Presentation on theme: "NCLB and a Revised IDEA : Implications for School Psychologists An Invited Address: by Alice Parker Burlingame, California March 18th, 2004."— Presentation transcript:
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
In the last ten years, California’s special education population has grown faster than the national average
Over half the students receiving special education services in 2002- 03 are identified as having a Specific Learning Disability (SLD)
Among ethnic categories, African-American students are most likely to be identified for Special Education, Asian-American students are least likely
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.
Less than 21% 21% thru 60% More than 60% Separate Facility
37.6 13.2 51.6 11.4 58.8 6.2 58.7 7.5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Percentage 2000200120022003 Graduating with Diploma Other Diploma Percent of SE graduates among exiting 12 th graders
4.5 4.1 4 3.6 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 Year 2000200120022003 Percent SE Dropping out
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.
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)
At or above the 50 th percentile on the SAT-9 ELA Grade 4
Proficient or Advanced on the CST ELA Grade 4 36 16 39 15 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 20022003 GE SE
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
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
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.
The Commission believes that the approach to all high-incidence disabilities needs to shift from a failure model to a prevention model. PRESIDENT’S COMMISION ON EXCELLENCE IN SPECIAL EDUCATION: FINDINGS (cont.) 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 IDEA REAUTHORIZATION S. 1248 and H.R.1350 Effect on Students w/Disabilities Single Accountability System for all students to Meet State Standards All students assessed including students with 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 IDEA REAUTHORIZATION S. 1248 and H.R.1350 Effect on Students w/Disabilities Monitoring & Enforce- ment Sanctions required for schools and districts identified in Program Improvement and not meeting AYP and AMOs (results) H.R. 1350 Adds requirements for monitoring and enforcement to requirements for withholding and judicial review. Sets forth requirements for Federal monitoring, including required indicators for States' progress on improving educational results for children with disabilities, permitted indicators and priorities for part B and for part C, setting of additional priorities, standards for compliance, and penalties for noncompliance. unknown
NCLB & IDEA Reauthorization Funding NCLB of 2001 IDEA REAUTHORIZATION S. 1248 and H.R.1350 Effect on Students w/Disabilities Funding Original goals called for 40% funding Actually covers about 17% of nat’l average per-pupil expenditure of sp.ed. Coordination of NCLB & IDEA always possible S. 1248 Mandatory full funding; Handled through amendment; Allows districts 15% for Non-IDEA students; 2% set aside- Part B-create a risk pool for high cost students H.R. 1350 Simplify funding model; Discretionary 7 yr. path to reach 40%; Restore current funding level between 8-11% for administrative statewide activity 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.
NCLB & IDEA Reauthorization Simplify Paperwork NCLB of 2001 IDEA REAUTHORIZATION S. 1248 and H.R.1350 Effect on Students w/Disabilities Simplify paperwork silent 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 NCLB of 2001 IDEA REAUTHORIZATION S. 1248 and H.R.1350 Effect on Students w/Disabilities Simplify paperwork and the IEP 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 non- instructional tasks (maintain fundamental rights)
NCLB & IDEA Reauthorization Doing What Works NCLB of 2001 IDEA REAUTHORIZATION S. 1248 and H.R.1350 Effect on Students w/Disabilities Doing What Works Requires scientific research based practices esp. in Reading and Math Prof. Dev. And LEA plan must include effective practices for all subgroups H.R. 1350 proposes state professional development grants focus: state need & for establishing professional development programs regarding methods of early and appropriate identification of children with disabilities. Revises requirements for scientifically- based research, technical assistance, model demonstration programs, and personnel preparation programs. Establishes a National Center for Special Education Research to conduct research on improving special education and related services for children with 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 IDEA REAUTHORIZATION S. 1248 and H.R.1350 Effect on Students w/Disabilities Doing What Works Research Based approaches H.R. 1350 Focus on Early Intervention. 15% IDEA funds to early 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 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 IDEA REAUTHORIZATION S. 1248 and H.R.1350 Effect on Students w/Disabilities Doing What Works Reading First Program Research- based reading instruction in grades K-3 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 services. H.R. 1350 Require TA & training. for personnel working with children w/autism spectrum disorders 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.
NCLB & IDEA Reauthorization Highly Qualified Staff NCLB of 2001IDEA REAUTHORIZATION S. 1248 and H.R.1350 Effect on Students w/Disabilities Highly Qualified Staff Requires all teachers to be highly qualified in core competencies by 2005-2006 school year NCLB does not identify special education as a core academic subject 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 personnel- standards 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 2001IDEA REAUTHORIZATION S. 1248 and H.R.1350 Effect on Students w/Disabilities Highly Qualified Staff Emphasis on Teacher Quality Improving Teacher 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. Conforms IDEA with NCLB requirements relating to highly qualified 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 2001IDEA REAUTHORIZATION S. 1248 and H.R.1350 Affect on Students w/Disabilities 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 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 IDEA REAUTHORIZATION S. 1248 and H.R.1350 Effect on Students w/Disabilities Discipline for students with disabilities SilentH.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. 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 House- Senate 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