Special Education Regulatory Reform
and
Recognition and Sanctions for School
Districts
The January 2004 Regents Report, Special Education Regulatory Reform and Recognition
and Sanctions for School Districts provided a framework for a
discussion of special education regulatory reform to improve results of students
with disabilities and to expand the range of positive and negative consequences
for those districts that either demonstrate exemplary outcomes for students with
disabilities or which fail to address identified areas of noncompliance in a
timely manner. This proposal has been developed to improve results for students
with disabilities by increasing the placement of students with disabilities in
less restrictive environments; promoting increased participation of students
with disabilities in the general education curriculum; providing increased
flexibility for special education services to be provided to meet individual
student needs; reducing paperwork; promoting compliance with regulatory
requirements; improving cost-effectiveness of special education services; and
rewarding and recognizing high performing school
districts.
Not all issues raised in public comment are
addressed in this reform initiative.
Some of the issues raised would require statutory change. After review of public concerns and
further internal discussions, we decided to focus this initiative on regulatory
changes that would provide increased options and flexibility for schools. We
will address other significant issues raised when the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is reauthorized and/or in separate policy
initiatives.
I.
Statutory and Regulatory Reform-
Recommendations
We are proposing regulatory reform that would
provide increased options and flexibility to schools to provide special
education services in a manner that leads to a student’s maximum participation
in general education classes and curriculum. At the same time, we propose to provide
standardization and relief to school districts on procedural requirements. The strategy direction for reform, as
set forth in the specific proposals below, focuses on those areas that would
likely have the most direct impact on improving results for students with
disabilities and were supported by public comment.
1.
Increase the number of students with
disabilities receiving special education services in settings with their
nondisabled peers and promote enhanced participation in the general education
curriculum by:
·
expanding the continuum of special
education services to include a new integrated, co-teaching special class
option; and
·
providing a mechanism for indirect
services to be provided by related service providers to a student with a
disability under certain circumstances.
2.
Provide increased flexibility to school
districts as to how special education services could be provided to students
with disabilities in such areas as:
·
staff assigned to meet the
staff-to-student ratios in special classes;
·
minimum levels of service requirements;
and
·
chronological age-range limitations in
middle- and secondary-level special classes.
3.
Provide procedural standardization and paperwork relief to school
districts by:
·
requiring that students’ individualized
education programs (IEPs) and required notices to parents be in the format
required by the Commissioner; and
·
repealing the requirement for parent
notification relating to math and reading achievement levels in special
classes.
Each of these policy strategies is discussed
below. For those proposed strategies supported by the Board of Regents, we
intend to further identify and address implementation issues in the next stages
of public meetings and meetings with focus groups.
1.
Increase the number of students with disabilities
receiving special education services in settings with their nondisabled peers
and promote enhanced participation in the general education curriculum by:
·
expanding the continuum of special education services
to include a new integrated, co-teaching special class option;
and
·
providing a mechanism for indirect support to be
provided by related service providers to a student with a disability under
certain circumstances.
Integrated, Co-Teaching Special Class
Option
IDEA and the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)
promote a student’s right to receive special education services necessary to
access, participate and progress in the general education curriculum. Students with disabilities must have
access to teachers knowledgeable in the core academic content areas. As such,
the location where special education services are provided becomes an important
factor for Committees on Special Education (CSE) to consider when developing
recommendations for special education programs, services and placement. Current regulations provide that any of
the special education services could be located in a general education
class. However, there is a need for
a broader range of cost-effective special education services in general
education classes.
The new proposed continuum would include an
“integrated, co-teaching special class” option. The proposed “integrated, co-teaching
special class” would be defined to mean specially-designed instruction provided
jointly by a special education teacher and a general education teacher in
instructional groups that include both students with disabilities and students
without disabilities. The regulations would establish a maximum ratio of
students with disabilities to nondisabled students in this integrated,
co-teaching class. If adopted, the
Department intends to study the effectiveness of this model.
Indirect Support by Related Service Providers
Some students with disabilities no longer
need direct related services (e.g, speech and language therapy, physical
therapy, counseling, etc.), but would benefit from indirect support in order to
maintain and/or generalize learned skills and knowledge. For students who continue to receive
related services, it is the related service provider’s responsibility to consult
and coordinate with the student’s teacher(s) to assist the student to maintain
and generalize skills. However,
there is a gap in service delivery for those students who no longer require
direct services. Indirect support
by related service personnel by such means as providing consultation to the
student’s special or general education teacher to assist the student to maintain
and generalize skills could allow for a cost-effective service for such
students, while maximizing staff resources. Therefore, it is proposed that
“transitional support services” include temporary services provided by a related
service provider to assist a student who no longer requires direct related
services to maintain and/or generalize skills learned.
2.
Provide increased flexibility to school districts as
to how special education services could be provided to students with
disabilities in such areas as:
·
staff
assigned to meet the staff-to-student ratios in special
classes;
·
minimum
levels of service requirements; and
·
chronological age-range limitations in middle- and
secondary-level special classes.
Under the State’s current regulations, the
manner in which certain special education services are provided is restricted in
some areas, including minimum staff-to-student ratios and maximum chronological
age ranges in special classes and minimum levels of service for consultant
teacher, resource room and speech and language as a related service. In the public discussion groups, there
was substantial support for revisiting these service delivery requirements to
ensure that CSEs have the appropriate flexibility to recommend special education
services to meet an individual student’s needs and to ensure his or her access,
participation and progress in the general education curriculum.
Staff-to-Student Ratios in Special
Classes
Increasingly, special education services are
being provided in the context of the student’s special or general education
class (sometimes called “push-in” services), resulting in additional staff
assigned to classrooms during instructional periods. Current regulations require teaching
assistants or teacher aides to be assigned to special classes during periods of
instruction. When other special
education services are provided in a special class, there are instances when the
number of staff (teachers, teaching assistants, teacher aides, and related
service personnel) in the special class exceeds the number of students with
disabilities. Therefore, there is a
need to provide flexibility to schools to use their resources in a
cost-effective manner when staffing special classes.
It is proposed that the requirements for
minimum staff-to-student ratios in special classes allow the additional staff
person(s) assigned to a class during instructional periods to be a teacher,
teaching assistant, teacher aide and/or related service
provider.
Requirements for Minimum Levels of
Service
Regulations establish minimum level of
service requirements for consultant teacher services (two hours per week),
resource room (three hours per week) and speech and language therapy (minimum
two 30-minute sessions each week).
Public comment was consistent that, particularly at the middle and
secondary levels, students with disabilities require a variety of supports and
services, but not always to the minimum levels for each service required. There are frequent instances in which
the minimum level of service requirements, for example in resource room,
detracts from the student’s opportunities to participate in core academic
subjects.
It is proposed that minimum level of service
requirements for resource room, speech and language therapy and consultant
teacher services be repealed. However, a change in regulation would not impact
the minimum level of service requirement in statute for purposes of the
nine-tenths public excess cost weighting for direct or indirect consultant
teacher services (i.e., if consultant teacher services are to be claimed
separately for State aid rather than claimed in one of the other public excess
cost weightings, the two hour weekly minimum level of service would be
required). This would allow increased flexibility for a CSE to recommend an
individual array of supports and services to address the student’s unique
needs.
Maximum Chronological Age and Achievement
Ranges in Special Classes
Higher standards and accountability for
results of students with disabilities compel us to review the factors for
grouping students with disabilities for instructional purposes. Current regulations allow
unlimited chronological age grouping for students who are ages 16 and older and
limit the chronological age grouping for younger students to three years. Public comment emphasized the need,
particularly at the secondary level, for a student’s academic achievement levels
to be a major consideration in determining special class grouping, more so than
chronological age. In fact, chronological age limitations can become a barrier
to appropriate instructional groupings at the secondary level. While a school
district can now request a variance from the chronological age requirements, the
paperwork and time delays involved may be a deterrent to timely and appropriate
class placements.
It is proposed that unlimited chronological
age ranges be allowed for students with disabilities in special classes at the
secondary-level who are ages 15 and older, provided that such students are
grouped by similarity of need and in consideration of each student’s academic
achievement levels. Further, it is
proposed that the 36-month chronological age range for students in elementary
and middle school special classes who are ages 14 and younger be retained,
adding regulatory emphasis to the requirement for grouping in consideration of
the students’ academic achievement levels.
3.
Provide procedural standardization and paperwork
relief to school districts by:
·
requiring that students’ individualized education
programs (IEPs) and required notices to parents be in the format required by the
Commissioner; and
·
repealing the requirement for parent notification
relating to math and reading achievement levels in special classes.
Required Formats for IEPs and Due Process
Notices
Current regulations specify the content of
the IEP and other due process notices, but not the format. As a result, many districts devote
considerable time and effort to form development. The result is inconsistency from school
district to school district on these required notices with a significant number
of school districts that do not fully comply with the procedural
requirements. The inconsistency in
how IEPs and notices read often results in confusion and misunderstanding of CSE
recommendations. Given the
complexity of the content requirements, many districts inadvertently omit
required content of notices and, as a result, fail to properly inform
parents. Beyond the important
impact this has on parents and students, there is an impact on time and
resources spent in resolving complaints submitted to the Department for
procedural non-compliance, including developing and monitoring implementation of
compliance assurance plans (CAPs). Minimizing procedural noncompliance is also
expected to positively impact the number and decisions in due process
hearings.
It is proposed that IEPs, prior notices,
meeting notices and board of education notices to parents relating to special
education procedural due process requirements be developed in a format
prescribed by the Commissioner. If the Regents support this change, we would
further recommend a delayed implementation date so that school districts have
sufficient time to convert their paperwork processes and computerized management
systems to the new format. VESID
has taken steps to prepare the field for standardization of IEPs and forms and
notices. In December 2002, VESID issued a sample IEP form and guidance document
that school districts were encouraged, but not required, to adopt. We have
encouraged IEP software companies to convert to the State’s sample IEP format
and most of the larger software companies have, to various degrees, done so.
This fall, VESID plans to publish sample procedural due process forms and
notices relating to the special education process, which school districts will
be encouraged to adopt.
Requiring the IEP and special education
procedural notices to be in a format required by the State is expected to have
many positive benefits, including, but not limited to, helping to ensure that
parents are fully informed; school districts are in procedural compliance; there
is statewide standardization of the format and content of IEPs among school
districts; school district resources can be redirected from procedural
compliance to instructional services; and VESID’s Special Education Quality
Assurance resources can focus more on assisting schools to improve instructional
outcomes for students with disabilities rather than monitoring for procedural
compliance.
Notices Relating to Achievement Levels in
Special Classes
Current regulations require that, when the
math and reading achievement levels of students with disabilities in a special
class exceed a three-year age range, the school district must provide the CSE
and the parents and teacher of students in such class a description of the range
of achievement in reading and mathematics and the general levels of social
development, physical development and management needs in the class, by November
1st of each year. This
requirement only pertains to special classes of 15 students to one teacher
(15:1), 12 students to one teacher (12:1) and 12 students to one teacher and a
teaching assistant or teacher aide (12:1+1).
The above notification requirements create
burdensome paperwork requirements and potential due process and confidentiality
issues. In addition, it is
essential that the academic achievement of all students be considered in the
grouping of students for instructional purposes. Therefore, it is proposed that we
eliminate this reporting requirement from regulation.
II.
Consequences for Performance: Recognition and
Sanctions
The proposed
strategy to reward and recognize high performing and most improved school
districts and to provide consequences to low performing and substantially
noncompliant school districts centers on public reporting. Its focus is to (1)
identify and recognize those school districts that achieve or exceed specific
goals and that demonstrate significant improvement over time toward the goals of
VESID’s strategic plan relating to achievement and placements in the least
restrictive environment; (2) provide consequences to low performing schools as
well as to school districts that are substantially noncompliant with statutory
and regulatory requirements.
The system of
consequences and sanctions must be efficient and effective and result in timely
compliance and improvement. An efficient and effective system of recognition and
sanctions for school districts to improve results for students with disabilities
must consider our own resources and be based on building public support,
creating partnerships and promoting effective practices. The proposed system of
recognition and rewards has been designed to serve as an incentive for school
districts to be high performers and to lead to the identification and
replication of what works (best practices). An incentive for change occurs when
there is public notice about results. The performance of a school district is
integral to a community. Targeting funding incentives can also lead to
meaningful change.
The proposed
strategies to provide recognition, rewards, consequences and sanctions are
broadly discussed below. We
recognize that there are implementation issues relating to each proposed
strategy that would need to be addressed in collaboration with the Office of
Elementary, Middle, Secondary and Continuing Education (EMSC). As with the regulatory reform proposals,
for the proposed strategies supported by the Board of Regents, we intend to
identify and address implementation issues in the next set of public meetings
and meetings with focus groups and organizations. Additional strategies to expand the
continuum of sanctions that may require statutory and regulatory changes will be
further considered upon IDEA reauthorization.
Recognition and
Rewards
To recognize and reward school districts, it
is proposed that VESID:
- use data to identify school districts that
are high performing in the areas relating to student achievement and least
restrictive environment, including assessment results; diploma and graduation
rates; dropout rates; and placements in integrated settings;
- issue public notices, which might include
posting on the Department’s web site, and notification to a board of
education, district superintendent and to the community to recognize a high
performing or a most improved school district; and
- provide IDEA discretionary grants to
further enhance a school district’s program for students with disabilities and
to promote replication of effective practices to other
schools.
Consequences and
Sanctions
The proposed consequences/sanctions
strategies would include:
- use of public reporting (e.g., public
notices, which might include posting on the Department’s web site, and
notification to a board of education, district superintendent and to the
community ) when school districts are identified as “low” or “unacceptable”
performers on the VESID key performance indicators and fail to make
satisfactory progress toward the established benchmarks within a specified
period of time (e.g., three consecutive years); and
- use of public reporting (notification to a
board of education, district superintendent and to the community) when school
districts are substantially noncompliant with the requirements of their
compliance assurance plan.
Next Steps
We propose the
following next steps to implement those policy strategies supported by the Board
of Regents:
°
Publish the proposed strategies on VESID’s
“Designing our Future” website to invite public comment;
°
Meet with focus groups to discuss the
proposed strategies and identify issues, concerns and sources of support for
each of the proposals;
°
Develop a regulatory package for
discussion with the Board of Regents;
°
Obtain public comment through public
meetings on the proposed regulations; and
°
Realign VESID’s tasks and resources, in
collaboration with EMSC, to accomplish the proposed
strategies.
