On Special Education

Your guide to special education news at the local, state, and national levels

Education Week reporter Christina A. Samuels tracks news and trends of interest to the special education community, including administrators, teachers, and parents. Former Education Week special education reporter Lisa Fine is guest-blogging while Christina is on leave for the 2009-10 academic year.

Main

July 24, 2009

"Scaling Up" Good Programs

There are more than a few pockets of excellence within the field of special education; I know, because I've had a chance to cover them. But within the profession, there's frustration: If we have all these evidence-based, successful programs that help develop literacy or promote good behavior in schools, why isn't everyone using them?

Growing successful programs offers some special challenges, says Dean L. Fixsen, a principal director of State Implementation and Scaling-Up of Evidence Based Practices. In a conversation, he likened it to a medical vaccine: Without the equipment to inoculate children, and a medical establishment that can inoculate lots of children all over the country, a vaccine does little good.

Fixsen also gave a presentation of his work at the 2009 OSEP Project Directors' Conference. His center, which has been working with Illinois, Missouri, Minnesota, and Oregon since September 2008, is trying to help develop that establishment that can incubate and spread good ideas. The center intentionally picked states that have already made an investment in evidence-based practices; starting from scratch offers a different set of challenges.

Among the practices states are trying to spread are the use of positive behavior supports and interventions, dropout-prevention programs, literacy and response to intervention.

It's important to create teams of engaged, "overqualified" people, Fixsen said, so that a promising practice doesn't die on the vine when its primary cheerleader leaves a school or district. And school teams also have to push past the awkwardness of trying a new practice while still working within the old system. "It's very easy to slip back into the old ways," he said.

The states that Fixsen and the SISEP team is working with are eager to get started, because they've already had some experience trying to grow their own programs. "They know the cost of going down the wrong path," he said.

June 17, 2009

Holding on to Local Special Education Directors

If you're a local special education director reading this post, you probably feel burned out on compliance, litigation, and data-collection efforts. You may be shouldering duties that don't have much to do with special education, like administering your district's McKinney-Vento program for homeless children. You may not feel like you have support from your school board, and you may feel the lack of proper administrative support as well.

Those are some of the reasons local special education directors are leaving their positions, according a survey conducted by the busy folks at Project Forum, a center created by a partnership between the U.S. Department of Education and the National Association of State Directors of Special Education. (You'll have to fill out a short survey to download the free document.)

The first thing to note with this survey, "Retention and Attrition of Local Special Education Directors," is that it does not directly ask local special education directors why they are leaving, or what might help them stay. The survey asked state directors of special education what they felt the pressures were on their colleagues at the local level. That degree of separation may affected the results, depending on how plugged-in any individual state director is with what's happening at a local level.

But the results themselves aren't terribly surprising: 20 out of 38 state directors who responded to the survey say that it's hard to retain good people. Districts and states are choosing to address this issue through mentorship programs and professional development, among other strategies.

These survey also offered some less-used "softer" strategies, like "acknowledging what difficult jobs [local special education directors] have and tell them how much their work is appreciated" or "highlight accomplishments of [local education agencies, or school districts] through statewide announcements and recognition programs."

I'd love to know if state officials are on the right track in understanding what district special education directors want and need.

June 12, 2009

D.C. to Lose Some Special Education Funding

The District of Columbia has become the first jurisdiction to have a portion of its federal special education funding withheld because it is not meeting the "State Performance Plan" process created in the 2004 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

According to a June 1 letter from the U.S. Department of Education, 20 percent of its federal fiscal year 2009 funding will be withdrawn. That's equivalent to about $3,396,000, based on the budget tables found here that say the city was going to receive a little less than $17 million in federal special education funds this year.

Ruth Ryder, the Director of the Division of Monitoring and State Improvement Planning in Education Department's Office of Special Education Programs, corrects me on this point. In an email, she said, "It is not 20 percent of its Federal fiscal year 2009 funds that are being withheld but rather, as stated in the letter to D.C., "20 percent of D.C.'s FFY 2009 funds reserved for State-level activities under section 611(e) of the IDEA..." This amounts to about $480,000." D.C. is losing part of the funds it would use for administrative activities, not money that goes directly to providing services to students.

(The blog IDEA Moneywatch is following this issue, and notes that despite D.C.'s penalty, it's still slated to receive more than $16 million in stimulus funds.)

The act requires that states monitor certain educational outcomes in their districts for students with disabilities, and submit "annual performance reports" to the federal government. There are 20 different "indicator areas" (pdf) that states must calculate for students covered under Part B of the law, which applies to young people ages 3 through 21. An additional 14 indicators (pdf) must be submitted for infants and toddlers with disabilities, who are funded under part C of the law.

After the states and jurisdictions submit their information, they get a "grade" from the department: meets requirements, needs assistance, needs intervention, or needs substantial intervention. The information is always a little bit behind real time, so the ratings that states are receiving now are based on data from the 2007-08 school year. The rating letters for all the states can be found here.

States and jurisdictions that receive three "needs intervention" ratings in a row face certain penalties, up to the loss of 20 to 50 percent of their federal funding that is "reserved for State-level activities."

The full letter for D.C. is here, and it details some rather extensive problems, generally related to the 45,000-student district's inability to provide valid and reliable data for several indicator areas.

From the letter:

Given the nature of the noncompliance noted in this letter and that D.C. has had Special Conditions placed on its grant award under Part B of the IDEA since 2001, the Department has concluded that D.C. would be unable to correct its problems in one year. D.C. previously entered into a compliance agreement with the Department under the IDEA from 1998-2001, and it did not result in compliance. We therefore feel compelled to take a more serious enforcement action based on the magnitude of the noncompliance with the requirements of Part B of the IDEA and the length of that noncompliance.

The District of Columbia does have the option of appealing this decision. But, given the dysfunction within city's special education system, it might be difficult for it to convince the department that it can come into substantial compliance any time soon. It has made progress in some areas, but long-standing problems remain in the system's ability to evaluate students in a timely fashion and provide services after evaluation.

D.C. is not the only jurisdiction to get a "needs intervention" rating three years in a row. Colorado and Indiana did as well. However, both those states are being asked to submit corrective action plans within 60 days because the department believes their problems can be addressed in a year.

June 8, 2009

In Virginia, "Portfolio" Testing on the Rise

The Washington Post's story today about alternate assessments for students with disabilities provided an interesting behind-the-scenes look into how these tests are graded.

The story also indicates that such portfolios are becoming more commonplace, at least in Virginia:

In Northern Virginia, portfolio testing has expanded significantly over two years. About 8,600 math and reading portfolios were compiled in Fairfax this school year, up from 5,900 in 2007-08 and 600 in 2006-07. Similar trends are playing out in Arlington and in Prince William and Loudoun counties.


Pass rates have increased in part because school systems have grown more comfortable compiling portfolios. Last school year, 94 percent of Fairfax students evaluated through portfolios passed in reading, and 84 percent passed in math, up from 79 percent and 70 percent, respectively, in 2006-07. Statewide, 87 percent of such students passed in reading and math last school year, up from 81 percent and 84 percent the year before.

The article, however, didn't delve into the debate over whether portfolios are a valid measure of a student's academic skills. Project Forum, a collaboration between the National Association of State Directors of Special Education and the federal government, has recently released a document that explores the implementation of alternate assessments nationwide. You can find that document, "The Alternate Assessment Based on Modified Achievement Standards: An Initial Review of State Implementation," by clicking on the appropriate link on this page.

June 2, 2009

Arizona Voucher Program Resurrected as Tax-Credit Scholarships

In March, the Arizona Supreme Court deemed unconstitutional a state program that provided private school vouchers to students with disabilities and students in foster care.

The court said that the program ran counter to the state constitution's prohibition on spending tax dollars on private education. The state was providing vouchers to 473 students at the time of the decision. They were allowed to finish the school year, but their future enrollment was up in the air.

But the state legislature recently passed a change to the program designed to get around that prohibition.

From a story in the Arizona Republic:

The solution, lawmakers decided, was to expand the state's school-tuition organization program, which grants a dollar-for-dollar credit against a corporation's tax obligation if the business donates to a private-school fund.

The state can't make direct cash payments to parents, the court determined. This program is different. Certain businesses in the state are allowed to pay into a pool of money used to pay tuition. In return, those businesses get to reduce their state income taxes.

Because that tuition pool isn't officially state money, backers presumed that it would not face the some legal issues as regular vouchers. (This article explains the idea more fully.)

Gov. Jan Brewer signed the new program into law, and it will go into effect Aug. 25.

May 29, 2009

Congressional Researchers Weigh In on Special Education Case Law

Many of you may already be familiar with the Government Accountability Office, the congressional "watchdog" agency that recently released a report on restraints and seclusion.

Less well-known is the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, which communicates directly with Congress. Though funded with taxpayer dollars, that office's reports are not made available to the public in the same way that GAO reports are. To get them, you have to request them from your congressional office—assuming that you know what report to ask for, because there is no centralized list of all the CRS reports that are available unless you're willing to pay a hefty fee to agencies that compile this information.

Jim Gerl, the writer of the Special Education Law Blog, mentioned in a recent post that the CRS issued reports recently on important court decisions that have been made since the reauthorization of IDEA in 2004. The report addresses issues such as:

  • What amount of educational progress is required to meet FAPE standards?
  • What educational benefits are required to be put in an individualized education program (IEP)?
  • What use of seclusion and restraints is allowed (if any) under IDEA?
  • Are all settlement agreements enforceable in federal court or only those reached through dispute resolution or mediation?
  • Does the Supreme Court’s decision in Arlington Central School District v. Murphy (pdf) correctly deny reimbursement for expert witness fees?
  • Does there need to be more detailed guidance on systemic compliance complaints?


This 25-page, April 14 report, "The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA): Supreme Court and Selected Lower Court Decisions," is on the Web site of the National School Boards Association here (scroll down to the appropriate link, which is a PDF file.) The NSBA page also includes a link to an April 14 CRS report on the topic of seclusion and restraints.

The case law report is particularly interesting because it includes many lower-court rulings, not just the Supreme Court cases that tend to get the most media attention. And, as the NSBA notes, the questions raised in the report could indicate future areas of interest for legislation. IDEA reauthorization may be a long way off, but that doesn't mean congressional staffers aren't already pondering the issues.

I thank NSBA for its commitment to transparency; these reports are not classified, and we as taxpayers have already paid for them. Apparently CRS takes very seriously its role to serve Congress only, but Congress also serves us, even if not all lawmakers believe these reports should be widely released.

Some other organizations exist to collect CRS reports that have been provided to them by others who believe the information should be in the public domain. If you search for IDEA or "disabilities" at Open CRS or WikiLeaks, you can find older CRS reports compiled there.

February 12, 2009

Pennsylvania Special Education Underfunded, Study Says

Interesting story out of the Keystone State:

Most school districts in Pennsylvania are not spending enough to meet the basic needs of special education students, according to a new study.

The study found that 391 of the state's 501 school districts are spending less than a basic adequacy level on special education. Combined, that amounts to a shortfall of $380 million annually or $1,947 per special education student.


The story can be found here. The 48-page study can be found here. (pdf)

The firm that produced this report noted that Pennsylvania's funding formula for schools is the source of this inequity. It makes me wonder how, or whether, stimulus money can address these inequities. If money is parceled out based on the same formulas that exist now, will we just be preserving the same problems?

December 11, 2008

Ohio Special Education Voucher Program Defeated

A voucher program that would have given up to $20,000 a year to Ohio special education students to help pay for private school tuition failed in the state's House of Representatives yesterday -- its second, and possibly last, defeat.

Gov. Ted Strickland, a Democrat, vetoed a similar expansion bill that made it to his desk last year. But the measure was reintroduced as Senate Bill 57, passed the Ohio Senate in May on a party-line vote of 17 to 15, and was brought to the House on Wednesday. There, the vote was 49 to 44 for the measure. However, to pass, the bill would have required 50 lawmakers to support it.

Ohio already has a voucher program specifically for children diagnosed with autism. This bill would have expanded the program to children with other kinds of disabilities.

One Republican legislator, Rep. W.Scott Oelslager, crossed party lines to vote against the bill. The Democrats in the House were uniform in their opposition.

The bill would have provided for a five-year pilot program for up to 7,500 students in special education, which is equal to about three percent of the state's 250,000-student special-education enrollment, according to an article on the measure published earlier this year in The Columbus Dispatch.

Sen. Kevin Coughlin, a Republican and the bill's sponsor, is term-limited and will be leaving office in 2010. Also, after the recent elections, the new makeup of Ohio House will tilt to the Democrats, with 53 Democrats and 46 Republicans. That makes it less likely that a similar bill will find 50 House members to support it.

Other voucher programs for students with disabilities currently exist in Florida and Utah. A voucher program for students with disabilities in Arizona is currently tied up in legal challenges and is being heard by the state Supreme Court.

November 26, 2008

Keeping Track of Autism Legislation

The National Conference of State Legislatures has created a great database for those who would like to keep tabs on autism legislation nationwide. The developmental disorder has garned attention from lawmakers around the country, who have introduced a number of bills designed to provide more early intervention and educational opportunities for children.

You can access the autism legislation database here. An overview of state and federal efforts related to autism is located here.

November 14, 2008

Washington State Sued Over Special Education Services in Religious Schools

A group of parents who have children in a Christian school are suing the state of Washington because it won't provide special education services to their children at the school; instead, the children have to leave campus.

In the article
, a lawyer representing the families says that the policy represents religious discrimination. The state attorney general's office responded that services are provided off-campus to parochial school students because state law bars the use of public funds for religious institutions.

Some may not know that local school districts are responsible for devoting a portion of their special education funding to students who are enrolled in private schools. I wrote an article about this in 2005, soon after the Individuals with Disabilities Act changed the law related to this responsibility.

Districts once were responsible for children who lived within the district's boundaries and attended private school, even if the private school itself was located outside of the district's boundaries. After the reauthorization, districts become responsible for students who attend private schools located within their boundaries, no matter where those students actually live.

In my 2005 article, I profiled a program for students with disabilities at a Catholic school in Northern Virginia. I didn't get into the issue of where the children actually received their services in my article, but it seems like they were going to their "base" public school to get them.

The U.S. Department of Education has created a document (pdf) outlining the rules and regulations that govern special education for private school students. In the document, the feds say "services may be provided on the premises of private, including religious, elementary and secondary schools, to the extent consistent with state and federal laws."

One way other states may have evaded controversies of this sort is by requiring students at any private school, whether secular or religious, to return to their base school for services. The other option, perhaps more expensive, is to make on-campus services available to all private school students. But creating a distinction between private school students at religious schools and those at secular schools may be the sticking point here.

September 22, 2008

Virginia Spec. Ed. Proposals Shelved

In April, I blogged about a proposed plan in Virginia to change regulations on special education so that parents would not have to be notified before a student's special education services were terminated.

At the time, I said that I didn't think the plan was going to go far, which didn't require much insight on my part: Gov. Tim Kaine had already said he was against any such change. And now, the changes have been officially ruled out.

The proposed rules changes drew 77,000 comments--the most ever for a rules change, according to a state official.

fineheadshot.jpg

Lisa Fine
E-mail me.


Get RSS

Get On Special Education delivered by e-mail. Enter your e-mail here:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Advertisement

<
EW Archive