update on the individuals with disabilities education actpluk.org/itvdocs/09_09_03.pdf · 2012. 3....

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


• 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


• 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.


• Standards-based Reform• Accountability for Academic Achievement

– Participation of All Students in Statewide Assessments

– Alternate Assessments—Required by ESEA and IDEA


• Accountability For Academic Achievement– All students achieving proficiency in 12 years– Adequate yearly progress for all schools, the

district, and state– Disaggregated groups


• Reporting to the public• Sanctions for failure to show adequate

yearly progress• High-quality personnel

– paraprofessionals– high-quality teachers

• Resources: over $50 million


• 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


• 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


• 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


• 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



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



SchoolsSchools (862)(862)

57%57% Made AYPMade AYP

3%3% More disaggregation data is neededMore disaggregation data is needed



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


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


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


• 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

update on the individuals with disabilities education actpluk.org/itvdocs/09_09_03.pdf · 2012. 3....

Documents