|
|
|
AEP Online |
Blaschke on Federal FundingIn New IDEA Reauthorization Congress Suggests Supplementals do Not Have to Meet the Gold Bar of Scientifically Based ResearchThe new IDEA includes provisions and Conference Report language, which reflect Congressional intent, stipulating that supplemental materials can be purchased with IDEA funds and used for pre-referral interventions and other early instructional interventions; moreover, supplemental materials do not have to meet the “gold bar” of scientifically based research (SBR) that core curriculum materials and textbooks must meet. Reflecting the Senate version, early interventions may include professional development, which can be provided by entities other than LEAs, to allow teachers to “deliver scientifically-based academic instruction and behavioral interventions.” While the intent of Congress is clear, USED has in the past with the Reading First Program, overridden Congressional intent and might still attempt to limit pre-referral interventions to the use of interventions which include the five Reading First “essential components” for K-3 grade level students having reading difficulties. Below we cite the very specific language in the new Law and Conference Report (H. Rept. 108-779). Under Early Intervening Services, the new Law states: (1) IN GENERAL -- A local educational agency may not use more than 15 percent of the amount such agency receives under this part for any fiscal year, less any amount reduced by the agency pursuant to subsection (a)(2)(C), if any, in combination with other amounts (which may include amounts other than education funds), to develop and implement coordinated, early intervening services, which may include interagency financing structures, for students in kindergarten through grade 12 (with a particular emphasis on students in kindergarten through grade 3) who have not been identified as needing special education or related services but who need additional academic and behavioral support to succeed in a general education environment. (2) ACTIVITIES -- In implementing coordinated, early intervening services under this subsection, a local educational agency may carry out activities that include -- (A) professional development (which may be provided by entities other than local educational agencies) for teachers and other school staff to enable such personnel to deliver scientifically based academic instruction and behavioral interventions, including scientifically based literacy instruction, and, where appropriate, instruction on the use of adaptive and instructional software; and (B) providing educational and behavioral evaluations, services, and supports, including scientifically based literacy instruction.” Reflecting Congressional intent, the Conference Report language states, “The Conferees believe that early intervening services should make use of supplemental instructional materials, where appropriate, to support student learning. Children targeted for early intervening services under IDEA are the very students who are most likely to need additional reinforcement to the core curriculum used in the regular classroom. These are in fact the additional instructional materials that have been developed to supplement and therefore strengthen the efficacy of comprehensive core curriculum. Per the requirements of NCLB, core curriculum must meet standards of scientific rigor. As supplementary materials to these core programs, they are aligned with and designed to reinforce the skills taught in these comprehensive research-based texts.” Not only is it clear that Congress intends that supplemental instructional materials, where appropriate, can be used to provide early intervening services, but also that supplemental materials fall under a different standard of scientific rigor for meeting SBR. Even though this language is part of IDEA, because the pre-referral intervention services are for students before they are placed into special education, it should also apply to nonspecial other education programs, such as Title I. And in fact, during an AEP June summit two years ago, Assistance Secretary Grover Whitehurst indicated that such a distinction would be appropriate between state mandated core curriculum and adopted textbooks versus supplemental materials. The key here is that supplemental materials should be aligned with and designed to reinforce skills taught in comprehensive research-based text. However, a special rule in the new Law continues to reflect the language in the House version by stating, “In making a determination of eligibility under paragraph 4A, a child shall not be determined to be a child with a disability if the determinant factor for such determination is -- (a) lack of appropriate instruction in reading, including the essential components of reading instruction (as defined in Section 1208 (3) of ESEA of 1965; (b) lack of instruction in math; or (c) limited-English-proficiency.” As we noted beginning in April 2002, the Law clearly allowed “family literacy” and “tutoring” as allowable activities which can be funded by Reading First funds and used in such programs. However, USED initial guidance to states, which had to submit proposals for USED approval to get their Reading First funds, did not allow family literacy or tutoring. As a result, it wasn’t until September 2003 during the last approvals for state Reading First proposals did at least one state propose to use tutoring, which USED grudgingly allowed. Questions, ideas, or in need of more information? Please contact Dave Gladney at 856-241-7772 or dgladney@AEPweb.org. |
|
©
2008 The Association of Educational
Publishers
|
|
