Socorro ISD TPR Report

Chapter Contents:

A. Student Performance

B. Instructional Administration and Management

C. Bilingual Education/English as a Second Language

D. Special Education/Dyslexia

E. Compensatory Education/Title I

F. Career and Technology Education

G. Gifted and Talented Education

H. Alternative Education

CURRENT SITUATION
Services for special education students are federally mandated and must meet specific state and federal guidelines. The most comprehensive federal law governing special education is the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). To meet the requirements of IDEA, most school districts complete a specific sequence of steps (Exhibit 2-24).

Exhibit 2-24 Steps to Meet the Requirements of IDEA

1. Pre-referral intervention in regular education. When a student experiences academic problems in regular education, intervention can and should occur to remediate academic problems. Pre-referral interventions can be prompted by individual teachers or by committees or teams charged with the responsibility. If the strategies initiated in regular education do not result in improved achievement, a referral is made to special education.

2. Referral to special education for evaluation. Referring a student to special education requires a written request supported by documentation. Teachers, counselors, parents, administrators, and even the student him/herself can initiate a referral. The referral information must include an explanation of steps that have been taken in regular education to try to remediate the problem prior to the referral.

3. Assessment. Once a student has been referred, the district must provide a comprehensive evaluation of the case, commonly called an assessment, within a prescribed time period.

4. Initial placement through a committee meeting. After the evaluation is complete, a meeting is held to discuss its results, decide if the student qualifies for special education services in one of the 13 federal special education categories, and, if so, write a plan for educating the student. In Texas, the committee is called commonly referred to as an Admission, Review, and Dismissal (ARD) committee; according to federal guidelines, parents must be included as active participants in the process.

5. Provision of educational services and supports according to a written Individualized Education Plan (IEP). The IEP developed by the ARD committee includes information about which classes the student will take, how much time will be spent in regular education, the type of service delivery model, related services like speech therapy or counseling, mode of transportation, and several other considerations required by state and federal law.

6. Annual program review. Each year after a student's initial qualification and placement, a review is conducted to assure the provision of an appropriate program for the student. In this annual ARD meeting, the results of any evaluations are discussed, progress reviewed, goals rewritten, decisions made regarding placement and programming, and a new IEP written.

7. Three-year reevaluation. Every three years, the student may again be given a comprehensive individual assessment. Another ARD is held to discuss the results of the reevaluation and determine if the student still qualifies for special education. Again, a complete IEP is written and plans are made for its implementation.

8. Dismissal from the special education program. If and when a student no longer meets special education eligibility criteria, he or she is dismissed from special education and services are no longer provided. The ARD committee must make this decision.

Source: Public Law 101-15, the 1997 amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

At every stage of the special education process and throughout a student's tenure in special education, state and federal guidelines must be followed. If disagreements or objections related to evaluation, placement, or service delivery arise, students and their families have the right to due process. School districts do not have the burden of demonstrating that their special education services are the best possible, but the education provided must meet each student's individual needs.
Special education is an important issue for any school district, because the costs associated with it are high. While the federal government mandates specific special education services, its share of funding for special education is usually less than 10 percent, with the rest of the costs paid from state and local funds.
In 1996-97, SISD served 2,128 students in special education (10.1 percent of the student population). SISD's percentage of its student population in special education ranks in the middle of the peer districts and below the state average.

Exhibit 2-25 Percentage of Students Served in Special Education SISD vs. Peer Districts and Statewide Average 1996-97 School Year

District Percent Special Education Students

Southwest 13.9

Laredo 11.8

State of Texas 11.6

Edinburg 10.2

Socorro 10.1

El Paso 9.0

Ysleta 9.0

United 8.5

Pharr-San Juan-Alamo 6.8

Source: AEIS

SISD's special education program had a total annual budget for 1996-97 of $8.7 million. Of that amount, approximately $620,000 represented federal funds. Exhibit 2-26 illustrates the district's staffing of its special education program.

Exhibit 2-26 Special Education Staffing 1997-98 School Year

Position Number

Director 1

Administrative Assistant 1

Psychologist 1

Associate Psychologist 1

Diagnosticians 12

Teacher-teacher coordinators 3

Special education counselors 6

Teachers 115.5

Aides 67

Clerical positions 15

Administrative Assistant 1

Adaptive P.E. teachers 2

Occupational therapists 2.5

Physical therapists 2.5

Vocational adjustment coordinator 1

Job coach 1

VI Itinerant teachers 2

Homebound teacher 2

Speech therapists (assessment) 6

Speech therapists (school based) 15

Source: Director of Special Education, SISD

Shared services in special education include agreements with the Regional Day School Program for the Deaf, the Region XIX Education Service Center, and the Region XIX Head Start Preschool Program. In addition, the district notifies private schools within district boundaries of available services for private school students who qualify for special education and serves some of these students with individualized services such as speech therapy.
In 1996-97, 2,128 students in SISD received special education services in 13 categories.
Exhibit 2-27 presents the number of special education students in each category for Texas and for the district. Compared to statewide totals, SISD has a greater share of students in the learning disability and speech impairments categories and a smaller share in the emotional disturbance, other health impairments, and mental retardation categories.

Exhibit 2-27 Special Education Students by Disability Category (As a Percentage of All Students with Disabilities) SISD vs. Texas Totals 1996-97 School Year

Disability Percent

Texas SISD

Learning Disability 60.1 66.8

Speech Impairments 15.4 18.9

Emotional Disturbance 8.1 2.8

Other Health Impairments 5.8 1.5

Mental Retardation 5.6 3.7

Hearing Impairments 1.3 <1

Orthopedic Impairments 1.2 3.4

Multiple Disabilities <1 <1

Autism <1 <1

Visual Impairments <1 <1

Traumatic Brain Injury <1 <1

Deaf-Blindness <1 <1

Non Categorical Early Childhood <1 <1

Source: TEA and SISD Director of Special Education

The most recent evaluations of SISD's program include a 1997 TEA District Effectiveness and Compliance visit in February 1997 and a 1995 TEA review of the district's compliance with state and federal laws on residential care facilities. These reviews found SISD in compliance with all applicable indicators. In addition, TEA found the district committed to increased inclusion of students with disabilities into all SISD programs. TEA complimented the district on its high level of professionalism and indicated that its special education staff is both qualified and adequate. In its application for funding, SISD articulated its commitment to increasing its number of inclusionary instructional settings, especially Content Mastery Centers and inclusionary arrangements for preschool students with disabilities.
TSPR's survey indicated that parents, teachers, and principals are satisfied with SISD's special education program, both in terms of identification and service provision (Exhibit 2-28).

Exhibit 2-28 Parents (N=37), Teachers and Principals (N=162) Responses to Survey Questions Related to Special Education

Survey Question Strongly Agree Agree Neutral No Response No Opinion Disagree Strongly Disagree

Parents Teachers/Principals Parents Teachers/ Principals Parents Teachers/ Principals

The special education program at my (children's) school does a good job of
educating students. 18 48.6% 121 74.7% 18 48.6% 32 19.8% 1 2.7% 9 5.5%

The special education program at my (children's) school identifies the right students to receive services. 15 40.5% 126 77.8% 21 56.7% 30 18.5% 1 2.7% 6 3.7%

Source: Texas School Performance Review
FINDING
From the 1992-93 school year through 1996-97, the share of SISD students in special education rose from 7 percent of the student population to more than 10 percent (Exhibit 2-29). Referrals of students during this same period increased from 551 to 667, a total increase of 17.3 percent
(Exhibit 2-30).

Exhibit 2-29 Number and Percent of Special Education Students in SISD 1992-93 to 1996-97

Year Number Percent

1992-93 1,235 7

1993-94 1,395 8

1994-95 1,713 9

1995-96 1,580 8

1996-97 2,155 11

Source: PEIMS

Exhibit 2-30 Number and Percent of Referrals to Special Education in SISD 1992-93 to 1996-97

Year Number of Referrals Percent of Referrals

1992-93 551 3.3

1993-94 631 3.6

1994-95 674 3.6

1995-96 692 3.4

1996-97 667 3.3

Source: Director of Special Education, SISD

SISD has programs in place designed to minimize referrals to special education and serve more students successfully in regular education settings. First, all schools in SISD have pre-referral committees designed to help remediate students' academic or behavioral problems and avoid referral to special education. Pre-referral meetings are scheduled and conducted on a regular basis and include counselors, regular and special education teachers, and administrators.
SISD's schools also have an aggressive and thorough approach to identifying and providing services to students who qualify under Section 504 of the Vocational Rehabilitation Act. Students who have a disability but do not qualify for special education services (e.g., students with dyslexia or attention deficit disorder) can receive modifications such as modified assignments, extra time to complete work, individual testing, and other accommodations and other services under Section 504. This approach helps reduce the cost of special education by preventing unnecessary assessments and long-term special education placement. SISD's personnel provide ongoing training and keep records of it, to guarantee a consistent level of expertise among staff members. Teachers are required to document their pre-referral interventions.
COMMENDATION
SISD's schools have organized and systematic pre-referral strategies that help to minimize referrals to special education.
FINDING
Texas and many other states encourage districts to include more special education students in regular education environments for most of their academic instruction. Many educators believe this strategy, known as inclusion, improves socialization and academic achievement. When students receive special education services, they are assigned a specific instructional arrangement code based on the amount of time they spend in general education classes.
In Texas, funding for special education students is based in part on these instructional arrangement codes and their relative funding weights. Districts are thereby encouraged to serve students in less restrictive instructional arrangements. In addition, TEA is reluctant to approve residential placements, the most restrictive of all educational environments, except in extreme circumstances.
As of October 1997, 2,281 SISD students were receiving services in the Special Education program; of these, more than half (about 65 percent) were in the Mainstream and Resource instructional arrangement categories, the least restrictive categories. SISD had no students in residential placement as of October 1997 (Exhibit 2-31).

Exhibit 2-31 SISD Students in Special Education by Category October 1997

Instruction Arrangement Number of Students Percent of Students

Speech Only 398 17.4

Homebound 18 <1

Resource 1,304 57.1

Self Contained-Mild, Moderate 66 2.9

Self Contained-Severe 269 11.8

VAC 13 <1

Foster Care 10 <1

Mainstream 180 8

Regional Day School Program for the Deaf 23 1

Total 2,281 100

Source: PEIMS

SISD has several special education programs designed to serve students with disabilities in regular education to the maximum extent possible. These programs include a wide range of instructional options. First, the Class Within a Class model is a coteaching arrangement in which several students with disabilities are placed in the same general education class, which is then cotaught by a special education and a general education teacher. Benito Martinez School, Slider Middle School, and Socorro High School have implemented this program. SISD also uses Content Mastery Centers to assist special education students with classwork.
COMMENDATION
SISD has implemented several programs designed to increase the inclusion of special education students in regular education.
FINDING
SISD's pre-referral intervention teams also identify students who do not qualify for special education but do qualify for services under Section 504 of the Vocational Rehabilitation Act. Students who are identified and served as "504" students receive many of the same accommodations as special education students such as modified assignments, extra time to complete work, individual testing, and have similar procedural safeguards. However, because they are not part of special education system, the district can avoid the costs associated with ARD procedures and separate instruction.
SISD has had few legal complaints related to such services. This may be in part because the district is aggressive in identifying and serving Section 504 students. Regular education teachers in SISD receive the training, support, and materials needed to teach students with learning differences in the regular education environment.
SISD's program includes several components that could be replicated by other districts. First, SISD has two Section 504 counselors who provide training for all teachers in identifying and teaching students with learning difficulties. Second, the district has published and provided a flip chart resource guide as a quick, useful reference for all regular education teachers. Finally, SISD monitors its ongoing training program; Section 504 counselors provide refresher training for all schools on a regular schedule.
COMMENDATION
SISD has an effective program for identifying and serving students who qualify for services under Section 504 of the Vocational Rehabilitation Act.
FINDING
SISD files Medicaid claims for reimbursement under the federal School Health and Related Services (SHARS) program on a quarterly basis. SISD's amount of Medicaid funding more than doubled between 1994-95 and 1996-97, from $141,355 to $295,490. SISD pays a flat fee per claim to the Texas Association of School Boards to file its Medicaid claims, which is a common practice among Texas school districts. The special education and student services programs are collaborating to begin participation in a recently implemented Medicaid Administrative Outreach program.
COMMENDATION
SISD is aggressively seeking federal Medicaid reimbursements for services provided to special education students.
FINDING
Despite the work of the district's pre-referral intervention teams, some SISD schools still maintain relatively high special education referral rates (Exhibit 2-32). The referral process is expensive and since only about 67 percent of SISD's referrals actually result in placement in special education, non-qualifying referrals should be kept to a minimum. Exhibit 2-32 also shows the percentage of economically-disadvantaged students at each school.
When a district's referrals to special education and its share of economically disadvantaged students seem to be closely related, the district should examine its compensatory education and Title I expenditures to be sure that they are funding effective at-risk programs. In SISD, the two elementary schools with the highest rates of referral to special education, Escontrias and Rojas, also have the highest percentage of economically disadvantaged students. Similarly, the two secondary schools with highest referral rates to special education, Sanchez Middle School and KEYS Academy, are among the highest secondary schools in their percentage of economically disadvantaged students.

Exhibit 2-32 Students Referred to Special Education by School 1996-97 School Year

School Enrollment Number of Referrals Percent of Referrals Percent Economically Disadvantaged

Montwood MS NA NA NA NA

Chavez ES NA NA NA NA

Escontrias ES 641 34 5.3 91.7

Rojas ES 894 40 4.5 94.4

O'Shea ES 974 33 3.4 51.3

Sanchez MS 965 30 3.1 90.5

KEYS Academy 82 2 2.4 89.0

Hueco ES 540 13 2.4 92.6

Sierra Vista ES 923 22 2.4 53.8

Helen Ball ES 1249 26 2.1 61.8

Hilley ES 745 15 2.0 90.8

Cooper ES 1095 21 1.9 69.3

Vista del Sol ES 783 15 1.9 74.9

Martinez ES 1031 20 1.9 47.9

Clarke MS 977 18 1.8 57.3

Campestre ES 762 13 1.7 93.2

%">Horizon Heights ES 810 14 1.7 79.1

Slider MS 1327 20 1.5 41.1

Socorro HS 2224 28 1.3 82.1

Socorro MS 924 5 0.5 94.4

Americas HS 1075 5 0.5 52.7

Montwood HS 2723 10 0.4 59.6

Escontrias ECC 624 2 0.3 86.6

Source: AEIS

Recommendation 14:
Provide additional training and support for teachers and administrators in the elementary and secondary schools with the highest rates of referral to special education.
Planning for this recommendation should include principals from schools with the lowest rates of referral to special education. The district should provide updated training in the following areas: examination and restructuring of pre-referral teams; effective modifications and adaptations for students with learning disabilities and Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder (ADHD); strategies for identifying and referring at-risk students; collaborative approaches designed to support regular education teachers' efforts to include special education students in regular classes; and other efforts to establish and support inclusive instructional arrangements.

IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES AND TIMELINES

1 The director of Student Services, director of Special Education, and principals from schools with the highest and lowest rates of referral to special education meet as a committee to draft a plan for providing additional staff development to schools with the highest referral rates. May 1998

2 The committee provides those schools with a list of resources other schools have found useful for training and consultation support. June 1998

3 The schools implement the plan calling for a minimum of two additional days of staff development for targeted schools, including one for the entire staff and one for the pre-referral teams. August 1998

4 At the end of the year, the committee evaluates the training in terms of effectiveness at reducing referrals and staff satisfaction with the quality of training and level of support. May 1999

FISCAL IMPACT
The fiscal impact of this recommendation is based on the cost of substitutes for 10 teachers at five schools for one day or $2,600 annually. The training should take an estimated 50 days (10 teachers x five schools x one day) and cost $52 for each day requiring a substitute with a bachelor's degree. Training costs can be paid through the $400 staff development stipend paid to the schools for each teacher.

Recommendation

1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03

Provide training for schools with highest rates of referral to special education. ($2,600) ($2,600) ($2,600) ($2,600) ($2,600)

FINDING
Students in special education can be exempted from the TAAS test in reading, math, and/or writing. If they take some or all of the TAAS tests, their scores are not included in schools' TAAS passing rates and have no impact on school accountability ratings.
However, Section XI of the 1997 TEA Accountability Manual: Blueprint of the 1998-2000 Accountability Systems, describes anticipated developments. The section states that Special education results would be incorporated into school and district ratings in the 1999 rating cycle by aggregating them into the all students and student group calculations. Legislative proposals to assess special education students with instruments other than TAAS may also impact these plans TEA has made a commitment to increasing the number of special education students whose academic performance is measured and tracked. If special education students' scores are included in accountability ratings, schools may be motivated to exempt more students from TAAS to maintain or improve their passing rates.
Exhibit 2-33 compares SISD's percentage of special education students exempted from the TAAS with its peer districts and the state. SISD ranks fourth highest in math exemptions and third-highest in reading and writing exemptions.

Exhibit 2-33 Special Education Students Exempted from TAAS 1996-1997 School Year

District Percent TAAS Math Exemptions Percent TAAS Reading Exemptions Percent TAAS Writing Exemptions

Pharr-San Juan-Alamo 77.8 77.8 73.5

United 65.7 68.6 70.6

Laredo 56.6 56.6 50.8

Socorro 53.2 57.5 55.3

Texas 40.5 43.8 45.9

Edinburg 31.9 34.5 47.0

El Paso 23.8 25.1 28.9

Ysleta 16.1 18.5 21.2

Southwest 12.1 14.6 20.1

Source: AEIS

SISD's share of special education students who participate in TAAS varies widely from school to school. For example, at O'Shea-Keleher School, only 15 percent of special education students are taking some part of the TAAS in the 1997-98 cycle, while 56 percent of Sierra Vista School's special education students are taking the test. Exhibit 2-34 shows the percentage of special education students taking the TAAS by school, along with each school's accountability rating. Of the elementary schools, the three with the lowest percentage of special education students taking the TAAS have relatively high accountability ratings. By contrast, Benito Martinez and Hilley schools have relatively high percentages of special education students taking the TAAS and relatively low accountability ratings. It should be noted, however, that not all students at all grade levels take the TAAS, so the percentage of students taking the test at each school depends on the number of students in each grade level. In addition, some schools have special programs and serve students with more severe disabilities from other schools.

Exhibit 2-34 Special Education Students Served, Number and Percentage Taking TAAS, and Accountability Ratings By School 1997-98 School Year

School Accountability Rating # Taking TAAS # Served Percent Tested

Escontrias ECC Acceptable NA NA NA

O'Shea ES Exemplary 10 71 15

Campestra ES Exemplary 8 42 20

Vista del Sol ES Recognized 11 45 25

Horizon Heights ES Acceptable 11 45 27

Sanchez MS Acceptable 42 139 31

Escontrias ES Acceptable 17 54 32

Rojas ES Acceptable 20 64 32

Hueco ES Acceptable 10 28 36

Socorro MS Acceptable 34 96 36

Hilley ES Recognized 13 35 38

Americas HS Acceptable 49 126 39

Socorro HS Acceptable 110 278 40

Helen Ball ES Acceptable 27 66 41

Montwood HS Acceptable 76 180 43

Chavez ES NA 10 23 44

Martinez ES Recognized 26 55 48

Slider MS Acceptable 49 104 48

Clarke MS Acceptable 62 123 51

Cooper ES Acceptable 32 62 52

Montwood MS NA 53 100 53

Sierra Vista ES Acceptable 27 49 56

KEYS Academy Alternative Ed. 17 29 59

Source: Director of Special Education, SISD; AEIS

In 1996 and 1997, the special education students in SISD who did take the TAAS had higher passing rates than students in all peer districts and the state on all tests, reading, math, and writing. Passing rates for SISD special education students decreased for all tests, reading, and math, and increased for writing from 1996 to 1997 (Exhibit 2-35).

Exhibit 2-35 Percent of Special Education Students Passing the TAAS SISD, Peer Districts, and Texas 1995-96 and 1996-97 School Years

District All Tests Mathematics Reading Writing

1996 1997 1996 1997 1996 1997 1996 1997

Edinburg 9.7 14.3 15.8 23.4 17.4 25.5 21.1 24.0

Laredo 9.8 12.5 15.6 22.9 16.6 23.9 25.5 24.7

Southwest 11.2 10.6 16.3 18.8 22.8 19.7 27.9 26.4

United 11.6 15.9 20.9 25.6 24.8 26.8 21.3 39.5

Pharr-San Juan-Alamo 15.8 30.2 23.5 43.9 23.1 41.5 25.4 28.2

Ysleta 17.7 25.6 27.6 38.8 34.5 40.5 33.5 38.1

El Paso 18.5 17.0 24.5 25.5 33.9 32.1 35.6 33.1

Texas 27.8 31.1 36.7 41.8 44.3 47.1 43.0 44.5

Socorro 42.7 37.3 53.3 44.6 58.9 55.8 51.0 59.3

Source: AEIS

Recommendation 15:
Create a task force to develop a long-term strategic plan to decrease the share of special education students exempted from TAAS.
The task force should complete a school-by-school analysis of special education exemptions, by grade level; use this analysis to pinpoint grade levels and teaching teams with the highest exemption rates; and determine whether students' disabilities warrant an alternate assessment. The task force also should set a three-year goal of reducing TAAS exemptions for students in the Learning Disability, Speech Impairments, Other Health Impaired, and Emotional Disturbance categories, since the tests should be more appropriate for those students than those in other categories. The district should require more special education students to take the practice tests, so that they gain experience and become comfortable with the testing process, and select alternate assessments for students who are likely to remain exempt from the TAAS, within TEA's suggested guidelines.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES AND TIMELINES

1 The assistant superintendent of Instruction appoints a task force including the directors of Special Education and Student Services to analyze exemptions by school, grade level, and team. April 1998

2 The task force develops a long-range strategic plan to reduce the percentage of exemptions and develop alternative assessments for exempted students. May - August 1998

3 The task force meets with principals to review the plan, obtain feedback and suggestions, and develop implementation strategies. September 1998

4 Principals develop and produce school plans designed to implement the task force's long-range strategic plan. September - May 1999

5 Principals implement their school-based plans. August 1999

6 Principals evaluate their effectiveness and report to the task force. May of each year

FISCAL IMPACT
This recommendation can be accomplished within existing resources.
FINDING
In the past three years, SISD has had five legal cases related to special education. Legal fees for these cases ranged from $5,000 to $30,000 each. One complaint filed in September 1997 is still pending at this writing. While this number of cases is not inordinately high, the superintendent expressed his concern to the review team about current statewide trends toward increased special education litigation and the excessive costs involved.
Several Texas districts face very high legal expenses related to special education. For example, within one two-year period, Corpus Christi ISD (CCISD) had more than 40 complaints related to special education filed against them. CCISD spent more than $245,000 in the 1995-96 school year on legal fees related to special education complaints and due process hearings. As SISD grows and its population of special education students increases, it is likely to face more special education complaints. the district can minimize the fiscal impact of such litigation by taking steps to deal with complaints before they escalate to a hearing or mediation.
Recommendation 16:
Designate a parent-school liaison for special education and make this part of the employee's ongoing duties.
This employee should have experience with children with disabilities and their families.
Duties for this position include maintaining ongoing communication with families of students in special education, including regular telephone contacts and home visits; sharing parental concerns with principals, teachers, assessment personnel, and other special education staff; and sharing information with parents about available programs and services. The liaison also should network in the community with advocacy groups and other service providers like the Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation and the Texas Rehabilitation Commission.

IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES AND TIMELINES

1 The director of Special Education and the director of Human Resources writes job responsibilities for this position. May 1998

2 The directors interview and assign a special education staff member to this position. June 1998

3 The parent-school liaison is trained and begins to work. August 1998

FISCAL IMPACT
The fiscal impact of this recommendation is based on a stipend in addition to the designated person's salary. The amount is based on other stipends paid to teachers, coaches, and other staff on SISD.

Recommendation 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03

Designate a parent-school liaison for special education. ($5,000) ($5,000) ($5,000) ($5,000) ($5,000)

Dyslexia
Dyslexia is defined by the Texas Education Code as a disorder of constitutional origin manifested by a difficulty in learning to read, write, or spell despite conventional instruction, adequate intelligence, and sociocultural opportunity. The most common manifestation of dyslexia is difficulty with reading.
In Texas, students with dyslexia and related disorders may qualify for services under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. This federal law is a civil rights statute designed to protect a qualified person with a disability from discrimination in any program receiving federal funding. Under Section 504, reasonable modifications must be made if a person's disability interferes with his or her normal functioning. "Reasonable" modifications in schools include modified assignments, extra time to complete work, individual testing, and other accommodations.
If a student has severe dyslexia and is unable to make adequate academic progress in a regular education environment, he or she can be referred for special education evaluation. If the student has a learning disability as defined by special education rules and regulations, he or she must be provided for under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act just as for any other student in special education.
Texas has provisions related to services for students who are dyslexic. According to 19 TAC 74.28, school districts must provide appropriate identification procedures, including screening by trained professionals; appropriate instructional services delivered by a trained teacher; notification of parents or guardian before assessment; parental information about available services; and a program for early identification and intervention. In addition, districts may provide parental education programs.
In the past three years, the number of students identified and served in SISD's dyslexia program has risen from 522 students to 652 students (Exhibit 2-36), a figure representing 3 percent of the district's student population. More than half of the dyslexic students receiving services are in the first through third grades. This is consistent with the main characteristics of the disorder, which include reading problems that become evident after kindergarten.

Exhibit 2-36 Number of Dyslexic Students Served by Grade 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97

Grade 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97

K 0 0 0

1 54 54 60

2 122 144 166

3 117 134 164

4 105 112 91

5 76 80 70

6 40 41 21

7 7 38 33

8 1 9 41

9 0 0 8

10 0 0 2

11 0 0 1

12 0 0 0

Total 522 612 657

Source: Director of Special Education

FINDING
SISD's dyslexia program, called the Specific Reading Difficulty (SRD) program, involves identification and remediation procedures that are outlined in its program manual. SISD has a clearly defined referral process, after which students are given a oral reading test. An SRD Committee then meets to consider data including the oral test scores, standardized test scores, work samples, and anecdotal reports from teachers. The district uses a qualifying table, similar to those often used for identifying gifted students, which summarizes and assigns weights to each unit of information.
After admission to SRD, students continue to receive reading instruction with their regular class, but also receive specialized instruction using an ISM Teaching Systems, Inc. curriculum. This curriculum tracks students' progress with a continual teaching assessment process.
SISD maintains a program calendar for its SRD program that details activities related to the program for the entire school year. Among its regularly scheduled activities is one day of training for all teachers each year. In addition, the district post-tests students and distributes that information to teacher representatives on the SRD team.
Characteristics of the program that other districts can replicate include a well-designed identification system that includes data from several sources; a tracking system to monitor students' entry, exit, and progress; a long-term plan that includes dates and topics for training and dissemination of information; and required staff development for all teachers related to dyslexia.

COMMENDATION
SISD's program for students with dyslexia has all required components as well as several additional features that enhance student success.

Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts

Window on State Government
Contact Us
Privacy and Security Policy

District	Percent Special Education Students
Southwest	13.9
Laredo	11.8
State of Texas	11.6
Edinburg	10.2
Socorro	10.1
El Paso	9.0
Ysleta	9.0
United	8.5
Pharr-San Juan-Alamo	6.8

Position	Number
Director	1
Administrative Assistant	1
Psychologist	1
Associate Psychologist	1
Diagnosticians	12
Teacher-teacher coordinators	3
Special education counselors	6
Teachers	115.5
Aides	67
Clerical positions	15
Administrative Assistant	1
Adaptive P.E. teachers	2
Occupational therapists	2.5
Physical therapists	2.5
Vocational adjustment coordinator	1
Job coach	1
VI Itinerant teachers	2
Homebound teacher	2
Speech therapists (assessment)	6
Speech therapists (school based)	15

Disability	Percent
	Texas	SISD
Learning Disability	60.1	66.8
Speech Impairments	15.4	18.9
Emotional Disturbance	8.1	2.8
Other Health Impairments	5.8	1.5
Mental Retardation	5.6	3.7
Hearing Impairments	1.3	<1
Orthopedic Impairments	1.2	3.4
Multiple Disabilities	<1	<1
Autism	<1	<1
Visual Impairments	<1	<1
Traumatic Brain Injury	<1	<1
Deaf-Blindness	<1	<1
Non Categorical Early Childhood	<1	<1

Survey Question	Strongly Agree Agree		Neutral No Response No Opinion		Disagree Strongly Disagree
	Parents	Teachers/Principals	Parents	Teachers/ Principals	Parents	Teachers/ Principals
The special education program at my (children's) school does a good job of educating students.	18 48.6%	121 74.7%	18 48.6%	32 19.8%	1 2.7%	9 5.5%
The special education program at my (children's) school identifies the right students to receive services.	15 40.5%	126 77.8%	21 56.7%	30 18.5%	1 2.7%	6 3.7%

Year	Number	Percent
1992-93	1,235	7
1993-94	1,395	8
1994-95	1,713	9
1995-96	1,580	8
1996-97	2,155	11

Year	Number of Referrals	Percent of Referrals
1992-93	551	3.3
1993-94	631	3.6
1994-95	674	3.6
1995-96	692	3.4
1996-97	667	3.3

Instruction Arrangement	Number of Students	Percent of Students
Speech Only	398	17.4
Homebound	18	<1
Resource	1,304	57.1
Self Contained-Mild, Moderate	66	2.9
Self Contained-Severe	269	11.8
VAC	13	<1
Foster Care	10	<1
Mainstream	180	8
Regional Day School Program for the Deaf	23	1
Total	2,281	100

School	Enrollment	Number of Referrals	Percent of Referrals	Percent Economically Disadvantaged
Montwood MS	NA	NA	NA	NA
Chavez ES	NA	NA	NA	NA
Escontrias ES	641	34	5.3	91.7
Rojas ES	894	40	4.5	94.4
O'Shea ES	974	33	3.4	51.3
Sanchez MS	965	30	3.1	90.5
KEYS Academy	82	2	2.4	89.0
Hueco ES	540	13	2.4	92.6
Sierra Vista ES	923	22	2.4	53.8
Helen Ball ES	1249	26	2.1	61.8
Hilley ES	745	15	2.0	90.8
Cooper ES	1095	21	1.9	69.3
Vista del Sol ES	783	15	1.9	74.9
Martinez ES	1031	20	1.9	47.9
Clarke MS	977	18	1.8	57.3
Campestre ES	762	13	1.7	93.2
%">Horizon Heights ES	810	14	1.7	79.1
Slider MS	1327	20	1.5	41.1
Socorro HS	2224	28	1.3	82.1
Socorro MS	924	5	0.5	94.4
Americas HS	1075	5	0.5	52.7
Montwood HS	2723	10	0.4	59.6
Escontrias ECC	624	2	0.3	86.6

1	The director of Student Services, director of Special Education, and principals from schools with the highest and lowest rates of referral to special education meet as a committee to draft a plan for providing additional staff development to schools with the highest referral rates.	May 1998
2	The committee provides those schools with a list of resources other schools have found useful for training and consultation support.	June 1998
3	The schools implement the plan calling for a minimum of two additional days of staff development for targeted schools, including one for the entire staff and one for the pre-referral teams.	August 1998
4	At the end of the year, the committee evaluates the training in terms of effectiveness at reducing referrals and staff satisfaction with the quality of training and level of support.	May 1999

1998-99	1999-00	2000-01	2001-02	2002-03
Provide training for schools with highest rates of referral to special education.	($2,600)	($2,600)	($2,600)	($2,600)	($2,600)

District	Percent TAAS Math Exemptions	Percent TAAS Reading Exemptions	Percent TAAS Writing Exemptions
Pharr-San Juan-Alamo	77.8	77.8	73.5
United	65.7	68.6	70.6
Laredo	56.6	56.6	50.8
Socorro	53.2	57.5	55.3
Texas	40.5	43.8	45.9
Edinburg	31.9	34.5	47.0
El Paso	23.8	25.1	28.9
Ysleta	16.1	18.5	21.2
Southwest	12.1	14.6	20.1

School	Accountability Rating	# Taking TAAS	# Served	Percent Tested
Escontrias ECC	Acceptable	NA	NA	NA
O'Shea ES	Exemplary	10	71	15
Campestra ES	Exemplary	8	42	20
Vista del Sol ES	Recognized	11	45	25
Horizon Heights ES	Acceptable	11	45	27
Sanchez MS	Acceptable	42	139	31
Escontrias ES	Acceptable	17	54	32
Rojas ES	Acceptable	20	64	32
Hueco ES	Acceptable	10	28	36
Socorro MS	Acceptable	34	96	36
Hilley ES	Recognized	13	35	38
Americas HS	Acceptable	49	126	39
Socorro HS	Acceptable	110	278	40
Helen Ball ES	Acceptable	27	66	41
Montwood HS	Acceptable	76	180	43
Chavez ES	NA	10	23	44
Martinez ES	Recognized	26	55	48
Slider MS	Acceptable	49	104	48
Clarke MS	Acceptable	62	123	51
Cooper ES	Acceptable	32	62	52
Montwood MS	NA	53	100	53
Sierra Vista ES	Acceptable	27	49	56
KEYS Academy	Alternative Ed.	17	29	59

District	All Tests		Mathematics		Reading		Writing
	1996	1997	1996	1997	1996	1997	1996	1997
Edinburg	9.7	14.3	15.8	23.4	17.4	25.5	21.1	24.0
Laredo	9.8	12.5	15.6	22.9	16.6	23.9	25.5	24.7
Southwest	11.2	10.6	16.3	18.8	22.8	19.7	27.9	26.4
United	11.6	15.9	20.9	25.6	24.8	26.8	21.3	39.5
Pharr-San Juan-Alamo	15.8	30.2	23.5	43.9	23.1	41.5	25.4	28.2
Ysleta	17.7	25.6	27.6	38.8	34.5	40.5	33.5	38.1
El Paso	18.5	17.0	24.5	25.5	33.9	32.1	35.6	33.1
Texas	27.8	31.1	36.7	41.8	44.3	47.1	43.0	44.5
Socorro	42.7	37.3	53.3	44.6	58.9	55.8	51.0	59.3

1	The assistant superintendent of Instruction appoints a task force including the directors of Special Education and Student Services to analyze exemptions by school, grade level, and team.	April 1998
2	The task force develops a long-range strategic plan to reduce the percentage of exemptions and develop alternative assessments for exempted students.	May - August 1998
3	The task force meets with principals to review the plan, obtain feedback and suggestions, and develop implementation strategies.	September 1998
4	Principals develop and produce school plans designed to implement the task force's long-range strategic plan.	September - May 1999
5	Principals implement their school-based plans.	August 1999
6	Principals evaluate their effectiveness and report to the task force.	May of each year

1	The director of Special Education and the director of Human Resources writes job responsibilities for this position.	May 1998
2	The directors interview and assign a special education staff member to this position.	June 1998
3	The parent-school liaison is trained and begins to work.	August 1998

Recommendation	1998-99	1999-00	2000-01	2001-02	2002-03
Designate a parent-school liaison for special education.	($5,000)	($5,000)	($5,000)	($5,000)	($5,000)

Grade	1994-95	1995-96	1996-97
K	0	0	0
1	54	54	60
2	122	144	166
3	117	134	164
4	105	112	91
5	76	80	70
6	40	41	21
7	7	38	33
8	1	9	41
9	0	0	8
10	0	0	2
11	0	0	1
12	0	0	0
Total	522	612	657