Updates from the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) NAFEPA March 14, 20 16 Ruth Ryder Acting Director, OSEP Jennifer Finch Monitoring and State Improvement and Planning, OSEP
Overview • NPRM on Significant Disproportionality (2/23/2016) • ESSA • Guidance Issued: • FAPE and IEPs (11/2015) • Dyslexia (10/2015) • DOJ Testing Accommodations (9/2015) • EL with Disabilities Q and A (7/2014 & 7/2015) • Effective Communication (11/2014) • RDA • Leveraging IDEA Funds
Significant Disproportionality NPRM • Released February 23 rd ; 75 day comment period • Background • IDEA 2004, GAO report, RFI • State data • Two main components • Standard approach • Comprehensive coordinated early intervening services
Every Student Succeeds Act
Negotiated Rulemaking • Assessment and supplement not supplant provisions will be negotiated • Negotiation sessions will be held March 21 ‐ 23, April 6 ‐ 8 and optional session April 18 ‐ 19 • Negotiators announced on March 4 • Issue papers released to the public
Accountability for Children with Disabilities • Holds students with disabilities to the same challenging academic content standards • Students with disabilities must be provided appropriate accommodations to ensure that they can fully participate in assessments • Results for students with disabilities must be reported
Alternate Assessments for Children with the Most Significant Cognitive Disabilities • Places a state ‐ level 1% cap on the number of students with the most significant cognitive disabilities who are assessed in a given subject on an alternate assessment aligned with alternate academic achievement standards • States may not impose a cap at the district level • Parents must be clearly informed as part of the IEP process of the implications of their child taking an alternate assessment
Alternate Diplomas for Children with the Most Significant Cognitive Disabilities • Students with the most significant cognitive disabilities who are assessed using the alternate assessment aligned to alternate academic achievement standards and who receive a State defined alternate diploma that is • standards ‐ based, • aligned to the requirements for a regular diploma, and • obtained within the time period for which the State ensures the availability of a free appropriate public education, • May count toward a school’s graduation cohort
Guidance Relevant to Students with Disabilities
FAPE and IEP DCL (11/2015) • IEPs for children with disabilities must be aligned with State academic content standards for the grade in which the child is enrolled • Primary vehicle for providing FAPE is through an appropriately developed IEP that is based on the individual needs of the child • IDEA “general education curriculum” is the curriculum that is based on the State’s academic content standards for the grade in which the child is enrolled
Dyslexia (10/15) It’s OK to use the terms dyslexia, dysgraphia and dyscalculia in evaluations to determine eligibility and in IEPs
DOJ Testing Accommodations (9/15) • Testing entities must • Respond in a timely manner to requests for testing accommodations • May seek only reasonable documentation narrowly tailored to the child’s disability and the need for the accommodation • Proof of past testing accommodation (IEPs or 504 plans) in similar test settings is generally sufficient to support a request for the same accommodation for a current standardized exam
ELs with Disabilities (7/14 & 7/15) • ELs with disabilities must participate in annual ELP assessments • ELs with disabilities must be assessed against the same ELP standards • Regular ELP assessment • ELP assessment with accommodations • Alternate assessment aligned to ELP standards
Effective Communication (11/14) • Title II of the ADA requires that a district take appropriate steps to ensure that communication with “persons with disabilities” is as effective as persons without disabilities • Under IDEA, FAPE must be individually designed to provide meaningful educational benefit to the child with a disability • The school district must ensure that obligations under both laws are met • Consider the nature, length, and complexity of the communication involved, and the context in which the communication is taking place
Results ‐ Driven Accountability
RDA – Shifting the Balance OSEP has revised its accountability system to shift the balance from a system focused primarily on compliance to one that puts more emphasis on results.
What is the Vision for RDA? All components of an accountability system will be aligned in a manner that best support States in improving results for infants, toddlers, children and youth with disabilities, and their families.
SSIP Activities by Phase
State‐Identified Measureable Result – Part B • Graduation : 13 AK, DC, FL, GA, MN, MT, NC, ND, NJ, PA, RMI, VA, WV • Reading/ELA : 34 AR, AS, AZ, CNMI, CO, CT, DE, FSM, GU, HI, IA, ID, IL, IN, KS, LA, MI, MS, NE, NV, NM, NY, OH, OK, OR, Palau, SC, SD, TN, TX, VI, WA, WI, WY • Math : 7 KY, MD, ME, PR, RI, UT, VT • Reading and Math : 2 CA, MO • Early Childhood Outcomes : 2 MA, NH • Post ‐ school Outcomes : 2 AL, BIE
Differentiated Monitoring and Support: Comprehensive Plan for Monitoring and Support (CPMS) OSEP will develop a comprehensive plan, individualized for each State based on a risk assessment rubric that includes: • Evaluation of the SSIP • Review of SPP/APR indicators • Review of State’s dispute resolution system • Review of State’s fiscal policies, procedures and practices
Resources and Tools You can find resources and tools from OSEP and from our TA centers on GRADS 360 https://osep.grads360.org/#program
Leveraging IDEA Funds Calculating Local Education Agency Maintenance of Effort for the Schoolwide Program Schools
Purpose • Provide additional information on ways to leverage funds to meet the needs of students with disabilities. • Provide guidance on calculating local education agency maintenance of effort (LEA MOE) in schoolwide program schools that are consolidating IDEA funds. • Provide a possible methodology to conduct these calculations.
Why Leveraging Funds is Important • Maximizes the impact of available funding • Avoids duplication • Promotes better planning of how available funding sources can be used to improve results for all students, including students with disabilities
Coordinated Early Intervening Services Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CEIS) is a set of coordinated services for students in kindergarten through grade 12 (with a particular emphasis on students in K ‐ 3) who are not currently identified as needing special education or related services, but who need additional academic and behavioral support to succeed in a general education environment. IDEA Section 613(f); 34 CFR § 300.226(a)
Blending vs Braiding Funds Braided Funding: Blended Funding: Financial assistance from Financial assistance from individual funding streams to individual funding streams to States, local governments, and States, local governments, and other pass ‐ through entities is other pass ‐ through entities is coordinated by all stakeholders merged by all stakeholders so each individual award into one award and each maintains its award ‐ specific individual award loses its identity award ‐ specific identity
Example of Braiding Funding An LEA has a multi tiered system of support (MTSS) where Federal program funds are used to serve each program’s subgroup of students. For example: • 10% of the students participating in the MTSS are children with disabilities and the LEA uses 10% of its IDEA funds to serve those children. • 15% of the students participating in the MTSS are English language learners and the LEA uses 15% of the Title III funds to serve those children.
Example of Blending Funds LEAs that consolidate Title I, IDEA and Title III funds for schoolwide programs (see 34 CFR § 300.206)
Schoolwide Programs “… a comprehensive reform strategy designed to upgrade the entire educational program in a Title I school; its primary goal is to ensure that all students, particularly those who are low achieving, demonstrate proficient and advanced levels of achievement on State academic achievement standards.” Designing Schoolwide Programs Non-Regulatory Guidance, pg. 2, March 2006, http: / / www2.ed.gov/ admins/ lead/ account/ swp.html
Schoolwide Programs • May consolidate Federal funds (including IDEA Part B funds), and State and local funds to support any activity of the schoolwide program without regard to which program contributed the specific funds used for a particular activity. • A schoolwide program must identify in its schoolwide plan which programs are included in its consolidation and the amount each program contributes to the consolidated schoolwide pool. 20 U.S.C. 6314
What we know about blending IDEA funds • Blending is permissible as long as students with disabilities, included in such schoolwide programs: – receive services in accordance with a properly developed IEP; and – are afforded all of the rights and services guaranteed to children with disabilities under the IDEA. • How to calculate the amount of funds that may be used for this purpose. • These funds must be considered Federal Part B funds for the purposes of calculating LEA MOE and excess cost under §300.202(a)(2) and (a)(3)
Recommend
More recommend
