Meeting the Challenges in NCLB: The Title 1 and IDEA Connection

1. Meeting the Challenges in NCLB: The Title 1 and IDEA Connection Joanne Cashman, Ed. D. Director, The IDEA Partnership at The National Association of State Directors of Special Education 1-877-IDEAINFo

2. Why Should We Be Looking for Connections Between IDEA and Title1? • Both serve students with the farthest to go to achieve on par with other age and grade peers • Both are transforming from separate systems to systems that are integrated with general education • Both have personnel that have been trained to deliver services in separate settings and must now deliver services in integrated settings • Both have major roles in helping building staff to achieve AYP goals • The timelines under NCLB are short and the consequences are significant!

3. The Title 1/IDEA Collaborative : A Real World Example of Community Building in Process In the Beginning…. • There was an issue for which no one was expert and many had interest • There was an idea that we could discover new opportunities by recognizing the real and the imagined barriers • There was a belief that federal agencies had a lot to gain from working with states and stakeholders and would be partners in the work

4. Could Communities of Practice Fill Unmet Needs? A way of working • Involving those who do shared work • Involving those that share issues • Always asking “who isn’t here?” A way of learning • To create new knowledge grounded in ‘doing the work’ • With those who can advocate for and make change

5. Building the Cross-State, Cross-Stakeholder Collaborative • Affiliation • State Affiliation • Stakeholder Affiliation • Agency Affiliation • Organizational Affiliation • Strategies • Face-to-Face Meetings • Communication calls and email • Invitations to representatives of the group with report back • ‘Real work’ with the agencies • Sharing across states and stakeholders • Defining special interests within the bigger issue

6. The Progress to Date • Participation • 2001 – 6 States, OSEP, Comp. Ed and IG, NASDSE and CCSSO, RRCs, Comp. Centers, Labs • 2002 – 9 states, OSEP, Comp Ed., IG, NASDSE, CCSSO and NASTID, RRCs, Comp. Centers, Labs • 2003 – 15 states, DC, OSEP, SASA Office of OESE, NASDSE, CCSSO, NASTID, RRCs, Comp Centers, Labs • 2004 – 18 states, DC, American Samoa, OSEP, SASA Office of OESE, NASDSE, CCSSO, NASTID, RRCs, Comp Centers, Labs • Directors of OSEP and Title 1 engaged and encouraged the states at each meeting • Action • Individual consultation with OSEP and SASA Office to ‘grow’ pilots • OSEP issued a “Dear Colleague Letter’ encouraging states to pursue the work in 2001

7. Cross-stakeholder Interest • IG Office sponsored a session in the Audit Strand of the National Title 1 Meeting in 2003 • Comp Centers have featured the work in their annual meetings for the last three years • RRCs , Labs and Comprehensive Centers regularly participate and active engaged partners. • National organizations attended the 2004 meeting • National Recognition and Impact • Three of the Community members were selected to serve on the Negotiated Rulemaking for Title 1 and advocated for the IDEA/Title issues throughout • OSEP presented the Title 1/IDEA Community as the one of the first examples of cross-state learning communities during the Monitoring Academies in 2003 and cited the Community again in a ‘Dear Colleague’ letter inviting states to join in cross-state learning

8. The Work in the States Over the years, state efforts have included: • Clear communication of the intent to collaborate • Outreach to new partners • Invitations to families as stakeholders • Cross-training of staff across agencies • Statewide meetings • Pilot sites • Coordinated planning and monitoring • Legislative initiatives to remove barriers • Other……

9. What Reasons Did New States Give for Participating? • Efficiency and effectiveness of collaboration planning and monitoring • New demands of NCLB • NCLB requirements for ‘highly qualified teachers’ and ‘AYP’ • Make planning and program design more meaningful for teachers • Desire for compatibility…reduced chance of incompatibility • Desire to move beyond discussion • Move from a ‘desire to collaborate’ to ‘collaborating’

10. What Special Interests Have EmergedWithin the Community? • Intersection of IDEA and NCLB • Helping schools in ‘School Improvement’, especially schools with subgroup issues. • Coordinated planning and monitoring • Personnel issues and ongoing professional development • Family engagement and opportunities for ‘real’ participation • ‘Blending’ and ‘braiding’ funds • Starting pilot sites with the full participation of the federal agencies • Other….

11. Environments Interpersonal Intragency Interagency Levels of Scale Federal State Local Site Individual Bridging Policy to Practice

12. FEDERAL STATE LOCAL SITE INDIVIDUAL Learning Loops Built Through Community

13. Local-to-Local State-to-Local Local-to-State State-to-State Cross-state to Federal Local and State to Federal Federal to Local and State Learning as a Community Focus

14. Informational Communities: Shaping and spreading effective practice Sharing Supporting Learning what works Often organized at the same level, same role, or same site Creating new knowledge across organizational boundaries NASDSE, 2005 Transformational Communities: Reframing policy, research and practice Learning how to move from ‘knowing’ to ‘doing’ Translating learnings to policy Encouraging investments that will move the work Most often cross-organization, cross-role, cross-site Recognizing the value of all the contributions to a more complete and effective approach Creating new relationships between policymakers, researchers and implementers Communities as a National TA Strategy

15. “Coming together is a beginning; keeping together is progress; working together is success.”Henry Ford

16. Community Renewal: A New Opportunity • Community Renewal • Changes in state staff /state teams • New interest in NCLB connections • Continue work with states that want to transform systems • Continue to outreach to states that want information and connections • Two levels: Informational, Transformational • State Meetings • Planning Tool • Small Planning Grant to States already participating in the Community • Other states invited to use the tool and join the community • National Meeting • Built on outcomes of state meetings • State team time, cross-state time, time with national officials • Brokering Connections and Ongoing Support

17. Timelines for the Community Renewal • February 7 – Tool out to states that have participated in the community. • February 10 – Tool out to all states • March 11 – States indicate intent to hold a state meeting and join the renewed Community; indicate need for support in conducting a state meeting • June 2 (or before)– States share the results of the state planning meeting with for synthesis and planning the cross-state community meeting • June –Call with states that will attend the cross-state community meeting • July – August (open for suggestions) – Community Renewal Meeting in DC • September and forward – routine and ongoing communication, quarterly web-enhanced seminars, community dialogue calls, other as requested by state teams

18. Whether or not you choose to join the Community, please feel free to use the Planning Tool and give us feedback. Thanks so much for the opportunity to share!