AEP Online
Featured Columns
Blaschke
on Fed. Funding
A+
Advice for Parents
Archives
Archives
Education
Legislation
Technology
Market Trends
Misc. Topics
About
|
Blaschke on Federal Funding
Districts with Over-Representation of Minorities in Existing
Special Education Programs Must Allocate 15 Percent of IDEA Funding
For Prereferral or Early Intervening Services
A widely held interpretation of a provision in the proposed IDEA
regulation is that State Education Agencies (SEAs) must require
districts with an over-representation of minorities in special
education programs (i.e., "disproportionality") to allocate
15 percent of their IDEA funding for early intervening services. An
earlier interpretation would have left the decision whether to
allocate up to 15 percent at the district level for early intervening
services up to the discretion of the district. While districts
that do not have "disproportionality" may still elect
to expend early intervention services, the vast majority of state
special education directors agree that the proposed June 21 IDEA
regulations in Section 300.646 "Disproportionality," make
it very clear that any LEA with "disproportionality" must
be required to reallocate the 15 percent for prereferral interventions;
the state must "require any LEA identified under paragraph
(a) of this section to reserve the maximum amount of funds under
section 613 (f) of the Act to provide comprehensive coordinated
early intervening services to serve children in the LEA, particularly,
but not exclusively, children in those groups that were significantly
overidentified under paragraph (a) of this section."
While conceivably as much as 15 percent of $10.5 billion could
be reallocated from local IDEA budgets to Title I or other offices
responsible for early interventions, several data sources suggest
that the actual amount being reallocated is closer to about two-thirds
of that amount, or around $1 billion nationwide. SEAs are
currently identifying school districts with an over-representation
of minorities in special education and requiring them to reallocate
15 percent of their IDEA funding for early intervening services,
which can include professional development. For example,
in early August, the Maryland SEA announced that 18 of the 24 districts
in the state must reallocate 15 percent for early intervening services
beginning immediately. The states that are most likely to
have districts with disproportionality are those with overall disproportionality
statewide. Based upon the data compiled by the NCCRST (funded
by USED), states with the greatest statewide disproportionality
include Alabama, Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, North
Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Wisconsin. Even
though some states such as Indiana, California, Illinois, Maine,
Oregon, New Jersey, and Vermont reportedly do not have disproportionality
statewide, it is likely that some districts in the state do have
over-representation of minorities in special education. Districts
most likely to have over-representation of minorities are those
serving large numbers of students designated and placed in programs
for "emotionally disturbed" and programs for "mentally
retarded" students. Nationwide, 11 percent and 17 percent
of Black students in special education are placed in these
two categories, respectively, vs. only 8 percent of White special
education students in these two categories. As in the
case of Maryland, the districts requiring the largest amount of
IDEA funds for reallocation are the larger urban districts. For
example, $8 million is to be reallocated in Montgomery County and
in Anne Arundel County public schools for literacy interventions
for up to 100 days. The schools in which early intervening
services will be created or expanded are the schools that have
the largest degree of "over-representation" in special
education programs.
While there might be some exceptions, most SEAs have decided to
implement these provisions immediately prior to the publication
of final regulations (anticipated at the earliest in December). Most
SEAs want to see if the intervention is effective in alleviating
reading or other problems, or if not, they want to place the student
in special education programs before December 1 in order that state
funds are allocated to the district to serve that student (i.e.,
students placed in special education after the December 1 "count" do
not generate state special education funding). Some states
and districts are concerned that USED may be overly-prescriptive
in terms of what evaluation instruments and/or instructional interventions
should be used (such as those approved for Reading First); these
states want to allow districts the flexibility to select those
interventions which districts feel would be most cost-effective. Yet
another reason may be that the state directors of special education
wish to diffuse a politically sensitive concern at the district
level -- namely that the superintendents will hesitate to reallocate
funds from the office of special education to another office for
fear of creating "turf battles." By having the
state mandate such allocations in districts where there is disproportionality,
conflict at the district level can be minimized.
While the early intervening services provisions are directed at
borderline students who may or may not need to be placed in special
education, many of the same interventions could be used with "gap
students" who are already enrolled in special education and
if the intervention were successful in developing, for example,
reading skills, then the special education student could "exit" from
special education back to the regular instruction. However,
USED policies create a disincentive for districts to do that because
once a special education student exits from special education,
his/her achievement scores are no longer counted as part of the
special education subgroup. Most states have sought waivers
in this area, but have been turned down by USED.
Questions, ideas, or in need of more information?
Please contact Dave Gladney at 856-241-7772 or dgladney@AEPweb.org.
|