Forrest Claypool

Chief Executive Officer

42 West Madison, 3rd Floor Chicago, Illinois 60602

October 23, 2017

To the Editor:

WBEZs recent series on special education did a disservice to its audience by presenting erroneous
information and false conclusions.

But the story did get one thing right: equity is an issue in special education, something we pointed out
more than a year ago in a white paper entitled Closing the Achievement Gap and Improving Outcomes
for Students with Disabilities.

As a result, CPS has spent the past year methodically putting in place important reforms to ensure every
child gets what they need to succeed.

When I became CEO in 2015, I knew the academic performance of CPS children was rising rapidly,
especially under Mayor Emanuel. Im proud that, despite an unprecedented financial crisis, CPS has
advanced those gains even further.

I was surprised to learn, however, that a rising tide does not lift all boats. Test scores for elementary
school children with disabilities have remained flat, even as their general education peers soared. In
2003, for example, just 15 percent of fourth grade students with disabilities scored at grade level in
national exams; in 2015, that number was still 15 percent. In math, 26 percent of students with IEPs
were at grade level in 2003; in 2015, 25 percent of students with IEPs were working at grade level in
math.

Obviously, something was wrong.

The answer was the absence of sufficient and reliable data.

While data has been famously used to drive improved performance of CPS general education students
even getting a national shout-out from Bill Gates last week the same has not been true in special
education.

Capturing that data, documenting best practices, and holding schools accountable for results requires
what some critics call paperwork, but which in reality is the necessary process of managing
professionally and in compliance with the law.

In fact, the district has implemented a best practices system called MTSS Multi-Tiered System of
Supports to ensure that all students are receiving the right supports for their needs. MTSS is not a way
to classify students for specialized services, but begins with high quality instruction and universal
screening of all students and includes multiple tiers of instruction and support services. In MTSS,
struggling learners are provided interventions at increasing levels of intensity to ensure they catch up
and/or stay on par with their peers. Some of the most common academic supports used in MTSS
include small group instruction or individual tutoring for academic needs. The most common behavioral
supports include peace circles, behavior contracts, developing anger coping skills, individual counseling,
or peer juries for behavioral challenges.

For the past year, we have focused on implementing MTSS consistently throughout the district,
particularly in training staff, and requiring documentation and important data collection to measure and
monitor outcomes.

Without taking the time and effort to rigorously document these pre-interventions and the results,
schools cannot determine if a students struggles are the result of a learning disability or something quite
different. If a Spanish-speaking student is having a hard time reading, is it because he needs help
mastering English, or is it because of a disability? If a student has behavioral issues that impair his
ability to learn, is it the result of a disability, or can it be successfully addressed with social and
emotional counseling?

Improperly diagnosing a student as learning-impaired can have negative, lifelong consequences and
prevent the student from receiving the help he needs. We know that African-American and Latino males
are disproportionately singled out for severe designations that require removal from general education
classrooms, often to their detriment. The new guidelines and procedures and consistent use of MTSS
will help CPS ensure that racial bias is not behind special education diagnoses.

If these immediate supports are unsuccessful, and properly documented so we know everyone is
following the same standards, then a school should move on to craft an Individualized Education
Program (IEP) for special education supports. In the past, only general guidance was available. CPS
lacked specific, uniform guidelines for creating IEPs, which are the foundation for service-delivery as
well as the way we can assure equity throughout the district.

Contrary to the blatant fiction put forward by the WBEZ report, these fundamental reforms were
produced by a yearlong task force led by Denise Little, an accomplished and widely respected CPS
educator and recent schools chief. In her work, Denise was assisted by the hard work of principals,
educational departments, and outside special education consultants and lawyers.

The series similarly misled its audience by presenting grossly inaccurate data on clinician and other
services. It did not point out that despite declining enrollment, CPS has hundreds more special education
staff, and $32 million more budgeted this school year, than just two years ago. A full appendix of the
reporting errors is below.

Change is sometimes misunderstood, often resisted, and always hard. But we will not revert to a system
that risked inequitable outcomes for students whose guardians had varying degrees of resources and
knowledge. We will not step away from requiring documentation of student supports, the use of
uniform and objective standards, or early intervention techniques that could help children learn more
independently. Nor will we allow misinformation and bias to prevent CPS from executing the critical
changes that will give all students the best chance to succeed in school and in life.

Sincerely,

Forrest Claypool
Chief Executive Officer
Chicago Public Schools
 Forrest Claypool
Chief Executive Officer

42 West Madison, 3rd Floor Chicago, Illinois 60602

Appendix WBEZ Factual Errors and Mischaracterizations

Last week, a WBEZ series provided inaccurate and misleading information about a series of
fundamental CPS reforms, including the creation of objective, uniform, educationally sound guidelines
and criteria for Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) in special education as required by law.

Although general guidance was provided in the past, CPS did not have a specific and uniform approach
to developing IEPs one informed by both best educational practices and the law.

In fact, these changes were part of a larger overhaul of CPS systems and practice, the result of nearly a
year of research into how to improve special education at CPS. In 2016, we released a white paper that
candidly outlined these concerns, including data showing the performance of students with disabilities
had remained largely flat even as general education student performance soared. The white paper laid
out the specific reform steps we intended to take, which we did over the following year. As a result, CPS
now has timely data to assist schools, the ability to track IEPs effectively, objective standards to ensure
proper and equitable IEP development, training for special education staff, and the documentation and
execution of multi-tiered supports to give every child the best chance to succeed.

CPS released the procedural guidelines in December 2016, so that staff, families, and the community
could use them to inform decisions at IEP meetings. CPS published an update to its manual this summer
with clear, transparent guidance and standards on critical special education services, including
paraprofessional support and transportation.

As CPS mentioned multiple times during interviews, building the guidelines and manual was a
collaborative process involving school principals, advocates, special education experts, attorneys, and
families. Working with these groups, CPS has refined the guidelines and manual and will continue to
refine them to ensure students receive the supports and services they need to succeed.

Despite its implications of dire special education funding cuts, the story admits that spending had gone
up under this administration through 2016 and failed to note that the districts overall spending for
special education grew from $753.8 million in FY11 to $828.2 million in FY16.

Following these large increases, CPS actual school-based special education spending did fall by 1.5
percent from FY16 to FY17 from roughly $605 million to $596 million but hardly the significant
decrease the story describes. This actual spending closely mirrored the budgeted spending, of $611.6
million in FY16 to $598.3 million in FY17.
The series included a number of other troubling factual errors that led to incorrect conclusions.

While the story claimed the district cut 350 special education teachers from March 2016 to
March 2017, there were actually only 164 fewer special education teachers in classrooms (i.e. on
staff) during this period. Despite that smaller one-year reduction, CPS still has 230 more special
education staffers than three years ago, while serving fewer students. The series insisted on
using a methodology that did not accurately reflect the actual services provided to students by
special education teachers despite being provided the accurate data and being informed about
the flaws in the inaccurate methodology she used.

Even as enrollment was declining, CPS was adding staff. In 2014, CPS had 3,654 special
education teachers, 19 more than the 3,635 teachers in 2017. In special education para-
professional staff positions, CPS had 3,376 staff in 2014, and 234 more positions (3,610) in
2017.

When it comes to related services (staff positions such as speech pathologists and occupational
therapists) the series said CPS had a 12 percent reduction last year. However, CPS did not
significantly reduce spending on related service providers. Below are CPS actual expenditures
on these services a decline of less than 2 percent from FY16 to FY17.

Related Service Provider FY16 Expenses FY17 Expenses

(Type)
Occupational Therapist $10.8 million $10.5 million
Physical Therapist $3.4 million $3.3 million
Speech Language $32.4 million $31.2 million
Pathologists
Psychologists $22.7 million $22.0 million
Social Workers $31.0 million $30.9 million
Nurses $28.1 million $27.8 million

Additionally, the series claimed that students had significantly less time with specialists, writing:
Compared with the previous year, time with specialists dropped in the 2016-2017 school year
even though the number of students with special needs stayed about the same. WBEZ did not
use a file that showed the actual amount of services that students received. In terms of actual
services provided, here is a chart showing the comparison in the service categories, a 3 percent
total reduction, not the reduction of 12 to 29 percent that WBEZ reported.
 Minutes Provided Minutes Provided Percent
Type of Service
FY16 FY17 Change
Physical Therapy 728,985 693,075 -4.9%
Nursing 8,036,086 8,313,255 +3.4%
OT 3,743,715 3,816,090 +1.9%
Psychology 492,555 369,795 -24.9%
Social Work 10,407,525 9,842,850 -5.4%
Speech/Language 16,190,715 15,287,850 -5.6%
Total 39,599,581 38,322,915 -3.2%

WBEZ either misunderstood or ignored CPS explanations of data pertinent to analyzing potential
overidentification of male children of color. As we discussed with WBEZ, we see a dramatic
overrepresentation of Latino and African American boys in the more restrictive educational
environments (LRE2 and LRE3) even though theyre identified at similar rates in special
education as a whole. This means that African American and Latino boys are pulled out of the
general education classroom more often. Scholarly research confirms that overidentification of
minorities has the effect of segregating students from their classmates, and can have detrimental
effects. For both Latinos and African American males, this overrepresentation could be a result
of implicit racial bias, not a disability that requires special education services.

Overidentification also has the obvious and unacceptable effect of denying students the least
restrictive environment a standard set by both best educational practice and federal and state
law.

In some cases, additional language or math tutoring, or social and emotional supports, could be
more appropriate for students who are struggling, havent yet learned English sufficiently, or
who have behavioral challenges. This support can be provided in the general education
classroom. Improperly removing students from classrooms to receive special education services
could have the perverse effect of treating the wrong problem, providing the wrong support, and
preventing students from receiving instruction from the general education teacher.

The story suggests that white boys are overrepresented in special education, claiming they make
up 5 percent of CPS overall student body and 15 percent of the districts special education
student population. This is false. In reality, 15 percent of white male students have IEPs in
other words, 15 percent is the number of white males with IEPs divided by the total number of
white males in the district. Overall, white students were 9.9 percent of the districts overall
enrollment in FY16 and 8 percent of the special education population.
 On summer school, the piece alleged that the number of special-needs children who got an
extended school year...dropped by 56 percent last year without pointing out that more students
actually attended summer school than the previous year.

Number of Students ESY 2016 ESY 2017

Total Students Eligible 7,085 3,192
Students Attending During Week 2 908 1,075

CPS was also surprised to see a special education advocate quoted that those with learning disabilities
cannot perform well on tests. For most students, special education is supposed to provide the
understanding and the tools to overcome specific learning differences, and to use that information to
achieve learning proficiency similar to their non-disabled peers. To prove that proficiency, these
students may require additional time on tests, or the ability to access physical tools (such as a calculator
when the class is working on problem solving, not the underlying math). But for the majority of such
students, there are no actual limits on their academic abilities and they can demonstrate that in testing.

In fact, the district has implemented a best practices system called MTSS Multi-Tiered System of
Supports to ensure that all students are receiving the right supports for their needs. MTSS is not a way
to classify students for specialized services, but begins with high quality instruction and universal
screening of all students and includes multiple tiers of instruction and support services. In MTSS,
struggling learners are provided interventions at increasing levels of intensity to ensure they catch up
and/or stay on par with their peers. Some of the most common academic supports used in MTSS
include small group instruction or individual tutoring for academic needs. The most common behavioral
supports include peace circles, behavior contracts, developing anger coping skills, individual counseling,
or peer juries for behavioral challenges.

Tier 1 of MTSS is the well balanced delivery of core instruction aligned to Common Core State
Standards that is differentiated to appeal to all learning styles. All students access Tier 1, which
also includes high quality standards-based instruction, curriculum and assessment including
differentiated supports.

In addition to Tier 1 (which all students receive), some students may need a layer of Tier 2
supports. Tier 2 instructional supports are provided to some targeted students who need
additional layers of instruction in specific areas based on data driven identification. Tier 3
supports are for very few students who (in addition to Tier 1 and 2) need highly individualized
supports that are also layered and increase in intensity and duration.

WBEZ attempts to disparage these supports and the requirements that the supports be documented for
each child. The concept of these interventions is embedded in federal special education law, but the
series neglects to say so. These intervention supports also ensure that students receive the help they need
immediately, even before a special education referral.
Documentation and data are fundamental to this approach. If you dont document interventions, you
cant ensure that services are being provided or hold staff accountable. To transform academic
outcomes, the district needs actionable data to hold schools accountable for the success of their students.