Region 8: Akron Area
Integrated Comprehensive
Services
April 18, 2012
Dr. Elise Frattura
Frattura@uwm.edu

Today: Part I
 Part I.
Core Principles and LocationDeveloping Our Infrastructure
 What we Know. …
 Setting the Stage
 Shifting From Programs to Services
 Leading for Social Justice
Three Parts
 Part II.
High Quality Teaching and Learning
 Developing Teacher Capacity
 Climate and Behavior
 Teaching and Learning for All Students
 Schools Involvement with Families
 Students With Severe Disabilities
 Students Who Are English Language Learners
 Part III.
Leveraging Compliance, Funding, and Policies
 Funding
 Policy
 Compliance
Today: Part I
 Part I.
Core Principles and LocationDeveloping Our Infrastructure
 What we Know. …
 Setting the Stage
 Shifting From Programs to Services
 Leading for Social Justice
Handouts:
1. Segregated Programs to Services
2. Asking the Necessary Questions
3. Functions of Teams
4. New Teacher Teams
5. Equity Audit
6. Co-Teaching Planning Document
7. Evolving Roles
8. Students with Severe Disabilities
9. Notes
What We Know
 District Reform
 Often happens in isolation of special education
 Special education becomes a separate – almost a
contract service provided to the district
 Students with disabilities often experience
substandard educational opportunities when
special education is not part of the initial reform
work for a district
What We Know
 Vision
◦ Often Districts are reactive to State and Federal
mandates
◦ Application of services is frequently based on a deficit
model
◦ Special Education is perceived as a place versus a
service
◦ Perception that students must be clustered into programs
in specific schools to meet the needs of high needs
students.
What We Know
 Culture of marginalization
 By race
 By disability
 By language
 By poverty
What We Know
 Achievement Differences
•
•
•
•
•
Students with disabilities are 2.5% more likely to drop out
of school than their nondisabled peers
Students who are marginalized show a 30% to 70%
differential in achievement
Little to no students with disabilities are enrolled in AP
courses
Only 2 percent of students with disabilities have a
cognitive disability yet, students with disabilities are
tracked in low or functional content courses.
The balance of functional and academics – often gets lost.
What We Know
 Disconnected Instruction and Assessment from Teaching and
Learning :
•
•
•
•
•
Often disconnected from the core curriculum
Lack a cohesive approach using the common core
to prevent student failure
Enveloped in a reaction to failure
Lack of balance of functional skills
Void of comprehensive transition services
Setting the Stage
Provides us with a common ground – from which to move
forward (Handout 1)
Title 1
Programs for
Students
under Section
504
Alcohol and
Drug
Programs
Programs
Guidance
Programs
General
Education
Limited
English
Speaking
Programs
Programs for
Homeless
Children
At- Risk
Program for
HS Students
Early
Childhood
Programs
Programs for
Teenage
Programs for Parents
Students
under Section
504
Limited
English
Speaking
Programs
Alcohol and
Drug
Programs
Title 1
Programs
Guidance
Programs Programs for
At-Risk
Middle
School
Students
General
Education
Programs for
Homeless
Children
Gifted and
Talented
Programs
Programs for
Students with
ADHD
At- Risk
Program for
HS Students
Special
Education
Programs
Early
Childhood
Programs
Programs for
Nonreaders at
the Third
Grade
Eight Major Problems with Separate Programs :
▫ track and marginalize student of color and students
▫
▫
▫
▫
▫
▫
▫
of lower social classes
are costly
require personnel to expend a tremendous amount
of resources in determining eligibility ($3000.00)
some students receiving services an others denied
fragment a student’s day
blame and label students
enable educators and students not to change
prevent transfer of educator and student knowledge
back to integrated environments
Integrated
Comprehensive
Services for All
Learners
Spec.
Ed.
5%-10%
Tier 3
Targeted
Interventions
20%
Tier 2
School Wide Interventions
80%
Tier 1
Intensive
Intervention
Gifted Pull
Out
Intensive
Interventions
Reading
Recovery
Intensive
Intervention
Math
Programs for
Nonreaders
at Third
Grade
ELL Pull
Out
General
Education
Intensive
Intervention
Intensive
Intervention
Read 180
Intensive
Intervention
Test Taking
Pull Outs
SRA
ABA
Title 1
Programs for
Teenage
Parents
Programs for
Students
under Section
504
Programs
Spec.
Ed
5%-10%
Guidance
Programs
Programs for
At-Risk
Middle
School
Students
Tier 3
Limited
English
Speaking
Programs
Targeted
Interventions
Gifted and
Talented
Programs
20%
Tier 2
Alcohol and
Drug
Programs
Programs for
Students with
ADHD
School Wide
Interventions
80%
Programs for
Homeless
Children
At- Risk
Program for
HS Students
Tier 1
Special
Education
Programs
Early
Childhood
Programs
Programs for
Nonreaders at
the Third
Grade
The Goal:
First Intervention is the Right Intervention,
Using Universal Design in Tier 1
Integrating Tier 2 and 3 within Tier 1
Preventing a Failure Driven System
Bottom line
What we know
Varied achievement
Within student groupings
Positively impacts
Student achievement –
Or the students who
Are isolated the most
Often are the furthest behind
Hnushek, E.,Klin, J., Markman, M., Rivkin, S. (2003)
Does Peer Ability affect student achievement?
Journal of Applied Econometrics
If We Continue to Use Intensive Intervention in
Isolation of All Students
(Often Suggested in Tier 2 and Tier 3)
We will NEVER develop
The Capacity of ALL Teachers
Resulting in More and MORE Segregation
As we have not shared our own EXPERTISE
Services Are:
▫ Primary goal is prevent student failure
▫ Considers range of learners within every classroom and
grade/cross grades
▫ Seamlessly tied to and grounded in core teaching and
learning
▫ Students receive services with neighborhood peers or
school of choice (they do not have to go some place else
in district or in school to get services)
▫ No rooms/schools that are set aside for labeled kids
(e.g., LD, ED, special education resource, ESL, at-risk,
discipline schools)
▫ Supports and builds on culturally relevant,
differentiated curriculum and instruction
▫ Based on principle of universal access curriculum is differentiated for needs of all
students versus developed and then adapted after
the fact
▫ Students do not have to qualify or be labeled to
receive an education that meets their needs
▫ Requires teachers and staff to share knowledge
and expertise with each other and with students
Clustering By
Like Disabilities
For Groups of
Students
Heterogeneous
Flexible Learning
Groups Based on
How Each Student
Learns. ….
Bottom Line:
• Integrated Comprehensive services is not
about moving special education back into
the confines of general education. ..
It is about moving general education and
special education (ELL, at-risk, etc) to
create a proactive place around all learners
• It is not about keeping self-contained
classrooms and resource rooms and
allowing students with disabilities to go
into a general education. ..
It is about developing flexible learning
groups through out each day for each child
– based on who they are and how they
learn (whether it is 1:1, small group, or
large group instruction)
• It is not about some students – and not
others. .. i.e., students with severe
disabilities, high behavior needs, learning
disabilities, autism, . …
It is about reallocating staff to better meet
the needs proactively of each and every
learner. ..
• It is not about diminishing teacher capacity
and expertise. ..
It is about building teacher capacity and
expertise so that students may be part of
the norm group of diverse learners
• Bottom line – it is about educating each
and every learner and building the capacity
so that each and every school may honor
any child who “belongs”. …
At Your Table
Three Parts:
1. Discuss what you do as a school
for all students to be successful
1. All students learn when. …
At Your Table
Three Parts:
1. Discuss what you do as a school
for all students to be successful
1. All students learn when. …
1. Go Back – look at your list of what
you do and determine what are
programs and what are services
(use list in ppt)
First Things First
 Schools and Districts in Support of Integrated
Comprehensive Services for ALL Students:









Understand the Vision
Develop Non-Negotiables – how you will measure everything
Define and Align for a Proactive Infrastructure building and district
level
Develop Instructional Capacity – ALL Teachers for All Students
Align Common Core - Align IEP’s
Implement Universal Design
Set Heterogeneous Flexible Learning Groups
Then – Develop Teaming Relationships Between Teachers
Reallocate Resources and define Policy to support proactive reform
Shifting From Programs to Services
Over Lunch - Asking the Necessary Questions (Handout 2)
Leadership Teams in Support of Integrated Comprehensive
Services (Handout 3 and 4)
Team D:
District Leadership Team
(District Service Delivery Team)
Team A:
School Planning
Team
Team B:
School
Leadership Team
(School Service
Delivery)
Team C:
Teacher Teams
(Grade Level)
District Leadership Team
 Suggestions:
 A representative from each school’s Building
Leadership Team should function on the District
Leadership Team- e.g., Principal
 Confirm non-negotiables in support of the
District Mission
 Meet monthly to share progress and challenges.
 Support and share expertise to develop each
school’s capacity to serve all learners
Building Leadership Team
 Suggestions:
 Formation of this team is essential.
 The questions – is not a special education question – but
How can we be more comprehensive in a proactive
manner?
 What does the DATA say about our current model of
supporting students? The answer to why we are doing
this is in OUR DATA!
 Confirm non-negotiables.
 Set building infrastructure and service delivery
Sample Non-Negotiables for Integrated Comprehensive
Services
We Believe:
• Embrace and support an infrastructure of teaching and
learning for All – from District Office to the Schools-to the
Grade levels
• Proactive services means that students receive what they
need based on how they learn without having to go
someplace else to get such needs met.
Such Beliefs:
• Require teachers and staff to share knowledge and
expertise with each other and with students – it is
about developing the capacity of all teachers
• Flexible heterogeneous grouping patterns used
throughout day for all students – based on specific
learning needs of students and content.
• Cross-categorical, cross-discipline (at-risk, ell, gifted,
etc)
Your Data Tells the Story
See Equity Audit (Handout 5)
At your tables review the data questions - by
school – Discuss
What data points do you not ask?
What questions should you ask that you don’t?
Any others – specific to your school/district?
Example – percent of students of
poverty/disability or ELL in AP classes -
Building Leadership Team: The What
Draw or tell the story regarding the current manner in
which your school supports students who are not
successful in general education.
Urban HS Cu rrent Service Delivery
S pec ial Ed
P aren t
A dm ini stration
Li teracy
C o ach es
E SL
Boy s to
M e n by
interes t
S choo l
Gov .
Coun c il
Gu idanc e
In ho use
sus pe nsion
S W IS
9 th and
10 th
A ft er
S choo l
T uto r
T ardy
Roo m
GE N ERAL EDUCAT
St ep U p
SW
B ISS W
A ide
IO N
NH S
By
in te res t
Nu rse
S .A .P .
S peech &
L anguage Inc lus ion
8 ts
A P by
interes t
Itin eran t
H I,VI ,
O T ,P T
DT
B iLi ngua l
DV I
P sych
C lub s and
S por ts by
Inter est
Sp ec ial E duc ation
R es o u rc e
SCI
School Leadership Team
What would your future model look like?
 How would you arrange your staff design teams?
By grade level, academy, units, etc.
 Compare your current delivery structure to the table
that describes programs versus services.
 If you provide more fragmented programs than
services, discuss instructional time, teachers ability
to teach to a range of students, etc.
High School Service Delivery Model
9 th grade
2 spe cial
educa tors
10 th grade
2 spe cial
educa tors
C ommu nity
Vocatio nal
.5 special
edu cato r
C ommu nity
Vocatio nal
.5 special
edu cato r
2..5 Direct
Su ppo rt
Person nel
2 Assistan ts
2.5 Direct
Su ppo rt
Person nel
2 Assistan ts
11 th grade
2 spe cial
educa tors
C ommu nity
Vocatio nal
.5 special
edu cato r
2.5 Direct
Su ppo rt
Person nel
2 Assistan ts
INDIRECT SUPPORT STAFF
 At -Risk Supports
Voc ationa l Coordinator
 Psyc hologist
 Social Worker
 4 Guida nc e Counse lors
 Cultural Liaison

12 th grade
2 spe cial
educa tors
C ommu nity
Vocatio nal .5
Sp ecial Ed ucator
2.5 Direct
Su ppo rt
Person nel
2.75 Assistants
Building Leadership Team
◦ Align your proactive support services to the current general
education structure within the school
◦ Determine how many students are in each unit (grade,
academy, department, etc) that has needs
◦ Delineate how many staff are available to realign to a new
structure
◦ Expect the sharing of expertise through capacity building
and staff development
◦ Does it align to your non- negotiables – are you stuck in
some – but not all language?
ICS Planning
Number of
Students
with Needs
Descriptor
of Needs
(IEP, ISP, BIP)
Available
Natural
Supports
Additional
Needed
Supports
Available
Staff
Skill of
Staff
Scheduling of Students and Staff for Integrated Cohesive Services
Teacher Teams: Things to think about:
 Limit the number of general ed. teachers in order to
increase support to teachers and students
 Balance the clustering of student needs - keep in mind
natural proportions
 Discuss the types of teams and what would work in
particular settings throughout the day
 Co-Teaching is organized after the infrastructure for
service delivery is arranged
 Special education teachers supporting students with
significant behavior challenges must think about this
before committing to a team teaching situation over a
turn taking or consult.
Teacher Teams
Review Sample Schedule What needs do teachers have? Such as:










Need for co-planning
Flexible Learning Groups By Interest/then Needs
Teaming across Disciplines
Functional Skills for Students with Significant Needs
Behavior
Developing universal access to curriculum
Assessment
Autism
Other specific needs regarding types of learners
Content matter, etc
Principles of Universal Design
 There is no ‘one size fits all’; we need to provide alternatives.
 Need to consider users’ needs and include these
considerations in the design from the beginning
 The word "universal" does NOT mean there is a single
solution that works for everyone
 Universal Design cast a broad net around all learners based
on how students learn.
Differentiation
 Teaching with student variance in mind as the first
intervention rather than adopting a standardized approach
to teaching which assumes that all learners of a given
age/grade are alike.
 Proactive planning of varied approaches to what students
need to learn, how they will learn it, and/or how they can
express their understandings
Differentiate Must Be Proactive Based on
How Each Student Learns
Content
Process
Product
According to Students’
Abilities
Interest
Adapted from The Differentiated Classroom: Responding to the Needs of All Learners (Tomlinson, 1999)
Learning
Profile
Review Planning and Co-Teaching
Handout 6
Discuss at your table the barriers to implementing
universal design and differentiation that your group
perceives to be the most challenging
Evolution of Roles
Handout 7
1. Discuss at your table where you believe your school
is along the continuum of traditional, inclusive,
Beyond Inclusion. …
2.Given your current picture - What would your future
model look like?
2.How would you prevent a fail-based system?
2.Is RtI proactive or reactive?
Leading for Social Justice
Restructuring District Office for Teaching and Learning
for ALL Learners By Merging Roles
 Curriculum for each learner
 Facilitate growth of a differentiated curriculum
devoted to teaching and supporting a range of
learners
 Media and technology supports for each learner
 Facilitate the use of technology and other media for
all students (e.g., for students with English as a
second language, for students with vision, etc.)
through universal design.
Leading for Social Justice

Support services for each learner
 Development, implementation, and evaluation of support
services for all students (e.g., guidance, social work,
curriculum, and/or behavioral facilitators)

Content, proficiency, and performance standards for each
learner
 Development, implementation, and evaluation of standards
and benchmarks (from highly theoretical to extremely
functional) in support of all learners

Policy Development in Support of Each Learner
 Nondiscrimination language and proactive services in
support of all learners
Leading for Social Justice
 Standardized and individualized educational
evaluation procedures for each learner
 Development, implementation, and evaluation of
normative and individualized assessment for all students
 Staff development in support of each learner
 Facilitation of in-service, technical assistance, and other
informative sessions in support of all students
 Financial Support for the Education of Each Learner
 Assist in the merger of resources to meet the needs of
each learner
First Things First, Then:
 Completing your planning document:









Understand the Vision
Develop Non-Negotiables – how you will measure everything
Define and Align for a Proactive Infrastructure building and district
level
Develop Instructional Capacity – ALL Teachers for All Students
Align Common Core - Align IEP’s
Implement Universal Design
Set Heterogeneous Flexible Learning Groups
Then – Develop Teaming Relationships Between Teachers
Reallocate Resources and define Policy to support proactive reform
Bottom Line. …
The principles and practices of ICS contribute to five nonnegotiables for service delivery:
 least restrictive
 least intrusive
 least disruptive
 least expensive
 least enabling.
These five non-negotiables refer to location or where students
are placed, the curriculum and instruction they experience,
and the role of educators in their lives.
Resources/Possible Reading
1. Frattura & Capper (2006). Leading for Social Justice
2. Theoharis (2009). The Leaders our Children Deserve
3. Sailor, W. (2009). Making RtI
4. Work Jeannie Oakes (2008). Keep track: Structuring Equality and
Inequality in an Era of Accountability
5. Jeannie Oakes (2000). Keeping Track, Part 1: The Policy and
Practice of Curriculum Inequality in Equity Materials.
6. Capper & Frattura (2008). Meeting the Needs of All Learners
7. Sailor, W. (2009). Making RtI Work