Making the new law a reality issues for implementing idea 2004 and the 2006 regulations
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 19

Making the New Law a Reality: Issues for Implementing IDEA 2004 and the 2006 Regulations PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 93 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Making the New Law a Reality: Issues for Implementing IDEA 2004 and the 2006 Regulations. Ann M. Alexander, Ph.D., J.D. Region 6 Technical Assistance Conference San Diego, California August 15, 2007.

Download Presentation

Making the New Law a Reality: Issues for Implementing IDEA 2004 and the 2006 Regulations

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Making the new law a reality issues for implementing idea 2004 and the 2006 regulations

Making the New Law a Reality: Issues for Implementing IDEA 2004 and the 2006 Regulations

Ann M. Alexander, Ph.D., J.D.

Region 6 Technical Assistance Conference

San Diego, California

August 15, 2007


What are the states doing and why are they doing it how do parent leaders support this work

What are the states doing, and why are they doing it?How do parent leaders support this work?

  • Revising rules, documents, policies

  • Expanding dispute resolution options

  • Supporting development of RTI systems

  • Supporting appropriate expansion of inclusive placements

  • Rethinking priorities


Revising rules documents policies

REVISING RULES, DOCUMENTS, POLICIES

  • biological vs. natural parent (300.30) and other definitions

  • consent, consequences for withholding (300.300); outside agencies in transition planning (300.321); Medicaid (300.154)

  • participation in resolution sessions, consequences for failures (300.510)

  • state complaints, required information, copy to state dept. of ed., opportunity for district to respond (300.151-153)

  • parent entitled to one IEE per public agency evaluation (300.502)

  • conforming rules required for funding eligibility


Expanding dispute resolution options

EXPANDING DISPUTE RESOLUTION OPTIONS

  • resolution sessions are now required in due process unless both parties agree to waive

  • districts can propose resolution of dispute in complaint investigations, or parties can agree to mediate

  • early resolution can promote positive relationships, preserve resources

  • districts agree to actions they could not be ordered to take

  • districts likely to resolve unless confident they will prevail in due process

    APR: states must report % of successful mediations and resolution sessions in APR


Supporting development of response to intervention systems

SUPPORTING DEVELOPMENT OF RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION SYSTEMS

  • RTI, any system for

    • providing scientific, research-based interventions based on a student’s academic/ behavior needs

    • measuring the student’s rate of learning (how fast) and level of learning (how much) over time to see whether the student responds

    • producing data that can be used to help determine whether a student has LD


Making the new law a reality issues for implementing idea 2004 and the 2006 regulations

  • states establish LD criteria; districts must use (300.307-311)

  • districts decide whether a student’s response to intervention will be used to determine LD (statutory authority)

  • “3-tier” models are prevalent, but not required:

    • universal screening

    • whole class interventions

    • student-specific, targeted interventions

    • moving toward special education referral decisions

    • “LD identification” models


Making the new law a reality issues for implementing idea 2004 and the 2006 regulations

  • other intervention models produce data without having a special education referral decision as the goal (though it can be an outcome)

  • “instructional consultation” is an example

    • teachers request assistance; contract with case manager; participate in curriculum-based assessment child; determine interventions; monitor progress

    • Improving instruction is goal

    • generates data that does measure rate of learning and level of learning -- useful in special education referral decisions


Making the new law a reality issues for implementing idea 2004 and the 2006 regulations

  • some kind of intervention system must be in place to satisfy eligibility criteria, regardless of approach used (RTI, discrepancy analysis, alternative)

    • controlling factor for eligibility cannot be lack of appropriate instruction in math or reading (300.306(b))

    • determination must be based on (300.309(b)):

      • data showing that prior to, or as part of, the referral process, the student was provided appropriate instruction in regular education settings, delivered by qualified personnel

      • data showing repeated formal assessments at reasonable intervals, reflecting student’s progress, provided to parents


Making the new law a reality issues for implementing idea 2004 and the 2006 regulations

  • If RTI is used, must describe (300.311) :

    • instructional strategies used

    • student-centered data collected

    • documentation that parents were notified

      • the state’s policies about the amount/nature of student performance data to be collected and the general education services to be provided

      • strategies for increasing rate of learning

      • parents’ right to request an evaluation

  • States are developing/disseminating policy statements

    • degree of specificity will vary


Making the new law a reality issues for implementing idea 2004 and the 2006 regulations

  • In addition to LD eligibility, what other reasons exist for supporting the development of RTI systems?

    • Research shows that intervening early with struggling learners:

      • improves instruction, student performance

      • reduces behavior problems

      • reduces disproportionality

    • May/may not lower LD identification rates

    • Increased performance may be difficult to discern in statewide assessments

      APR: states must report suspension/expulsion rates and disproportionality data in APR.


Supporting appropriate expansion of inclusive placements

SUPPORTING APPROPRIATE EXPANSION OF INCLUSIVE PLACEMENTS

  • Knowledge and skills in general curriculum is NCLB measure of success

  • Strategies to increase likelihood students will learn general curriculum

    • increase time spent in general education classrooms

    • align special education curriculum to general education curriculum

      APR: states must report graduation/dropout/

      assessment/outcome data in APR


Rethinking priorities

RETHINKING PRIORITIES

  • Influence of SPP/APR indicators

    “What gets measured, gets done.”

  • OSEP determinations of states’ status in meeting requirements of Part B (300.603)

  • Part B performance indicators -- graduation, dropout, assessment, suspension/expulsion, LRE, parent involvement, preschool and post-school outcomes, mediation and resolution success

  • actual performance against targets not addressed in OSEP determinations, but accurate/timely data are


Making the new law a reality issues for implementing idea 2004 and the 2006 regulations

  • Part B compliance indicators:

    • initial evaluation timelines

    • Part C to Part B transition – IEPs by 3rd Birthday

    • goals and transition services to support post-secondary goals (IEP in effect when student is 16)

    • no significant disproportionality that is the result of inappropriate identification/evaluation (in violation of Part B)

    • correction of all noncompliance within one year

    • complaint investigation and due process hearing timelines


Making the new law a reality issues for implementing idea 2004 and the 2006 regulations

  • Part B data indicator:

    • Timely and accurate data

    • SPP/APR indicator measurements are accurate and correct year of data is used

    • 618 data (child count, annual performance data)

  • OSEP Determinations:

  • Totality of state’s data in SPP/APR and other publicly available information

  • Whether state provided valid and reliable data that reflect measurement for each indicator

  • Whether state demonstrated compliance, or timely corrected noncompliance within one year (or progress over prior performance)

  • Whether state had other IDEA compliance issues identified previously through OSEP monitoring, audit or other activities


Making the new law a reality issues for implementing idea 2004 and the 2006 regulations

  • Meets Requirements

    • 95% compliance/correction within one year

    • timely and accurate data, or plan to obtain

    • no outstanding previous noncompliance/audit findings, etc.

    • Alaska, Hawaii, Oregon

  • Needs Assistance

    • 50-94% compliance/correction within one year

    • some data not timely/accurate, no plan

    • American Samoa, Guam, Marshall Islands, California, Idaho, Nevada


Making the new law a reality issues for implementing idea 2004 and the 2006 regulations

  • Needs Intervention

    • below 50% compliance/correction within one year

    • data not timely/accurate

    • outstanding previous noncompliance/audit findings, etc.

    • Washington, CNMI, FSM

  • Needs Substantial Intervention

    • substantial failure to comply which significantly affects “core requirements” such as delivery of services; or state informs OSEP it is unwilling to comply

    • none this year


Making the new law a reality issues for implementing idea 2004 and the 2006 regulations

  • States must make determinations for school districts (300.600(a))

  • Same categories must be used

  • Criteria can vary from federal criteria, but must include consideration of:

    • performance on compliance indicators

    • whether district data are valid, reliable, timely

    • uncorrected noncompliance from other sources

    • any audit findings

  • No timeline specified in law


Making the new law a reality issues for implementing idea 2004 and the 2006 regulations

  • Consequences

    • after two years of “needs assistance” one or more of following OSEP actions is required:

      • advise state of available TA

      • direct the use of state-level federal funds to areas needing assistance

      • require participation in TA activities

      • require review of data to ensure information is valid, reliable, submitted on timely basis

    • after two years of “needs intervention” OSEP can take any of the above actions, plus one or more of following is required:

      • require corrective action or improvement plan

      • require compliance agreement with OSEP

      • withhold funds; seek to recover funds; withhold further payments


Making the new law a reality issues for implementing idea 2004 and the 2006 regulations

How do parent leaders support this work?

  • Participate on task forces/committees

  • Provide leadership in Special Education Advisory Committees

  • Testify before boards/legislatures

  • Collaborate to design training/informational materials

  • Training -- arrange/participate in joint events

  • Disseminate information through newsletters

  • Continue to strengthen your own knowledge base


  • Login