Update on the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
• Changing times• HR. 1350-House of Representatives
version of reauthorization of IDEA• S. 1248-Senate version of reauthorization
of IDEA• No Child Left behind Act (NCLB)
Background
• Montana background• Approximately 19,000 students with disabilities• Ages 3 through 18• 13 disability categories• Learning disabilities one-half of all students
served• Proportion of students served—compared to the
rest of the country—lower 1/3
Background
• Montana background• Expenditures 2001-2002 school year
– $31 million—local – $17 million—federal – $34 million—state
• Percentages– 38 percent—local – 20 percent—federal – 42 percent—state
General Education
Expenditures92%
Local Special Education
Expenditures4%
State Special Education
Expenditures 4%
General Fund Expenditures
140,000
145,000
150,000
155,000
160,000
165,000
170,000
Student Enrollment 159,991 163,020 164,341 165,547 164,627 162,335 159,982 157,556 154,875 151,947 149,995
1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-991999-2000
2000-01 2001-02 2002-03
Enrollment
16,500
17,000
17,500
18,000
18,500
19,000
19,500
No. of Students 18,258 17,882 17,679 18,364 18,600 18,735 18,797 19,039 19,330 19,262 19,269
1992- 93
1993- 94
1994- 95
1995- 96
1996- 97
1997- 98
1998- 99
1999- 2000
2000- 01
2001- 02
2002- 03
Child Count
9.5%
10.0%
10.5%
11.0%
11.5%
12.0%
12.5%
13.0%
% CC Students to All Students 11.4% 11.0% 10.8% 11.1% 11.3% 11.5% 11.7% 12.1% 12.5% 12.7% 12.8%
1992-93
1993-94
1994-95
1995-96
1996-97
1997-98
1998-99
1999-2000
2000-01
2001-02
2002-03
Percentage of Students with Disabilities to Total Enrollment
6.776.816.82
7.187.37.317.33
7.487.577.597.67.67.657.677.757.87.947.968.188.258.288.288.328.428.58.648.668.78.718.778.788.878.888.928.95999.169.189.299.39.35
9.559.959.96
10.310.74
11.0511.14
11.72
7.46
0 5 10 15
Rhode IslandWest VirginiaMaineMassachusettsNew JerseyNew MexicoSouth CarolinaFloridaWyomingIndianaNew YorkVermontIowaVirginiaMissouriDistrict of ColumbiaNew HampshireNebraskaTennesseeOklahomaConnecticutIllinoisKentuckyAlabamaArkansasNorth CarolinaDelawareOregonWisconsinAlaskaTexasMarylandKansasMinnesotaMichiganOhioMontanaMississippiNorth DakotaGeorgiaIdahoPennsylvaniaSouth DakotaLouisianaHawaiiWashingtonUtahNevadaCaliforniaColoradoArizona
SL22%
OH7%
CD6%
ED5%CW
4%
LD50%
Other6%
Disabilities by Percentage of Total Number of Students with
Disabilities
Disproportionate Reimbursement
25%
Instructional Block Grant52.5%
Related Services Block Grant
17.5%
Cooperative Administration
3%
Cooperative Travel
2%
Funding Distribution
20,000,000
30,000,000
40,000,000
50,000,000
60,000,000
70,000,000
80,000,000
Totals 40,939,452 42,333,419 48,785,181 52,788,381 57,109,584 60,979,741 62,340,088 65,502,661 68,580,594 71,278,260 75,222,537 78,021,409 81,725,803
Local $$ 2,916,889 3,949,067 9,946,202 12,472,401 16,221,437 19,188,382 21,281,834 24,347,590 26,348,507 27,305,512 28,523,786 29,649,483 31,160,854
Federal $$ 4,660,917 5,050,519 5,993,182 7,010,146 7,830,884 8,363,021 8,072,103 8,473,920 9,799,408 11,452,352 12,798,901 14,459,002 16,654,650
S t a t e $ $ 33,361,646 33,333,833 32,845,797 33,305,834 33,057,263 33,428,338 32,986,151 32,681,151 32,432,679 32,520,396 33,899,850 33,912,924 33,910,299
1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02
Expenditures of State, Federal and Local Funds
HR 1350 Key Provisions
• Overview– Highly qualified staff– Funding risk pool—flexible – Performance goals and indicators aligned with
NCLB– Alternate assessments using alternate standards– Flexibility in maintenance of fiscal effort—8
percent rule—40 percent rule
HR 1350 Key Provisions
• Overview– Use of funds for prereferral—15 percent– Learning disabilities definition– IEPs—no short-term instructional objectives– Amend IEP without meeting– Procedural safeguards notice—one per year– Discipline
HR 1350 Key Provisions
• Overview– Focused monitoring
• Placement in the least restrictive environment, graduation rates, dropout rates, discipline, disproportionality
– State compliance plans– Sanctions against the state– National sample IEP form
S. 1248 Key Provisions
• Overview– Highly qualified teacher—consultative services– High-cost risk pool—formula driven (75
percent of the costs in excess of four times the average per pupil expenditure)
– Performance goals and indicators aligned with ESEA
– Alternative assessment with alternate standards
S. 1248 Key Provisions
• Overview– Maintenance of fiscal effort—8 percent rule—
40 percent rule– Early intervention services—15 percent of
allocation– Learning disability identification change– IEP amendments without a meeting– Procedural safeguards notice—one time per
year
S. 1248 key provisions
• Overview– Discipline– Focused monitoring– Enforcement of state compliance, including
referral to Department of Justice– Model IEP forms
No Child Left Behind Act
• Programs:– Title I—Improving the Academic Achievement
of the Disadvantaged– Title II—Preparing Training and Recruiting
High-quality Teachers and Principals– Title III—Language Instruction for Limited
English Proficient– Others—Impact Aid, Safe and Drug-free
Schools, 21st Century Schools, etc.
No Child Left Behind Act
• Standards-based Reform• Accountability for Academic Achievement
– Participation of All Students in Statewide Assessments
– Alternate Assessments—Required by ESEA and IDEA
No Child Left Behind Act
• Accountability For Academic Achievement– All students achieving proficiency in 12 years– Adequate yearly progress for all schools, the
district, and state– Disaggregated groups
No Child Left Behind Act
• Reporting to the public• Sanctions for failure to show adequate
yearly progress• High-quality personnel
– paraprofessionals– high-quality teachers
• Resources: over $50 million
No Child Left Behind Act
• Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)– Term used by NCLB to describe whether a
school or district has met annual accountability goals
– Requires the examination of several indicators• Participation rate for students tested• Academic indicators for reading and math• Other indicators—attendance and graduation rate
No Child Left Behind Act
• Participation Rate– NCLB requires that 95 percent of all students
enrolled must be tested– Minimum student population size for this
indicator is 40. If less than 40, up to two students absent
No Child Left Behind Act
• Academic Indicators– Current
• AYP target is a normal curve equivalent average of 45 using the past three years of test data
– Future• AYP target moves forward using results from a new
criterion-referenced test• By the 2013-2014 school year, 100 percent of
enrolled students are expected to be at the proficient level or above
No Child Left Behind Act
• Other Indicators– Attendance rate K-8
• Threshold set at 80 percent for progress from the previous year toward the threshold
– Graduation rate 9-12• Threshold set at 80 percent or progress from the
previous year toward the threshold
Other IndicatorK-8 – Attendance9-12 – Graduation
For School & District
NO Does Not Make AYP
1
Participation Rate95% for Subgroup, School & District
Does Not Make AYP
NO
YES2
Check for Safe Harbor 10% Reduction in
% Not Proficient from Previous Year (By Subgroup)
Does Not Make AYP
YES
NO4
Makes AYP Through Safe Harbor
Other IndicatorK-8 – Attendance9-12 – Graduation
(By Subgroup)
YESDoes Not Make AYP
NO
5
Steps 2 through 5 Repeated for Both Math
and Reading
Academic Indicator3 Yr 45 NCE Average for
Subgroup, School & District
NO
Makes AYP
3
YES
AYP Status Report – 2003 Initial Summary for Academic Indicators (Including Participation Rate)
MATH MATH
DistrictsDistricts (443)(443)
47% 47% Made AYPMade AYP
1%1% More disaggregated data is neededMore disaggregated data is needed
26%26% Status to be determinedStatus to be determined––too small populationstoo small populations
26%26% Did not make AYPDid not make AYP
SchoolsSchools (862)(862)
56%56% Made AYPMade AYP
4%4% More disaggregated data is neededMore disaggregated data is needed
24%24% Status to be determinedStatus to be determined––too small populationstoo small populations
16%16% Did not make AYPDid not make AYP
AYP Status Report – Initial 2003 Summary for Academic Indicators (Including Participation Rate)
READINGREADING
DistrictsDistricts (443)(443)
46% 46% Made AYPMade AYP
1%1% More disaggregation data is neededMore disaggregation data is needed
25%25% Status to be determinedStatus to be determined––too small populationstoo small populations
28%28% Did not make AYPDid not make AYP
SchoolsSchools (862)(862)
57%57% Made AYPMade AYP
3%3% More disaggregation data is neededMore disaggregation data is needed
24%24% Status to be determinedStatus to be determined––too small populationstoo small populations
16%16% Did not make AYPDid not make AYP
State Accountability System(MTSASE)
All Public Schools and Districts
443 Districts 862 Schools
• Accreditation Process
• Expectations, rewards, and sanctions in Support of President Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act
Schools and districts that are identified for improvement (did not make AYP for 2 years):
• Review and revise 5-Year Comprehensive Education Plan
• Parent notification
• OPI Technical Assistance – as capacity allows
State Accountability System(MTSASE)
Title I Schools Districts289 Districts (64%)636 Schools (74%)
Additional Rewards-Sanctions Mandated by
Sec 1116 - NCLB
Title I schools and districts that are identified for improvement (did not make AYP for 2 years):
• Public school choice
• Provision of supplemental services
• 10% of Title I funds must go for staff development
• Implementation of mentoring program
• OPI Technical Assistance -as capacity allows
• Additional $809,000 for improvement grants
State Accountability System(MTSASE)
Title I Schools Districts289 Districts (64%)636 Schools (74%)
Additional Rewards-Sanctions Mandated by
Sec 1116 - NCLB
Title I schools and districts that continue to not meet AYP will eventually be identified for corrective action and restructuring:
• In addition to the interventions outlined for schools identified for improvement, schools and districts must look at more intrusive and intensive interventions
• Actions here will be limited by Montana Constitution and/or Montana law
No Child Left Behind Act
• Observations– Reason for disaggregated subgroups– Concern for children with disabilities– Federal involvement in public education– Role of alternate assessments– Participation of students with significant
cognitive disabilities
Opportunities with IDEA/NCLB
• Coordination– Flexibility in funding prereferral activities– Common standards for accountability– Focus on needs of students with disabilities– More collaboration between general education
in special education