Serious Problems with Phase Out of Secondary Learning Centers

The long awaited Montgomery County Public Schools report on the phase out of the Special Education - Secondary Learning Centers has finally been released and presents a picture far from that of a glowing success.

MCPS made the decision to close the Secondary Learning Centers two years ago, despite loud community protest. The decision was made without community input or involvement, using a process later found by the State Board of Education to have violated MCPS policy. This report is the first to look at how well the phase out of the Learning Centers has progressed.

Among the group of students transitioned from the Learning Centers to their home schools in 2007/2008, despite all the focus and extra attention showered upon this group, fewer than 1 in 5 achieved proficiency on the statewide assessment (MSA). By contrast, among the group of disabled students MCPS selected as comparable more than ½ achieved proficiency and 1 in 14 scored as advanced on the same assessment. In other, words the transitioned Learning Center students performed much worse than expected.

Given these test scores we should not be surprised to read from the accompanying survey of teachers that almost half of 6th grade teachers failed to attend the MANDATORY summer training designed to support this program closure. The report included no information as to how this failure of management and oversight has been addressed.

Further, direct classroom observations by assessors reveal differentiated instructional activities were found in only 1 out of 4 of the observed Grade 6 classrooms. The report also noted widespread failure to take advantage of technology, including the Kurzweil Readers.

The MCPS report noted multiple times that co-teaching was not properly implemented. In addition, 7 out of 10 Guidance Counselors and 1 in 3 Principals indicated they received little or no support for the inclusion of the transitioned Students.

In the one apparent bright spot parents were quite pleased with the Case Management services provided by the Central Office. However a very low response rate was noted in the report, as well as staff resorting to telephone calls in order to pump up this response rate. Such practices may seriously bias survey results.

Of particular interest in assessing the quality of Case Management only 36% of teachers indicated the Case Manager attended the IEP meeting, while 95% of parents responded that the Case Manager was at the IEP meeting. This can only mean that parents must have been confused or misinformed as to who was providing this central office case management. In stark contrast to the parents positive impression, the survey of staff shows sizeable dissatisfaction with the central office Case Management and support.

But don’t just take my read of this report. Check it out for yourself;

http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/sharedaccountability/reports/2009/LC%20Transition%20Final%20Report%20Feb%2009%2009.pdf

Bob Astrove