Study of the Mount Diablo Unified School District - Mt. Diablo Unified ...

Introduction and Peer District ComparisonsEXHIBIT 1‐1MT. DIABLO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICTSUVEY ACTUAL AND TARGET RESPONSE RATESSURVEY GROUPACTUALRESPONSES/POPULATION(N)RESPONSEPERCENTAGETARGETRESPONSES/POPULATION(N)TARGETPERCENTAGECentral Office Administrator 24/27 88.9% 25/27 92.6%Principal/Assistant Principal 66/108 61.1% 84/108 77.8%Special Education Teacher 116/218 53.2% 139/218 63.8%General Education Teacher 402/2,145 18.7% 326/2145 15.2%Support Staff 54/91 59.3% 74/91 81.3%Source: Created by MGT of America, Inc., 2010.• Onsite Data Collection. This instrument collected specific data and information toexpand on the information gleaned from our earlier review of special educationprogram documentation. It includes data and information about the policies andprocedures, early intervening services, school and classroom observations, IEP and504 Plans, service delivery options, evaluation and placement procedures, studentdiscipline, and the evaluations conducted by the school or program. Fiscal analysesare an extensive part of this study.• Onsite Interview Form. This form was used to conduct personal interviews of thekey stakeholders of special education services both at the district and school levels.This instrument solicited opinions about the program models, roles of stakeholders,and barriers to successful maximization of educational goals and objectives of thesestudents.• Financial Utilization Profile. A financial utilization profile was used to provide onsiteinformation on the cost factors that vary among programs with similar titles. In asite‐based system of service delivery, costs vary among similar programs dependingon the emphasis given to particular forms of service delivery (e.g., students withspecific learning disabilities may be served at one school in a pull‐out setting with aspecial education teacher; however, in the next school the same type of student mayreceive less pull‐out support and benefit instead from the aide assigned to thegeneral education classroom. While both options may be programmatically sound,they represent different cost factors in the analysis). The financial utilization profileassisted the review team in determining the qualitative difference among programswhen costs are compared.To identify cost improvements for special education programs whose cost factors vary as aresult of a wide range of indirect cost factors, the MGT review team:• Conducted interviews of stakeholders at a sample of sites.MGT of America, Inc. Page 1‐3