Special Education Assessment Team (SEAT): Experience From the Field

SWWC Service Cooperative (2012)

SWWC Service Cooperative (2012)

Individual case managers conduct evaluations Case manager determines evaluation

timelines Evaluations completed according to caseload Referrals and evaluation information flows

through child study team

SWWC Service Cooperative (2012)

One team of specified staff Conduct all special education evaluations in

the district Coordinate all evaluations and timelines Referrals and evaluation information flows

through assessment team via the building level assistance teams

SWWC Service Cooperative (2012)

School Psychologist Special Education Teacher Speech-Language Pathologist Low Incidence/Related Services Providers Staffing needs may vary

SWWC Service Cooperative (2012)

School Psychologist Assessment/Testing Report Writing IEP meeting attendance Same duties as with traditional model

SWWC Service Cooperative (2012)

Special Education Teacher – Reduced direct service/teaching time – Primary Responsibilities: testing, observations, report

writing – Licensure

• SLD/EBD/DCD • One person with all licensures or combination of staff with

appropriate licensure • SLD/EBD combination recommended • Birth to age 5 evaluations could be included by adding ECSE

licensed teacher

SWWC Service Cooperative (2012)

Speech Language Pathologist Traditional model - SLP evaluates and provides

direct service to students on caseload Assessment Team model – SLP direct service

reduced or eliminated and evaluation is primary responsibility Direct services could be provided by another SLP SLP could also be on assessment team as needed

SWWC Service Cooperative (2012)

Low Incidence/Related Service Providers Included in assessments as needed Similar to traditional model ▪ Occupational Therapist ▪ Physical Therapist ▪ Developmental Adaptive Physical Education ▪ Deaf Hard of Hearing ▪ Visually Impaired ▪ Physical Impairment

SWWC Service Cooperative (2012)

Secretarial Support Call team members and schedule meetings Mail due process documents Distribute checklists and testing materials to

parents and teachers Follow-up to get checklists returned Update evaluation due dates on master list Utilize computer software to generate test score

reports

SWWC Service Cooperative (2012)

Coordination of the Assessment Team Process Monitor and coordinate evaluation due dates Complete evaluation plans Schedule mailing of evaluation plans Schedule evaluation planning meetings Communicate with parents and teachers Monitor and coordinate completion of evaluations This role could be filled by any member of the

team SWWC Service Cooperative (2012)

SWWC Service Cooperative (2012)

Number of total evaluations per year - approximately 1/3 of child count number

1 FTE school psychologist and 1 FTE special education teacher per 85-100 evaluations

Other team members as needed or with additional SEAT duties

Impact of secretarial support on FTE’s needed

BENEFITS

Consistency: – Objective interpretation of

results – Qualifying/dismissal of

students – Due process requirements for

evaluations Evaluation timelines met Teachers are spending time

providing direct service Eliminates building level child

study meetings

CHALLENGES

Change is difficult Dissolving an assessment

team would require retraining of individual case managers

Appropriate licensure Communication between

the assessment team and the IEP team

SWWC Service Cooperative (2012)

SEAT takes the place of “child study teams” Still need pre-referral intervention teams Trade-off for not having to do evaluations is

an increased caseload Planning and implementation time needed SEAT staff needs good due process skills

SWWC Service Cooperative (2012)

Administrative support Early conversations – create “buy in” with

staff Identify staff who will work on SEAT Training for SEAT – procedures, timing of

evaluations, roles Create forms that will streamline process Respond to parent and teacher questions

about the change

SWWC Service Cooperative (2012)

Question Yes No Not Applicable

When SEAT was first discussed at our

school, I was in favor of it.

78.9 % 2.6% 18.4%

I am currently in favor of the SEAT concept

92.1 % 7.9%

2 districts surveyed in 2010

Question Yes No Not Applicable

When SEAT was first discussed at our

school, I was in favor of it.

60.4% 17.0% 22.6%

I am currently in favor of the SEAT concept

90.4% 9.6%

10 districts surveyed in 2012

10 districts surveyed in 2012 0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

Improved compliance withdue process regulations

Reduction in paperwork forcase managers

Increased service time withstudents

More consistentidentification of students

with disabilities

More consistent process forexiting students from special

education

I feel the following areas are strengths of using a SEAT team model. Choose all that apply.

Provide time for facilitated networking with other SEAT teams in the region

Provide training on evaluation topics: * Specific Learning Disabilities * Transition * Autism

Support districts in planning and implementing new SEAT teams

SWWC Service Cooperative (2012)

SEAT Implementation Process Evaluation Planning Form Initial and Re-evaluation Process Maps SEAT Staffing Comparison

SWWC Service Cooperative (2012)

SWWC Service Cooperative (2012)

Jackie Budden, Assistant Director of Special Education Email: jackie.budden@swsc.org Office: 507-537-6924 ext. 5004 Cell: 507-530-5577 Mary Margaret Mathers, Coordinator of Special Education Email: marymargaret.mathers@swsc.org Office: 320-231-5184 ext. 2318 Cell: 507-829-4056 Tammy Stahl, Director of Special Education Email: tammy.stahl@swsc.org Office: 507-825-5858 Cell: 507-215-3172

SWWC Service Cooperative (2012)