Transcript Special Education for the 21st Century

NCLB and a Revised IDEA:
Implications for School
Psychologists
An Invited Address: by Alice Parker
Burlingame, California
March 18th, 2004
Purposes
• To provide an overview of the recently
enacted NCLB legislation and the
forthcoming IDEA reauthorization
• To highlight some of the issues facing
school psychologists and policy makers
today and for the future
What is different
• Then (1975 – 1997)
– Special Education was
• A set of classroom
placements
• With a separate
curriculum based on
differential standards
• With little relationship
to general education
programs and
activities
• Funded based on
instructional
personnel services
units
• Now (1997 to present)
– Special Education is
• A set of individually
designed services
• To meet the student’s
special needs and to enable
the student to participate in
and progress in the general
education curriculum
• Provided first in the context
of the regular education
classroom
• Funded based on the regular
education population of the
districts in the SELPA
The number of students receiving special
education services increased by just one percent
from 1992-93 through 2002-03
Enrollment in Millions
Not SE
SE 5-21
7,000,000
6,000,000
5,000,000
4,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
0
1992-93
1994-95
1996-97
1998-99
2000-01
2002-03
In the last ten years, California’s special
education population has grown faster than
the national average
Percent Increase in Special Education
sy
lv
an
i
a
o
Pe
nn
O
hi
s
in
oi
w
ho
a
as
Ill
le
a
rn
i
US
Ca
lif
o
rk
Yo
Ne
w
Te
xa
s
Fl
or
id
a
100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
Over half the students receiving special education
services in 2002- 03 are identified as having a Specific
Learning Disability (SLD)
TBI
.002%
DEAF
.007%
MD
VI
HH
1% .007%
1% OI
2.2%
DB
0%
AUT
3.1%
ED
4.2%
OHI
4.2%
MR
6.4%
SLD
51%
SLI
2.55%
DB
TBI
DEAF
VI
MD
HH
OI
AUT
ED
OHI
MR
SLI
SLD
Among ethnic categories, African-American students
are most likely to be identified for Special Education,
Asian-American students are least likely
African American
White
Total
Hispanic
All Other
Asian
0
2
4
6
8
Percentage
10
12
14
16
Ethnic Groups in Special Education
Percentage
20
15
10
5
0
1994
1995
1996
African American
1997
White
1998
Total
1999
2000
Hispanic
2001
2002
All Other
2003
Asian
California has reduced the number of students served
in separate facilities and has increased the number of
students who spend more time in regular classrooms.
Percentage of Students 6-21 Served in Different Educational Settings
State
Texas
Florida
California
Pennsylvania
US as a whole
Ohio
Illinois
New York
Percent of Time Outside Regular Class
Separate Facility
Less than 21%
21 thru 60%
More than 60%
89-90
99-00
89-90
99-00
89-90
99-00
89-90
99-00
5.18
28.24
68.19
52.04
22.60
17.95
4.03
1.77
30.89
49.79
35.44
26.25
27.81
21.99
5.85
1.97
25.54
49.44
42.88
20.19
26.49
26.84
5.09
3.53
35.02
31.46
35.21
26.16
6.87
35.78
47.32
64.84
37.34
47.62
28.90
37.54
22.75
34.42
36.93
32.81
28.32
24.94
28.03
13.16
30.48
24.92
29.67
31.24
43.58
27.71
20.29
5.23
28.41
30.73
5.59
6.08
12.36
8.17
12.62
3.70
4.07
4.99
6.22
8.49
Time Out of Regular Class
49.44
50.00
45.00
42.88
40.00
35.00
30.00
26.49
25.54
26.84
Percent 25.00
20.19
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.09
5.00
3.53
0.00
89-90
99-00
89-90
99-00
89-90
99-00
89-90
99-00
Year
Less than 21%
21% thru 60%
More than 60%
Separate Facility
Percent of SE graduates among exiting 12th graders
Graduating with Diploma
70
6.2
60
7.5
11.4
50
13.2
40
Percentage
58.8
30
20
58.7
51.6
37.6
10
0
2000
2001
2002
2003
Other
Diploma
Percent SE Dropping out
4.5
4.5
4.1
4
4
3.6
3.5
3
2.5
Year
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
2000
2001
2002
2003
California has reduced the drop out rate of students with
disabilities by over 30% since 1993-94 – almost half of
the rate of the U.S. as a whole.
Percent Age 14 and Older Dropping Out (All
Disabilities)
State
Texas
California
Pennsylvania
Ohio
US as a whole
Florida
New York
Illinois
1993-94
1999-00
Decrease
23.95
10.79
13.16
47.33
15.03
32.30
16.96
19.53
34.45
34.85
36.06
34.66
18.63
22.88
29.39
35.14
36.36
38.49
-1.67
-3.35
5.06
-0.29
-0.30
-3.83
California has reduced the drop-out rate of students with
disabilities by over 30% since 1993-94 – almost half of the
rate of the U.S. as a whole.
OUR GUIDING PRINCIPLES
• All children can learn
• All students have the right to relevant
instruction based on high expectations
• More effective learning results from
alignment of standards, assessments,
curriculum, and instruction
Assessment Results
Provide Information
• Focus for additional resources – at student,
school, district and state level
–
–
–
–
Which individual?
Which subgroups?
What content areas?
What grade?
• Opportunity to problem solve and implement new
strategies
– Teacher training
– Instructional materials
– Devote more time to specific content
• Confirmation that strategies worked
2003 STATE AYP
for Students with Disabilities
• English Language Arts
– Participation rate: 96.8
– Percent Proficient or Above: 13.5 (AMO – 12)
• Mathematics
– Participation rate: 96.7
– Percent Proficient or Above: 15.6 (AMO – 12.8)
California Alternate Performance Assessment
Disability Categories Taking CAPA
Participation at Different CAPA Levels
SES and CAPA Proficiency
English Learners and CAPA Proficiency
Ethnicity and CAPA Proficiency
Gender and CAPA Proficiency
State AYP and CAPA Contribution
CAPA Administration Level II
ELA
QuickTime™ and a
Cinepak decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
At or above the 50th percentile on the SAT-9 Math Grade 4
58
60
54
51
50
44
40
39
34
33
30
GE
SE
30
22
20
17
10
0
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
Proficient or Advanced on the CST Math Grade 4
50
40
45
37
30
20
18
20
10
0
2002
GE
SE
2003
At or above the 50th percentile on the SAT-9 ELA Grade 4
50
40
49
47
45
41
40
30
26
28
28
GE
21
20
SE
17
10
0
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
Proficient or Advanced on the CST ELA Grade 4
39
40
36
35
30
25
20
GE
SE
16
15
15
10
5
0
2002
2003
How our work has changed
• Then (1975 – 1997)
– Conduct assessments to
identify the students
special education needs
– Identify the placement
and services that would
best address the
students needs
– To expand the variety
and quality of special
services available in the
schools and in the
community
– Provide pupil count and
fiscal information
expenditure reports to
CDE
• Now (1997 – present)
– Conduct assessments to identify
the student’s special needs and
their ability to be involved in and
progress in the general curriculum
– To identify the services,
modifications and supports that
will address the needs of the child
and enable the child to progress in
the general education curriculum
– Support and provide instruction in
the general education curriculum
– Provide extensive student level
data for state and federal
accountability reports. Submit
detailed expenditure data to
qualify for funds (MOE)
Why the change? Where are
we headed?
• National movement toward standards
based accountability
• Longstanding history of poor outcomes
for students with disabilities
• IDEA ’97
• NCLB
• President’s Commission
• Reauthorization of IDEA
IDEA ’97
Emphasis on Results
• Access and progress in the general
education curriculum
• Standards based accountability
– Goals and Indicators
– Statewide Assessment
• Educational Benefit and Procedural
Guarantees
•
•
•
•
•
•
No Child Left Behind
Act of 2001
Emphasis on Results
Successful education for all students
Assessment of all students
Annual Measurable Objectives (AMO)
apply to all subgroups
Consequences for not meeting AMOs
Consequences for not assessing all
students
Students with significant cognitive
disability are assessed against state
standards using the California Alternate
Performance Assessment (CAPA)
PRESIDENT’S COMMISION ON
EXCELLENCE IN SPECIAL EDUCATION:
FINDINGS
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Current system – process above results
Current system – wait to fail model
Dual system- general and special
Inadequate parent options and recourse
Culture of compliance
Identification methods lack validity
Better teacher preparation needed
Rigorous research and evidence-based practice
Focus on compliance and bureaucratic
imperatives not academic achievement
PRESIDENT’S COMMISION ON
EXCELLENCE IN SPECIAL EDUCATION:
FINDINGS
• Focus on results – not on process.
• Embrace a model of prevention not
failure
• Consider children with disabilities as
general education children first.
PRESIDENT’S COMMISION ON
EXCELLENCE IN SPECIAL EDUCATION:
FINDINGS (cont.)
• Change the way we assess for LD.
• Eliminate the necessity for IQ-achievement
discrepancy.
• Shift to academically relevant assessments.
• Change focus from eligibility determination to
successful interventions.
PRESIDENT’S COMMISION ON
EXCELLENCE IN SPECIAL EDUCATION:
FINDINGS (cont.)
• Use response to instruction as a key
measure.
• Apply scientifically based instruction
before referring for evaluation.
PRESIDENT’S COMMISION ON
EXCELLENCE IN SPECIAL EDUCATION:
FINDINGS (cont.)
• The Commission believes that the approach
to all high-incidence disabilities needs to shift
from a failure model to a prevention model.
•To prevent the wrong children from being served,
the Commission recommends that current
regulations be modified so that the student’s
response to scientifically based instruction is part
of the criteria for SLD.
NCLB & IDEA Reauthorization
Principles
1. Stronger Accountability for Results.
2. Simplify Paperwork for States and
Communities and Increase.
Flexibility for All.
3. Doing What Works.
4. Increase Choices and Meaningful
Involvement for Parents
Secretary Rod Paige Releases “PRINCIPLES FOR REAUTHORIZING
INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT (IDEA)”
Tuesday, January 25, 2003
NCLB & IDEA Reauthorization
Single Accountability System
NCLB of
2001
Single
Accountability
System for all
students to
Meet State
Standards
All
students
assessed
including
students
with
disabilities
IDEA REAUTHORIZATION
S. 1248 and H.R.1350
Effect on
Students
w/Disabilities
H.R. 1350 Conforms IDEA
with NCLB requirements
relating to State performance
goals and indicators; All
students meet state standards
H.R. 1350 State policy to
support & facilitate LEA and
school systemic reform to
enable students w/disabilities
to meet high achievement
standards for all children
All students
assessed; All
students have
opportunity to
meet state
standards
NCLB & IDEA Reauthorization
Monitoring & Enforcement
NCLB of
2001
Monitoring Sanctions
& Enforce- required for
schools and
ment
IDEA REAUTHORIZATION
S. 1248 and H.R.1350
Effect on
Students
w/Disabilities
H.R. 1350 Adds requirements unknown
for monitoring and enforcement
to requirements for withholding
districts
and judicial review. Sets forth
identified in
requirements for Federal
Program
Improvement monitoring, including required
indicators for States' progress
and not
meeting AYP on improving educational
results for children with
and AMOs
disabilities, permitted indicators
(results)
and priorities for part B and for
part C, setting of additional
priorities, standards for
compliance, and penalties for
noncompliance.
NCLB & IDEA Reauthorization
Funding
Funding
Original goals
called for 40%
funding
Actually
covers
about 17% of
nat’l average
per-pupil
expenditure
of sp.ed.
NCLB of
2001
IDEA REAUTHORIZATION
S. 1248 and H.R.1350
Effect on Students
w/Disabilities
Coordination
of NCLB &
IDEA always
possible
S. 1248 Mandatory full
funding; Handled through
amendment; Allows
districts 15% for Non-IDEA
students; 2% set asidePart B-create a risk pool
for high cost students
States and localities
could have more
flexibility to use federal
special education
money to provide
direct services for
students with
disabilities. Could
allow, for example, to
create intrastate risk
pools for the highest
cost children with
disabilities, or to
increase professional
development
opportunities for
teachers,
paraeducators, etc.
H.R. 1350 Simplify funding
model; Discretionary 7 yr.
path to reach 40%;
Restore current funding
level between 8-11% for
administrative statewide
activity
NCLB & IDEA Reauthorization
Simplify Paperwork
NCLB
of 2001
Simplify
paperwork
silent
IDEA REAUTHORIZATION
S. 1248 and H.R.1350
Effect on Students
w/Disabilities
H.R. 1350 directs the
Comptroller General (GAO
Review) to review and report
on IDEA-related matters
concerning: (1) Federal, State,
and local paperwork
requirements, with
recommendations to reduce
or eliminate excessive
paperwork burdens;
H.R. 1350 proposes USDOE
develop model forms for IEPs
and Notices; Create a 4 yr.
Paperwork reduction pilot
program for 10 states
(application)
Simplify and eliminate
unnecessary
paperwork
Focus on results
Increase time spent by
teachers on teaching
Minimize time spent
on procedural and
non-instructional tasks
(maintain fundamental
rights)
State plans simplified
and streamlined
NCLB & IDEA Reauthorization
Simplify Paperwork & IEP
Simplify
paperwork
and the
IEP
NCLB
of
2001
IDEA REAUTHORIZATION
S. 1248 and H.R.1350
Effect on Students
w/Disabilities
silent
H.R. 1350 Proposes-: 3 yr. IEP if
agreed upon by parents & district;
allow flexibility in IEP attendance;
Keep short term obj. on IEPs until
05-06 yr. When NCLB report card
requirements take place.
S. 1248 Proposes: 3 yr.IEP for
students ages 18-21 years;
Eliminate obj./benchmarks,
include positive behavior
interventions
Reduce the # of times that
procedural safeguard notices go
to parents
Simplify and eliminate
unnecessary paperwork
Focus on results
Increase time spent by
teachers on teaching
Minimize time spent on
procedural and noninstructional tasks
(maintain fundamental
rights)
NCLB & IDEA Reauthorization
Doing What Works
NCLB of
2001
Doing Requires
What scientific
Works research
IDEA REAUTHORIZATION
S. 1248 and H.R.1350
H.R. 1350 proposes state professional
development grants focus: state need &
for establishing professional development
based
programs regarding methods of early and
practices esp. appropriate identification of children with
in Reading
disabilities.
and Math
Revises requirements for scientificallyProf. Dev.
based research, technical assistance,
And LEA plan model demonstration programs, and
must include personnel preparation programs.
effective
Establishes a National Center for Special
practices for
Education Research to conduct research
all subgroups on improving special education and
related services for children with
disabilities.
Effect on
Students
w/Disabilities
Effective
professional
development
for all
teachers and
service
providers;
effective and
proven
practices in
assessment,
instruction,
learning
implemented
NCLB & IDEA Reauthorization
Doing What Works
NCLB of
2001
Doing
What
Works
IDEA REAUTHORIZATION
S. 1248 and H.R.1350
Research
H.R. 1350 Focus on Early
Based
Intervention. 15% IDEA funds to early
approaches intervention.
Replace IQ discrepancy model
w/response to intervention as a key
criteria for identifying Specific
Learning Disability
Demonstrate that student fails to
response to a research based
intervention
Effect on
Students
w/Disabilities
The number of
students
identified as
SLD should
be reduced
and students
“at risk” of
failure will
receive help
earlier
NCLB & IDEA Reauthorization
Doing What Works
NCLB of
2001
Doing Reading
What First
Works Program
Researchbased
reading
instruction in
grades K-3
IDEA REAUTHORIZATION
S. 1248 and H.R.1350
Effect on
Students
w/Disabilities
H.R. 1350
Provide up to $3 million for national
study on valid alternate assessment ;
Allows schools to spend up to 15%
of IDEA funds for pre-referral
Effective
professional dev.
& proven
practices in
assessment,
instruction,
learning; focus on
identification
practices that
promote earlier
intervention,
dramatically
reducing the
misidentification
of students with
learning
disabilities.
services.
H.R. 1350 Require TA & training. for
personnel working with children
w/autism spectrum disorders
NCLB & IDEA Reauthorization
Highly Qualified Staff
NCLB of 2001
Highly
Requires all
Qualified teachers to be
Staff
highly qualified
in core
competencies
by 2005-2006
school year
NCLB does not
identify special
education as a
core academic
subject
IDEA REAUTHORIZATION
S. 1248 and H.R.1350
Effect on
Students
w/Disabilities
Conforms IDEA with NCLB
requirements relating to highly
qualified
H.R.1350 requires BA and
certificates in field and content
areas teachers teach
S.1248 proposes time extension
to 2006-07 school year and clarify
special ed teachers do not have
to be certified in every subject
they teach.
All special education personnel
must meet IDEA personnelstandards requirements.States
have flexibility in how standards
are met.CA State Board of
Education is developing guidance
States have
flexibility in
how standards
are met.CA
State Board of
Education is
developing
guidance
currently
Biggest
issue…special
day class
teachers at
the middle
and high
school levels.
NCLB & IDEA Reauthorization
Highly Qualified Staff
NCLB of 2001
Emphasis on Teacher
Highly
Qualified Quality
Improving Teacher
Staff
Quality State Grants
Program ($2.85 Billion in
2002)
Using scientifically based
practices to prepare, train
and recruit high-quality
Teachers; Core academic
subjects taught by highly
qualified teachers by
2006 school year; Must
demonstrate annual
progress toward goal.
IDEA
REAUTHORIZATION
S. 1248 and H.R.1350
Conforms IDEA with
NCLB requirements
relating to highly
qualified
Effect on
Students
w/Disabilities
States have
flexibility in how
standards are
met.CA State
Board of
Education
(SBE) is
developing
guidance
currently
Biggest
issue…special
day class
teachers at the
middle and high
school levels.
NCLB & IDEA Reauthorization
Choice, Parent Involvement
NCLB of 2001
Increases
choices &
Parent
Involvement
Conflict
Resolution
For program
improvement
schools:
choice and
supplemental
services
offered to
parents
NCLB is silent
on due
process and
complaints
IDEA REAUTHORIZATION
S. 1248 and H.R.1350
Affect on
Students
w/Disabilities
H.R.1350 Encourages use
of mediation and voluntary
binding arbitration;
establishes statute of 1 yr.
For complaint to be filed
S.1248 proposes 2 yr. Limit
for filing a complaint & 90
day limit for appeal filing;
reduce # of procedural
safeguard notices to
parents & requires Hearing
Officers to ignore technical
errors having no effect on
child
Same as for
non-disabled
students
under NCLB
unknown
NCLB & IDEA Reauthorization
Discipline
NCLB
of 2001
Silent
Discipline
for students
with
disabilities
IDEA REAUTHORIZATION
S. 1248 and H.R.1350
H.R. 1350-Encourages use of
mediation & voluntary binding
arbitration; Discipline sp.ed same as
gen.ed.; case by case basis; continue
ed. Services-remove from gen.ed.
settings for 45 days or longer if state
law allows; Eliminate functional beh.
Assessments & beh. Intervention
plans.
S.1248; Services continue after a
school disciplines student w/disability.
Retain manifestation determinations
and 45 day rule. Include beh.
Interventions in IEPs. Mandate states
adhere to expedited hring.-20 day
timeline when parents dispute
discipline & placement procedure.
Effect on
Students
w/Disabilities
Intent is to
simplify
discipline
procedures;
preserve
protections;
improve school
safety; have
alternate
dispute
resolution
earlier and
easier for
parents &
schools
NCLB & IDEA Reauthorization
WHERE ARE WE NOW?
• Capitol Hill observers say to expect lengthy HouseSenate Conference Committee negotiations on the
IDEA’s reauthorization once the full Senate approves
S. 1248.
• The House passed its version of the reauthorization
bill, H.R. 1350 on 4/30/03. Some expect the vote on
the Senate bill (S.1350) to come in April 2004.
• Some say members support delaying action until
after this fall’s presidential election.
• The current House and Senate proposals differ
significantly on a number of issues including
discipline, conflict resolution, and funding.
Reauthorization of IDEA 2004
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Full Funding
Attorney Fees
Risk Pool
Monitoring and Enforcement
Dispute/Conflict Resolution
IEPs
Highly Qualified Staff
Alignment with NCLB
Pre-referral Activities
Barrier Beliefs
• Special Education Students should not be
expected to master state standards
• Special Education Students learn best in
special classes
• Children with severe disabilities need to be
treated differently/need to meet different
standards, using a different curriculum.
• Special Education Students take attention
away from other children in regular classes
and bring down test scores in a school
We must change our beliefs or our children will prove us wrong
CA IEP Task Force Priorities and
Recommendations 2003
1. Consistency across the state in the IEP
process
–
–
IEP Template and Process (Desire for one process; parent
and teacher friendly, computerized, focus on Ed. Benefit)
IEP Alternative Process (3 tiered approach prior to referral;
focus on educational benefit; services and case
coordination to reduce paperwork and focus on
instruction)
2. Additional time and money (focus on
instruction, not paperwork)
CA IEP Task Force Priorities and
Recommendations 2003
3. Coordination of services/agencies (policy
making recommendations to serve the more
complex student
4. Transition planning between school levels
and at the secondary level
5. Training for parents, teachers,
administrators, and other IEP team members
6. Accommodations and Modification in the
Classroom
What we need in the present
and for the future
• A revolution in thinking in general education
– All students means all
– Responsibility for instruction and progress is the
responsibility of the general education community
• A revolution in thinking in special education
– Access to and progress in the general curriculum is
the overall purpose of special education and
services
– Special education resources and personnel need to
be retrained in general education expectations and
to be reoriented to support regular education
personnel.
What we need in the present
and for the future
• FOCUS on one system for all students
• Expect ACADEMIC RESULTS…of the 3 R’s
and other core competencies;
• Expect MORE RESULTS that prepare each and
every student to graduate, be prepared for
independence, employment, citizenry, and
continuing education, if desired.
• MEASURE SUCCESS by student’s learning, not
by our activities
Mindy