Caseload Study: Preliminary Results

1. Caseload Study:Preliminary Results Ann M. Sebald, Ed.D. Bob Pearson, Doctoral Candidate National Center on Low-Incidence Disabilities

2. Special Education and Caseload • Coleman report • Russ, Chiang, Rylance, & Bongers, 2001 • Caseload not just simple arithmetic • Do more with less

3. Low-Incidence Disabilities • “…a visual or hearing impairment, or simultaneous visual and hearing impairments; a significant cognitive impairment; or any impairment for which a small number of personnel with highly specialized skills and knowledge are needed in order for children with that impairment to receive early intervention services or a free appropriate public education” (20 U.S.C. 1462 § 662(c)(3)).

4. Low-Incidence Disabilities • Less than one percent of the estimated resident school-age population (US Department of Education, 2002) • Expensive to educate • Heterogeneous

5. Low-Incidence Disabilities and Caseload • Lack of research looking at LID and caseload • Implications of caseload type

6. Purpose of Study • Comprehensively examine and describe caseload sizes, caseload configurations, and associated variables for teachers serving students with low-incidence disabilities within the State of Colorado. • Look at licensure and service delivery models.

7. Procedure • Each year, beginning in 2004, the Colorado Department of Education selects 20% of districts. • All teachers, administrators, and paraprofessionals in each selected district are asked to complete an online survey. • Follow-up reminders are sent to administrators. • Within five years all districts will have had the opportunity to comment on the state of education within Colorado.

8. Special Education AU Survey • 47 items addressing such topics as: • Demographics • Individualized Education Plans • Services and programs available to students. • Licensure • Caseload

9. Questions Relating to Caseload • Q37 - How many students are on your current caseload? • Q38 - I believe my caseload is determined by students' IEP requirements. • Q39 - I believe my caseload is influenced by my students' disability label. • Q40 - I believe my caseload is influenced by budgetary limitations. • Q41 - I believe my caseload is influenced by a lack of qualified personnel.

10. Questions Relating to Caseload • Q42 - I believe that time spent traveling interferes with my ability to serve students on my caseload. • Q43 - I believe my caseload is such that I am able to meet student needs. • Q44 - What percentage of your caseload is served through consultation only? • Q45 - What percentage of your total work time is spent in direct contact with students on your caseload?

11. Years One and Two • Data have been analyzed and reports created for the academic years ending 2003-2004 and 2004-2005. • Yearly data were also merged and analyzed in aggregate. This was done after checking for apparent differences in cohorts. • Results for merged data will primarily be discussed.

12. Participants (merged years) • 3,815 professionals from forty-seven school districts • 622 (16.3%) special education teachers • 177 (4.6%) teachers indicated having at least one low-incidence licensure

13. LID Licensure Classification • 149 licensed in severe/profound needs only • 19 licensed in hearing only • 3 licensed in vision only • 6 licensed in both severe/profound needs and also in vision, hearing, or both. • Reduced to two groups: severe/profound (N=149) and sensory (N=22)

14. Demographics (LID Teachers) • Caucasian 95.3% (N=163) • Masters Degree 84.9% (N=84) • Teaching Experience (mean) • No Special Ed. License 14.2 years • Moderate/Affective 17.1 years • Severe/Profound 18.0 years • Sensory 20.0 years

15. “How many students are on your current caseload?” MeanSDRange • Severe/Profound 15.7 8.4 4-39 • Sensory 21.0 20.8 5-98

16. Caseload Influences and Factors • Participants were asked to rate the degree to which they believe the following to be true.

17. Caseload is determined by students' IEP requirements.

18. Caseload is influenced by students' disability label.

19. Caseload is influenced by budgetary limitations.

20. Caseload is influenced by a lack of qualified personnel.

21. Time spent traveling interferes with ability to serve students on caseload.

22. “… caseload is such that I am able to meet student needs.”

23. Percentage of Caseload Served Through Consultation Only

24. Percentage of Total Work Time Spent in Direct Contact

25. Educational Environments S/PSensory General classroom 61.7%63.6% Pull-out 71.8%54.5% Itinerant 3.4% 45.5% Center based (in) 22.1%31.8% Center based (out) 32.9%36.4% Community12.8%4.5%

26. “Please indicate if you provide services to students with the following disabilities.” • Significantly Limited Intellectual Capacity • Significant Identifiable Emotional Disability • Perceptual or Communicative Disability • Hearing Disability • Vision Disability • Autism • Traumatic Brain Injury • Other Physical Disabilities • Speech-Language Disability • Deaf Blind • Other Multiple Disabilities • Preschool Child with a Disability

27. Populations Served – Moderate/Affective Licensure • Hearing Disability 37.8% • Vision Disability 23.0% • Deaf Blind 4.3% • Multiple Disabilities 31.3%

28. Populations Served – Severe/Profound Licensure • Autism 68.5% • TBI 47.7% • Multiple Disabilities 61.1% • SLIC 79.9% • SIED 60.4% • PCD 77.9% • Hearing Disability 33.6% • Vision Disability 30.2%

29. Populations Served – Sensory Licensure • Deaf/HH 77.3% • Blind/Low-Vision 36.4% • SLIC 50.0% • SIED 45.5% • PCD 50.0% • Autism 36.4% • TBI 27.3% • Multiple Disabilities 45.5%

30. Qualitative Responses • Please list up to three of your top reasons you are considering leaving education - other than retirement • Please list up to three things that would make you more likely to stay in education.

31. Response Patterns • Leaving the Field • Focus on testing • Lack of administrative support • Lack of pay • Paperwork/workload

32. Response Patterns • Staying in the Field • Enjoy students • Increase in salaries • Increased administrative support • More teaching/less testing

33. Limitations • Preliminary results • Low numbers of respondents with sensory licensure. • Participants could choose more than one response for questions relating to population served and educational environments.

34. Implications • Teachers licensed to support students with low-incidence disabilities are relatively homogeneous with respect to educational attainment, years of experience, and ethnicity, and these demographics raise a number of questions and concerns related to retention and recruitment.

35. Implications • Caseload size, composition, and delivery models are highly variable across teachers, and the impacts these patterns have on educational processes and outcomes are unclear.

36. Implications • Educational services are being provided in multiple settings, sometimes directly and sometimes through consultation, and the determining factors for these patterns of service delivery remain little understood.

37. Implications • Students with low-incidence disabilities are being served by teachers with and without the required credentials, and this finding raises questions about licensure and service delivery patterns for these students.

38. Questions

39. Thank you Caseload Preliminary Report http://nclid.unco.edu/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=677&Itemid=2 National Center on Low-Incidence Disabilities http://nclid.unco.edu/joomla/ 800-395-2693 v/tdd