|
|
|
 |
AEP Online |
House Republican Leadership Releases Guide to "Frequently Asked Questions" about Newly-Reauthorized IDEAWithin the context of mounting bipartisan opposition to USED interpretations of NCLB provisions, Chairman John Boehner and Subcommittee Chairman Mike Castle of the Education and the Workforce Committee, released a Guide to "Frequently Asked Questions" about the newly-reauthorized IDEA, which should establish the framework for the development of regulations by USED. Released before the last of the scheduled IDEA public hearings on February 24 (the results of which are supposed to be taken into account by USED officials who will be drafting IDEA regulations), the Guide communicates the intent of Congress to those drafting regulations, as well as to the general public. Another reason for this unprecedented release of the IDEA "Guide," is that the provisions of reauthorized IDEA exist in at least four different documents rather than one complete coherent conference report. So what is USED going to do with respect to regulations? According to Education Daily (February 25), newly-appointed Assistant Secretary of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, John Hager, stated, ED "is in the process of developing several one pagers -- what they're trying to do is take one subject at a time and push that information out to the districts so that they'll be fully informed and fully prepared to deal with the variety of deadlines that impact the states. They're basically information sheets." The Q and A format of the guide addresses many of the new provisions which have significant implications for AEP firms which focus on the special education niche market. Of particular importance is whether supplemental materials and instructional software can be used for "prereferral" or "intervening" services for borderline students and would the interventions have to include most, if not all five of the "essential components" of Reading First interventions. This Guide goes beyond the current language in one of the "conference reports," which would allow supplemental materials to be used if they are aligned with core basal texts which meet scientifically-based research criteria by stating, "LEAs can use early intervening funds to support professional development activities, educational supports and services, positive behavior supports and evaluations, or other activities to help children succeed in the general education curriculum. The purpose of prereferral intervening services is to reduce the number of children who have reading problems, but not learning disabilities, being placed in special education programs." Another area of the Guide relates to how to identify a child as having a "specific learning disability." While the new IDEA prohibits states from requiring that districts use an IQ test as part of the determination of specific learning disabilities (i.e., the "achievement discrepancy model"), the Guide emphasizes "States and LEAs are encouraged to look to research-based practices, especially models using response-to-intervention strategies, to determine whether a child has a specific learning disability. The Department of Education will develop guidance and provide technical assistance to states and LEAs using effective, scientifically-based research to help states and LEAs develop effective models of identification practices." The current provision in the Law states that the student who is thought to have learning disabilities cannot be placed in special education unless an intervention which has all or most of the five components of a Reading First-approved intervention is available and is used with that student. When asked whether the "response-to-intervention" is a subset of "prereferral interventions" or "intervening services," the primary author of the Guide stated that "response to intervention" is a sub-set of "early intervention." Several issues surrounding Individualized Education Program provisions are clarified in the Guide. For example, the Guide clarifies who decides whether a child with disabilities takes the regular state assessment or an alternative assessment with alternative proficiency levels, stating, "However, all decisions about which assessment a child with a disability should take are to be made by the IEP Team." The Guide also emphasizes new flexibility in the conduct of IEP team meetings to develop and then update IEPs. As it states, "In order to facilitate the meeting process, reduce paperwork, and make meetings more efficient, IDEA allows IEP Teams to use computers to develop an IEP for a child with a disability instead of using typewriters or written documents. Additionally, to better accommodate busy work schedules for parents and school personnel, IDEA allows parents to agree to use conference calls, video conferencing, or other alternative means of participation to conduct IEP meetings and other meetings required under IDEA, including resolution session meetings." Not unexpectedly, the Guide -- which was prepared by Republican leadership -- notes that IDEA funding has increased nearly 360 percent since 1994 when Republicans won control of the House, increasing the Federal share from 7.3 percent of the average per-pupil expenditure for special education students in 1996 to 18.7 percent in FY 2005. In 1975, when IDEA's preceding legislation (P.L. 94-142) was passed, Congress mandated that the Federal portion of special education expenditures reach 40 percent. The FY 2005 budget provides on paper $10.6 billion for IDEA. The total amount going to fund special education programs nationwide, however, will likely be about $1 billion less. One reason is that many districts will allocate up to 15 percent of their IDEA funds for prereferral services which are not likely to be operated by the district's office of special education programs. In addition, the new Guide notes that LEAs are allowed to reduce their own spending in special education programs by an amount up to 50 percent of the increase in IDEA funds which it receives. So, if a district received a $5,000 increase in IDEA funds over the previous year, it could reduce its own local funding by $2,500. However, what is new here is the clarification that, "Any reduction in the maintenance of effort level is permanent, so LEAs will be able to plan accordingly in making decisions about whether to use this authority and how to develop their own budgets and spending decisions." So, if a district receives an increase in IDEA funds the following year it could reduce local funds for special education programs once again. The Guide argues that this is appropriate because of "significant increases in Federal funding for IDEA and the maintenance of effort requirements, local education agencies (LEAs) have been required to maintain artificially high levels of funding on special education programs, even as the federal share has increased." Questions, ideas, or in need of more information? Please contact Stacey Pusey at 302-295-8349.
|
Click here for a copy of the Guide.
|
|
© 2011 The Association of Educational
Publishers |
||
