1 of 11

Special Education

Program Review

March 2026

2 of 11

About This Review

SCOPE

First-ever formal review of special education programs across all five D105 buildings

Conducted August through November 2025

METHODOLOGY

Tours of sped programming, classroom observations, and informal conversations across all schools

Interviews with 25+ staff: sped teachers, SLPs, OTs, PTs, social workers, psychologists, principals, case managers, and cross-building providers

Data review: EE code distributions vs. state targets, self-contained enrollment, eligibility categories, teacher/related service schedules, caseloads

PURPOSE

Strengthen equitable, inclusive, and effective services for all students with disabilities

Directly supports D105’s 2025 Strategic Plan goals

What is working well? What are opportunities for growth?

3 of 11

Strengths

Student-Centered Culture

Across all five buildings, staff are deeply committed to the whole child—building relationships and advocating for student success beyond expectations.

Building-Level Collaboration

Strong collaboration among social work teams, SLPs, and resource/inclusion teams shows staff already have the skills to scale districtwide.

Existing Specialized Programs

Bridges, CD, and Resource programs provide a solid foundation with core elements ready for alignment and enhancement.

Welcoming, Well-Resourced Schools

Schools are technologically progressive and equipped with broad resources supporting meaningful learning for all students.

4 of 11

Identified Areas of Need

01

Inconsistent Program Implementation

Bridges, CD, and Resource operate differently across buildings with models varying between schools

02

Unequal Access to Services

Students with similar needs receive different levels of support based on school assignment. Service minutes vary 2–3x across buildings.

03

Absent District-wide Standards

No shared eligibility criteria, service guidelines, or program descriptors- leading to inconsistent decision-making.

04

Fragmented Communication

Staff report limited central office visibility/clarity, unclear expectations, and unfocused PLCs- creating building-level silos.

05

Staffing & Caseload Inequities

Staff distribution and caseload sizes reflect historical patterns rather than a student-need-based allocation model.

06

Transition Breakdowns

Preschool-to-K and Elementary-to-Gurrie transitions lack structure, causing service gaps and teams “starting from scratch.”

5 of 11

Service Minutes Analysis

Students with similar profiles receive different levels of support depending on the school they attend, resulting in inequities that stem from location rather than student need.

Interview data highlighted significant discrepancies in service minutes for speech, social work, and resource support, with some buildings offering significantly more service than others.

Allocations are based on scheduling, historical staffing patterns, leadership approaches, and building-level philosophies, rather than connected to a objectively-identified student need.

The range of service minutes observed across buildings for similar types of services, based on reviewing IEP service grids, provider schedules, and conducting staff interviews- given the particular profile of a student. When we looked at service patterns across the district, the same types of services were delivered at very different frequencies depending on the building. When those patterns were discussed with staff during interviews, many reported that building practice and scheduling structures often influenced service delivery, rather than a consistent district-wide framework for determining service intensity. In other words, a student with a similar profile would receive a substantially different number of minutes in a given service area based upon the building they were located in.

6 of 11

Staffing/Caseloads

Staffing and caseload disparities has created staffing levels and caseload distributions which vary considerably between schools, reflecting historical patterns rather than a standardized, student need–based allocation model.

Some buildings have substantial related service coverage and lower caseloads, while others carry higher student loads with fewer available providers. Consistency in schedules and reporting is lacking.

Buildings describe themselves as “islands,” with students who have similar needs receiving vastly different services.

7 of 11

Interview Theme Frequency

Need for distinct program criteria

Inconsistent service minutes

Clarity in district expectations

Inconsistency in MTSS

Staffing inequities

Transition breakdowns

8 of 11

Recommendations

SOON

• Establish clear program definitions & entry/exit criteria for Bridges, CD, Resource, Co-Teaching, and MTSS tiers

• Standardize service-minute guidelines across all disciplines to ensure equitable access districtwide

NEAR-TERM

• Build a districtwide MTSS framework with transferable documentation from preschool through middle school

• Strengthen transition protocols at Preschool→K and Elementary→Gurrie to prevent service gaps

LONGER

TERM

• Update professional expectations and implement para training systems; develop equity-driven staffing formulas

• Strengthen co-teaching structures; build a district data dashboard to monitor LRE, referrals & service equity

9 of 11

What We Heard: Staff Themes + Focus Areas

KEEP

Collaboration & Relationships

• Staff commitment and care for students

• Collaborative IEP teams and PLC time

• Inclusion of CD/Bridges in gen ed

• PT/OT/SLP integration in preschool/programs

• Building autonomy and SST team structure

BUILD

Capacity & Clarity

• Clear criteria for Bridges, CD, and program placements

• Collaboration between general education and special education

• Paraprofessional training

• Co-teaching/co-treating

• Consistency in parameters and procedures across buildings

ALIGN

Equity & Consistency

• Wednesday PLD time

• District-wide MTSS tracking with clear timelines

• Balanced push-in/pull-out service delivery

• Private/quiet space in every building

• Academic expectation and support

10 of 11

Setting Priorities

1

Staff Input + Data Analysis

Information gathered from Proficio and department reflections

2

Themes Identified

Leadership synthesizes patterns and priorities across the district

3

Priorities Set

Key themes become shared district priorities for 2025-26 and beyond

Special Education Leadership Team to identify shared priorities

4

Staying Informed

Progress updates shared at future PLC meetings, department meetings, and formal updates throughout the year(s)

11 of 11

Opportunity for Continued Collaboration

Options for continued collaboration with Proficio:

●Collaborating with staff on the development of comprehensive program descriptors and entrance/exit criteria

●Facilitating a districtwide MTSS redesign

●Leading monthly cross-building leadership meetings to review data, align eligibility practices, and monitor equity trends.

●Designing and delivering targeted professional development on co-teaching models, MTSS implementation, data collection, inclusive practices, and behavior supports.

●Conducting staffing and caseload audits

●Creating a district special education data dashboard

●Guiding long-term program alignment and restructuring

●Development of standardized service documentation

●Conduct annual equity audits comparing service minutes, staffing ratios, and eligibility patterns

●across buildings.