Office of Special Education Programs U'S' Department of Education

1
Office of Special Education ProgramsU.S.
Department of Education
2
Educating Students with Disabilities

• Stephanie Lee, Director
• Office of Special Education Programs
• U.S. Department of Education
• Presentation for
• Western Knight Center
• for Specialized Journalism
• University of Southern California
• February 21, 2003

3
Todays Discussion

• OSEPs Roles and Responsibilities
• Brief History
• Progress and Challenges
• NCLB and Children with Disabilities
• Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA)
  Reauthorization
• Key Issues

4
The Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP)

• Is dedicated to improving results for infants,
  toddlers, children and youth with disabilities
  ages birth through 21
• Ensures the effective implementation of the IDEA
• Advises the Asst. Secretary on policy related to
  individuals with disabilities

5
Monitoring and State Improvement Planning Division

• Carries out activities related to Parts B and C
  of the IDEA
• Monitors OSEPs formula grant program to ensure
  that States and other public agencies implement
  programs designed to improve results for children
  with disabilities

6
Research to Practice Division

• Carries out activities related to Part D of the
  IDEA
• Supports the development, dissemination and
  utilization of effective services and programs
  through
• Research
• Personnel Preparation
• Parent Training and Information
• Technical Assistance and Dissemination
• Technology and Media Services

7
IDEA Authorizations

• Part B Grants to states to serve children with
  disabilities, 3-21 years
• Part C Funds to assist States in implementing
  early intervention services for children with
  disabilities birth through 2 years
• Part D Discretionary grants to institutions of
  higher education and other nonprofit
  organizations to improve result for students with
  disabilities

8
Before the IDEA

• One in five children with disabilities was
  educated
• More than 1 million children with disabilities
  were excluded from the education system
• Another 3.5 million children with disabilities
  did not receive appropriate services

9
Foundations of the IDEA

• Supreme Court Cases
• PARC vs. Commonwealth (1971)
• Mills vs. Board of Education of DC (1972)
• Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment

10
Public Law 94-142

• P.L. 94-142 The Education for All Handicapped
  Children Act (1975)
• Subsequent reauthorizations included
• Services from birth
• Preschool services
• Transition services

11
Purposes of the IDEA

• To ensure that all children with disabilities
  have available to them a free appropriate public
  education (FAPE)
• To ensure that the rights of children and their
  parents are protected
• Assist States, localities, educational service
  agencies, and Federal agencies to provide for the
  education of children with disabilities

12
Purposes of the IDEA (cont.)

• To assist state in implementing early
  intervention services for infants and toddlers
  with disabilities and their families
• To ensure that educators and parents have the
  tools to improve results for children with
  disabilities
• To assess, and ensure the effectiveness of,
  efforts to educate children with disabilities

13
The Individualized Education Program (IEP)

• The childs present level of educational
  performance
• How the disability affects involvement in the
  general curriculum
• Measurable annual goals, including benchmarks or
  short-term objectives
• Related services and other supports

14
Least Restrictive Environment (LRE)

• To the maximum extent appropriate, children with
  disabilities, including children in public or
  private institutions or other care facilities,
  are educated with children who are not disabled
• 20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(5)

15
The IDEA and Accompanying Regulations

• Available online at
• http//www.ed.gov/offices/
• OSERS/OSEP/Policy/

16
Impact of the IDEA

• Numbers Served 6.5 million
• Inclusion in Regular Classrooms 75 spend at
  least 40 of their day in regular classrooms
• Services for Children 0 to 3 Increased more
  than 6 fold in the past 25 years

17
Impact of the IDEA (cont.)

• Increased Participation in Standardized Testing
• High School Graduation Rates Increased from
  51.9 in 1994 to 57.4 in 1999.
• Increased College Enrollment In 1978, under 3
  of college freshman reported they had a
  disability, while in 1998, the figure was 9

18
Impact of the IDEA (cont.)

• Higher Employment Rates
• The Special Education Teaching Force More than
  doubled
• Parent Involvement More than 85 of parents are
  involved in planning their childs services and
  making educational decisions.

19
Challenges

• High school graduation rates are insufficient
• Post-secondary enrollment and completion rates
  are low compared with peers
• Unemployment rates are high

20
The IDEA Amendments of 1997Focus on
Accountability for Results

• State Performance Goals and Indicators Consistent
  with Goals and Standards for All Children.
• Access to, Participation in, and Progress in the
  General Curriculum
• Inclusion in State and District Assessments
• Alternate Assessments

21
OSEPs Efforts to Increase Accountability

• Continuous Improvement Monitoring Process
• Part D Investments

22
Continuous Improvement Monitoring Process
Focus on Results

• Self-Assessments
• Stakeholder Steering Committee
• Improvement Plans
• Focused Monitoring
• www.ed.gov/offices/OSERS/OSEP/
• Monitoring/

23
Role of Part D in Improving Results
Knowledge Implementation Evaluation
Knowledge Production
Knowledge Transfer Utilization
24
Examples of Part D Investments to Improve Results

• National Center on Educational Outcomes
• www.coled.umn.edu/nceo/
• Center on Accessing the General Curriculum
• www.cast.org/ncac/
• National Center on Monitoring and Evidence-Based
  Decision-Making (awarded 10/02)
• Directory of OSEP Grants and Contracts
• www.ericec.org/OSEP/search.html

25
Examples of Part D Investments to Improve
Outcomes (cont.)

• National Studies and Evaluations
• National Early Intervention Longitudinal Study
  (NEILS)
• Pre-Elementary Education Longitudinal Study
  (PEELS)
• Special Education Elementary Longitudinal Study
  (SEELS)
• National Longitudinal Transition Study 2
  (NLTS-2)

26
Examples of Part D Investments to Improve
Outcomes (cont.)

• National Studies and Evaluations
• Special Education Expenditure Study (SEEP)
• Study of Personnel Needs in Special Education
  (SPeNSE)
• State and Local Implementation of IDEA (SLIIDEA)
• www.ed.gov/offices/OSERS/OSEP/Studies/

27
IDEA Reauthorization

• Opportunities Provided by NCLB
• Build on NCLB Framework

28
The No Child Left Behind Act

• On January 8, 2002, President Bush signed into
  law the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)
• Most sweeping reform of the Elementary and
  Secondary Education Act since its enactment in
  1965
• Redefines the federal role in K-12 education

29
The No Child Left Behind Act

• On January 8, 2002, President Bush signed into
  law the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) (contd)
• Requires accountability for all children,
  including student groups based on poverty, race
  and ethnicity, disability and limited English
  proficiency (LEP)
• Will help close the achievement gap between
  disadvantaged, disabled and minority students and
  their peers

30
The No Child Left Behind Act

• Based on Four Principles
• Stronger accountability for results
• Increased flexibility and local control
• Expanded options for parents
• Focusing on what works

31
The No Child Left Behind Act Stronger
Accountability for Results

• States must implement statewide accountability
  systems covering all public schools and students
  based on
• Challenging State standards in reading and math
  (science in 2005-2006)
• Annual testing for all students in grades 3-8 and
  at least once in grades 10-12
• Annual statewide progress objectives ensuring
  that all groups of students reach proficiency
  within 12 years

32
The No Child Left Behind Act Stronger
Accountability for Results

• Assessment results and State progress objectives
  must be broken out (disaggregated) by poverty,
  race/ethnicity, disability and limited English
  proficiency

33
The No Child Left Behind Act Stronger
Accountability for Results

• Assessments must provide accommodations for
  students with disabilities as defined in the
  Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
  (IDEA)
• NCLB regulations require that assessments be
  accessible and valid with the widest possible
  range of students

34
The No Child Left Behind Act Stronger
Accountability for Results

• NCLB requires each State to develop grade-level
  academic content and achievement standards that
  it expects all students, including students with
  disabilities, to meet.

35
The No Child Left Behind Act Stronger
Accountability for Results

• Alternate Assessments
• IEP team determines if child cannot participate
  in all or part of the State assessments, even
  with accommodations.
• If a child cannot participate in the State
  assessments, even with accommodations, the State
  must provide for one or more alternate
  assessments for a child with a disability

36
The No Child Left Behind Act Stronger
Accountability for Results

• Alternate Assessments (contd)
• Alternate assessment must yield results for the
  grade in which the student is enrolled
• Secretary believes the policy may need further
  clarification

37
The No Child Left Behind Act Stronger
Accountability for Results

• School districts and schools that fail to make
  adequate yearly progress (AYP) toward statewide
  proficiency goals will, over time, be subject to
  improvement, corrective action, and restructuring
  measures
• Improvement measures include among others
• Technical Assistance
• Public School Choice
• Supplemental Educational Services

38
The No Child Left Behind Act Stronger
Accountability for Results

• Technical Assistance
• States and school districts must provide
  technical assistance to schools identified for
  school improvement, corrective action, or
  restructuring.

39
The No Child Left Behind ActExpanded Options for
Parents

• Public School Choice
• Parents with children in schools that fail to
  meet state standards for at least two consecutive
  years may transfer their children to a better
  performing public school, including a public
  charter school, within their district.

40
The No Child Left Behind Act Expanded Options
for Parents

• Public School Choice and
• Students with Disabilities
• Public school choice option must provide FAPE
• Change in the location of delivery of services
  does not equate to change of placement under IDEA
• School choice options do not have to be same
  choices for nondisabled students

41
The No Child Left Behind Act Expanded Options
for Parents

• Supplemental Educational Services
• Students from low-income families in schools that
  fail to meet state standards for at least three
  years are eligible to receive supplemental
  educational services including tutoring,
  after-school services, and summer school.

42
The No Child Left Behind Act Expanded Options
for Parents

• Supplemental Services for
• Students with Disabilities
• Must be consistent with the students IEP
• Are not considered a part of the IEP
• Parental consent required before developing the
  supplemental services agreement
• Some providers must be able to serve students
  with disabilities

43
The No Child Left Behind ActStronger
Accountability for Results

• Schools that meet or exceed AYP will be eligible
  for State Academic Achievement Awards

44
The No Child Left Behind Act Stronger
Accountability for Results

• State and School District Report Cards
• Student academic achievement on Statewide tests
  disaggregated by subgroup
• Comparison of students at basic, proficient and
  advanced levels of achievement
• High school graduation rates (drop outs)

45
The No Child Left Behind Act Stronger
Accountability for Results

• State and School District Report Cards (cont.)
• Number and names of schools identified
• Professional qualifications of teachers
• Percentage of students not tested

46
The No Child Left Behind Act Focusing on What
Works

• Reading First Program
• Research-based reading instruction in grades K-3
  to children who
• Have reading difficulties
• Are at-risk of referral to special education
  based on reading difficulties
• Have been evaluated but not identified under IDEA
• Are served under IDEA based on severe learning
  disability related to reading
• Are deficient in essential components or reading
  skills
• Are limited English proficient

47
The No Child Left Behind ActFocusing on What
Works

• Reading First Program (K-3)
• 900 million in 2002
• 6-year formula grants to States
• Competitive grants to LEAs to
• Administer screening and diagnostic tests
• Provide professional development

48
The No Child Left Behind ActFocusing on What
Works

• Emphasis on Teacher Quality
• Train teachers to teach and address needs of
  students with different learning styles,
  particularly students with disabilities or with
  LEP
• Coordinate professional development activities
  under other federal, state and local programs
• Train early childhood educators to meet
  educational needs of child, including children
  with disabilities or with LEP

49
The No Child Left Behind ActFocusing on What
Works

• Improving Teacher Quality State Grants Program
  (2.85 Billion in 2002)
• Using scientifically based practices to prepare,
  train and recruit high-quality teachers
• Core academic subjects taught by high qualified
  teachers by 2006 school year
• Must demonstrate annual progress toward goal

50
The No Child Left Behind ActFocusing on What
Works

• Highly Qualified Teachers
• and Special Education
• Special education teachers teaching core academic
  subjects must meet highly qualified
  requirements
• All special education personnel must meet IDEA
  personnel-standards requirements
• States have flexibility in how standards are met

51
The No Child Left Behind ActFocusing on What
Works

• Higher Qualifications for Paraprofessionals
• Paraprofessionals hired after 1/8/2002 to work in
  Title I funded programs must have
• Completed 2 years of study at an IHE
• Obtained associates or higher degree OR
• Met rigorous standard of quality
• Demonstrated ability to instruct in reading,
  writing and mathematics (through State or local
  academic assessment)
• Paraprofessionals hired before 1/8/2002 to work
  in Title I funded programs must meet requirements
  in 4 years

52
The No Child Left Behind ActFocusing on What
Works

• Paraprofessionals
• and Special Education
• If a person working with special education
  students does not provide any instructional
  support (such as a person who solely provides
  personal care services), the person is not
  considered a paraprofessional under Title I.

53
The No Child Left Behind Act

• For Additional Information on NCLB
• http//www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/asst.html

54
IDEA Reauthorization

• IDEA last reauthorized in 1997
• Parts A (General Provisions) and B are
  permanently authorized
• Parts C and D are not permanently authorized

55
Preparation for Reauthorization

• Presidents Commission on Excellence In Special
  Education
• 8 Regional Public Input Meetings
• Public Meetings -- Washington-based Organizations
• Federal Register Notice

56
Preparation for Reauthorization (cont.)

• Presidents Commission on
• Excellence in Special Education
• Final Report Issued July 1, 2002
• Overall Recommendations
• Focus on results, not process
• Embrace a model of prevention, not a model of
  failure
• Consider children with disabilities as general
  education children first

57
Preparation for Reauthorization (cont.)

• Presidents Commission on
• Excellence In Special Education
• Report available at www.ed.gov/inits/commissionsb
  oards/whspecialeducation/
• Federal Register Notice

58
Key Issues

• Accountability
• Funding
• Paperwork
• Personnel Issues
• Discipline

59
Key Issues (cont.)

• Parent Involvement
• Dispute Resolution
• Disproportionate Representation
• Early Intervention and Preschool services
• Secondary Transition

60
Paperwork

• Preliminary Data from the Study of Personnel
  Needs in Special Education (SPeNSE)
• Paperwork interferes with teaching to a great
  extent. (46)
• 5 hours/week on paperwork and administrative
  duties
• 50 had no help to complete paperwork
• Most do not view all paperwork negatively

61
Personnel Preparation and Shortages

• 11.5 of all special education teaching positions
  vacant or filled with uncertified teachers
  (2000-2001 school year)
• Significant shortages of related service
  providers and administrators

62
Personnel Preparation and Shortages (cont.)

• Center on Personnel Studies
• in Special Education
• Research to link teacher quality and student
  outcomes
• Study of the cost effectiveness of preparation
  options

63
Discipline

• 50 of students identified with emotional and
  behavioral disorders drop out of school.
• OSEP Investments
• Center for Positive Behavioral Interventions and
  Supports
• Center for Young Children with Challenging
  Behavior
• Center for Students Requiring Intensive Social,
  Emotional, and Behavioral Interventions

64
Parent Involvement

• The majority of parents are very satisfied with
  special education
• The IEP Process is working for most parents and
  children
• OSEP Investments Parent Training and
  Information Centers (PTIs)

65
Dispute Resolution

• In 1998-99, there were 6,369 due process cases in
  1,830 districts 5,178 cases in 1,762 districts
  and 290 litigation cases filed in 235 districts.
• Procedural safeguard cases are concentrated in
  less than two-fifths of the nations school
  districts.
• The majority of due process cases are resolved.

66
Disproportionate Representation of Minorities in
Special Education

• Children with Disabilities are Disproportionately
  African American
• 21 of infants and toddlers (vs. 15 in general
  population)
• 19 of elementary and middle school students (vs.
  17 in general population)
• 21 of high school students (vs. 17 in general
  population)

67
Early Intervention and Preschool Services

• Families are overwhelmingly pleased with early
  intervention services
• Parents perceive early intervention as making a
  substantial impact
• Children make progress in communication skills,
  but more help is needed

68
Transition from School

• Youth with disabilities are increasingly likely
  to be working and are better paid.
• 60 of 15- to 17-year olds in 2001 had worked in
  the preceding year (vs. 51 in 1987)
• 68 made above the minimum wage in 2001 (vs. 41
  in 1987)
• School experiences are important in determining
  outcomes.

69
Contact Information

• U.S. Department of Education
• Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative
  Services
• Office of Special Education Programs
• 400 Maryland Avenue, S.W.
• Washington, D.C. 20202
• 202-205-5507
• www.ed.gov/offices/OSERS/OSEP/

70
Disclaimer about Web Sites

• Other than the U.S. Department of Educations
  website, the U.S. Department of Education has not
  reviewed the other websites mentioned in this
  presentation, so it does not provide any
  assurances regarding their consistency with the
  IDEA. In addition, the cited sources and
  websites do not necessarily reflect the views or
  policies of the U.S. Department of Education.