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

1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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.

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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