NCLB and a Revised IDEA : Implications for School Psychologists An Invited Address: by Alice Parker Burlingame, California March 18th, 2004

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

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

7,000,000

En

rollm

ent

in M

illio

ns

1992-93 1994-95 1996-97 1998-99 2000-01 2002-03

Not SE SE 5-21

The number of students receiving special education services increased by just one percent

from 1992-93 through 2002-03

0.0010.0020.0030.0040.0050.0060.0070.0080.0090.00

100.00

Florid

a

Texas

New York

Californ

ia

US as

a whole

Illin

oisOhio

Pennsy

lvan

ia

Percent Increase in Special Education

In the last ten years, California’s special education population has grown faster than

the national average

SLD51%

SLI2.55%

MR6.4%

OHI4.2%

ED4.2%

AUT3.1%

DEAF.007%

TBI.002%

DB0%

VI.007%

MD1% HH

1% OI2.2%

DB TBI DEAF VI MD HH OI AUT ED OHI MR SLI SLD

Over half the students receiving special education services in 2002- 03 are identified as having a Specific

Learning Disability (SLD)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Percentage

Asian

All Other

Hispanic

Total

White

African American

Among ethnic categories, African-American students are most likely to be identified for Special Education,

Asian-American students are least likely

Ethnic Groups in Special Education

0

5

10

15

20

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Perce

ntage

African American White Total Hispanic All Other 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.

89-90 99-00 89-90 99-00 89-90 99-00 89-90 99-00Texas 5.18 28.24 68.19 52.04 22.60 17.95 4.03 1.77Florida 30.89 49.79 35.44 26.25 27.81 21.99 5.85 1.97

California 25.54 49.44 42.88 20.19 26.49 26.84 5.09 3.53Pennsylvania 35.02 35.78 28.90 32.81 30.48 27.71 5.59 3.70US as a whole 31.46 47.32 37.54 28.32 24.92 20.29 6.08 4.07Ohio 35.21 64.84 22.75 24.94 29.67 5.23 12.36 4.99Illinois 26.16 37.34 34.42 28.03 31.24 28.41 8.17 6.22New York 6.87 47.62 36.93 13.16 43.58 30.73 12.62 8.49

Separate FacilityState

Percentage of Students 6-21 Served in Different Educational Settings

Less than 21% 21 thru 60% More than 60%Percent of Time Outside Regular Class

25.54

49.44

42.88

20.19

26.49 26.84

5.093.53

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

40.00

45.00

50.00

Percent

89-90 99-00 89-90 99-00 89-90 99-00 89-90 99-00Year

Time Out of Regular Class

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

2000 2001 2002 2003

Graduating with Diploma

OtherDiploma

Percent of SE graduates among exiting 12th graders

4.5

4.1 4

3.6

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Year

2000 2001 2002 2003

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.

Texas 23.95 10.79 13.16

California 47.33 15.03 32.30Pennsylvania 16.96 18.63 -1.67Ohio 19.53 22.88 -3.35US as a whole 34.45 29.39 5.06Florida 34.85 35.14 -0.29New York 36.06 36.36 -0.30Illinois 34.66 38.49 -3.83

State 1993-94 1999-00 Decrease

Percent Age 14 and Older Dropping Out (All Disabilities)

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.

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

40.00

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

QuickTime™ and aCinepak decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

CAPA Administration Level IIELA

At or above the 50th percentile on the SAT-9 Math Grade 4

39

17

44

22

51

30

54

33

58

34

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

GE

SE

37

18

45

20

0

10

20

30

40

50

2002 2003GE SE

Proficient or Advanced on the CST Math Grade 4

40

17

41

21

45

26

47

28

49

28

0

10

20

30

40

50

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

GE

SE

At or above the 50th 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

2002 2003

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 BehindAct 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.


FINDINGS


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.


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.


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 ReauthorizationSingle 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 ReauthorizationMonitoring & Enforcement

NCLB of 2001


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 ReauthorizationFunding

NCLB of 2001


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 ReauthorizationSimplify Paperwork

NCLB of 2001


S. 1248 and H.R.1350


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 ReauthorizationSimplify Paperwork & IEP

NCLB of

2001


S. 1248 and H.R.1350


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 ReauthorizationDoing What Works

NCLB of 2001


S. 1248 and H.R.1350

Effect on Students

w/Disabilities

DoingWhat 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 ReauthorizationDoing What Works

NCLB of 2001


S. 1248 and H.R.1350

Effect on Students

w/Disabilities

DoingWhat 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


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 ReauthorizationHighly Qualified Staff

NCLB of 2001 IDEA 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


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 ReauthorizationChoice, Parent Involvement


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 ReauthorizationDiscipline

NCLB of 2001


S. 1248 and H.R.1350

Effect on Students

w/Disabilities

Discipline for students with disabilities

Silent 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.

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

Mindy

Documents

NCLB and a Revised IDEA : Implications for School Psychologists An Invited Address: by Alice Parker Burlingame, California March 18th, 2004