Bureau Director’s Panel on Least Restrictive Environment

Report of Implementation, September 2006-08

MINIMAL IMPLEMENTATION,

MISSED OPPORTUNITIES AND

GROWING FRUSTRATION:

REPORT OF THE BUREAU DIRECTOR’S ADVISORY PANEL ON LEAST RESTRICTIVE ENVIRONMENT FOLLOWING

Gaskin v. Department of Education

for the period

SEPTEMBER, 2006—SEPTEMBER, 2008

SUMMARY

Prepared by

Martin Elks, Ph.D.

Panel Chair

July, 2009

SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to describe the experiences and findings of the Bureau Director’s Advisory Panel on Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) for the period September 2006 to September 2008. This period can be characterized as a time of minimal implementation, missed opportunities for systemic change in LRE in Pennsylvania and increasing tension and frustration between the Advisory Panel and Pennsylvania Department of Education.

MINIMAL IMPLEMENTATION OF KEY PROVISIONS

The Settlement Agreement (SA) in the Gaskin litigation, provided for a number of very specific activities with specific criteria. However, the following provisions have been implemented at a minimal level only: Annual corrective action plans for the 20 school districts showing the fewest students in the LRE were not accepted by the Panel due to their failure to respond to the requirements of the SA and a comprehensive training and technical assistance plan for Pennsylvania has not been agreed upon despite many months of meetings and court-monitored mediation. Moreover,PDE has refused to provide the Panel with more than a one-time sample of fifty-three Individual Education Plans (IEPs) and has refused to acknowledge 3-5-year olds as covered by the SA.

MISSED OPPORTUNITIES

The following relatively easy actions could have been undertaken by PDE but were not:

  1. Dr. Villa could have taken a proactive role for all school districts in Pennsylvania rather than provide workshops for only a few of the poorer performing school districts
  2. PDE has consistently refused to develop a vision or a meaningful goal for LRE in Pennsylvania under the SA, for example, to be within 5% of the national average of the percentage of students educated in the regular classroom 80% of the day or more
  3. PDE could have developed strong Corrective Action Plans backed up by the enforcement provisions of the SA
  4. PDE could have coordinated an early childhood initiative for children 3-5 in their activities instead of contending that pre-school is covered by another department
  5. PDE could have begun to address the role and funding of Intermediate Units in perpetuating segregation in Pennsylvania
  6. PDE could have examined the role and funding of approved private schools in Pennsylvania
  7. PDE could have collaborated with the Advisory Panel in the development of an inclusion video that could be used as an important tool for change in Pennsylvania
  8. PDE could have developed a comprehensive training and on-site technical assistance plan based on the needs assessments as provided for in the SA

GROWING TENSION AND FRUSTRATION

The greatest source of this tension and frustration is the differing interpretations of the SA being used by the Advisory Panel members and PDE. The Panel believes that the SA could be implemented leading to significant outcomes in LRE for students with disabilities. PDE on the other hand, sees the agreement as the opportunity for some changes in attitudes as a result of implementation of some LRE related activities (broadly defined) and perhaps some increase in opportunities for LRE. Their approach can be characterized as a grudging, minimalist interpretation of the SA provisions along with the development of some LRE-related resources all of which may be easily incorporated into PDE’s current processes and procedures. In short, barely incremental movement within the existingsystem, but a far cry from significant system change.

SOME POSITIVE DEVELOPMENTS

There have been some positive developments in implementation of the settlement agreement to date. These include the issuing of LRE Basic Education Circular; the development and distribution of LRE related welcome packets including color posters and lesson plans to all schools in Pennsylvania; the development of a Toolkit for evaluating needs for supplementary aids and supports, and the development of an assessment tool to help schools and school districts determine where they need support and training in LRE.

CONCLUSION

PDE has failed to show it has a vision for LRE for Pennsylvania’s students with disabilities or the leadership to engage in the systems change that this would entail. PDE will, however, if necessary, develop some resources and training modules in an ad hoc manner. Perhaps the panel is unrealistic to expect anything other than this result from a Department that fought the Gaskin lawsuit for 10 years before coming to a “Settlement Agreement.”

What have people with disabilities achieved in Pennsylvania as a result of ten years of litigation and three years of implementation of this Agreement? Pennsylvania still remains in the bottom 25% in national rankings of LRE. This is unacceptable given the vision embodied in the SA and uppermost in the minds of people who greeted the news of its’ signing in September, 2005 with great anticipation and high hopes for change.

1