Position of the Board of Directors of the Seattle Special Education PTSA

Regarding the Seattle Public Schools “Service Model Proposal (based on feedback)”
January 25, 2011

The board of directors of the Seattle Special Education PTSA cannot endorse the attached “Service Model
Proposal (based on feedback)” (hereafter, “the Proposal”) as currently communicated by Seattle Public Schools
district leadership.

We appreciate the efforts of Seattle Public Schools to:

 Transform from a program-based model to a services model
 Ensure that ALL students have access to general education curriculum with appropriate supports and
services
 Enable more students to attend school close to home, with neighborhood peers and siblings
 Enable more students to stay in their school continuously from K-5

However, the Proposal does not provide enough supportive data and detail for us to endorse it. The Proposal
does not sufficiently address several critical questions and concerns, including the following:
 It displays an absence of any flexibility for Instructional Assistant staffing to be increased for
Resource/Integrated Comprehensive Services (ICS) caseloads as individual circumstances warrant.
 The Proposal eliminates the staffing ratio currently used for the “Generic Self-Contained” service
delivery model. That staffing ratio is 13:1:1 for grades K-2 and 14:1:1 for grades 3-5. Data are lacking
regarding how the elimination of this staffing ratio will impact special education caseloads, service
delivery, and student learning outcomes in the remaining service models.
 The Proposal implies continuing to “sunset” the Inclusion programs and thereby continuing to reduce
the district’s continuum of placement options for students receiving special education services. The
Proposal provides no data regarding how phasing out these programs has impacted special education
caseloads, service delivery, and student learning outcomes.
 The Proposal lacks clarity regarding its financial impact. For example, how can the Proposal result in
“more special educators in buildings” while staying within current budgetary constraints?
 To date, the district has not provided clear communication of the stages of implementation of ICS, what
ICS will look like in its fully implemented state, and how success is being defined and measured. This
Proposal is no exception.
 Similarly, the district has not provided clear communication regarding the professional development
plan for equipping the teaching corps to successfully implement ICS.
 The Proposal does not include information on how the district is defining “LRE” (Least Restrictive
Environment) which would help define the anticipated level of support and the classroom
environment that students at each Service Model Level would experience.
 The Proposal does not account for the impact of a disability on staffing ratios. Most notably, the
Resource/ICS staffing ratio does not appear to be flexible enough to accommodate children who are
moderately impacted by their disability and may require sustained support to be successful in the
general education environment.
 More authentic stakeholder engagement and collaboration with the district’s teachers and principals
must occur to arrive at a Service Model Proposal that has the critical stakeholder commitment necessary
to assure its success.

We support the district’s direction toward a more service-based model but believe the attached Proposal is not
supported with sufficient detail to be ready for implementation. We welcome the opportunity to continue our
collaborative relationship with the Seattle Public Schools district in moving toward the vision of an authentic
service-based model for special education that supports students’ achievement of their Individual Education
Program goals.