UNFUNDED MANDATE: DOES MORE MONEY MEAN BETTER

SPECIAL EDUCATION COMPLIANCE?

Final Dissertation Presentationprepared for the Final Committee Conference Call

by Wendy Bolduc

CAROLE BURNWORTH, Ph.D., Faculty Mentor and ChairKATHLEEN MONDELL, Ph.D., Committee Member

BARRY PERSKY, Ph.D., Committee Member

Barbara Butts Williams, Ph.D., Dean, School of Education

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

CAPELLA UNIVERSITYJUNE, 2012

DEDICATION

This effort is dedicated to my parents, who were both lifelong learners. They instilled in me a love of learning and a desire to pursue the truth. They encouraged my endless curiosity, and taught me the value of integrity and self-respect.

In memoriam, thank you Mom and Dad..

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to acknowledge the advice and support of my mentor, Dr. Carole Burnworth,

my dissertation committee members, Dr. Kathleen Mondell and Dr. Barry

Persky, and my advisor Dr. Jonathan Gehrz throughout this effort.

WHY THIS TOPIC WAS SELECTED

My experience has been that compliance with IDEA is largely ignored until there is a threat of due process or a loss of funding.

I believe that compliance with Part B of IDEA (2004) will produce better educational and life outcomes for students with disabilities and help them to become independent contributors to society rather than make them dependent upon society,

WHY TOPIC WAS SELECTED (continued)

We have a legal, ethical and moral responsibility to students with disabilities and their families to improve special education programs through improved compliance in order to provide successful educational experiences and life outcomes for these students

Beginning with funding levels, determining some of the factors that may impact compliance seemed to be a good starting place to improve

RESEARCH QUESTIONS R

1 What relationship, if any, exists between per pupil

funding for special education as provided through the ARRA stimulus program for Part B of IDEA (2004) and improved special education compliance as measured by the twenty performance indicators reported in state Annual Performance Reports (APRs)?

R2: Are there any significant or distinct characteristics

that states demonstrating adequate or improved compliance with Part B of IDEA (2004) share?

R

3 : Are

there any significant or distinct characteristics

of states demonstrating inadequate or reduced compliance with Part B of IDEA (2004)?

MAJOR POINTS OF LITERATURE REVIEW

No seminal studies on the relationship of compliance to finance in special education were identified (McLeskey & Landers , 2006)Studies on special education funding and/or compliance were separateARRA (2009) stimulus program doubled federal special education funding in FFY09Non-compliance results in high litigation costs to the district, inadequate program outcomes and poor relationships with families in special education

MAJOR POINTS OF LITERATURE REVIEW

Other factors identified in the literature which may influence compliance:

IDEA (2004) and No Child Left Behind (NCLB,

2001) requirements for SWDs Variations in state special education financing

methods Current state of the economy causing staffing

and program cuts Administrator awareness of special education

legal requirements Number of ELL and ESE students

RESEARCH METHODS

This was a quantitative correlational study

using measurable variables.

Compliance was first compared to funding, and then to other factors to determine if any were related to compliance

RESEARCH METHODS (continued)

Compliance for each of the two study years was measured using a calculated compliance rate.

The number of indicators for which the state target was met was divided by the number of indicators reported by the state Annual Performance Report (APRs), or from the Office of Special Education’s Response Tables to the states.

Funding was measured by the average per pupil (APPE) special education grant amounts.

Special education APPEs were calculated from the total federal special education grant amounts to the state divided by the number of special education students served under Part B by the state for each of the two study years.

RESEARCH METHODSCompliance rates for states grouped and

coded as compliant and non-compliant were compared to

the number of Part B special education students served by the state

the total number of special education disputes for the state

the cost-of-living index AND

RESEARCH METHODS (continued)

the percentage of students with disabilities relative to school population

the percentage of ARRA funds obligated or spent by March 4. 2011

region of the country

by performing statistical procedures to compare means, paired samples t-tests, and correlations using Predictive Analysis Statistics GradPack 18 software (PASW-18).

RESEARCH QUESTION 1 RESULTS

R1 : Is there a relationship between increased funding and compliance?

NO No relationship between funding levels and compliance

for either study year was found There is a 91.7% probability that differences in the two

years can be attributed to chance The null hypothesis must be accepted for research

question one.

RESEARCH QUESTION 2 RESULTS

R2: Do states showing adequate or improved compliance share significant or distinct characteristics?

YES

States with smaller special education populations lower numbers of special education disputes location in the Central Plains, Southwest,

West, Northwest and Pacific regions

were more likely to show higher compliance rates for both study years.

RESEARCH QUESTION 3 RESULTS

R3 : Do states showing reduced or inadequate compliance rates share significant or distinct characteristics?

YES

States with larger special education populations with more special education disputes located in the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic,

Appalachia, Southeast, and Midwest regions

were more likely to have lower compliance rates for both study years

ADDITIONAL RESULTS The percentage of students relative to the

total school population identified as disabled and needing special education services was not found to be significantly related to compliance rates

The cost-of-living index for FFY09 showed a weak inverse relationship to compliance rates for FFY09

The percentage of ARRA money obligated or spent as of March 4, 2011 was not found to be significantly related to compliance rates

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

States with large special education populations might consider ways to break their special education populations into smaller subgroups

States should focus on reducing the total number of special education students, not percentages

High levels of poverty and large numbers of ELLs tend to produce larger numbers of students in special education programs (Baker & Ramsey, 2010) so districts should attempt to further address ways to minimize the effects of these

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE(continued)

States should attempt to reduce the number of complaints they experience (whether settled, withdrawn or dismissed) by analyzing the types and numbers of complaints to pinpoint areas of improvement on which to focus

Encouraging the development of positive relationships with the parents of students with disabilities has been suggested in recent literature as a way to reduce the number of complaints (Diliberto & Brewer, 2012).

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

Further study into compliance rates and ARRA funding for FFY10 is indicated

Long-term effects of programs funded through ARRA should be examined

The point at which the number of special education disputes and the number of special education students begin to adversely affect compliance should be examined

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH (continued)

Why region of the country appears to be a factor in compliance should be studied

The performance indicator targets should be examined more closely for consistency across states. Meeting the target in one state can mean something entirely different from meeting the target in another.

CONCLUSIONS

Whether inadequate funding is the cause of states’ failure to fully comply with IDEA has not been settled by this study

The study’s results can contribute to the conversation about the relationship between funding and compliance and has identified other factors which may be as important if not more important than funding in states’ efforts to be fully compliant with IDEA requirements

CONCLUSIONS (continued)

We have a legal, ethical and a moral responsibility to provide students with disabilities with a free, appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment and in so doing improve their educational and life outcomes

Full compliance with IDEA can help to ensure that this becomes a reality. The futures of students with disabilities, and their successful transition into society when their schooling has ended depend upon it.