Bringing to conclusion an initiative launched as a result of a 2007 Annual Town Meeting vote, the results of an audit of Harvard schools’ special education program were presented to the School Committee Tuesday, March 10, at a meeting attended by 17 people, including school officials. Among the recommendations made by the auditor were more professional development for school staff and the addition of a speech and language therapist.
James Early of Gagliardi Associates, who conducted the audit, commended the teaching staff and administration at the elementary and high schools for their “high level of dedication and commitment to fulfill the requirements of the special education program and the IEPs [individual education plans].” The audit determined that the present program is well managed, and the IEP evaluations are legitimate and necessary.
Reaction to the audit was lukewarm. Thomas Jefferson, superintendent of schools, responded positively to the audit and felt it adequately addressed the five areas it was intended to evaluate. However, when asked whether he would implement any of the recommendations mentioned in the audit report, he said, “The recommendations are too vague; the report we received from the state 14 months ago goes into far more detail.”
School Committee Chairman Stu Sklar said, “We could have saved $19,000. The special education audit report is farcical. It doesn’t give the answer people were looking for. They wanted the report to show that something illegal was done and there is nothing in the report that suggests this.”
The background
Harvard’s special education program was thrust into the limelight in February 2007 when a group of residents filed a citizens’ petition asking the town to conduct an independent audit of special education spending. In an interview with the Press at that time, one of the petitioners, Margot Holtzman of Bolton Road, alleged that elected town officials had received special education money as reimbursement for the cost of out-of-district education of their children, placements, she said, that had not followed the policy guidelines of the special education program and that had been made unilaterally by Jefferson.
Responding to those charges, Jefferson told the Press in February 2007 that state laws regarding student confidentiality prohibited him from discussing specific cases, but he said, “What I can tell you is that in my 30 years as an educator I have never violated a state law or ethical guidelines.”
The warrant article called for in the citizens’ petition asked for an audit of special education expenditures. The School Committee and selectmen subsequently sponsored a warrant article for a broader audit of the special education program, which would review procedures and assess whether the program was being run in the most cost-effective way. At the March 2007 Town Meeting, the petitioners withdrew their warrant article after voters approved the article proposed by the selectmen and school board, which called for the appropriation of $25,000 for the audit and the establishment of a Special Education Task Force to define the audit’s scope and select a consulting firm to perform the audit.
—Superintendent
Thomas Jefferson
In April 2008 the School Committee and the Special Education Task Force commissioned Gagliardi Consulting Associates to evaluate and review the special education services of Harvard Elementary School and the Bromfield School. However, the firm was unable to perform the audit until September. In the interim, support for the audit waned. The state Department of Education had performed its own review of the special education program, evaluating how the school department had responded to an earlier corrective action plan issued by the agency, and had given a favorable assessment to Jefferson. Charles Horn, then the director of Harvard special education, and other staff members told the School Committee that having more scrutiny from yet another audit “would be excessive.” Members of the group that sponsored the original citizens’ petition told the school board that they no longer felt a strong need to have an audit conducted, but said that since the town had voted to do it there should be another vote if officials were leaning toward not proceeding with the audit. In June 2008 the school board voted to move forward with the audit because it would “fulfill the will of the people.” School Committee Chairman Sklar expressed frustration that the effort would duplicate the state audit and was “the most colossal waste of money.” Although he signed the contract with Gagliardi for the audit, he abstained from the vote.
The audit
The Special Education Task Force asked that Gagliardi evaluate five specific areas: the process used to decide which students receive an IEP; the criteria and process for deciding what services will be delivered to students as part of their IEP; the core values related to the special education programs and the extent to which they guide and drive Harvard’s decision-making processes, procedures, and expenditures; areas where improvements in providing more inclusive environments and programming in-district might be able to accommodate more out-of-district students; and opportunities for efficiency improvements in Harvard’s processes and procedures, including the increased use of technology.
Early conducted the special education audit over two and a half days. He observed 10 regular content classes and two academic support classes at Bromfield and four regular content classes, two resource rooms, and the integrated preschool program at the elementary school. He conducted 20 interviews, which included the superintendent, director of special education, the Bromfield School principal, the Harvard Elementary School principal, special education teachers and coordinators, the school psychologist, and the preschool coordinator.
The findings
The audit report contained 36 specific findings. One issue identified was that at the elementary school level, the Teacher Support Team (TST) that conducts the prereferral process is well formulated and established. However, the process for students in grades 6 to 9 needs improvement and is not yet fully implemented for students in grades 10 to 12. The audit report stated that there appeared to be “a lack of clarity among staff as to what defines the mental health needs of students and how the system should respond” and that “there is no consistent, standard protocol for assessing specific suspected disabilities.” Further, the report stated that student performance data “is not consistently reviewed during the school year to determine what adjustments or changes can be made to the IEP” and noted that there is limited course flexibility to meet the requirements of special needs students struggling with curriculum content. Most of the other findings related to staff-development issues.
Asked by an audience member at the March 10 meeting what was the most pressing need facing the special education programs in Harvard, Early responded, “If I were given a blank check tomorrow, my priorities would be more professional development and a speech and language therapist. If the needs of students are not met in the integrated preschool and elementary school, the cost of addressing them at the high school level increases substantially.”
The audit report can be found on the schools’ website: www.psharvard.org.
Note: Lynda King contributed to this article.
