Report to the
Board of Education
May 11, 2009



433 school age
students with
disabilities
4722 total
enrollment as of
December 2008
9.2%special
education
population

10 of the 433 students with disabilities are
placed by the Committee on Special Education
in educational settings outside of the district


Placements include: OCM BOCES and Judge
Rotenberg Center
99% special education population is served
within the school district

The following is a summary of the number of students with
disabilities who moved into the F-M School District:
 Jan. 1997 – Dec. 1997:
11
 Jan. 1998 – Dec. 1998:
24
 Jan. 1999 – Dec. 1999:
45
 Jan. 2000 – Dec. 2000:
37
 Jan. 2001 – Dec. 2001:
32
 Jan. 2002 – Dec. 2002:
39
 Jan. 2003 – Dec. 2003:
24
 Jan. 2004 – Dec. 2004:
24
 Jan. 2005 – Dec. 2005:
31
 Jan. 2006 – Dec. 2006:
27
 Jan. 2007 – Dec. 2007:
18
 Jan. 2008 – Dec. 2008:
22

22 students with disabilities were new entrants to F-M :
 7 students came from out-of-state
 6 students came from other school districts
within Onondaga County
 9 students came from other NYS counties


2 student required a one-to-one teaching
assistant as per existing IEP
4 student required shared teaching assistant
support as per existing IEPs


Definition: A problem solving approach aimed
at improving pre-referral services and
preventing unnecessary assignment to special
education
With RTI, a low performing student is offered
an intense, small group or individualized
academic intervention. Progress is monitored
to determine if the response to the intervention
yields adequate progress

Essential components




Part 100 regulations
School wide universal screening
Three tiered approach of increasingly intense interventions
Continuous progress monitoring
 AIMSweb Program
 Data based decision making--Staff to use progress
monitoring data to determine effectiveness of researchbased interventions

SED mandate for RTI to be fully operational in
elementary schools by 2012

Implemented in grades K and 1 at Fayetteville Elementary School
 FE formed an RTI committee made up of 10 general education
and special education staff members
 Team conducted benchmark assessments
 to establish local norms
 to identify students who are at-risk in reading and require
additional reading intervention
 Initial Kindergarten data suggested that the vast majority of
incoming kindergartners have age appropriate literacy skills
 First grade data indicated that more explicit instruction in
phonemic awareness and phonics is necessary. From that data,
the reading teachers developed a teacher guide with classroom
lesson plans and reading activities for K teachers to
incorporate into their daily reading instruction

Research based interventions:
Leveled Literacy Intervention Reading Program
 Fast ForWord Program
 Earobics
 Fundations Reading Program
 Peer tutoring
 Reading Café
 PALS Program



This is a small group, supplementary reading
intervention for struggling readers in grades K, 1, and
2.
It is a short term, 5 day per week intensive program
which incorporates:






a combination of reading, writing, phonics and word study
emphasis on comprehension strategies
attention to features of fiction and nonfiction
specific work on sounds, letters, and words
activities to expand vocabulary
opportunities to write about reading




Preliminary teacher comments and results:
Enders Rd: “I am definitely seeing progress with
my students. They continue to improve in their
reading levels and I have seen a big improvement
in their writing.”
Mott Road: “All of my first grade students have
made progress and I believe the 5 day routine is
very helpful.”
Fayetteville Elem: “Two 1st grade students who
were not able to read level A in Sept. have tested at
level D since started the LLI program in Dec.

Fayetteville Elem. (cont’d)


Three 2nd grade students started the year at level D
and two have now benchmarked at level H and one
student is now at level J since beginning LLI in Dec.
Two 2nd grade students who started the year at
level C are now at level H since beginning LLI in
Dec.





BLAST OFF! (Books, Letters and Sounds Together)
11:30 am to 12:30 pm-Monday, Wednesday, Friday
8 kindergarten students
Staffing: Reading teacher, Speech therapist, teaching
assistant
Program outline:
Reading/Writing-to develop early reading and writing
strategies, develop fluency and automaticity with letters
and sight words
 Language-to practice receptive and expressive language
skills, descriptive language, social language



Two of the eight students have graduated from
the program in March and are functioning at
grade level in reading
Kindergarten teachers report that the program
has been extremely valuable and have noticed
measurable improvement in the students’ skills
and confidence levels



Special education teachers co-plan and co-teach
with general education ELA and Math teachers
in grades 5-8
Teaching assistant support is provided for
Social studies, Science and special area classes
as needed
Approximately 4-6 students with disabilities in
each of the integrated co-teaching classes

Teachers report:




In all ELA and Math integrated co-teaching classrooms (except
grade 6 Math), the students have higher test scores and grades
than the students in classes without the co-teaching model
All students with disabilities in these classes are receiving
passing grades in the ELA and Math courses
Both of the general education and special education teachers
have equal responsibility for the students and are viewed as
two equal teachers….there is no distinction between teachers
This is the first year that general education students have
stayed for extra help with special education teachers during
activity period
General Education teachers report that, in their opinion,
all students are benefiting from this model
 General Education teachers reported that the model
creates a “safe and comfortable” environment for all
students and they see increased class participation
 All general education teachers who have been involved in
the co-teaching model have asked to continue next school
year


Response to Intervention Staff Development
Dr. Seth Aldrich, RTI consultant and AIMsWeb trainer has
provided eight days of training both prior to the beginning of
the pilot at Fayetteville Elem. as well as throughout this
school year
Enders Road and Mott Road staff met with the Fayetteville
Elem. team on March 27th to discuss their implementation of
RTI
Enders Road and Mott Road Elem. staff will receive additional
training on May 15
Psychologists will receive a minimum of two days of training
on progress monitoring using the AIMsWeb Program
Summer training program is being developed

Kindergarten Early Literacy Program Staff
Development




Speech therapists developed the program in January 2008
Meetings were then scheduled with the reading teachers and
kindergarten teachers to gain additional input
Elementary principals, kindergarten teachers, speech therapists
and reading teachers met on March 25 to discuss the current
program at Enders Road and to review changes to the program
structure for next school year
Summer staff development will be planned for implementation
at Fayetteville Elem. and Mott Road Elem. next school year

Co-teaching Staff Development




OCM BOCES trained Wellwood staff on August 28th
as to the various models of integrated co-teaching
Monthly meetings were held this year with the
teachers to discuss the implementation of the coteaching model and to provide ongoing problem
solving
In February, teachers involved with co-teaching
were given time to meet and plan program for next
year
Summer staff development will be planned for
teachers to co-plan
“For people with
normal abilities,
Technology makes
doing things
easier….For people
with disabilities,
Technology makes
things possible.”
Unknown

Any item, piece of
equipment, or product
system, whether
acquired commercially
off the shelf, modified,
or customized, that is
used to increase,
maintain or improve
the functional
capabilities of a student
with a disability. Such
term does not include a
medical device that is
surgically implanted, or
the replacement of such
a device.



ATs are individualized
ATs often require planning, implementation,
and adjustment
ATs assist students in overcoming barriers on
a student by student basis





Smart boards
Alpha
Smart/Dana/Fusion
word processors
Augmentative
communication
devices
Prone stander
Intellitools Classroom
Suite software





Four staff members: Beth Filiczkowski, Tracy Simmons, Laura
Thurston and Teresa Wildhack completed a year long training at
the TRE Center in the Capital Region BOCES
They are now certified AT specialists and are able to conduct our
own assistive technology evaluations in the district
This team developed an assistive technology policy and
procedures manual for our district including new district AT
referral/reporting forms
The team catalogued all assistive technology equipment and
computer software programs (both low tech and high tech)
The team compiled a packet of resources entitled, “Tools for
writing, reading and math” for staff

AT Team Recommendations



Create a district Assistive Technology team which
would oversee the assistive technology needs of the
district
Develop an ongoing staff development program
specific to assistive technology
Their manual will be shared with staff and
their recommendations will be discussed for
future implementation