Parents, teachers, and even a few board members in Arlington Heights District 25, expressed concern at the district’s February board meeting about a report from a consulting firm that describes ways the district might improve its special education programs, the Daily Herald reports.
One parent quoted by the paper said she plans to file a complaint about the report by Futures Education with the Illinois State Board of Education: “We are not providing a free and appropriate public education and they know that. They did not vet this company at all.”
Concerns about the report seemed to focus on these categories:
- The for-profit consulting firm is based in Springfield, Mass., not in Illinois.
- Research methodology was inappropriate for this type of report.
- Cost-cutting advice appears to be what District 25 was looking for.
The first point is a non-starter. Not too many nonprofit consulting or research firms would conduct an analysis of the special ed programs at the district’s seven elementary and two middle schools. About 800 of the district’s 5,100 students avail themselves to some type of special ed service. That number is not outside the bounds of what could be considered “typical,” but it’s still a lot of work. Nonprofits are looking either to make a big name for themselves or recover some of their costs. Typical special ed services in suburban schools just won’t draw their attention.
Where the company is based isn’t really an issue, either. I might have a problem if it were based in Nigeria or even Mexico, I suppose, but it’s the quality of the company that matters most. Besides, we’re talking Massachusetts here, not Australia.
Now, the second point could be a problem. One board member complained the report didn’t provide a detailed bibliography or footnotes where appropriate, including when it compared the district’s programs to “national standards.” It seemed most of the data came from schools in the Boston area, he said.
In addition, only 21 parents were interviewed for the report. Many said they didn’t have any time to prepare for their interviews because of the disorganized nature of the interview requests. Plus, if 800 students use special ed services and only 21 parents were interviewed, any question has a margin of error of plus-or-minus 21.1 percent. The district should therefore be suspicious of any conclusion the report makes based on the parent interviews, because an insufficient sample size was used.
Finally, the contract between the district and Futures Education included a clause that the district would not be responsible for the fee charged by the consulting firm if the report failed to identify $50,000 or more in cost savings. This is very typical language for such a contract, so that’s not where the problem lies, and Futures Education did manage to find more than $75,000 the district was entitled to but not receiving from the state’s Medicaid program.
The problem comes from teachers in the district who imagined that the clause was intended to force Futures Education to recommend job cuts. Although the report said special education was “generously” staffed in District 25, no specific job cuts were recommended.
“It is not a blueprint for cutting staff; it is not a blueprint for anything,” the Daily Herald quoted board member Charles Williams as saying. “Anyone who says anything else is spreading rumors and doing nothing but fear mongering.”
Besides, if it were my money—and some of it is—I would hope the district is looking to use it as efficiently as possible, which would include not paying a company to do some research unless that research included some ways to use the money more wisely.
Special ed in District 25’s future
The district was never planning to stop looking, once they got the report, for ways to make special ed services more uniform across its schools or more efficient in terms of cost or services. For example, the report recommended eliminating two buses, which would save money. At the board meeting, though, some people pointed out how that action would increase the amount of time special ed students spend on buses, which is not considered a desirable consequence.
It’s this kind of “considering all sides” discussion the district hopes to have over the next year or two as it considers the recommendations made in the report. A committee or task force of parents, teachers, administrators, and other stakeholders is forming now, and this committee is expected to report its conclusions to the district within the next two years. From there, special ed services in District 25 will take their cue.