|
|
|
 |
AEP Online |
Blaschke on Federal FundingEarly Intervening Services Update: Large Districts Are Most Likely to Be Required to Allocate 15 Percent of IDEA Flow-Through Funds For EISAs part of our ongoing effort to monitor implementation of the new Early Intervening Services (EIS) provision of IDEA, we continue to identify those districts which are required to allocate 15 percent of their IDEA Park B flow-through funds for EIS. The primary reason that districts are required to reallocate 15 percent of IDEA funds for Early Intervening Services is that the district has “disproportionate over-representation” of minority students in special education. The purpose of EIS is to reduce inappropriate placement of minority students in special education programs by using interventions with students who are having difficulty with math and reading in hopes that such interventions can remediate their learning problems, thus reducing the need to place them in special education. As we have mentioned before, obtaining the names of districts in states which have been determined to have disproportionality is extremely difficult because this is a very sensitive issue. Unlike Title I allocations, which were made available in a preliminary fashion in the Spring, USED does not calculate preliminary district allocations of IDEA funds, nor does the Congressional Research Service, which usually estimates the funds allocation by state and district when a new formula is devised for use in determining allocations. Of the approximate $11 billion of IDEA funding, approximately $500 million is allocated in a manner different from last year because of the new formula which takes into account census data on enrollment and poverty rather than the number of special education students identified by disability category by district, as has been the case in previous years. The amount of state funding for special education which a district receives, however, continues to be based upon, for the most part, the number of students identified and placed in special education before December 1 and are reported in the December 1 “counts” to the SEA. One of the continuing issues is whether or not the types of interventions which can be purchased is limited to those that have been approved for use in Reading First programs. Based upon our discussions with SEA officials and a review of guidance provided on EIS, only a limited number of states (such as Alabama and North Carolina) thus far have limited interventions to those having the “five essential components” of Reading First or which otherwise have been approved by the state. Most of the guidance which we have been able to review cites provisions in the Law referring to instructional and behavior interventions and/or professional development interventions that are based upon “scientifically-based research.” In some states -- such as Florida -- guidance has not been provided by the state in this area. It would appear that the criteria for approving a product or professional development for Reading First would be more likely to be used under the Response To Intervention (RTI) approach, which districts may use in lieu of IQ test results, for determining whether a student should be placed in special education. State guidance has been delayed in many quarters because the expected publication of final IDEA regulations initially scheduled for December 2005 has been postponed until May or June 2006. Firms should take care in deciding what district office to approach regarding the use of their products or services in district early intervention programs. In some districts, the office responsible for actually identifying students and implementing early intervening services will be a newly-created “office of interventions”; in other districts, the primary operational responsibility may be with the district Title I office; and in still other districts, responsibilities could be delegated the school psychology office or even to individual school psychologists at the building level. Even though those districts with disproportionality (i.e., significant over-representation of minorities in special education programs) have been told by states that they must allocate 15 percent of IDEA funds to Early Intervening Services, district special education directors are often hesitant to do so because they believe students with disabilities, and who have greater needs, are not having their needs met. We will continue to provide periodic updates of developments in this new fertile area for firms with appropriate instructional interventions or professional development. If anyone has any questions about the appropriateness of their products or services, please contact Charles Blaschke directly Questions, ideas, or in need of more information? Please contact Stacey Pusey at 302-295-8349.
|
|
|
© 2011 The Association of Educational
Publishers |
||
