THE STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT / THE UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK / ALBANY, NY 12234

 

TO:

The Honorable the Members of the Board of Regents

FROM:

Rebecca H. Cort 

COMMITTEE:

EMSC-VESID

TITLE OF ITEM:

Special Education Regulatory Reform and Recognition and Sanctions for School Districts

DATE OF SUBMISSION:

October 14, 2004

PROPOSED HANDLING:

Discussion

RATIONALE FOR ITEM:

To improve student achievement and compliance

STRATEGIC GOAL:

Goal #1

AUTHORIZATION(S):

 

 

SUMMARY:

 

This report proposes a strategy to improve both the achievement of students with disabilities and school district compliance with special education requirements.

 

In spring 2004, nine regional public discussion groups were conducted to obtain public comment on a series of guiding questions, which were discussed at the January 2004 Regents meeting. Two hundred twenty-seven (227) individuals attended the regional forums, with representation from school administrators, teachers, related service providers, parents, advocates, and others, including representatives of higher education and attorneys.  Additional comments were received through the Department’s web site and letters submitted by various individuals and organizations.  A synthesis of all written comment received is available in the Board of Regents office.

 

This proposal is designed to serve as the basis for further public policy discussions prior to the development of specific statutory, regulatory and/or policy reforms.  This proposal, when viewed in total, is expected to provide a balanced approach to win compliance by providing increased options and flexibility for school districts, recognizing and rewarding high performing school districts and identifying consequences to school districts that demonstrate lack of satisfactory progress on key performance indicators and/or are substantially noncompliant with statutory and regulatory requirements.  We request direction from the Regents to move forward with any or all of the specific proposals.

 

Attachment


Special Education Regulatory Reform and

Recognition and Sanctions for School Districts

 

The January 2004 Regents Report, Special Education Regulatory Reform and Recognition and Sanctions for School Districts provided a framework for a discussion of special education regulatory reform to improve results of students with disabilities and to expand the range of positive and negative consequences for those districts that either demonstrate exemplary outcomes for students with disabilities or which fail to address identified areas of noncompliance in a timely manner. This proposal has been developed to improve results for students with disabilities by increasing the placement of students with disabilities in less restrictive environments; promoting increased participation of students with disabilities in the general education curriculum; providing increased flexibility for special education services to be provided to meet individual student needs; reducing paperwork; promoting compliance with regulatory requirements; improving cost-effectiveness of special education services; and rewarding and recognizing high performing school districts.

 

Not all issues raised in public comment are addressed in this reform initiative.  Some of the issues raised would require statutory change.  After review of public concerns and further internal discussions, we decided to focus this initiative on regulatory changes that would provide increased options and flexibility for schools. We will address other significant issues raised when the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is reauthorized and/or in separate policy initiatives.

 

I.        Statutory and Regulatory Reform- Recommendations

 

We are proposing regulatory reform that would provide increased options and flexibility to schools to provide special education services in a manner that leads to a student’s maximum participation in general education classes and curriculum.  At the same time, we propose to provide standardization and relief to school districts on procedural requirements.  The strategy direction for reform, as set forth in the specific proposals below, focuses on those areas that would likely have the most direct impact on improving results for students with disabilities and were supported by public comment.    

 

1.     Increase the number of students with disabilities receiving special education services in settings with their nondisabled peers and promote enhanced participation in the general education curriculum by:

·       expanding the continuum of special education services to include a new integrated, co-teaching special class option; and

·       providing a mechanism for indirect services to be provided by related service providers to a student with a disability under certain circumstances.

 

2.     Provide increased flexibility to school districts as to how special education services could be provided to students with disabilities in such areas as:

·       staff assigned to meet the staff-to-student ratios in special classes;

·       minimum levels of service requirements; and

·       chronological age-range limitations in middle- and secondary-level special classes.

3.  Provide procedural standardization and paperwork relief to school districts by:

·       requiring that students’ individualized education programs (IEPs) and required notices to parents be in the format required by the Commissioner; and

·       repealing the requirement for parent notification relating to math and reading achievement levels in special classes.

 

Each of these policy strategies is discussed below. For those proposed strategies supported by the Board of Regents, we intend to further identify and address implementation issues in the next stages of public meetings and meetings with focus groups. 

 

1.     Increase the number of students with disabilities receiving special education services in settings with their nondisabled peers and promote enhanced participation in the general education curriculum by:

·       expanding the continuum of special education services to include a new integrated, co-teaching special class option; and

·       providing a mechanism for indirect support to be provided by related service providers to a student with a disability under certain circumstances.

 

Integrated, Co-Teaching Special Class Option

 

IDEA and the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) promote a student’s right to receive special education services necessary to access, participate and progress in the general education curriculum.  Students with disabilities must have access to teachers knowledgeable in the core academic content areas. As such, the location where special education services are provided becomes an important factor for Committees on Special Education (CSE) to consider when developing recommendations for special education programs, services and placement.  Current regulations provide that any of the special education services could be located in a general education class.  However, there is a need for a broader range of cost-effective special education services in general education classes.

 

The new proposed continuum would include an “integrated, co-teaching special class” option.  The proposed “integrated, co-teaching special class” would be defined to mean specially-designed instruction provided jointly by a special education teacher and a general education teacher in instructional groups that include both students with disabilities and students without disabilities. The regulations would establish a maximum ratio of students with disabilities to nondisabled students in this integrated, co-teaching class.  If adopted, the Department intends to study the effectiveness of this model. 

 

Indirect Support by Related Service Providers

 

Some students with disabilities no longer need direct related services (e.g, speech and language therapy, physical therapy, counseling, etc.), but would benefit from indirect support in order to maintain and/or generalize learned skills and knowledge.  For students who continue to receive related services, it is the related service provider’s responsibility to consult and coordinate with the student’s teacher(s) to assist the student to maintain and generalize skills.  However, there is a gap in service delivery for those students who no longer require direct services.  Indirect support by related service personnel by such means as providing consultation to the student’s special or general education teacher to assist the student to maintain and generalize skills could allow for a cost-effective service for such students, while maximizing staff resources. Therefore, it is proposed that “transitional support services” include temporary services provided by a related service provider to assist a student who no longer requires direct related services to maintain and/or generalize skills learned. 

 

2.     Provide increased flexibility to school districts as to how special education services could be provided to students with disabilities in such areas as:

·       staff assigned to meet the staff-to-student ratios in special classes;

·       minimum levels of service requirements; and

·       chronological age-range limitations in middle- and secondary-level special classes.

 

Under the State’s current regulations, the manner in which certain special education services are provided is restricted in some areas, including minimum staff-to-student ratios and maximum chronological age ranges in special classes and minimum levels of service for consultant teacher, resource room and speech and language as a related service.  In the public discussion groups, there was substantial support for revisiting these service delivery requirements to ensure that CSEs have the appropriate flexibility to recommend special education services to meet an individual student’s needs and to ensure his or her access, participation and progress in the general education curriculum.  

 

Staff-to-Student Ratios in Special Classes

           

Increasingly, special education services are being provided in the context of the student’s special or general education class (sometimes called “push-in” services), resulting in additional staff assigned to classrooms during instructional periods.  Current regulations require teaching assistants or teacher aides to be assigned to special classes during periods of instruction.  When other special education services are provided in a special class, there are instances when the number of staff (teachers, teaching assistants, teacher aides, and related service personnel) in the special class exceeds the number of students with disabilities.  Therefore, there is a need to provide flexibility to schools to use their resources in a cost-effective manner when staffing special classes.

 

It is proposed that the requirements for minimum staff-to-student ratios in special classes allow the additional staff person(s) assigned to a class during instructional periods to be a teacher, teaching assistant, teacher aide and/or related service provider.

 

 

 

 

Requirements for Minimum Levels of Service

 

Regulations establish minimum level of service requirements for consultant teacher services (two hours per week), resource room (three hours per week) and speech and language therapy (minimum two 30-minute sessions each week).  Public comment was consistent that, particularly at the middle and secondary levels, students with disabilities require a variety of supports and services, but not always to the minimum levels for each service required.  There are frequent instances in which the minimum level of service requirements, for example in resource room, detracts from the student’s opportunities to participate in core academic subjects. 

 

It is proposed that minimum level of service requirements for resource room, speech and language therapy and consultant teacher services be repealed. However, a change in regulation would not impact the minimum level of service requirement in statute for purposes of the nine-tenths public excess cost weighting for direct or indirect consultant teacher services (i.e., if consultant teacher services are to be claimed separately for State aid rather than claimed in one of the other public excess cost weightings, the two hour weekly minimum level of service would be required). This would allow increased flexibility for a CSE to recommend an individual array of supports and services to address the student’s unique needs.  

 

Maximum Chronological Age and Achievement Ranges in Special Classes

 

Higher standards and accountability for results of students with disabilities compel us to review the factors for grouping students with disabilities for instructional purposes.   Current regulations allow unlimited chronological age grouping for students who are ages 16 and older and limit the chronological age grouping for younger students to three years.  Public comment emphasized the need, particularly at the secondary level, for a student’s academic achievement levels to be a major consideration in determining special class grouping, more so than chronological age. In fact, chronological age limitations can become a barrier to appropriate instructional groupings at the secondary level. While a school district can now request a variance from the chronological age requirements, the paperwork and time delays involved may be a deterrent to timely and appropriate class placements. 

 

It is proposed that unlimited chronological age ranges be allowed for students with disabilities in special classes at the secondary-level who are ages 15 and older, provided that such students are grouped by similarity of need and in consideration of each student’s academic achievement levels.  Further, it is proposed that the 36-month chronological age range for students in elementary and middle school special classes who are ages 14 and younger be retained, adding regulatory emphasis to the requirement for grouping in consideration of the students’ academic achievement levels.

 


 

3.     Provide procedural standardization and paperwork relief to school districts by:

·       requiring that students’ individualized education programs (IEPs) and required notices to parents be in the format required by the Commissioner; and

·       repealing the requirement for parent notification relating to math and reading achievement levels in special classes.       

 

Required Formats for IEPs and Due Process Notices

 

Current regulations specify the content of the IEP and other due process notices, but not the format.  As a result, many districts devote considerable time and effort to form development.  The result is inconsistency from school district to school district on these required notices with a significant number of school districts that do not fully comply with the procedural requirements.  The inconsistency in how IEPs and notices read often results in confusion and misunderstanding of CSE recommendations.  Given the complexity of the content requirements, many districts inadvertently omit required content of notices and, as a result, fail to properly inform parents.  Beyond the important impact this has on parents and students, there is an impact on time and resources spent in resolving complaints submitted to the Department for procedural non-compliance, including developing and monitoring implementation of compliance assurance plans (CAPs). Minimizing procedural noncompliance is also expected to positively impact the number and decisions in due process hearings.  

 

It is proposed that IEPs, prior notices, meeting notices and board of education notices to parents relating to special education procedural due process requirements be developed in a format prescribed by the Commissioner. If the Regents support this change, we would further recommend a delayed implementation date so that school districts have sufficient time to convert their paperwork processes and computerized management systems to the new format.  VESID has taken steps to prepare the field for standardization of IEPs and forms and notices. In December 2002, VESID issued a sample IEP form and guidance document that school districts were encouraged, but not required, to adopt. We have encouraged IEP software companies to convert to the State’s sample IEP format and most of the larger software companies have, to various degrees, done so. This fall, VESID plans to publish sample procedural due process forms and notices relating to the special education process, which school districts will be encouraged to adopt. 

 

Requiring the IEP and special education procedural notices to be in a format required by the State is expected to have many positive benefits, including, but not limited to, helping to ensure that parents are fully informed; school districts are in procedural compliance; there is statewide standardization of the format and content of IEPs among school districts; school district resources can be redirected from procedural compliance to instructional services; and VESID’s Special Education Quality Assurance resources can focus more on assisting schools to improve instructional outcomes for students with disabilities rather than monitoring for procedural compliance.

 

 

Notices Relating to Achievement Levels in Special Classes

 

Current regulations require that, when the math and reading achievement levels of students with disabilities in a special class exceed a three-year age range, the school district must provide the CSE and the parents and teacher of students in such class a description of the range of achievement in reading and mathematics and the general levels of social development, physical development and management needs in the class, by November 1st of each year.  This requirement only pertains to special classes of 15 students to one teacher (15:1), 12 students to one teacher (12:1) and 12 students to one teacher and a teaching assistant or teacher aide (12:1+1). 

 

The above notification requirements create burdensome paperwork requirements and potential due process and confidentiality issues.   In addition, it is essential that the academic achievement of all students be considered in the grouping of students for instructional purposes.  Therefore, it is proposed that we eliminate this reporting requirement from regulation.

 

II.       Consequences for Performance: Recognition and Sanctions

 

          The proposed strategy to reward and recognize high performing and most improved school districts and to provide consequences to low performing and substantially noncompliant school districts centers on public reporting. Its focus is to (1) identify and recognize those school districts that achieve or exceed specific goals and that demonstrate significant improvement over time toward the goals of VESID’s strategic plan relating to achievement and placements in the least restrictive environment; (2) provide consequences to low performing schools as well as to school districts that are substantially noncompliant with statutory and regulatory requirements.

 

          The system of consequences and sanctions must be efficient and effective and result in timely compliance and improvement. An efficient and effective system of recognition and sanctions for school districts to improve results for students with disabilities must consider our own resources and be based on building public support, creating partnerships and promoting effective practices. The proposed system of recognition and rewards has been designed to serve as an incentive for school districts to be high performers and to lead to the identification and replication of what works (best practices).  An incentive for change occurs when there is public notice about results. The performance of a school district is integral to a community. Targeting funding incentives can also lead to meaningful change. 

 

          The proposed strategies to provide recognition, rewards, consequences and sanctions are broadly discussed below.  We recognize that there are implementation issues relating to each proposed strategy that would need to be addressed in collaboration with the Office of Elementary, Middle, Secondary and Continuing Education (EMSC).  As with the regulatory reform proposals, for the proposed strategies supported by the Board of Regents, we intend to identify and address implementation issues in the next set of public meetings and meetings with focus groups and organizations.  Additional strategies to expand the continuum of sanctions that may require statutory and regulatory changes will be further considered upon IDEA reauthorization. 

 

Recognition and Rewards

 

To recognize and reward school districts, it is proposed that VESID:

 

Consequences and Sanctions

 

The proposed consequences/sanctions strategies would include:

 

Next Steps

 

          We propose the following next steps to implement those policy strategies supported by the Board of Regents:

 

°        Publish the proposed strategies on VESID’s “Designing our Future” website to invite public comment;

°        Meet with focus groups to discuss the proposed strategies and identify issues, concerns and sources of support for each of the proposals;

°        Develop a regulatory package for discussion with the Board of Regents;

°        Obtain public comment through public meetings on the proposed regulations; and

°        Realign VESID’s tasks and resources, in collaboration with EMSC, to accomplish the proposed strategies.