NCLB and a Revised IDEA : Implications for School Psychologists

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

2. 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

3. 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 What is different

4. The number of students receiving special education services increased by just one percentfrom 1992-93 through 2002-03

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

6. Over half the students receiving special education services in 2002- 03 are identified as having a Specific Learning Disability (SLD)

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

9. 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.

10. Less than 21%21% thru 60%More than 60% Separate Facility

11. Percent of SE graduates among exiting 12th graders Graduating with Diploma 70 7.5 6.2 60 11.4 50 13.2 40 Other Percentage Diploma 58.8 58.7 30 51.6 37.6 20 10 0 2000 2001 2002 2003

12. 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

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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)

18. California Alternate Performance Assessment

19. Disability Categories Taking CAPA

20. Participation at Different CAPA Levels

22. SES and CAPA Proficiency

23. English Learners and CAPA Proficiency

24. Ethnicity and CAPA Proficiency

25. Gender and CAPA Proficiency

26. State AYP and CAPA Contribution

27. CAPA Administration Level II ELA

28. At or above the 50th percentile on the SAT-9 Math Grade 4 58 60 54 51 50 44 39 40 34 33 30 30 GE SE 22 20 17 10 0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

29. Proficient or Advanced on the CST Math Grade 4

30. At or above the 50th percentile on the SAT-9 ELA Grade 4

31. Proficient or Advanced on the CST ELA Grade 4 39 40 36 35 30 25 GE 20 SE 16 15 15 10 5 0 2002 2003

32. 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) How our work has changed

33. 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

34. 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

35. No Child Left BehindAct of 2001Emphasis 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)

36. 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

37. 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.

38. 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.

39. 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.

40. 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.

41. NCLB & IDEA Reauthorization Principles • Stronger Accountability for Results. • Simplify Paperwork for States and Communities and Increase. Flexibility for All. • Doing What Works. • Increase Choices and Meaningful Involvement for Parents Secretary Rod Paige Releases “PRINCIPLES FOR REAUTHORIZING INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT (IDEA)” Tuesday, January 25, 2003

42. NCLB & IDEA ReauthorizationSingle Accountability System

43. NCLB & IDEA ReauthorizationMonitoring & Enforcement

44. NCLB & IDEA ReauthorizationFunding

45. NCLB & IDEA ReauthorizationSimplify Paperwork

46. NCLB & IDEA ReauthorizationSimplify Paperwork & IEP

47. NCLB & IDEA ReauthorizationDoing What Works

48. NCLB & IDEA ReauthorizationDoing What Works

49. NCLB & IDEA ReauthorizationDoing What Works

50. NCLB & IDEA ReauthorizationHighly Qualified Staff