|
|
|
 |
AEP Online |
Blaschke on Federal FundingEarly Intervening Services Given High Priority in House's Proposed NCLB ReauthorizationThe working draft of the ESEA/NCLB reauthorization proposed by Chairman Miller and Congressman McKeon would place a high priority on the incorporation of early intervening services (EIS) and response-to-intervention (RTI) provisions--currently in IDEA--into other areas. Title I school improvement planning, Title I operations--especially in school-wide programs--and allowable activities for schools identified for improvement, known as "high priority" or "priority schools" are the top targets. Over the last year, Education Department officials and Non-Regulatory Guidance have been telling districts that EIS/RTI is a "general education," not "special education" function and that Title I program officials specifically should take a lead role in district implementation. Indeed, the RTI approach strongly encouraged in IDEA was formulated by Dr. Reid Lyon and his "inside" group of consultants during the design of the Reading First program. The House working draft adoption of EIS/RTI into Title I is almost a certainty and could increase total EIS spending under Title I and IDEA to over $2 billion annually. EIS/RTI mandates in the working draft occur in several areas. If a school is identified as "priority" or "high priority," the district must develop a school improvement and assistance plan. The plan would include an analysis of the current curriculum and use of current interventions, if any, which have contributed to achievement gaps between groups of students and/or the school's failure to meet AYP targets. The plan must "determine how changes to such interventions (which may include schoolwide positive behavioral intervention supports, tiered instructional interventions and other research-based approaches with evidence of improving the learning environment) could address the causes for the school not making AYP." It must also describe the expanded use of formative assessments and database instructional decision-making and the necessary changes in these areas that are critical to successful implementation of RTI. Following the Non-Regulatory Guidance on schoolwide programs published by USED over a year ago, the draft reauthorization not only requires schoolwide programs to devote "sufficient resources," it also mandates that schoolwide programs implement "schoolwide reform strategies that:
The instructional strategies should also be based on "scientifically valid research" and can include extended learning programs. As we have reported in the past, former USED Deputy Assistant Secretary for Special Education, Alexa Posny and former national Title I Director Jackie Jackson called for districts to implement RTI in schoolwide programs in a joint statement issued during the January 2007 National State Title I Directors Association Annual Conference. The draft NCLB reauthorization document also calls for the use of EIS in Targeted Assistance Schools for Title I eligible students in groups failing to meet AYP targets. As noted earlier, both priority and high priority schools identified for improvement may use one or more of seven authorized activities (previously referred to as "sanctions"), one of which was spelled out in detail as follows: "current interventions including supervised or centrally-developed intervention models or strategies for low-performing schools, to determine how changes to such interventions (which may include schoolwide positive behavioral intervention supports, tiered instructional interventions, and other research-based approaches with evidence of improving the learning environment) could address causes for the school not making adequate yearly progress." Decisions about EIS/RTI "interventions" and related materials would be made at the district level. Recent discussions with national associations' lobbyists suggest that additional pressures will be brought to bear on Congress to allow some of the SES Title I set-asides (e.g., the 20 percent) be used for implementing EIS/RTI and to allow more districts identified for improvement to provide a combination of supplemental educational services (SES) and EIS/RTI activities. One might surmise that this will likely occur initially in the large urban districts for several reasons. One is that most of these districts have already been identified as having disproportionality under IDEA and have already been allocating up to 15 percent of the IDEA funds they receive to provide early intervening services, usually to the Title I program office; and second, many of these same districts have participated in the Council of Great City Schools' "Trial Urban District Assessment," which over the last two years has shown an increasing number of urban districts have demonstrated increases in student academic achievement on the NAEP. These districts would have a "demonstrated record of effectiveness in increasing student academic achievement," which is the primary criterion taken into account by state education agencies in deciding whether any SES potential provider, including local education agencies, can be approved. Opportunities for "partnering" with schools and districts that implement SES and EIS/RTI should increase along with more "set-aside" funding under Title I when the proposed legislative provisions pass. Questions, ideas, or in need of more information? Please contact Stacey Pusey at 302-295-8349.
|
|
|
© 2011 The Association of Educational
Publishers |
||
