top down” and “bottom up” cultural or paradigm shift that moves from categorical “silo” thinking to a culture of collaboration and shared responsibility for all students.
Strategies that CPS leaders support include implementation of Response to Intervention and the use of schoolwide Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports. The overall message from district leadership is that CPS needs to move from “past practice” to “best practice” with regard to the delivery of special education services.
Organizational Structure
Special education in Cambridge takes a categorical, programmatic, and centralized approach. While each school building has its own character, identity, and “brand,” and each uses site-based decision- making and provides a good deal of diversity across schools, the Office of Special Education (OSE) in the CPS Central Office has overall authority and responsibility for the management and delivery of special education services. The Executive Director, Assistant Director, and Program Manager are the top managers for OSE. They, in turn, work though a team of Teachers in Charge who are organized categorically to coordinate/supervise the categorical sub-separate programs, supervise related services personnel, and coordinate out-of-district placements. The top three administrators divide responsibilities in categorical terms as well, with the Assistant Director responsible for the supervision of school-based psychologists and school adjustment counselors. Teachers in Charge are not “building based” and travel from school to school, based on the location of the programs they supervise. Responsibility for Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, which provides access and accommodations for students with disabilities who are not on IEPs, is completely separate from OSE and managed through the Affirmative Action Office. Title I has its own Central Office director who oversees Title I services in all of the district’s schools, also operating separately from OSE. This categorical approach to program-specific, specialized services may be contributing to a fragmentation of service delivery and what interviewees and focus group respondents noted as an inconsistency of interpretation of policies and procedures, perceived inequities in service delivery, and reported “mixed messages” from the Central Office to the schools. The organizational structure
focused on type of programs (e.g., ASD, Behavior, Functional Academics, etc.) may be inadvertently exacerbating the differences and gaps between general and special education. It also undermines the goal of a unified system of education that will result in improved results for all students. The location of sub-separate categorical programs in particular schools limits the choice options for some students and creates the need for frequent and potentially disruptive transitions from school to school.
Staffing
Cambridge Public Schools employs an experienced and well-qualified staff of professional educators. For special education staff, most have been employed for 10 years or more in the district and have at least a Master’s degree. In the Spring 2010 focus groups with special education staff, teachers described themselves as “top-notch special educators” who perceive themselves as a strength of the system — committed, competent, with high levels of knowledge and skill.
Parent comments during the focus groups indicated that their satisfaction with the services their children received depended to a great extent on the particular staff with whom they were working. Several parents mentioned their child had experienced success because of the particular school’s approach to special education or because a teacher, service provider, instructional aide/paraeducator, or guidance counselor had shown knowledge and understanding about their child’s disability and had gone the “extra mile” to ensure the child received the needed assistance. As one parent commented: “The successes my child had… were due to teachers who stood on their
heads to make [my child] feel accepted … and a principal who modeled inclusion…”
As noted above, Cambridge employs large numbers of special education staff. This is true in general education as well, where student-to-adult ratios and class sizes are relatively low across the board. Cambridge student-teacher ratios overall (10.5 to 1 in 2009–10) are lower than the state average of 13.7 to 1. There are currently a total of six Teachers in Charge and one Out-of-District Coordinator. Two new positions were added in 2010–11. There is variability across schools with regard to numbers of staff and how they are used. The Central Office controls decisions about staffing levels. Staff are organized categorically, including Behavior Specialists, LD specialists, Inclusion Specialists, etc. While this categorical organization may provide specialized support and expert service to students in particular categorical programs, it may also contribute to staff perceptions of isolation and fragmentation. The three lowest-rated items in terms of agreement on the Educator Survey addressed the inequitable workload distribution across staff, the lack of common planning time between general and special educators, and few opportunities for special education staff to share expertise. Classroom observations indicated that while teachers are working well together in many instances, particularly with regard to co-teaching, there were questions raised
about the most effective use of special education personnel (teachers and paraeducators) in some settings.