|
|
|  |
AEP
Online |
Blaschke on Federal FundingThe Number of States Developing New Policies to Implement Early Intervening Services/Response-to-Intervention Regulatory Provisions Continues to Increase; in Many States, Informal Policy and Guidance Trumps Formal RegulationsAccording to a recent survey conducted by the National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE), virtually all states have formulated new policies -- formal or informal -- to implement the early intervening services provisions in the 2006 IDEA final regulations and in subsequent USED policy letters and Non-Regulatory Guidance. With 49 states responding, the survey conducted in Spring 2008 addressed the new IDEA requirement that a state "must not require the use of severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement for determining whether a child has a specific learning disability." In a policy letter, USED emphasized..."while a State cannot require the use of a severe discrepancy model, a State may prohibit, or make optional, the use of a severe discrepancy model." Moreover, a state "must permit the use of a process based on the child's response to scientific, research-based intervention" and "may permit the use of other alternative research-based procedures for determining whether a child has a specific learning disability." The USED policy was reaffirmed in a policy letter sent to the Mountain Plains Regional Resource Center, Utah State University, at the request of the Wyoming Department of Education. As a result of this new requirement, the survey found that 42 states had made formal policy changes and, while seven states reported no formal policy changes, all had undertaken numerous initiatives to implement the new EIS provisions. One of the biggest issues is whether or not the state has a formal policy that requires the use of response to scientific, research-based intervention and does not allow the use of severe discrepancy in establishing eligibility for specific learning disabilities. Six states (Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa and West Virginia) reported having such a formal policy. Twenty-six states allow the use of either response-to-intervention or severe discrepancy. The remaining ten states reported that their regulations allow response-to-intervention, severe discrepancy, or any other research-based alternative to be used in establishing eligibility for specific learning disabilities (SLD). Big implications exist for districts -- and firms selling intervention services to districts -- in such states. While USED, in its guidance recognizes that incremental, systematic implementation (an approach supported by research from pilot programs) "would be reasonable," the guidance also states that "the LEA could not require the use of RTI for purposes of identifying children with SLD until RTI was fully implemented in the LEA." The implication for districts in states requiring RTI is that the so-called Early Intervening Services/RTI "infrastructure" has to be in place in all schools and all teachers trained to implement EIS/RTI before RTI can be implemented and it has to be available for all students. Moreover, the above USED policy letter stated the same conditions also apply to an LEA which requires the implementation of RTI. Hence, if a state has a "permissive" policy rather than a "required" policy of using RTI, then the implementation of such an initiative can proceed on an incremental basis, but still cannot be the sole basis for identifying children with special learning disabilities. The NASDE report also includes comments from state officials in the seven states which reported that while no formal regulatory or other changes have been adopted, other guidance and initiatives were underway which would result in formal policy changes in the future. These include:
As the report notes, even in states which reportedly have made regulatory changes, policy is still evolving, including:
NASDSE found that 34 of the 42 states that said they had revised their regulations provided certain types of training or technical assistance. In 12 states, the training used Intermediate Education Units following a train-the-trainer model. Other related activities conducted by several states, include demonstrating implementation of different response-to-intervention approaches, designing and implementing pilot programs to test new approaches, and providing RTI coaches to districts. Several alternatives exist for many AEP members. In states requiring RTI, firms could target only those districts that have placed the highest priority on EIS/RTI implementation because they will likely be allowed to implement their approach district-wide first and hence make purchases of appropriate products and services earlier than those placing a low priority on EIS/RTI. In the majority of states which allow either approach (e.g., permissive states), participation in a large number of districts conducting pilot programs would be advisable as sales should grow along with the expansion of such pilots. Another implication is that firms should meet with appropriate state and district officials to determine the degree to which informal or unofficial policy and guidance is being followed more than official guidance documents, etc. It is interesting to note that, currently, many SEAs are repeating some of the similar means of "communicating" priorities that they used during the first two to three years of implementing Reading First programs.
Questions, ideas, or in need of more information? Please contact Stacey Pusey at 302-295-8349.
|
|
|
© 2011 The Association of Educational
Publishers | ||
