The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act was supposed to
have been reauthorized this past session of Congress, but
irreconcilable differences remained on policy changes to be made.
As background material for the reauthorization to occur next
year, I am distributing the most recent annual report on IDEA
implementation by the U.S. Department of Education.
Jamal Mazrui
National Council on Disability
Email: 74444.1076@compuserve.com
----------
To Assure the Free Appropriate Public Education of all Children with
Disabilities
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Section 618
Seventeenth Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of The
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
U.S. Department of Education
1995
_________________________________________________________________
Discrimination Prohibited
No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or
national origin, be excluded from participating in, be denied the
benefits of, or be subject to discrimination under any program or
activity receiving Federal financial assistance, or be so treated on
the basis of sex under most education programs or activities receiving
Federal assistance.
No otherwise qualified individual with disabilities in the United
States shall, solely by reason of his disability be excluded from the
participation in, be denied the benefit of, or be subjected to
discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal
financial assistance.
_________________________________________________________________
----------
Preface
Each year, the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) collects
and analyzes information to assess the extent to which all students
with disabilities are receiving a free, appropriate public education,
as ensured by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA). This Seventeenth Annual Report to Congress is designed to
consolidate and communicate the results of those information
collections and analyses. It contains seven chapters and a number of
appendices. Two topics that are discussed in this year's Annual Report
are the provision of services to students with disabilities in
inclusive settings and the educational results of students with
disabilities. Key aspects of these issues are included in the
Executive Summary.
Chapter 1 begins with a brief description of IDEA. Then, the
Formula Grants Program section describes the financial assistance
provided to States educating children and youth with disabilities
under two Federal programs, Part B and Chapter 1 (SOP), during the
1993-94 school year. The chapter also includes data on the numbers of
students receiving special education and related services, the types
of disabilities they have, the settings in which they are educated and
some of the benefits of serving students in inclusive environments,
and the bases by which they leave special education. The results of
the pilot test of the Performance Assessment for Self-Sufficiency
(PASS) instrument and expert system for reporting data on anticipated
service needs is also included. Finally, the number of staff who
provide special education and related services, and the number of
additional personnel needed, is reported.
Chapter 2 provides information on the role of the IDEA, Part H and
Preschool Grants Program in meeting the needs of infants and toddlers
and their families and preschoolers with disabilities. The chapter has
three main sections. First, the implementation of the Part H program
for infants and toddlers with disabilities is described. Included in
this section is information about State allocations, the number of
eligible infants and toddlers served, the settings utilized, and the
number of personnel employed and needed. Implementation issues related
to refining data collection systems and a wide range of coordination
efforts are also discussed. Second, the number of children age 3
through 5 served by the Preschool Grants Program, the number of
personnel employed and needed, and the educational placements used are
reported. Several implementation issues are also highlighted. Third,
the discretionary programs and research projects sponsored by OSEP to
address the needs of young children and their families, including the
Early Education Program for Children with Disabilities (EEPCD), are
described.
Chapter 3 examines the relationship between the secondary school
experiences of students with disabilities and their accomplishments in
the three years after leaving secondary school. The chapter is based
on the congressionally mandated National Longitudinal Transition Study
(NLTS) that was completed for OSEP by SRI International. The chapter
begins with a description of the secondary school experiences of these
students and policy suggestions that support inclusion, and concludes
with a description of four post-school results for these students:
participation in postsecondary programs, employment, independent
living, and participation in their communities.
Chapter 4 is based on activities completed by the National Center
on Educational Outcomes (NCEO). It focuses on NCEO's ongoing analyses
of current State and national assessment practices for students with
disabilities. The chapter describes recent developments in State
assessments of students with disabilities, the 1992 National Adult
Literary Survey (NALS) data collection efforts, and the plans of the
National Center for Education Statistics to improve the inclusion
of students with disabilities in national education data collection
efforts.
Chapter 5 reports on the work of the Center for Special Education
Finance (CSEF), which is one of several research centers funded by
OSERS. The chapter summarizes some of CSEF's research during its first
two years of operations (FY 1993 and FY 1994). The three sections in
this chapter focuses on: (1) Federal funding for special education
services, including a historical overview of Federal legislation; (2)
State special education funding, with an emphasis on State finance
reform efforts that include fiscal policies that foster inclusion; and
(3) a case study of a State-level cost analysis project.
Chapter 6 describes OSEP efforts to assist States and local school
districts in educating students with disabilities. The chapter
describes the three-year staggered State plan review process and the
ongoing implementation of State Plan Academies to provide training to
key staff members from SEAs that are to submit plans. The chapter also
reports the results of compliance reviews.
Chapter 7 contains a review of the literature on the provision of
services to students with disabilities in rural areas. This chapter is
one of a series of reviews addressing the unique needs of special
populations with disabilities, begun in the Fourteenth Annual Report
to Congress. Information from several data sources was used to
describe the number and characteristics of students with disabilities
in rural areas, the factors affecting the provision of special
education to these students, and the types of services that were
offered.
In addition to the report's seven chapters, a series of appendices are
included. Appendix A is composed of data tables on child count,
educational environment, personnel, exiting, population and
enrollment, and fiscal awards. Tables presenting data on the number of
individuals trained by OSEP-funded personnel training projects
constitute Appendix B. Appendices C and D contain summaries and
abstracts of studies conducted under the State Agency/Federal
Evaluation Studies (SAFES) program. Appendix E contains data on
services for children and youth with deaf-blindness. Appendix F
provides profiles of OSEP's program agenda. Appendix G contains a
summary of Regional Resource Center activities. Appendix H contains a
summary of the activities and results reported by the grantees from
the State Systems Change Transition Grants. Appendix I describes the
activities of the Parent Training and Information Centers. Appendix J
reports on the activities of three OSEP-funded information
clearinghouses. Finally, Appendix K describes a Knowledge Utilization
Plan to promote and facilitate the use of information for program
improvement.
----------
List of Acronyms
_ADD_ - attention deficit disorder
_AFDC_ - Aid to Families with Dependent Children
_APPE_ - average per pupil expenditure
_BIA_ - Bureau of Indian Affairs
_CAP_ - corrective action plan
_CCD_ - Common Core of Data
_CSEF_ - Center for Special Education Finance
_CEC_ - Council for Exceptional Children
_DANS_ - Data Analysis System
_DID_ - Division of Innovation and Development
_DPP_ - Division of Personnel Preparation
_ECLS_ - Early Childhood Longitudinal Study
_EEPCD_ - Early Education Program for Children with Disabilities
_EDGAR_ - Education Department General Administrative Regulations
_EHA_ - Education of the Handicapped Act
_EPSDT_ - Early Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment
_ESEA_ - Elementary and Secondary Education Act
_FAPE_ - free appropriate public education
_FTE_ - full-time equivalent
_GEPA_ - General Education Provisions Act
_GLARRC_ - Great Lakes Area Regional Resource Center
_HCEEP_ - Handicapped Children's Early Education Program
_HIV_ - human immunodeficiency virus
_ICC_ - interagency coordinating council
_IDEA_ - Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
_IEP_ - individualized education plan
_IEU_ - intermediate educational unit
_IFSP_ - individualized family service plan
_ILC_ - independent living centers
_KERA_ - Kentucky Educational Reform Act
_LEA_ - local educational agency
_LEP_ - limited English proficiency
_LM_ - language minority
_LRE_ - least restrictive environment
_MPRRC_ - Mountain Plains Regional Resource Center
_MSRRC_ - Mid South Regional Resource Center
_NAEP_ - National Assessment of Educational Progress
_NAEYC_ - National Association for the Education of Young Children
_NALS_ - National Adult Literacy Survey
_NASBE_ - National Association of State Boards of Education
_NASDSE_ - National Association of State Directors of Special
Education
_NCEO_ - National Center on Educational Outcomes
_NCERI_ - National Center on Educational Restructuring and Inclusion
_NCES_ - National Center for Education Statistics
_NEC*TAS_ - National Early Childhood Technical Assistance System
_NERRC_ - Northeast Regional Resource Center
_NLTS_ - National Longitudinal Transition Study of Special Education
Students
_NTN_ - National Transition Network
_OCR_ - Office for Civil Rights
_OMB_ - Office of Management and Budget
_OSEP_ - Office of Special Education Programs
_OSERS_ - Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services
_PASS_ - Performance Assessment for Self-Sufficiency
_PTI_ - parent training information center
_SAFES_ - State Agency/Federal Evaluations Studies
_SARRC_ - South Atlantic Regional Resource Center
_SASS_ - Schools and Staffing Survey
_SEA_ - State Educational Agency
_SEAP_ - State Special Education Advisory Panel
_SOP_ - State Operated Programs
_WRRC_ - Western Regional Resource Center
----------
Executive Summary
The Seventeenth _Annual Report to Congress_ examines the progress
being made toward implementing the requirements of the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The purposes of the Act are
summarized below.
1. To provide assistance to States to develop early intervention
services for infants and toddlers with disabilities and their
families, and to assure a free appropriate public education to all
children and youth with disabilities.
2. To assure that the rights of children and youth with disabilities
from birth to age 21 and their families are protected.
3. To assist States and localities to provide for early intervention
services and the education of all children with disabilities.
4. To assess and assure the effectiveness of efforts to provide early
intervention services and educate children with disabilities.
This Report provides a description of the activities undertaken to
implement the Act and an assessment of the impact and effectiveness of
its requirements. The following brief summaries provide highlights of
the information presented in the chapters of the Report.
_Chapter 1:_ Students with Disabilities Served, Placement and Exiting
Patterns, and Personnel Who Provide Special Education and Related Services
National statistics and analyses generated from State-reported data
submitted annually to the Office of Special Education Programs
(OSEP) are provided. A brief retrospective analysis of Federal funding
patterns for special education is also included.
* OSEP's Division of Innovation and Development and the Severe
Disabilities Branch in the Division of Education Services have
funded a number of projects over the last decade that support
inclusive school practices. Some of these projects have focused on
specific research issues, while others have been demonstration
projects or institutes.
* During the last five years, regular classroom placements for
students age 6 through 21 have increased by almost 10 percent. The
use of resource rooms has decreased, and all other placement
settings have remained stable. In part, these changes may be
attributed to improved data collection and reporting methods in
several States.
* In 1992-93, 95 percent of students with disabilities were served
in regular school buildings. Students age 6 through 11 are most
likely to be served in regular classroom settings. This continues
the trend of placing more children in inclusive settings.
* During FY 1994, $2.149 billion was distributed to States for the
provision of special education to children with disabilities
through IDEA, Part B. The average per-child allocation has
remained relatively stable over the past three years, and was $413
in FY 1994.
* The Chapter 1 (SOP) program was not reauthorized under the
Improving America's Schools Act that reauthorized ESEA. Beginning
July 1, 1995, funding for services to all eligible children and
youth age 3 through 21 will be provided under IDEA, Part B. In FY
1994, the average per pupil Chapter 1 (SOP) allocation was $387.
* Combined Chapter 1 (SOP) and Part B funding increased by $87.4
million, or 4 percent, in FY 1994. However, the rise in
appropriations has been offset by increases in the number of
students served in these programs.
* A total of 5,373,077 infants, toddlers, children, and youth with
disabilities from birth through age 21 were served under Part B
and Chapter 1 (SOP) during the 1993-94 school year. This figure
represents an increase of 4.2 percent, the largest yearly increase
since the inception of IDEA in 1976.
* Students with learning disabilities continue to account for more
than half of all students with disabilities (51.1 percent).
Students with speech or language impairments, mental retardation,
and serious emotional disturbance account for an additional 41.4
percent of all students age 6 through 21 with disabilities.
* Although students with traumatic brain injuries, other health
impairments and autism still account for less than 3 percent of
all students with disabilities, these are the most rapidly growing
categories. The size of the increase in the number of students
with traumatic brain injury and autism is probably related to the
fact that these reporting categories were only recently
established. The increase in the number of students with other
health impairments appears to be the result of growth in the
service population. Specifically, the number of students
identified as having attention deficit disorder (ADD) appears to
be increasing.
* In 1992, OSEP revised the form used to collect information about
students exiting educational programs. The new form collects data
on the number of students age 14 and older exiting the special
education system, rather than the number of those students exiting
the educational system in general. Data on students 14 and older
exiting with a diploma or certificate of completion show little
change over the past five years. This trend is consistent across
disability categories.
* The results of the PASS (Performance Assessment for
Self-Sufficiency) system pilot study, which examined the
anticipated service needs of students exiting the school system,
found that the service in highest demand in a sample of States was
case management. Alternative education and recreation and leisure
services were also high in demand.
* The number of teachers employed to serve children and youth with
disabilities age 6 through 21 from 1991-92 to 1992-93 increased 0.
7 percent. The largest special education teacher category in
school year 1992-93 was the specific learning disabilities
category.
* Teacher aides accounted for over half (55. 7 percent) of all staff
other than special education teachers employed to serve students
with disabilities age 3 through 21. However, States also reported
that the area of greatest need was teacher aides. States reported
needing an additional 5,000 full-time equivalent (FTE) teacher
aides to fill vacancies and to replace personnel who were not
fully certified or licensed.
_Chapter 2:_ Meeting the Needs of Infants, Toddlers, and Preschool Children
with Disabilities
The chapter provides an update on the implementation of the Early
Intervention Program for Infants and Toddlers (Part H) and the
Preschool Grants Program (Section 619 of Part B). It includes a
detailed analysis of the State-reported data and OSEP-funded projects
related to serving children with disabilities ages birth through 5.
* FY 1993 marked the first year all States and jurisdictions were
required to assure full implementation of the Part H program in
order to receive funding. Appropriations for the program rose by
23 percent from $172. 8 million to $213. 2 million.
* States reported that the number of eligible infants and toddlers
served under all programs on December 1, 1993 rose to 154,065 (1.
3 percent of the total birth through 2 population). However,
despite numerous changes in the data collection systems within
States, the percentage of the total birth through 2 population
served has remained fairly stable over the past 3 years.
* Among all eligible infants and toddlers, the home remains the most
frequent service site, followed by outpatient services and early
intervention classroom settings. The 1992-93 data shows that (1)
family training, counseling, and home visits, (2) special
instruction, and (3) speech and language pathology were the
services most often provided.
* Information on personnel employed and needed to serve infants and
toddlers with disabilities and their families has been difficult
for States to collect. Therefore, new personnel data collection
forms have been developed, and underwent field tests in early
1995. However, in general, the largest category of personnel
employed to serve this population is paraprofessionals, followed
by special educators, "other" personnel, and speech and language
pathologists. Speech and language pathologists were the personnel
in greatest demand.
* Implementation issues in the Part H program still persist.
Revisions in State data collection systems are underway. In
addition, States are struggling to coordinate the wide range of
multiple funding sources, legislation, and programs that serve
infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families.
* In FY 1994, $339 million was appropriated for the Preschool Grants
Program, 4 percent more than in the $326 million appropriated in
FY 1993. However, during the 1993-94 school year, 493,525
preschoolers with disabilities received services, 8. 3 percent
more than in 1992-93.
* During the 1992-93 school year, nearly 19,000 FTE special
education teachers were employed to serve children with
disabilities age 3 through 5. An additional 2,209 FTE teachers
were needed.
* States report that coordination between preschool programs and
other programs continues to increase. According to a NEC*TAS
survey, 15 States and jurisdictions reported that the focus of
their Part H Interagency Coordinating Council (ICC) is programs
for children from birth through age 5. Interagency agreements with
Head Start also continue to strengthen. Although transition from
Part H to preschool programs continues to be a concern, many
States are developing policies or new transition agreements to
meet their specific needs.
* In FY 1994, the Early Education Program for Children with
Disabilities (EEPCD) supported 116 projects: 34 demonstration
projects, 45 outreach projects, 21 inservice training projects, 4
experimental projects, 6 research institutes, 5 statewide data
system projects, and 1 national technical assistance center.
* The Department has sponsored studies of specific issues related to
the Part H program. Two studies, "The Feasibility of Determining
the Cost of Providing Early Intervention Services," and "The Use
of Family Payment Systems in the Part H Program," analyze the cost
issues related to providing Part H services in selected States.
_Chapter 3:_ The Relationship of Secondary School Experiences to the Early
Post-School Outcomes of Youth with Disabilities
This chapter presents highlights of findings from the National
Longitudinal Transition Study (NLTS) regarding selected aspects of the
programs, performance, and post-school results of students with
disabilities who attended regular secondary school.
* NLTS data were used to describe secondary school programs attended
by students with disabilities between 1985 and 1990, and the level
of supports offered within schools that had inclusion programs at
that time needs to be considered.
* The relationship between more time in regular education and
positive results as a young adult needs to be studied further. The
data suggest that frequently students with less significant
disabilities spent more time in regular education. The data also
suggest that increased time in regular education enhanced students
overall intellectual and social competence by providing better
preparation for postsecondary experiences.
* Thirty percent of students with disabilities who had been enrolled
in ninth through twelfth grades left school by dropping out. An
additional 8 percent left school before ninth grade. As might be
expected, students who dropped out were less likely to enroll in
postsecondary vocational programs.
* The NLTS found that almost all youth with disabilities had access
to some form of vocational education in secondary school. The data
indicated that vocational training contributed significantly to
the probability of competitive employment.
* The amount of attention currently devoted to school reform at
multiple levels within the educational system is an indicator that
change is desired. Information on how to offer supports to
students in inclusive settings is increasing.
* The American Council on Education reported that the number of
freshmen with disabilities entering college tripled between 1978
and 1991 (from 2.2 percent to 8.8 percent of all freshmen).
However, the NLTS data suggests that, among youth with
disabilities out of secondary school up to 3 years, 16.5 percent
enrolled in academic programs and 14.7 enrolled in vocational
postsecondary programs.
* Among students with disabilities who did participate in
postsecondary academic programs, a large majority (70 percent)
spent 75 percent or more of their time in high school regular
education.
* Students with disabilities who spent more time in regular
education in high school were more likely to be employed and to
make higher salaries in the 3 years after high school than
students who had taken fewer regular education courses. However,
youth with disabilities as a group were employed at rates well
below those of their peers in the general population.
* Fewer youth with disabilities were living independently shortly
after high school than were their peers in the general population.
The NLTS found that 28 percent of youth with disabilities who had
been out of high school up to three years were living
independently. Individuals with visual impairments were the
highest percentage of youth living independently. Individuals with
multiple disabilities, mental retardation, orthopedic impairments
or other health impairments had low independent living rates.
Two-thirds of those living independently after high school had
participated in regular education 75 percent or more of their time
in high school.
* Youth who had spent more time in regular education were more
likely to be fully participating in their communities. Over 50
percent of students with disabilities who spent 75 percent or more
of their time in regular education were employed or in school, not
socially isolated, and either married or engaged.
_Chapter 4:_ Results for Students with Disabilities
There is concern nationally about the educational performance of all
students. The specific concern about educational results for students
with disabilities is also growing because, in part, there has been
very little information about the educational results of this group of
students. This chapter describes some of the work of the National
Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO), which has been funded by OSEP
since 1990 to address the issues related to educational results for
students with disabilities. This chapter focuses on NCEO's ongoing
analysis of current State and national assessment practices for
students with disabilities.
* States are making progress in several aspects of the State-level
assessment of educational results for students with disabilities.
Three critical areas in which progress is evident are: identifying
students with disabilities participating in assessments,
developing guidelines for participation of students with
disabilities, and developing guidelines for accommodations.
* Of the 59 States and Outlying Areas surveyed in 1993, all but six
included students with disabilities in their State-level
assessments, or else did not have a State-level assessment. In
States and Outlying Areas where students with disabilities do
participate in assessments, 26 reported that less than 50 percent
of their students with disabilities participated in their
statewide assessments, and 13 reported that more than 50 percent
of their students with disabilities participated in statewide
assessments. The remaining 14 States reported that they were
unable to determine what percentage of their students with
disabilities are included in statewide assessments.
* In 1993, 34 States and 4 Outlying Areas indicated they had written
guidelines about the participation of students with disabilities
in statewide assessments. Most States and Outlying Areas used more
than one criterion when deciding who should participate in
statewide assessments. The two most common criteria used were the
characteristics of the student's program/curriculum and
recommendations previously stipulated in the student's IEP.
* The number of States that provide accommodations or modifications
during statewide assessments has increased over each of the past
three years. NCEO has identified four broad areas of typical
accommodations. They are accommodations in timing/scheduling,
presentation format, setting, and response format. Alterations in
presentation format and in timing/scheduling were the two most
frequent accommodations made.
* In 1994, NCEO developed a set of recommendations for State
guidelines on participation in and accommodations for statewide
assessments NCEO made recommendations in three areas:
participation, accommodations and adaptations, and implementation
checks.
* In 1992, the National Adult Literacy Survey (NALS) included
individuals with disabilities. Although methodological
inadequacies may have affected the reliability of the results, the
NALS report included the results of the literacy assessment of
individuals in ten self-reported disability condition categories.
The results showed that overall individuals with disabilities were
more likely than individuals without disabilities who participated
in the survey to perform at lower literacy levels. However, within
almost every disability group, in each literacy category, there
were some individuals with disabilities who performed at the top
two levels of literacy.
_Chapter 5:_ Financing Services for Students with Disabilities
This chapter provides an overview and summary of the work completed by
the Center for Special Education Finance (CSEF) during its first two
years of operation (FY 1993 and FY 1994). CSEF has been funded by OSEP
to provide policy makers and administrators at the Federal, State, and
local levels with data, analyses, expertise, and opportunities to
share information about special education finance issues. CSEF has
completed the following projects: A survey of State educational
funding reform trends, formulation of a set of fiscal policy
guidelines that promote inclusion, and a case study of a State-level
cost analysis project since its inception.
* In 1994, CSEF surveyed State special education personnel in all 50
States concerning special education reforms that might be taking
place in their States. CSEF learned that during the last 5 years,
18 States had implemented some type of fiscal reform, and 28
States were considering major changes. Twenty States were
undecided about carrying out any specific reforms at the time of
the survey. Respondents identified five major issues driving
reform:(1) the need for more flexible ways to provide special
education; (2) the need to eliminate incentives that lead to
restrictive placements; (3) the fact that reforms are driven by
fiscal accountability; (4) rising special education costs and
enrollments; and (5) the influence of support for more inclusive
educational practices.
* Several States now provide funds to districts based on some form
of a census-based funding system, in an attempt to break the link
between funding and local policies that determine how students
with disabilities are identified and placed in special education
programs. Other States are adopting a single funding weight for
all special education students.
* CSEF has developed a set of guidelines that show how policy makers
can develop fiscal policies that promote inclusion. They are: (1)
remove fiscal incentives that favor restrictive and separate
placements, (2) make decisions about the extent to which the State
wishes to encourage private special education placements, (3)
develop funding systems in which funds follow students as they
move to less restrictive placements, (4) enhance fiscal support
for district training, and (5) fund and encourage the use of
appropriate interventions for all students.
* CSEF conducted a special education cost study of Kentucky's
approach to special education funding. According to the study's
best overall estimate, the State and federal revenues were
apparently adequate to support current levels of special education
across the State. The study also showed that, despite a high
degree of parity between special education revenues and costs
statewide, considerable differences in the relative degree of
alignment across individual types of districts were found. On
average, the ratio of expenditures to revenues for special
education were lowest in districts serving the poorest students
and those showing the highest special education identification
rates. Finally, the study showed that the funding weights
currently in use in the State were not aligned with the costs of
educating some categories of special education students.
_Chapter 6:_ Assisting States and Localities in Educating all Children with
Disabilities
This chapter describes the efforts OSEP undertakes to assist State and
local educational agencies in educating all children and youth with
disabilities and the refinements OSEP has made to its monitoring
system.
* Each State must meet a number of statutory and regulatory
requirements in order to receive Federal financial assistance
under the Part B program. To ensure that SEAs are accomplishing
their responsibilities consistent with the Part B and Education
Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR)
requirements, OSEP uses a multifaceted program review process.
* Recognizing that an effective accountability system is critical to
ensure continuous progress in achieving educational results for
children with disabilities, OSEP and its customers have worked
over the past two years to strengthen the system so that it
will--in conjunction with OSEP's research, innovation, and
technical assistance efforts--serve as an effective vehicle to
support systemic reform that will produce better results for
students with disabilities, while recognizing the need to continue
to look at procedural compliance.
* OSEP recognizes that while all IDEA requirements are important,
some of its requirements have a more direct relationship to
student results than others. OSEP appreciates the importance of
focusing monitoring activities on the requirements with the most
direct relationship with student results, and on emphasizing those
requirements in the corrective action process. OSEP understands
that primary responsibility for each State's compliance with IDEA
lies with the State, rather than with OSEP, and that parents must
have access to effective systems for ensuring compliance. It is,
therefore, critical that OSEP's monitoring system also focus on
each State's systems for general supervision.
* In the 1994-95 school year, OSEP refocused its monitoring
procedures to place emphasis on those requirements that relate
most directly to improving student results. Further, OSEP has
sought and used broad public input in the monitoring process, has
worked closely with States to ensure corrective action that
results in legal compliance and improved results for students, and
has continued to provide extensive technical assistance to States
to assist them in meeting the requirements of Part B in a manner
that supports improved results for students.
_Chapter 7:_ Serving Students with Disabilities in Rural Areas
This chapter discusses the unique challenges that rural special
educators and administrators face in providing a free appropriate
public education to students with disabilities living in rural areas.
* Multiple definitions of the term rural exist. For the purposes of
this Report, the Common Core of Data (CCD) Public School Universe
file and the Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) were used as
primary data sources. Based on data from the CCD Public Universe
file for the 1989-90 school year, approximately 28 percent of
regular public schools were located in rural areas. Data from SASS
for the school year 1990-91 suggest that 27 percent of all public
schools were located in rural areas.
* Rural districts serve a greater percentage of students with
disabilities in regular classrooms than do non-rural districts. In
rural areas, only 14.6 percent of students with disabilities were
in full-time special education programs, while in non-rural areas
25.3 percent of students with disabilities were in full-time
special education programs. The data also indicates that both
rural and non-rural districts serve 5.5 percent of students with
disabilities outside of their home districts.
* During the 1990-91 school-year, rural (10.8 percent) and non-rural
(10.0 percent) districts served very similar percentages of
students with disabilities. Percentages within each disability
category were also similar.
* Rural districts face many challenges in meeting the needs of all
their students, including those with disabilities. Rural districts
serve a larger percentage of children living in poverty (22.9
percent) than non-rural populations (20.6 percent), and rural
districts are more likely to serve children who live in poverty
for long periods of time. The geographic isolation common to rural
districts can impede every aspect of the special education process
(identification and assessment, service delivery, and availability
of adequate personnel).
* Recruiting and retaining staff qualified to serve students with
disabilities is particularly difficult in rural areas. Many
professionals feel socially, culturally, and professionally
isolated. Several innovative OSEP-funded programs have been
developed to increase personnel recruitment and retention rates.
* The NLTS provides a great deal of information on the transition of
youth with disabilities from secondary school to early adulthood.
It also provides information on secondary students with
disabilities in rural areas. This data indicates that secondary
students with disabilities in rural areas spend over half of their
class time in academic subjects, and that 53.5 percent received
job training during their most recent school year. Similarly, 50.6
percent of students in urban setting received job training. In
addition, 62 percent of secondary students with disabilities in
rural schools took some type of vocational education during their
most recent year of schooling, while 58.9 percent of students in
urban settings enrolled in vocational education courses. Secondary
students with disabilities in rural areas were most likely to
study construction trades (32 percent), office occupations (22
percent), and agriculture (20 percent).
----------
Chapter 1
_______________________________________________________________________
School-Age Students with Disabilities Served, Placement and Exiting Patterns,
and Personnel Who Provide Special Education and Related Services
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires
that all children and youth with disabilities within certain age
ranges1 be provided a free, appropriate public education (FAPE).
IDEA requires the Secretary of Education to determine how well the
States are fulfilling this requirement. Several data sources are used.
One of those sources is the State-reported data required by Congress
under Section 618(b) of IDEA. States provide annual data to the
Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) on the number of
children and youth with disabilities served under Part B of IDEA and
Chapter 1 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), State
Operated Programs (SOP).2 States also provide data on educational
placements and exit status for students with disabilities, as well as
data on the number of personnel employed and needed to serve students
with disabilities.
This report includes data for children served under the Chapter 1
(SOP) Handicapped Program for Federal fiscal year 1994 (school year
1993-94). In October 1994, Congress passed the Improving America's
Schools Act that reauthorized ESEA and eliminated the Chapter 1 (SOP)
Handicapped Program. IDEA was amended so that, beginning in fiscal
year 1995, funding for special education and related services for all
eligible students with disabilities will be provided under the IDEA
Grants to States (Part B) and Early Intervention for Infants and
Toddlers with Disabilities (Part H) programs. Hold harmless provisions
were added to the allocation formulas for these programs to ensure
that States do not lose funding because of this change. The fiscal
year 1994 allocations for the Chapter 1 (SOP), Grants to States, and
Early Intervention for Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities programs
are the basis for the hold harmless provisions. In addition, for
fiscal year 1995, the number of children aged birth through 2 who
would have been eligible for the former Chapter 1 (SOP) Handicapped
Program will be used to distribute $34,000,000 of the funds
appropriated for Part H. The December 1, 1994 count will be presented
in the 18th Annual Report to Congress.
This chapter consists of the six sections summarized below.
* _Formula Grant Programs_ describes the financial assistance
provided to States in educating children and youth with
disabilities under two Federal programs, Part B and Chapter 1
(SOP) during the 1993-94 school year.
* _Number of Children and Youth Served under Part B and Chapter 1
(SOP)_ reports the number of children and youth with disabilities
from birth through age 21 receiving services under these two
programs during the 1993-94 school year and describes trends over
time.
* _Educational Placements of Students with Disabilities_
describes students' educational placements during the 1992-93
school year.
* _Students with Disabilities Exiting Educational Programs_
reports the status of students age 14 through 21 who exited
educational programs in 1992-93.
* _Services Anticipated to be Needed by Exiting Students with
Disabilities: Results of the PASS Pilot Test_ reports the results
of the pilot test of the Performance Assessment for
Self-Sufficiency (PASS) instrument and expert system for reporting
data on anticipated service needs.
* _Personnel Employed and Needed to Serve Students with
Disabilities_ reports the number of teachers and other personnel
employed and needed to serve students with disabilities during the
1992-93 school year. Revisions to the collection of data on
personnel employed and needed are discussed.
_______________________
1 See table 2.6 for a State by State listing of the age at which
children are eligible for FAPE.
2 For simplicity, these two laws will be referred to as Part B and
Chapter 1 (SOP) throughout this report.
----------
Formula Grant Programs
This section provides a brief overview of two major Federal programs
that have provided States with financial assistance to educate
school-age children and youth with disabilities--the IDEA, Part B
State Grant Program, and Chapter 1 of ESEA (SOP). Two other formula
grant programs authorized under IDEA--the Early Intervention Program
for Infants and Toddlers (Part H), and the Part B, Section 619
Preschool Grants Program--are described in Chapter 2.3
The Part B State Grant Program
The Part B program distributes funds to the States according to the
total number of students with disabilities aged 3-21 reported by the
States as receiving special education and related services. Each State
educational agency (SEA) conducts an annual child count on December 1
of each year and submits it to OSEP. The State's Part B grant for the
next fiscal year is based on that count. Although States must serve
all eligible children with disabilities, in general funds are provided
only for up to 12 percent of the State's total school-age population.
Table 1.1 summarizes the amount of Part B funding appropriated to
States for FY 1977 through FY 1994. Funds appropriated under Part B
have increased steadily from $251,770,000 in FY 1977 to $2,149,686,000
in FY 1994. During the same period, the average per child Part B
allocation increased from $71 to $413.
___________________________________
_TABLE 1.1 Part B State Grant Program: Funds Appropriated, 1977-94_
_Appropriation Part B Per child
Year State Grants a/ Allocation_
1977 $ 251,770,000 $ 71
1978 566,030,000 156
1979 804,000,000 215
1980 874,190,000 227
1981 874,500,000 219
1982 931,008,000 230
1983 1,017,900,000 248
1984 1,068,875,000 258
1985 1,135,145,000 272
1986 1,163,282,000 279
1987 1,338,000,000 316
1988 1,431,737,000 332
1989 1,475,449,000 336
1990 1,542,610,000 343
1991 1,854,186,000 400
1992 1,976,095,000 410
1993 2,052,730,000 411
1994 2,149,686,000 413
_a_/These figures include amounts appropriated to Micronesia and the
Marshall Islands. The data in Appendix Table AG1 do not include these
figures.
Source: U. S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education
Programs, Data Analysis System (DANS).
___________________________________
At least 75 percent of a State's Part B funds must be distributed to
local educational agencies (LEAs) and intermediate educational units
(IEUs) to assist in the education of students with disabilities (34
CFR 300. 706). The LEAs and IEUs are required to ensure that these
funds do not supplant State and local expenditures, and that they are
used for the excess costs of providing special education and related
services to students with disabilities. SEAs are permitted to set
aside up to 25 percent of the Part B grant for their own use. Of these
set-aside funds, States may use up to 5 percent of the grant, or
$450,000, whichever is greater, for administrative costs. States may
use the remaining 20 percent of the set-aside funds for two purposes:
providing direct and support services for children and youth with
disabilities or paying the administrative costs for monitoring and
compliance investigations, to the extent that such administrative
costs exceed the costs of administration incurred during FY 1985.
Chapter 1 (SOP) Program for Children with Disabilities
Chapter 1 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) had
provided funds to the States to assist in the education of children
with disabilities in State-operated or State-supported programs (SOPs)
since 1965. A 1975 amendment allowed States to count children who had
transferred from SOP programs to LEA programs. Table 1.2 shows the
total amount of funds distributed and the average per child allocation
for Chapter 1 (SOP) and its predecessor programs for FY 1966-94.
___________________________________
_TABLE 1.2 Chapter 1 (SOP) State Formula Grant: Funds Appropriated, FY
1966-94_
_Fiscal Year Chapter 1 (SOP) National Average
State Grants Per child
Allocation_ _a_/
1966 $ 12,467,000 $ 243
1967 15,078,000 182
1968 24,747,000 283
1969 29,781,000 309
1970 37,483,000 339
1971 46,130,000 379
1972 56,381,000 428
1973 75,962,000 481
1974 85,778,000 515
1975_b_/ 183,733,000 1,028
1976 111,433,000 592
1977 121,591,000 604
1978 132,492,000 592
1979 143,353,000 635
1980 145,000,000 620
1981 152,625,000 626
1982 146,520,000 604
1983 146,520,000 596
1984 146,520,000 593
1985 150,170,000 587
1986 143,713,000 572
1987 150,170,000 588
1988 151,269,000 578
1989 148,200,000 557
1990 146,389,000 545
1991 148,859,000 561
1992 143,000,000 524
1993 126,393,696 432
1994 116,878,000 387
_a_/Actual per child allocations vary from State to State.
_b_/The Chapter 1 (SOP) funds for FY 1966-74 were for use in the
fiscal year of appropriation. However, beginning in FY 1975, funds
were to be used in the next fiscal year. As a result, the
appropriation in FY 1975 was for funds to be used in both FY 1975 and
FY 1976.
Source: U. S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education
Programs, Data Analysis System (DANS).
___________________________________
This program was not reauthorized under the Improving America's
Schools Act that reauthorized ESEA. Beginning July 1, 1995, funding
for services to all eligible children and youth age 3 through 21 will
be provided under IDEA, Part B.
Funding Levels for Part B and Chapter 1 (SOP)
Overall, combined Chapter 1 (SOP) and Part B funding increased by
$87,440,304, or 4.0 percent, in FY 1994. Part B funding increased by
$96,956,000, or 4.7 percent. Chapter 1 (SOP) funding decreased by
$9,515,696, or 7.5 percent. The Chapter 1 (SOP) average per child
allocation reached its peak in 1979 ($635). In 1994, the per child
amounts for the States ranged from $317 (n=11 States) to $475 (n=9
States). The FY 1994 average per child allocation of $387 represents
the third and final consecutive year of the phase-out of Chapter 1
(SOP) funding.
State Educational Agency Use of IDEA, Part B Set-Aside Funds
The National Association of State Directors of Special Education
(NASDSE) validated the results of a July 1991 NASDSE study that
examined SEAs use of IDEA, Part B State set-aside funds for support
and direct services.
In November 1994, NASDSE sent a survey to State directors of special
education in all 50 States. The first part of the survey listed the
direct and support activities States reported funding with set-aside
monies in the 1991 study. Space was available to add additional
funding categories, if appropriate. Respondents were asked to indicate
which of these activities were funded with the 1992 Part B grant award
and to estimate the percentage of set-aside funds used for each
activity. Six general questions were asked in the second part of the
survey. These questions were related to the use of set-aside funds for
reform and restructuring activities and to their use as "flow through"
funds for local school systems. Of the 50 directors surveyed, 42 (84
percent) responded to NASDSE's request for information.
An analysis of the responses to the first part of the survey showed
that SEAs continue to use set-aside funds to maintain the 23 direct
and/or support activities identified in the 1991 study. Nine
categories were reported as being used by at least half of the SEAs
responding. These nine categories were:
* staff development/training, conducted statewide or by LEA
application;
* parent training projects;
* funding for resource centers, established regionally or statewide;
* programs or services for low incidence populations;
* model program/service development;
* materials, development, reproduction, distribution (e. g.,
guidelines, curricula, Braille texts);
* SEA technical assistance efforts to LEAs or residential schools;
* consultants for technical assistance; and
* other (miscellaneous).
An analysis of responses to the six general questions indicated little
change in the use of Part B set-aside funds for reform activities.
Twenty States reported that in 1992 they used set-aside funds for
reform and restructuring, while 22 States reported no use of Part B
set-aside funds for these purposes. This compared to 16 States
reporting such use prior to 1992, and 23 reporting no such use of
set-aside funds for those purposes prior to 1992.
Regarding the use of Part B set-aside monies as "flow through" funds,
most of the States responding (31 of 42) indicated "flowing through"
more than the required 75 percent of Part B dollars to local school
systems. However, of the 31 States that have increased their "flow
through," only 5 were mandated by State law or regulations to do so.
In summary, States report using Part B set-aside funds in a variety of
ways that support the implementation of Part B. Both the ways that
States use funds and the proportion of funds used for any particular
activity vary considerably. Based on the results of the survey, SEAs
appear to be using Part B set-aside funds to assist local school
systems in providing services required by Part B.
_______________________
3 These two programs will be referred to a Part H and the Preschool
Grants Program throughout this report.
----------
Number of Children and Youth with Disabilities Served Under Part B and Chapter
1 (SOP)
Total Number of Children and Youth Served
A total of 5,373,077 infants, toddlers, children, and youth with
disabilities from birth through age 21 were served under Part B and
Chapter 1 (SOP) during the 1993-94 school year, 217,127 (4.2 percent)
more than 1992-93 (see table 1.3). This is the largest yearly increase
since the inception of the two programs in 1976. The rate of growth in
the number of children and youth receiving special education continues
to exceed the rate of growth in the number of the birth through age 21
population (which in 1993-94 increased by 517,301, or 0.6 percent). It
also continues to exceed the rate of growth in the number of children
and youth enrolled in school (which in 1993-94 increased by 1,154,074,
or 2.69 percent). The percentage of children from birth through age 21
in the resident population served under Part B and Chapter 1 (SOP)
increased from 6.4 percent in 1992-93 to 6.6 percent in 1993-94.
___________________________________
_TABLE 1.3 Children and Youth Served Under Part B and Chapter 1
(SOP):a/ Percentage Change and Number Served, School Years 1976-77
through 1993-94_
_Change in
Total Number
Served from Chapter 1
School Year Previous Year Total Served Part B (SOP)
(%)_
-------------------------------------------------------------------
1976-77 -- 3,708,601 3,484,756 223,832
1977-78 1.8 3,777,286 3,484,756 222,732
1978-79 3.8 3,919,073 3,554,554 225,480
1979-80 3.0 4,036,219 3,693,593 233,744
1980-81 3.5 4,177,689 3,802,475 243,708
1981-82 1.3 4,233,282 3,933,981 242,936
1982-83 1.5 4,298,327 4,052,595 245,732
1983-84 1.0 4,341,399 4,094,108 247,291
1984-85b/ 0.5 4,363,031 4,113,312 249,719
1985-86 0.2 4,370,244 4,121,104 249,140
1986-87 1.2 4,421,601 4,166,692 254,909
1987-88 1.4 4,485,702 4,226,504 259,198
1988-89 1.8 4,568,063 4,305,690 262,373
1989-90 2.4 4,675,619 4,411,681 263,938
1990-91 2.8 4,807,441 4,547,368 260,073
1991-92 3.7 4,986,043 4,714,087 271,956
1992-93 3.4 5,155,950 4,886,411 269,509
1993-94 4.2 5,373,077 5,095,514 277,563
_a_/ From 1988-89 to the present, these numbers include children 3
through 21 years of age counted under Part B and children from birth
to age 21 counted under Chapter 1 (SOP).Prior to 1988-89, children
from birth through age 20 were served under Chapter 1 (SOP). The
totals do not include infants and toddlers from birth through age 2
served under Part H who were not served under the Chapter 1 (SOP)
program.
_b_/ Beginning in 1984-85, the number of children with disabilities
reported for the most recent year reflects revisions to State data
received by the Office of Special Education Programs between the July
1 grant award date and October 1. Updates received from States for
previous years are included, so totals may not match those reported in
previous Annual Reports to Congress. Before 1984-85, Reports provided
data as of the grant award date.
Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education
Programs, Data Analysis System (DANS).
___________________________________
Respectively, Part B and Chapter 1 (SOP) programs served 209,073 and
8,054 more children and youth in 1993-94. The Chapter 1 (SOP) increase
contrasts with the 2,447 decrease that occurred between 1991-92 and
1992-93. However, this increase represents the sum of two very
different trends that occurred within the Chapter 1 (SOP)
program--namely, a significant increase in the number of birth through
age 2 children served and a decrease in the number of those served in
all other age groups.The number of birth through age 2 children served
in Chapter 1 (SOP) programs increased by 25.1 percent (18,757) from
74,830 to 93,587. The number of students age 3 through 21 decreased by
10,703 or 5.5 percent, from 194,679 to 183,976 (see table 1.4).
___________________________________
_TABLE 1.4 Number of Children Served Under Chapter 1 (SOP) by Age
Group: School Years 1992-93 through 1993-94_
_Percent of
Number of Children Change Total Birth
Age 1992-93 1993-94 Number Percent through 21_
------------------------------------------------------------------
0-2 74,830 93,587 18,757 25.1 33.7
3-5 16,372 16,246 -126 -0.8 5.9
6-11 71,727 66,265 -5,462 -7.6 23.9
12-17 81,501 78,351 -3,150 -3.9 28.2
18-21 25,079 23,114 -1,965 -7.8 8.3
0-21 269,509 277,563 8,054 3.0 100.0
Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education
Programs, Data Analysis System (DANS).
___________________________________
The Part B and Chapter 1 (SOP) programs differed with regard to the
number of students served and the relative proportions of students
served across the various disability categories. Of the total number
of children and youth from birth through age 21 served during the
1993-94 school year, 5,095,514 (94.8 percent) were served under Part B
and 277,563 (5.2 percent) were served under Chapter 1 (SOP).
Although over 96 percent of all students age 6 through 21 were served
under Part B, there is considerable variation in the distribution of
students by disability category across the two programs. On one hand,
almost all students (over 90 percent) with speech or language
impairments, learning disabilities, other health impairments, serious
emotional impairments, mental retardation, and orthopedic impairments
were served under Part B. On the other hand, a relatively large
percentage of students with deaf-blindness (38.7 percent), hearing
impairments (25.1 percent), visual impairments (21.4 percent),
traumatic brain injury (20.7 percent), and autism (20.6 percent) were
served in Chapter 1 (SOP). This difference may be attributed to the
relatively larger percentage of students with moderate and severe
disabilities that have historically been served under the Chapter 1
(SOP) program.
Age Groups of Students Served under Part B and Chapter 1 (SOP)
The two largest age groups served by the two programs in 1993-94 were
age 6 through 11 (2,464,237) and 12 through 17 (2,079,475) (see table
1.5). Analyzing the growth in the number of children by age range
provides some insights into the dynamics of the 4.2 percent increase
in the number of children served under the two programs. Students age
6 through 21 were the largest portion (89.1 percent) of the special
education population. However, that age group increased only 3.5
percent (from 4,625,591 to 4,786,065). The largest growth rates were
25.1 percent for children from birth through age 2 (from 74,830 to
93,587) and 8.3 percent for children age 3 through 5 (from 455,529 to
493,425). Although children from birth through age 5 are only 10.9
percent of all children receiving special education, they accounted
for 33.4 percent of the growth of the special education population
(see table 1.5).
___________________________________
_TABLE 1.5 Number of Children Served Under Part B and Chapter 1 (SOP)
by Age Group: School Years 1992-93 through 1993-94_
_Percent of
Number of Children Change Total Birth
Age 1992-93 1993-94 Number Percent through 21_
-------------------------------------------------------------------
0-2_a_/ 4,830 93,587 18,757 25.1 1.7
3-5 455,529 493,425 37,896 8.3 9.2
6-11 2,399,917 2,464,237 64,320 2.7 45.9
12-17 1,990,096 2,079,475 89,379 4.5 38.7
18-21 235,578 242,353 6,775 2.9 4.5
0-21 5,155,950 5,373,077 217,127 4.2 100.0
_a_/ All of the infants and toddlers age birth through two were served
under Chapter 1 (SOP).
Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education
Programs, Data Analysis System (DANS).
___________________________________
The increase in the number of children served from birth through age 2
can be attributed partly to the expansion of early intervention
programs. One reason for the decrease in the number of school-age
children served under Chapter 1 (SOP) is that more States were serving
students under Part B. States maintain that the funding differential
between the two programs was no longer significant enough to justify
separate administrative programs. Another reason that States may have
served more students under Part B is that they anticipated the merger
of the Part B and Chapter 1 (SOP) programs.
Disabilities of Students Served under IDEA, Part B and Chapter 1 (SOP)
Part B and Chapter 1 (SOP) served 4,786,065 students age 6 through 21
during the 1993-94 school year. The number of students in each
disability category is reported in table 1.6.4 Because the 1986
Amendments to EHA (now IDEA), P.L. 99-457, ended the practice of
collecting data on children from birth through age 5 by disability,
the information in this section refers only to children age 6 through
21.
Students with specific learning disabilities continue to account for
more than half of all students with disabilities (51.1 percent).
During the 1993-94 school year, 2,444,020 students with specific
learning disabilities were served under Part B and Chapter 1 (SOP),
3.3 percent (77,526) more than in 1992-93. Students with speech or
language impairments (21.1 percent), mental retardation (11.6
percent), and serious emotional disturbance (8.7 percent) make up an
additional 41.4 percent of all students with disabilities age 6
through 21.
The increases within several disability categories were
proportionately greater than the 3.5 percent increase across all
categories (see table 1.6). The largest increase occurred in the
students with traumatic brain injury category, which increased from
3,960 to 5,295 (33.7 percent). Significant increases also occurred in
the categories of students with other health impairments (from 66,063
to 83,279, or 26.1 percent) and autism (from 15,580 to 18,903, or 21.3
percent). Increases also occurred in other categories:orthopedic
impairments (4,028, or 7.7 percent), multiple disabilities (6,467, or
6.3 percent), hearing impairments (3,633 or 6.0 percent), and visual
impairments (1,391, or 5.9 percent).
___________________________________
_TABLE 1.6 Number and Percentage Change of Students Age 6 through 21
Served Under Part B and Chapter 1 (SOP): School Years 1992-93 through
1993-94_
_Total Change
Disability 1992-93 1993-94 Number Percent_
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Specific learning
disabilities 2,366,494 2,444,020 77,526 3.3
Speech or language
impairments 998,049 1,009,379 11,330 1.1
Mental retardation 532,365 553,992 21,627 4.1
Serious emotional
disturbance 401,659 414,279 12,620 3.1
Multiple
disabilities 103,279 109,746 6,467 6.3
Hearing impairments 60,616 64,249 3,633 6.0
Orthopedic
impairments 52,588 56,616 4,028 7.7
Other health
impairments 66,063 83,279 17,216 26.1
Visual impairments 23,544 24,935 1,391 5.9
Autism 15,580 18,903 3,323 21.3
Deaf-blindness_a_/ 1,394 1,372 -22 -1.6
Traumatic brain
injury 3,960 5,295 1,335 33.7
All disabilities 4,625,591 4,786,065 160,474 3.5
_a_/ 9,783 persons between the ages of birth to 21 have been
identified by coordinators of the State and Multi-State Services for
Children with Deaf-Blindness as required under [20 U.S.C 1422(c)(1)
and (2)].See Appendix E.
Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education
Programs, Data Analysis System (DANS).
___________________________________
The size of the increases in the number of students with autism or
traumatic brain injury is probably related to the fact that these
reporting categories were only recently established.The 1993-94 school
year was only the second year States were required to report the
student count in these categories. Also, many States reported that
these increases occurred because enhanced technical assistance enabled
districts to improve their ability to report students in these two
Federal disability categories.
Impact of Students with ADD on the Number of Students with Other Health
Impairments
The increase in the number of students with other health impairments
appears to be the result of growth in the service population.
Specifically, the number of students with attention deficit disorder
(ADD) appears to be increasing. Representatives of the National
Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE) conducted
telephone interviews with personnel from special education offices in
eight States that had experienced significant increases in the number
of students with other health impairments to determine if this
increase was attributable to the identification of more students with
ADD. Respondents in seven States reported that increased
identification of students with ADD was a major factor in the increase
in the number of students served with other health impairments. These
respondents reported that dissemination of the Federal memorandum
clarifying the Federal policy regarding service to students with ADD
greatly influenced the identification of students with ADD in their
States. The respondents further reported that there were no
significant changes in diagnostic or identification procedures that
would account for these increases. One respondent reported that the
number of students in all disability categories was increasing in that
State, and that the increase in the number of students with other
health impairments could not be attributed to any one factor.
The study also assessed the extent to which changes in classification
criteria, either in other disability categories or within the other
health impairments category, affected the increases in the other
health impairments category. The majority of the respondents reported
that their State did not experience a decrease in another disability
category that could have been attributed to a shift in classification
of students into the other health impairments category. Only two
respondents reported increases in other specific health impairments
(such as students with medically fragile conditions, fetal alcohol
syndrome, respiratory problems, or students that abused drugs or
alcohol) that could have contributed to the increase.
Finally, the eight respondents were asked if recent increases in the
number of students with other health impairments were due to changes
in the State or local service configurations. Only four respondents
indicated that there had been substantive changes in their State's
service configurations at either the State or local level. The only
change specifically related to students with ADD was the distribution
of improved instructions to local districts on how to better serve
students with ADD. The most common service configuration change
reported was the increased use of Medicaid funding, which has resulted
in some increases in health service provision.
Increase in the Number of Students Served with Learning Disabilities
Since IDEA was enacted, the percentage of the special education
enrollment served by Part B and Chapter 1 (SOP) and identified as
having learning disabilities has increased.Between 1976 and 1994, this
group increased from 23.8 percent to 51.1 percent of all students with
disabilities. As previously mentioned, 3.3 percent more students with
specific learning disabilities were served in 1993-94 than in 1992-93.
Researchers and practitioners have heatedly debated the causes for
these increases. Hallahan (1992) speculates that two primary factors
contribute to the documented increases in the number of students with
specific learning disabilities. First, the field of learning
disabilities is relatively new, and with each successive year, school
personnel and parents become more adept at recognizing children with
specific learning disabilities. It follows that the number of students
identified will level off as nearly all students are identified.
Second, Hallahan cites changes in social/cultural supports over the
past 20 years as well as higher levels of poverty and substance abuse
among pregnant women, coupled with diminishing social support, as
causes for the increased prevalence of specific learning disabilities.
Hallahan notes that "of all the disability categories, learning
disabilities is one of the most sensitive barometers of the biomedical
status of children and the psychosocial climate in which they live"
(p. 524). Variations in assessment practices may also contribute to
State-to-State and year-to-year fluctuations in the rate at which
students are identified with specific learning disabilities.
_______________________
4 Students are reported by the following 12 Federal disability
categories: specific learning disabilities, speech or language
impairments, mental retardation, serious emotional disturbance,
multiple disabilities, hearing impairments, orthopedic impairments,
other health impairments, visual impairments, autism, deaf-blindness,
and traumatic brain injury.
----------
Educational Placements of Students with Disabilities
Part B of IDEA and its implementing regulations require "that, to the
maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including
children in public and private institutions and other care facilities,
should be educated with children who are not disabled; and that
special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with
disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only when
the nature and severity of the disability is such that education in
regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot
be achieved satisfactorily" (34 CFR 300.550). The Part B regulations
further specify that "a continuum of alternative placements is
available to meet the needs of children with disabilities for special
education and related services" (34 CFR 300.551).
Each year, OSEP collects data from States and Outlying Areas on the
number of students with disabilities served in each of six different
educational environments: regular class, resource room, separate
class, public or private separate school, public or private
residential facility, and homebound/hospital placements. The data are
collected by age group for students age 3 through 21 and by disability
for students age 6 through 21.
* _Regular class_ includes students who receive the majority of
their education program in a regular classroom and receive special
education and related services outside the regular classroom for
less than 21 percent of the school day. It includes children
placed in a regular class and receiving special education within
the regular class, as well as children placed in a regular class
and receiving special education outside the regular class.
* _Resource room_ includes students who receive special education
and related services outside the regular classroom for at least 21
percent but not more than 60 percent of the school day. This may
include students placed in resource rooms with part-time
instruction in a regular class.
* _Separate class_ includes students who receive special education
and related services outside the regular classroom for more than
60 percent of the school day. Students may be placed in
self-contained special classrooms with part-time instruction in
regular classes or placed in self-contained classes full-time on a
regular school campus.
* _Separate school_ includes students who receive special education
and related services in separate day schools for students with
disabilities for more than 50 percent of the school day.
* _Residential facility_ includes students who receive education in
a public or private residential facility, at public expense, for
more than 50 percent of the school day.
* _Homebound/hospital environment_ includes students placed in and
receiving special education in hospital or homebound programs.
During the last five years, the percentage of regular classroom
placements reported by States increased by almost 10 percentage points
(see figure 1.1). The use of resource rooms has decreased and all
other placement settings have remained stable. The increase in the
number of students placed in regular classrooms may be attributed to
changes in placements in California, Indiana, New York, and Minnesota.
The number of students in California reportedly served in regular
classes increased almost 100 percent from 1991-92 to 1992-93, with
similarly large decreases in resource room placements. State officials
in California believe the shift is due primarily to improved data
collection and reporting that better conforms to OSEP data collection
requirements. Indiana, Minnesota, and New York all reported similar
shifts in placement data and also attributed the shifts to improved
data collection and reporting procedures that more accurately reflect
Federal guidelines.
Figure 1.1 Percentage of Students Age 6 through 21 with
Disabilities Served in Different Educational
Environments: School Years 1988-89 through 1992-93
1988-89:
Regular Class: 30 percent
Resource Room: 39 percent
Separate Class: 24 percent
Separate Facilities: 6 percent
1989-90:
Regular Class: 31 percent
Resource Room: 38 percent
Separate Class: 25 percent
Separate Facilities: 6 percent
1990-91:
Regular Class: 32 percent
Resource Room: 36 percent
Separate Class: 25 percent
Separate Facilities: 5 percent
1991-92:
Regular Class: 35 percent
Resource Room: 36 percent
Separate Class: 23 percent
Separate Facilities: 5 percent
1992-93
Regular Class: 39.8 percent
Resource Room: 31.7 percent
Separate Class: 23.5 percent
Separate Facilities: 5 percent
In 1992-93, 39.8 percent of students with disabilities age 6 through
21 were served in regular classroom placements under Part B and
Chapter 1 (SOP). An additional 31.7 percent were served in resource
rooms, and 23.5 percent were served in separate classes in regular
school buildings. Fully 95 percent of students with disabilities were
served in regular school buildings. Of those students served in
separate facilities, 3.7 percent were served in separate day schools
for students with disabilities, 0.8 percent were served in residential
facilities, and 0.5 percent were served in homebound/hospital
settings.
Placement Patterns by Age Group
Educational placements for students with disabilities vary a great
deal by age group. Students age 6 through 11 are most likely to be
served in regular classroom settings. As shown in figure 1.2, almost
50 percent of students with disabilities age 6 through Figure 1.1
Percentage of Students Age 6 through 11 are served in regular
classroom placements, compared to 30 percent for students age 12
through 17, and 23 percent for students age 18 through 21. These
percentages may occur because overall, the environments and
curriculums used in elementary schools are less complex. In elementary
school students tend to stay in one classroom with one teacher for
most of the day. Therefore, adaptive equipment has to be moved less
frequently and guidance on inclusive practices can focus on fewer
environments and variations in instructional practices. The relatively
large percentage of students age 18 through 21 served in separate
classes and schools may reflect placements in specialized vocational
programs or other transition programs located outside the regular
school building.
Figure 1.2 Percentage of Students with Disabilities, by Age
Group, Served in Different Educational Environments:
School Year 1992-93
Age 6-11
Regular Class: 50 percent
Resource Room: 26 percent
Separate Class: 20 percent
Separate School: 2.5 percent
Residential Facility: Less than 1 percent
Home/Hospital: Less than 1 percent
Age 12-17
Regular Class: 30 percent
Resource Room: 38 percent
Separate Class: 26 percent
Separate School: 4 percent
Residential Facility: 1 percent
Home/Hospital: Less than 1 percent
Age 18-21
Regular Class: 23 percent
Resource Room: 32 percent
Separate Class: 29 percent
Separate School: 10.5 percent
Residential Facility: 2.5 percent
Home/Hospital: 1 percent
Placement Patterns by Disability
Placement patterns differ considerably by disability, as shown in
table 1.7. Data for 1992-93 indicate that students with speech or
language impairments were served almost exclusively in regular
classroom settings (81.8 percent) and resource rooms (10.7 percent).
___________________________________
_TABLE 1.7 Percentage of Students with Disabilities Age 6 through 21
Served in Different Educational Environments, by Disability: School
Year 1992-93._
_Regular Resource Separate Separate Residen. Home/
DISABILITY Class Room Class School Facility Hospital_
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specific learning 34.8 43.9 20.1 0.8 0.2 0.2
disabilities
Speech or language 81.8 10.7 6.0 1.4 0.1 0.1
impairments
Mental retardation 7.1 26.8 56.8 7.9 0.9 0.5
Serious emotional 19.6 26.7 35.2 13.7 3.5 1.3
disturbance
Multiple 7.6 19.1 44.6 23.6 3.4 1.8
disabilities
Hearing 29.5 19.7 28.1 8.3 14.0 0.4
impairments
Orthopedic 35.1 20.0 34.1 6.7 0.6 3.5
impairments
Other health 40.0 27.4 20.6 2.5 0.5 9.1
impairments
Visual 45.5 21.1 18.0 5.6 9.4 0.5
impairments
Autism 9.0 9.6 50.0 27.6 3.2 0.6
Deaf-blindness 12.3 9.7 31.4 21.2 24.6 1.0
Traumatic 16.4 19.8 28.4 28.4 4.4 2.6
brain injury
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
All disabilities 39.8 31.7 23.5 3.7 0.8 0.5
Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education,
Data Analysis System (DANS)
___________________________________
Students with specific learning disabilities, other health
impairments, orthopedic impairments, and serious emotional disturbance
were generally served in regular schools, regular classes, resource
rooms, and separate classes.Students with mental retardation continued
to be served primarily in resource rooms and separate classrooms.
Students with hearing or visual impairments were served in a wide
variety of settings.Twenty-nine percent of students with hearing
impairments and 45 percent of students with visual impairments were
served in regular classrooms.Twenty-three percent of students with
hearing impairments and 15 percent of students with visual impairments
were served in separate schools, residential facilities, and
homebound/hospital settings.
Students with multiple disabilities, autism, deaf-blindness, and
traumatic brain injury were typically served in more restrictive
settings than other students with disabilities.Separate class and
separate day school placements were most common for students with
multiple disabilities, autism, and traumatic brain injury.The majority
of students with deaf-blindness were served in separate classes,
separate schools, or residential facilities.
Findings Related to Inclusive School Practices
Providing individualized and appropriate education for all children
and youth with disabilities in general education classrooms requires
substantial commitment and support from a variety of levels.
Recognizing this reality, OSEP has funded a number of projects over
the last decade that have focused on specific research issues (such as
promoting academic achievement of students with learning disabilities,
and promoting physical and social integration of students with severe
disabilities), demonstration projects that assist LEAs in implementing
inclusive schooling practices, institutes (such as the California
Research Institute and the Consortium on Inclusive Schooling
Practices) to help schools include students with significant
disabilities in general education classrooms, or State
capacity-building activities that promote inclusive schooling (for
example, 29 States have received Statewide Systems Change Project
Grants). From these and other efforts, several conditions have been
identified as supporting inclusive schooling practices.They are
described below.
* Commitment to using a team of professionals with various levels of
expertise to plan and implement the IEPs of children and youth
with disabilities (Rainforth, York, and MacDonald, 1992).
* Leadership demonstrated by individuals within school buildings,
districts, and at the State level that helps educators build a
vision of inclusive services and supports actions to achieve
realization of that vision (Janney, Snell, Beers, and Raynes,
1995; Salisbury, 1991).
* Active involvement and support from families of children with
disabilities for inclusive education (Nesbit, 1992).
* Ongoing and vigilant support and training of the front-line
general and special education teachers as the general education
curriculum is adapted to ensure IEPs are implemented for the
children and youth with disabilities (Fuchs, Fuchs, Hamlett,
Phillips, and Karns, 1995).
Positive learning results are attainable for students with
disabilities served in inclusive contexts. These, and other benefits,
can be attained when staff perceive themselves and their students as
adequately supported, and when programs provide the supports necessary
for students with disabilities to learn effectively and
efficiently.Many of these supports require redeployment of existing
resources, rather than procurement of new services and personnel.Given
these parameters, table 1.8 gives an overview of some of the trends
and findings that have been reported in the literature. Most are
grounded in the work of research and demonstration projects funded by
OSEP.
Factors Affecting Attainment of Positive Results
Research has shown that several factors affect the school
environment.The National Center on Educational Restructuring and
Inclusion (NCERI) (Lipsky and Gardner, 1994) found that successful
inclusion programs had strong leadership, collaboration, and supports
for students; refocused use of assessments and funding; and effective
parental and family support.Two of the factors, strong leadership and
collaboration, can take different forms.For example, the perceived
availability of administrative, technical, and collegial support
affected how the teachers rated their experiences in inclusive
settings (Wolery, Werts, Caldwell, Snyder, and Lisowski, 1995;
Karasoff, Alwell, and Halvorsen, 1992).Other factors that affect the
school environment are student and classroom accommodations (Hamilton,
Welkowitz, Mandeville, Prue and Fox, 1995; Peters, 1990), building a
sense of community in the classroom (Salisbury, Gallucci, Polombaro,
and Peck, in press) and involvement of and support provided to parents
(Nisbet, 1992).
_CAPTION:_ _TABLE 1.8 Positive Learning and Social Results Using
Inclusive School Practices_
_Skill Area: Academic/learning_
_Results:_
* Higher quality IEPs compared to those in special classes (Hunt,
Farron-Davis, Curtis, & Goetz, 1994).
* Higher levels of engaged time in general education compared to
students in special education (Hunt, Farron-Davis, Curtis, &
Goetz, 1994).
* Higher levels of engaged time for elementary students with and
without disabilities in classrooms in which there are students
with more significant disabilities (Hollowood, Salisbury,
Rainforth, & Palombaro, 1994).
* Disruptions to classroom learning time not associated with
students with significant disabilities (Hollowood, Salisbury,
Rainforth, & Palombaro, 1994).
* Students with disabilities learn targeted skills in general
education classrooms (Wolery, Werts, Caldwell, & Snyder, 1994;
Hunt, Staub, Alwell, & Goetz 1994).
* No decline in academic or behavioral performance of nondisabled
classmates on standardized test and report card measures (Sharpe,
York, & Knight, 1994).
_Skill Area: Social_
_Results:_
* High school students report that interactions with students with
disabilities produced positive attitudes, increased responsiveness
to needs of people, and increased appreciation for diversity
(Helmstetter, Peck, & Giangreco, 1994).
* Students with disabilities in general education settings are alone
less often and display more social contact than students in
special classes (Hunt, Farron-Davis, Curtis, & Goetz, 1994;
Kennedy & Itkonen, 1994; Romer & Haring, 1994).
* Demonstrated gains in social competence for students in inclusive
settings compared to that of students in segregated placements
(Cole & Meyer, 1991).
* Social acceptance and opportunity for interactions not uniquely
associated with child's level of functioning (Evans, Salisbury,
Palombaro, Berryman, Hollowood, 1992).
* Regular class participation is an important factor in determining
the composition and stability of social networks for high school
students with disabilities (Kennedy & Itkonen, 1994).
Implications for the Future
Despite advances in understanding the conditions associated with
positive social and academic results for students with disabilities in
general education classrooms, substantial gaps continue to exist in
our knowledge of inclusive schooling. Substantial gaps also continue
to exist between what is known and what occurs in many public schools.
In addition to these and other areas of clear research need, continued
efforts are needed to ensure that the findings and innovations from
research projects become widely adopted and used in the majority of
the nation's schools. Support should continue for projects such as
those described below:
* _demonstration projects_ to build a cadre of model schools that
engage in inclusive schooling practices;
* _outreach projects_ to assist schools in addressing particular
problems they face when implementing inclusive schooling
practices;
* _State-level projects_ for addressing policy barriers to inclusive
schooling and for identifying and addressing State needs related
to inclusion;
* _State and regional projects_ to address the training and support
needs of teachers employed in schools engaged in inclusive
schooling; and
* _systematic projects_ designed to synthesize the existing
knowledge on inclusive schooling and to evaluate means for
ensuring its utilization in schools and representing diverse
demographic characteristics.
----------
Students with Disabilities Exiting Educational Programs
In 1992, OSEP began changing the way it collected data on students
with disabilities exiting educational programs. Since 1984-85, OSEP
had collected data from States on the number of students age 14 and
older exiting the educational system by age and disability. In 1992,
OSEP distributed to the States a revised data format along with the
format used since 1984-85. States and Outlying Areas were allowed to
choose which format to complete. Twenty-two States used the new form
in 1992-93. The 1992-93 exiting data are reported in this section. For
the 1993-94 exiting data, which will be reported in the 18th Annual
Report to Congress, the new format will be mandatory for all States.
The revised format collects data on students exiting special
education, not the educational system. Exit categories in the revised
format include:
* returned to regular education;
* graduated with diploma;
* graduated with certificate;
* reached maximum age;
* died;
* moved, known to be continuing;
* moved, not known to be continuing; and
* dropped out.
Data on three of these categories--returned to regular education,
died, and moved--were not collected in the past.The definition of the
"dropped out" category was revised.Twenty-eight States and Outlying
Areas reported data using the new format.5
In addition to introducing new exit categories, OSEP will also analyze
exit data differently. Rather than basing percentages on the total
number of students with disabilities exiting the educational system as
in past years, percentages will be based on the total Part B and
Chapter 1 (SOP) child count for students 14 and older. For example, in
the past the total number of students with disabilities graduating
with a diploma would be divided by the total number of students with
disabilities exiting the educational system. Now, the total number of
students with disabilities graduating with a diploma will be divided
by the total number of students with disabilities age 14 or older. The
annual rates at which students with disabilities 14 and older exit
through particular bases (e.g., an annual graduation rate or annual
dropout rate) will also be reported.
Because some States used the optional new format to report exiting
data, and some used the old format, national totals could be computed
only for those categories that remained unchanged from previous years.
These include graduation with a diploma, graduation with a
certificate, and reached maximum age for services.As shown in table
1.9, in 1992-93, 7.2 percent of all students with disabilities age 14
and older graduated with a diploma.Students with deaf-blindness (11.8
percent), visual impairments (10.2 percent), or traumatic brain injury
(9.7 percent) were most likely to graduate with a diploma. Students
with autism (2.3 percent) and multiple disabilities (4.1 percent) were
least likely to graduate.While these percentages are based on all
students with disabilities age 14 and older served under IDEA and
Chapter 1 (SOP), the number of students with traumatic brain injuries,
autism, and multiple disabilities is quite small. As a result,
percentages may be subject to frequent change as the exit status of a
few students can alter the national percentage of students with these
low incidence disabilities in each exit category.
___________________________________
_TABLE 1.9 Number and Percentage of Students 14 and Older Exiting
Educational Programs, by Disability: School Year 1992-93a/_
_Graduated Graduated Reached Child
with with Maximum Count
Diploma Certificate Age 14+_
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specific learning
disabilities 8.0 2.0 0.1 869,769
(69,309) (17,156) (746)
Speech or language
impairments 7.8 1.1 0.3 45,297
(3,516) (514) (116)
Mental retardation 5.4 4.8 1.1 234,676
(12,718) (11,305) (2,662)
Serious emotional
disturbance 5.8 1.4 0.3 181,031
(10,411) (2,474) (583)
Multiple
disabilities 4.1 3.1 1.8 36,416
(1,494) (1,116) (642)
Hearing impairments 8.7 3.1 0.2 21,245
(1,851) (660) (41)
Orthopedic
impairments 9.0 2.6 0.7 16,094
(1,451) (421) (117)
Other health
impairments 8.2 2.8 0.3 22,207
(1,815) (627) (65)
Visual impairments 10.2 3.0 0.4 8,504
(872) (260) (31)
Autism 2.3 2.2 1.2 4,947
(114) (110) (62)
Deaf-blindness 11.8 11.1 3.1 575
(68) (64) (18)
Traumatic brain
injury 9.7 1.3 0.7 1,886
(182) (25) (13)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
All disabilities 7.2 2.4 0.4
(103,801) (34,732) (5,096) 1,442,647
_a_/Percentages presented in this table are calculated based on the
total number of students with disabilities age 14 and older. They are
not comparable to percentages presented in previous Annual Reports to
Congress.
Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education,
Data Analysis System (DANS).
___________________________________
Certificates of completion or modified diplomas were earned by 2.4
percent of students with disabilities age 14 and older exiting the
special education system.Certificates of completion or modified
diplomas were most prevalent among students with deaf-blindness (11.1
percent) and those with mental retardation (4.8 percent).Relatively
few students with disabilities--5,096 or .4 percent--exited by
reaching 22, the maximum age for services.
Table 1.10 shows the percentage of students with disabilities 14 and
older (based on the IDEA child count) graduating with a diploma or
certificate each year for the past five years. The graduation rate for
students with disabilities as a whole has been essentially unchanged
over the past five years. Rates for students with mental retardation
are slightly higher than those for students with learning disabilities
or serious emotional disturbance.
___________________________________
_TABLE 1.10 Percentage of Students with Disabilities 14 and Older
Graduating with a Diploma or Certificate: School Years 1988-89 to
1992-93_
_1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93_
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Disabilities 10.66 10.61 10.38 9.99 10.16
Specific Learning 10.20 10.44 10.03 9.94 10.11
Disabilities
Speech or Language 13.05 9.91 13.42 8.44 9.12
Impairments
Mental Retardation 11.73 12.09 11.66 11.29 11.31
Serious Emotional 8.82 8.22 7.95 7.49 7.94
Disturbance
Other Disabilities 13.58 12.79 12.96 12.64 12.59
Source: Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs,
Data Analysis System (DANS)
___________________________________
For those bases of exit that appear on only one of the two formats,
State estimates are included in the appendices, but no national totals
are reported.In addition, because the old and revised formats use
different definitions for the category "dropout," national dropout
rate estimates could not be reported this year.
_______________________
5 Palau did not submit data on students exiting educational programs.
----------
Services Anticipated to be Needed by Exiting Students with Disabilities:
Results of the Pass Pilot Test
IDEA specifies that OSEP collect data on those services anticipated to
be needed for students age 12 through 21 exiting the educational
system.In the past, anticipated services data were collected annually.
Because of changes in the law, these data are now collected every
three years. Data on anticipated services data are intended to improve
transition planning by informing State agencies, such as Vocational
Rehabilitation and Developmental Disabilities, of the service needs of
students exiting the educational system. Initially, OSEP collected the
data from States on an aggregate basis. However, at least two problems
with this data were identified.In some cases, State personnel based
service needs estimates on the student's type of disability.In other
cases, data were gathered by school and district personnel who may
have been inexperienced in judging the adult service needs of students
leaving the educational system.
The PASS System
OSEP began investigating alternative ways to collect anticipated
services data in 1988. The PASS (Performance Assessment for
Self-Sufficiency) system was designed to provide a better way to
collect, synthesize, and report anticipated service needs data. The
PASS system consists of two distinct components. The first component
is the PASS instrument, which provides information about the
functional performance of students that service providers complete on
the basis of their knowledge of the student. The second component is
an expert system that translates the assessments into useful
information that special education and adult services agencies at all
levels can use to anticipate service needs and plan services for young
persons with disabilities.
The PASS instrument was developed in collaboration with well-known
transition experts, State and local administrators, and special
education and adult services providers. The specific skills and
behaviors targeted on the PASS instrument are ones that are typically
required for adult life and that have service implications. For
example, very low performance ratings on several specific
indicators--such as "moves self about in immediate neighborhood (e.g.,
walking, bicycling)," "uses public transportation if available (e.g.,
bus, taxi)," "uses maps and bus schedules when appropriate,"
etc.--suggest that the student will need assistance with the mobility
and transportation aspects of daily living. The PASS instrument also
provides information about the student's training, education, and
employment, as well as any major behavior problems. No special
assessment training is required. Service providers may complete the
PASS based on what they already know about the student from direct
observation or other reliable sources.
The second component of this new approach uses expert system
technology for projecting service estimates in 16 categories, for
individuals and service populations, based on data from the PASS
instrument.6 The PASS expert system converts service providers'
ratings of students on the PASS instrument into case-by-case and
aggregate projections of adult service needs. The PASS expert system
was constructed with input from a professionally and geographically
diverse and representative group of over 30 experts knowledgeable in
the full spectrum of disability categories and adult service areas.
Results of the PASS Pilot Test
A 10-State field test of the administrative feasibility of States and
school districts using the PASS instrument to collect data was
conducted in 1991-92. The 10 States represented the range of all
States on three factors: 1) complexity of intrastate education data
collection pathways; 2) availability of pupil-based data at the State
level; and 3) per pupil expenditures in special education. They were
also nationally representative of various demographic characteristics,
such as number of urban centers and population size. The participating
States were Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
Mississippi, New Jersey, North Carolina, North Dakota, and Ohio.
Table 1.11 shows the percentage of students anticipated to have a
_primary_ need in one of the 16 service categories in the 1991-92, as
determined by the PASS expert system technology. The four PASS system
need categories are:
* _primary need_ - those needs judged to be essential for the
student, demanding attention irrespective of budgetary and other
pressures;
* _secondary need_ - those needs considered warranted, but which
experts felt were not critical and could be left to the discretion
of service providers;
* _no need_ - those needs for which the student required no
additional services; and
* _unknown_ - those needs for which information was not present, or
marked unknown by the rater, such that the expert system could not
make a valid decision on the need requirements.
___________________________________
_TABLE 1-11. Percentagea/ of Students with Disabilities Exiting the
Educational System in the 1991-92 School Year Anticipated to Have a
Primary Need for Services Beyond High School_
_ANTICIPATED ILL LA MASS MICH MINN MISS NJ NC ND OH TOTAL
SERVICES (114) (91) (53) (74) (100) (76) (105) (104) (202) (119)(1038)_
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mobility 30 25 26 22 11 39 18 24 18 22 23
Specialized
Transport. 15 12 8 7 6 14 9 9 4 8 9
Technological
Aids 36 25 21 45 19 14 29 25 30 28 28
Medical and
Medically- 18 15 15 24 20 18 21 17 13 13 17
Related
Communication 55 38 43 59 39 25 34 34 51 42 43
Independent
Living 47 34 26 31 21 53 35 38 36 33 36
Residential
Living 18 13 4 26 22 14 13 19 28 17 19
Social Skills
Training 37 32 53 30 27 47 38 32 25 40 34
Mental Health 12 14 25 20 13 14 30 13 17 20 18
Vocational
Training and 1 0 4 3 3 5 4 0 5 3 3
Job Placement
Ongoing
Employment- 22 14 30 9 10 21 14 13 13 24 16
Related
Alternative
Education 55 36 62 36 38 66 39 59 53 55 50
Services to
Support Post 36 26 34 53 67 25 37 41 58 47 45
Secondary Ed.
Recreation/
Leisure 54 42 51 49 32 53 57 44 40 47 46
Family
Services 25 22 13 15 6 21 9 12 9 15 14
Case
Management 83 60 79 82 81 80 70 80 89 86 80
No goods or
spec. services 5 7 2 0 5 0 4 1 3 5 3
anticipated
_a/_ Percentages based on the number of students with disabilities
exiting the educational system.
Note: The numbers in parentheses indicate the sample size in each
state.
Source: American Institutes for Research, Palo Alto, "Project PASS
System Output" October 3, 1994.
___________________________________
Across the 10 States, case management was the primary need in most
demand (required by 80 percent of the exiting students). Louisiana had
the lowest demand for case management (60 percent), and North Dakota
the highest (89 percent). The PASS expert system projected that in six
States--Illinois, Massachusetts, Mississippi, North Carolina, North
Dakota, and Ohio--alternative education services were a primary need
for over half of their exiting students. In nine States, recreation
and leisure services were a primary need for over 40 percent of the
students.The PASS expert system projected that only a small percentage
of students had a primary need for vocational training and job
placement.
In all 10 States, only 3 percent of the students had that need.
Exiting students with disabilities in two States--Louisiana and North
Carolina--did not require vocational services. It is interesting to
note that few students had no primary needs. In fact, the PASS expert
system results for Michigan and Mississippi showed that all exiting
students had a primary need for a least one post-school service.
In all 10 States, the PASS expert system projected that few exiting
students had secondary needs. No students were indicated as having
secondary needs for services in the specialized transportation,
medical and medically related, independent living, recreation and
leisure, and case management categories. A secondary need for services
to support postsecondary education was indicated for 13.5 percent of
the students in the sample. A secondary need was indicated for 10
percent of the students in the sample in each of the areas of
alternative education, communication, and technological aids.
OSEP Activities on Anticipated Services Data
PASS uses a very different mode of data collection than any other OSEP
collections. To discuss the value and the administrative feasibility
of the PASS system, OSEP convened a task force in March 1994. The task
force included representatives from advocacy organizations and
Regional Resource Centers, State directors of special education, State
vocational rehabilitation agencies, State special education data
managers, State transition coordinators, and university researchers.
Members of the task force identified many benefits that could result
from the PASS system, including providing a "seamless" transition from
special education to adult services; providing a tool for outcome
assessment; improving interagency cooperation at the State level;
aiding transition planning for individual students; and permitting
system-level planning based on a common information base. The task
force also identified issues that must be resolved prior to
implementing PASS nationally. These issues include:assessing whether
the PASS instrument's assessment of the functional performance of
students with mild disabilities is valid; assessing how student age
may affect the validity of the PASS system; assessing how the demand
for services would affect educational and non-educational agencies,
since there is currently no Federal entitlement for adult services;
having experts determine whether the decision rules are valid; and
maintaining confidentiality of student records.
Based on the task force findings, OSEP decided to conduct a second
field test of the instrument to identify as many implementation issues
as possible. Results of the field test would also be used to refine
the expert system decision rules and the PASS instrument. This field
test was conducted in selected States during the 1994-95 school year.
_______________________
6 The sixteen service categories used in PASS differ from earlier
collections of anticipated services. For example, information was
newly collected on social skills training, alternative education
services (such as adult basic education and GED), services to support
post-secondary education recreation and leisure services, and case
management services. In some cases, old service categories were
combined, while others were split.
----------
Personnel Employed and Needed to Serve Students with Disabilities
In order to ensure that all students with disabilities have access to
a free appropriate public education, there must be an adequate supply
of personnel with appropriate training or certification including
teachers, diagnostic staff, related services personnel, and other
instructional and non-instructional staff. Each year, States report to
OSEP the number of special education teachers and other special
personnel providing services to students with disabilities. They also
report the number of additional staff needed due to staff vacancies or
instances when positions are filled by staff members who are not fully
trained or certified for their position. Data are not collected on the
number of general regular education teachers who work with students
with disabilities.
This section presents data on the number of special education teachers
and other special staff employed, and the number needed, to serve
students with disabilities in the 1992-93 school year. These data are
reported in full-time equivalents (FTE) and are grouped according to
the disability of the students served.7 Staff other than teachers
are reported by type of position and are also reported in FTEs.
Personnel Employed to Serve Students with Disabilities
During the 1992-93 school year, 311,201 special education teachers
were employed (see table 1.12), slightly more (.7%) than in 1991-92.
These figures do not include regular classroom teachers and other
staff who provide services to students with or without disabilities as
part of the general education program.
___________________________________
_TABLE 1.12 Special Education Teachers Employed to Serve Students Age
6 through 21 Served Under Part B and Chapter 1 (SOP): School Year
1992-93_
_DISABILITY FTE TEACHERS_
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specific learning disabilities 98,125
Speech or language impairments 41,208
Mental retardation 43,106
Serious emotional disturbance 29,684
Multiple disabilities 7,732
Hearing impairments 6,913
Orthopedic impairments 3,443
Other health impairments 2,136
Visual impairments 2,964
Autism 1,652
Deaf-blindness 170
Traumatic brain injury 217
Cross-categorical_a_/ 73,852
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 311,201
_a_/ Teachers in cross-categorical programs teach classes with
students having varying disabilities.
Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education
Programs, Data Analysis System (DANS).
___________________________________
The largest special education teacher category in school year 1992-93
was the specific learning disabilities category. Nearly one-third of
the special education teachers employed to serve students with
disabilities age 6 through 21 taught students with specific learning
disabilities (98,125 FTE, or 31.5%). The next largest category of
special education teachers (73,852 FTE, or 23.7%) taught students in
cross-categorical classes, where students with a variety of
disabilities are served. The largest percentage of increases in
special education teachers occurred among teachers serving students
with autism or traumatic brain injury. This is not surprising, since
1992-93 was the first year States were required to report the number
of teachers serving students in those categories. Reporting was
optional for those two disability categories in 1991-92.
In 1992-93, 320,420 personnel other than special education teachers
worked with students with disabilities age 3 through 21 (see table
1.13). Teacher's aides accounted for 55.7 percent of all staff other
than special education teachers. This percentage has remained
relatively stable over the last 5 years. Non-professional staff
accounted for another 10.9 percent of the other related personnel
employed. The number of non-professional staff has more than doubled
since the reporting category was established in the 1989-90 school
year.
___________________________________
_TABLE 1.13 Special Education Personnel Other Than Special Education
Teachers Employed and Needed to Serve Students with Disabilities Age 3
through 21: School Year 1992-93_
_FTE FTE
PERSONNEL PERSONNEL
TYPE OF PERSONNEL EMPLOYED NEEDEDa/_
--------------------------------------------------------------------
School social workers 9,658 590
Occupational therapists 4,973 749
Recreational therapists 389 107
Physical therapists 3,504 583
Teacher aides 178,532 5,000
Physical education teachers 5,283 364
Supervisors/administrators (LEA) 15,791 1,176
Other non-instructional staff 24,772 1,284
Psychologists 20,138 1,215
Diagnostic staff 7,178 468
Audiologists 883 83
Work study coordinators 1,568 358
Vocational education teachers 4,481 313
Counselors 7,297 449
Supervisors/administrators (SEA) 1,064 130
Non-professional staff 34,908 1,234
------------------------------------------------------------------
Total FTE 320,420 14,103
_a_/ These figures include: (1) the number of _unfilled vacancies_ in
funded positions that occurred during the 1992-93 school year (12
months), and (2) the number of additional personnel that were needed
during the 1992-93 school year (12 months) to fill positions occupied
by persons who were not fully certified or licensed. These figures
include additional personnel needed by public and private agencies.
Note: The total FTE may not equal the sum of the individual disability
categories because of rounding.
Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education
Programs, Data Analysis System (DANS).
___________________________________
Personnel Needed to Serve Students with Disabilities
States reported in 1992-93 that they needed 25,829 FTE teachers to
fill funded vacancies and replace teachers who were not fully
certified. This is 5.3 percent less than the number of teachers needed
in 1991-92. Table 1.14 shows that the greatest need is for teachers of
students with specific learning disabilities (27.4 percent). Teachers
in cross-categorical programs are also in especially short supply, and
are 23.4 percent of all special education teachers needed.
___________________________________
_TABLE 1.14 Special Education Teachers Needed to Serve Students with
Disabilities Age 6 through 21: School Year 1992-93_
_NUMBER OF PERCENTAGE OF
DISABILITY FTE TEACHERS ALL TEACHERS
NEEDEDa/ NEEDED_
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Specific learning disabilities 7,075 27.4
Speech or language impairments 2,729 10.6
Mental retardation 3,011 11.7
Serious emotional disturbance 4,556 17.6
Multiple disabilities 790 3.1
Hearing impairments 509 2.0
Orthopedic impairments 234 0.9
Other health impairments 216 0.8
Visual impairments 242 0.9
Autism 382 1.5
Deaf-blindness 20 0.1
Traumatic brain injury 29 0.1
Cross-categorical 6,036 23.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 25,829 100.0
_a_/These figures include:(1) the number of unfilled vacancies in
funded positions that occurred during the 1992-93 school year (12
months), and (2) the number of additional personnel that were needed
during the 1992-93 school year (12 months) to fill positions occupied
by persons who were not fully certified or licensed. These figures
include additional personnel needed by public and private agencies.
Note: Percentages may not total 100 percent because of rounding.
Note: The total FTE may not equal the sum of the individual disability
categories because of rounding.
Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education
Programs, Data Analysis System (DANS).
___________________________________
States also reported needing 5,000 FTE teacher aides to fill vacancies
and to replace personnel who were not fully certified or licensed, by
far the greatest need among the personnel other than special education
teachers categories. As in previous years, States also reported
needing sizeable numbers of psychologists (1,215), other
nonprofessional staff (1,234), and supervisors and administrators at
the LEA level (1,176).
OSEP Activities on Personnel Data
As noted in last year's Annual Report, OSEP has undertaken a variety
of activities to address changes, mandated in the 1990 Amendments to
IDEA (P.L. 101-476), in the way data are collected on special
education and related services personnel. These changes required for
the first time that OSEP collect data on a five-year projection of
personnel demand. The activities undertaken to address this data
collection included a study to determine the feasibility of using
existing databases; a survey to ascertain the current status of
personnel data collection systems in the States; a series of task
force meetings to help design a data collection format; selection of a
model for projecting personnel demand; and a pilot test of the data
collection format.
In the past year, the results of each of these activities were
analyzed and a new data collection form developed. This form was used
for the first time in the 1993-94 personnel data collection. The form
was revised for use with the 1994-95 data collection. Both the 1993-94
and the 1994-95 forms used the following categories to collect data on
special education teachers and other personnel employed to provide
services to students with disabilities.
* _Employed/Fully Certified or Licensed:_ The number of FTE
personnel employed or contracted who had appropriate State
certification or licensure for the position held.
* _Employed/Not Fully Certified:_ The number of FTE personnel
employed or contracted who were employed in an emergency,
provisional, or other basis if they did not hold standard State
certification or licensure for the position to which they were
assigned.
* _Vacant Positions:_ The number of unfilled vacancies in funded
positions that existed at the time the count was taken.
* _Retained/Fully Certified or Licensed:_ The number of fully
certified teachers retained from the previous year. That is, the
number of employed or contracted personnel providing special
education and related services, who had appropriate State
certification or licensure for the position held and who were
employed in the same school district in the same position during
the previous year.
* _Retained/Not Fully Certified:_ The number of teachers, not fully
certified, retained from the previous year. This includes
personnel employed on an emergency, temporary, or other basis and
who were employed by the same school district in the same position
during the previous year under the same circumstances.
For each of these categories States were allowed to report counts
either by Federal disability category or by some other category used
in the State. For example, States may choose to use
assignments/placement categories, such as consulting teacher, resource
room teacher, etc., or they may provide counts by staff certification,
such as elementary teacher of special education, teacher of students
with severe disabilities, resource teacher, or similar categories.
In the next year, OSEP will review the accuracy of the data provided
in each of these five categories and the States' ability to collect
it. OSEP will carefully review the data, and will work with the States
to ensure that accurate data are provided. These data will be reported
for the first time in the 18th Annual Report to Congress.
_______________________
7 Teachers in cross-categorical programs teach classes with students
having varying disabilities.
----------
Summary and Implications
The total number of children and youth from birth through age 21
served under Part B and Chapter 1 (SOP) increased to 5,373,077 during
the 1993-94 school year, 217,127 (4.2 percent) more than in 1992-93.
This is the largest yearly increase since the inception of IDEA in
1976. Most of the increase (209,073) occurred in the Part B program.
The increase of 8,054 that occurred in the Chapter 1 (SOP) program
represents two distinct trends. The number of infants and toddlers
from birth through age 2 served under Chapter 1 (SOP) increased
sharply by 25.1 percent, while the number of students age 3 through 21
declined by 5.5 percent.
Chapter 1 (SOP) funding decreased during each of its three final
years. This trend began in 1992 when Congress moved toward merging
Chapter 1 (SOP) with programs authorized under IDEA. However, Part B
funds were increased by 4.7 percent, and the combined funding of
Chapter 1 (SOP) and Part B rose by 4.0 percent. In 1994, the total
Part B and Chapter 1 (SOP) allocation was $2,266,564,000.
The number of students in each of the 12 Federal disability categories
remained relatively stable. During the 1993-94 school year, students
with specific learning disabilities continued to account for more than
half (51.1 percent) of all students age 6 through 21 served under Part
B and Chapter 1 (SOP). Students with speech or language impairments
(21.1 percent), mental retardation (11.6 percent), and serious
emotional disturbance (8.7 percent) made up an additional 41.4 percent
of those served. The largest growth occurred in the categories of
traumatic brain injuries, students with other health impairments, and
autism. The growth in the traumatic brain injury and autism categories
was probably due to the relative newness of these reporting
categories. The growth in the other health impairments category
appears, in part, to be the result of increased service provision to
students with ADD. The combination of the continued growth in the
learning disabilities category and the growth in the mental
retardation and other health impairments categories is one of the main
reasons why the number of students served underwent its largest
increase ever during 1993-94.
Information collected during 1992-93 revealed that the trend of
increased reporting of children age 6 through 21 in regular classrooms
is continuing. During the past five years, the percentage of children
reported served in regular classrooms has increased from 30.5 percent
to 40 percent. However, this change may be related in part to
reporting changes in several large States. Over the same period,
reported placement of students in resource rooms has decreased and
placement of students in separate classes has remained relatively
stable. During the 1993-94 school year, 39.8 percent of school-aged
children were reported served in regular classroom placements, 31.7
percent in resource rooms, and 23.5 percent in separate classes.
Therefore, 95 percent of students with disabilities were served in
regular school buildings during the 1993-94 school-year. The
percentage of students with disabilities served in regular school
buildings has remained stable over the past five years. In the 1988-89
school year, 94 percent of school-aged students with disabilities were
served in regular school buildings.
As in past years, placement patterns varied considerably by disability
category during the 1992-93 school year. Each of the categories on the
placement continuum contained at least some students from each
disability category. Students with speech/language impairments,
hearing impairments, orthopedic impairments, other health impairments,
and visual impairments were most likely to be served in regular
education classes. Students with learning disabilities were most
frequently placed in resource rooms. Students with mental retardation,
serious emotional disturbance, multiple disabilities, autism,
deaf-blindness and traumatic brain injury were most likely to be
served in separate class settings.
OSEP has funded a number of projects over the last decade that support
inclusive school practices. Some of these projects have focused on
specific research issues, while others have been demonstration
projects or institutes. Several conditions identified as supporting
inclusive schooling practices are: strong leadership, the commitment
of all school personnel, active involvement and support from families,
and ongoing support and training to general and special education
teachers.
The number of teachers and other staff needed to fill funded vacancies
and replace teachers who were not fully trained or certified to serve
school-aged children decreased by 5.3 percent during the 1992-93
school year. However, States reported needing an additional 5,000
teacher aides. This was by far the area of greatest need for
additional personnel, and may reflect the different personnel patterns
that are being used.
OSEP has taken important steps toward improving data collections.In
response to specific needs within States, the methods used to collect
data on students exiting educational programs and the anticipated
service needs of students exiting the educational system have
undergone changes. In 1992, OSEP made changes with regard to the data
collection on students exiting educational programs. States were given
the option of using either a new, revised form or the old form.The
revised form collects data on the number of students exiting the
special education system rather than on the number of students exiting
the educational system in general. Data on students 14 and older
exiting with a diploma or certificate of completion show the
graduation rate has remained steady for the past five years in each
disability category.
The pilot study of the PASS system, which examined the anticipated
service needs of students exiting the school system, found that the
service in highest demand in a sample of States was case
management.The need for alternative education and recreation and
leisure services were also in high demand.Almost all exiting students
had a primary need for services in at least one area.The pilot data
from the PASS system are beginning to provide valuable information
that can contribute to a "seamless" transition from special education
to adult services.
References
Cole, F. A., and Meyer, L. H.(1991).
Social integration and severe disabilities: A longitudinal
analysis of child outcomes. _Journal of Special Education,
25_(3), 340-351.
Evans, I. M., Salisbury, C. L., Palombaro, M. M., Berryman, J., and
Hollowood, T. M.(1992).
Peer interactions and social acceptance of elementary age
children with severe disabilities in an inclusive school.
_Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps,
17_(4), 205-212.
Hallahan, D.(1992).
Some thoughts on why the prevalence of learning disabilities
has increased. _Journal of Learning Disability, 25_(8),
523-528.
Hamilton, W., Mandeville, P., and Fox, W.(1995).
_Prevention, Teaching, and Responding Manual._ Burlington, VT:
University Affiliated Facility, University of Vermont.
Helmstetter, E., Peck, C. A., and Giangreco, M. F.(1994).
Outcomes of interactions with peers with moderate or severe
disabilities: A statewide survey of high school students.
_Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps,
19_(4), 263-276.
Hollowood, T. M., Salisbury, C. L. Rainforth, B., and Palombaro, M.
M.(1994).
Use of instructional time in classrooms serving students with
and without severe disabilities. _Exceptional Children, 61_(3),
242-253.
Hunt, P., Farron-Davis, F., Beckstead, S., Curtis, D., and Goetz,
L.(1994).
Evaluating the effects of placement of students with severe
disabilities in general education versus special class.
_Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps,
19_(3), 200-214.
Hunt, P., Staub, D., Alwell, M., and Goetz, L.(1994).
Achievement by all students within the context of cooperative
learning groups. _Journal of the Association for Persons with
Severe Handicaps, 19_(4), 290-301.
Janney, R. E., Snell, M. E., Beers, M. K., and Raynes, M.(1995).
Integrating students with moderate and severe disabilities into
general education classes. _Exceptional Children, 61,_ 425-429.
Karasoff, P., Alwell, M., and Halvorsen, A.(1992).
_Systems change: A review of effective practices._ San
Francisco: San Francisco State University, California Research
Institute.
Kennedy, C. H., and Itkonen, T.(1994).
Some effects of regular class participation on the social
contacts and social networks of high school students with
severe disabilities. _Journal of the Association for Persons
with Severe Handicaps, 19(1)_, 1-10.
Lipsky, D. K., and Gartner, A.(1994).
Inclusion:What it is, what it's not, and why it matters.
_Exceptional Parent, 24_(9), 36-38.
Nisbet, J.(1992).
_Natural supports in school, at work, and in the community for
people with severe disabilities._ Baltimore:Paul Brookes.
Peters, S. J.(1990).
Integration and socialization of exceptional children.
_Anthropology and Education Quarterly,_ 21(4), 319-339.
Rainforth, B., York, J., and MacDonald, C.(1992).
_Collaborative teams for students with severe disabilities:
Integrating therapy and educational services._ Baltimore, Paul
Brookes.
Romor, L. T., and Haring, N. C.(1994).
The social participation of students with deaf blindness in
educational settings. _Education and Training in Mental
Retardation and Developmental Disabilities,_ 134-144.
Salisbury, C. L.(1991).
Mainstreaming during the early childhood years. _Exceptional
Children, 58,_ 540-549.
Salisbury, C. L., Gallucci, C., Palombaro, M. M., and Peck, C. A.(in
press).
Strategies employed by general educators to promote social
relations among elementary students with and without severe
disabilities in inclusive schools. _Exceptional Children._
Sharpe, M. N., York, J. L., and Knight, J.(1994).
Effects of inclusion on the academic performance of classmates
without disabilities. _Remedial and Special Education, 15_(5),
281-287.
Wolery, M., Werts, M. G., Caldwell, N. K., Snyder, E.D.(1994).
Efficacy of constant time delay implemented by peer tutors in
general education classrooms. _Journal of Behavioral Education,
4_(4), 415-436.
Wolery, M., Werts, M. G., Caldwell, N. K., Snyder, E. D., and
Lisowski, L.(1995).
Experienced teachers' perceptions of resources and supports for
inclusion. _Education and Training in Mental Retardation and
Developmental Disabilities,_ 30, 15-26.
----------
Chapter 2
_______________________________________________________________________
Meeting the Needs of Infants, Toddlers, and Preschool Children with
Disabilities
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) supports
efforts to provide coordinated service delivery systems for children
with disabilities from birth through age 5 through several programs.
The two major programs serving this population are the Early
Intervention Program for Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities (Part
H) (from birth through age 2), and the Preschool Grants Program
(Section 619 of Part B) (ages 3 through 5). A number of discretionary
programs also support projects for this population. These include the
Early Education Program for Children with Disabilities (EEPCD)
(Section 623 of Part C) and grants for activities such as training
personnel and conducting research.
Part H was created by P.L. 99-457, the Education of the Handicapped
Act Amendments of 1986. Part H authorizes assistance to States to
address the needs of infants and toddlers (children from birth through
age 2) with disabilities and their families. The grants support a
statewide comprehensive, multi-disciplinary, interagency, coordinated
program of early intervention services for infants and toddlers who
meet the State's Part H eligibility criteria for an infant or toddler
with a disability. This includes infants and toddlers who are at risk
of having a substantial developmental delay if early intervention
services are not provided, if a State chooses to serve those children
and their families.
In order to receive funding for 3- through 5-year-olds under Section
619 or 611, States are required to provide a free appropriate public
education (FAPE) to all eligible 3- through 5-year-olds with
disabilities. Federal requirements governing the Preschool Grants
Program are the same as those for the Part B program. This chapter has
the three main sections described below:
* _Implementation of the Part H Program_ summarizes the program's
development and describes its implementation status. The frequency
with which various service settings are utilized is described and
the number of personnel employed and needed is reported. Efforts
made by OSEP and the States to improve the Part H personnel data
collection format are described.
* _Implementation of the Preschool Grants Program_ reports the
amount of the 1994 per child allocation, the number of children
age 3 through 5 served, and the number of personnel employed and
needed.The educational placements of preschoolers with
disabilities and Preschool Grants Program implementation issues
are discussed.
* _Other OSEP Programs Benefitting Young Children with
Disabilities_ describes other programs OSEP sponsors that serve
young children, such as the Early Education Program for Children
with Disabilities (EEPCD).
----------
Implementation of the Part H Program
The original legislation that created the Part H program required that
FY 1991 be the first year of full implementation, after a five-year
phase-in period to build the service delivery system Congress
envisioned. To participate in the program during the fourth year,
States had to provide assurances that policies addressing the required
components of an early intervention system were in place and that
multi-disciplinary evaluations and assessments, individualized family
service plans (IFSPs), and case management services (now called
service coordination) were available to all eligible infants,
toddlers, and their families.
As the deadline for applying for fourth-year funds approached in FY
1990, it became clear that a number of States were not prepared to
meet the fourth-year requirements. At the time it appeared that the
only option open to those States was to drop out of the program
completely. To enable States to remain in the program, Congress
amended the Part H requirements, effective June 1991, and adopted a
system of differential funding for FY 1990, 1991, and 1992.
States that were able to move ahead on the original implementation
schedule set forth in Part H by P.L. 99-457 received larger grants
than States that had not completed either fourth- or fifth-year
requirements. States that were having difficulty meeting the
requirements for the fourth or fifth year of participation were
eligible to receive up to two extended participation grants. A State
under the extended participation option received a grant award equal
to the State's grant award from the previous year. Ten States and one
Outlying Area requested extended participation for FY 1990. In FY
1991, 18 States provided assurances for meeting full implementation of
the Part H program, 26 States entered their first year of extended
participation, and 11 States entered their second and therefore final
year of extended participation.
As reported in the 16th Annual Report to Congress, at the close of FY
1992 a total of 41 States and jurisdictions had been awarded grants
for full implementation of Part H. Twelve States and jurisdictions had
received awards for a second year of extended participation, and one
State did not apply for a Part H grant. No further extensions were
authorized. On September 30, 1994, the end of availability for FY 1993
funds, all States and jurisdictions assured full implementation of the
Part H program.
To further support the implementation of the Part H program during FY
1993, Congress appropriated $213,280,000, 23 percent more than the
$172,861,111 million appropriated for FY 1992. Table 2.1 reports the
FY 1993 Part H grant amount for each State and Outlying Area.1
___________________________________
_TABLE 2.1 Grant Awards Under Part H Appropriation Year 1993,
Allocation Year 1993-94_
_STATE PART H_
-----------------------------------------------------
Alabama $3,046,905
Alaska 1,042,702
Arizona 3,312,138
Arkansas 1,736,776
California 29,207,477
Colorado 2,642,716
Connecticut 2,426,424
Delaware 1,042,702
District of Columbia 1,042,702
Florida 9,650,350
Georgia 5,417,361
Guam 880,891
Hawaii 1,042,702
Idaho 1,042,702
Illinois 9,265,029
Indiana 4,124,608
Iowa 1,934,501
Kansas 1,869,241
Kentucky 2,620,544
Louisiana 3,458,507
Maine 1,042,702
Maryland 3,926,195
Massachusetts 4,451,846
Michigan 7,359,225
Minnesota 3,334,075
Mississippi 2,078,640
Missouri 3,808,036
Montana 1,042,702
Nebraska 1,191,819
Nevada $1,082,919
New Hampshire 1,042,702
New Jersey 5,884,344
New Mexico 1,352,764
New York 14,117,157
North Carolina 5,011,663
North Dakota 1,042,702
Ohio 8,016,235
Oklahoma 2,344,879
Oregon 2,121,710
Pennsylvania 8,210,103
Puerto Rico 3,045,563
Rhode Island 1,042,702
South Carolina 2,796,532
South Dakota 1,042,702
Tennessee 3,619,468
Texas 15,327,041
Utah 1,778,806
Vermont 1,042,702
Virginia 4,789,719
Virgin Islands 522,340
Washington 3,943,587
West Virginia 1,098,617
Wisconsin 3,581,798
Wyoming 1,042,702
American Samoa 400,457
Bureau of Indian Affairs 2,606,756
Palau 79,593
Northern Marianas 249,519
------------------------------------------------------
U.S. and Outlying Areas $213,280,000
50 States, D.C. & P.R. $208,540,444
Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education
Programs, Data Analysis System (DANS).
___________________________________
State-reported Data on the Part H Program
OSEP collects five types of information about infants and toddlers
receiving early intervention services from the States: (1) the number
served, (2) the number in need of services, (3) the types services
provided, (4) personnel employed and needed, and (5) the setting in
which services are provided. The States' ability to report complete
and accurate information varies. As implementation of the Part H
program has progressed, State data collection and reporting systems
have also improved. However, some States continue to have difficulty
merging information from different agencies to produce an unduplicated
count of infants and toddlers. Other States have difficulty obtaining
data from all the entities that serve infants and toddlers. Thus,
while the quality of the data available at the national level has
improved considerably, continued improvement is still necessary. OSEP
has been working with States to improve the quality of the information
provided. OSEP activities on these State-reported data are discussed
in a subsequent section.
Number of Infants and Toddlers Being Served
To determine the number of infants and toddlers receiving early
intervention services during 1993-94, OSEP collected data on December
1, 1993 from the States on infants and toddlers served in: (1) Chapter
1 (SOP) programs2 on December 1, 1993 or (2) any other type of
early intervention program. States are required to submit a count of
infants and toddlers served under Chapter 1 (SOP) in order to receive
Federal funding for those children.3 States are also required to
submit an unduplicated count of all other children receiving early
intervention services as a condition of their Part H grant award.
States and Outlying Areas reported to OSEP that on December 1, 1993,
they were serving a total of 154,065 infants and toddlers with
disabilities, or 1.3 percent of the entire birth through age 2
population. Chapter 1 (SOP) programs were serving 93,587 of the
infants and toddlers, and 60,478 were receiving services under other
early intervention programs. As indicated in table 2.2, about 7
percent more infants and toddlers were receiving services in December
1993 than in December 1992.
Table 2.2 also indicates that until 1993, there had been a steady
toddlers served under all programs. This decline occurred even though
increasing numbers of infants and toddlers were being served under
Chapter 1 (SOP), and increasing numbers of States were fully
participating in the Part H program. It must be noted, however, that
the decline may have been a result of the data collection practice s
States used in the early years of the program. Previously, States
included children who received some services and who did not
necessarily have IFSPs. Further, there is an unknown degree of error
in the data from the early years of the program due to problems with
the count of children in early intervention programs. Some children
may have been counted more than once, and others may not have been
counted at all.
___________________________________
_TABLE 2.2 Change in Total Number of Infants and Toddlers from Birth
Through Age 2 Served Since 1989 Under Chapter 1 (SOP) and All Other
Programs_
_Percentage
Change in
Number Number Percentage of Total Number
Served Under Served (All Population Served from
Year Chapter 1 Programs) Served Previous Year_
-------------------------------------------------------------------
1989 37,317 247,477 2.0 N/A
1990 50,827 194,363 1.77 -21.5
1991 66,478 166,634 1.41 -14.3
1992 76,397 143,392 1.18 -13.9
1993 93,587 154,065 1.30 + 7.4
Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education
Programs, Data Analysis System (DANS).
___________________________________
States have repeatedly maintained that the December 1 child count does
not accurately report the number of infants and toddlers with
disabilities actually served during the entire school year, in part
because children may move in or out of service areas and programs
during the year. In 1993, 22 States voluntarily submitted a cumulative
count along with their December 1 count for their birth through age 2
populations. Nineteen of those States reported that their cumulative
count was higher than their December 1 count. One State reported that
its cumulative count was 330.5 percent larger than its December 1
count, but another State reported that its cumulative count was 45.9
percent less than its December 1 count. None of the States reported
information that explained why the cumulative and December 1 counts
differed.
Table 2.3 shows the number of infants and toddlers served in each
State under Chapter 1 (SOP) and all other programs as of December 1,
1993. Overall, 36 States served more infants and toddlers in 1993 than
in 1992. The increase in the total number of infants and toddlers
served was the result of a fairly large increase in the number served
under Chapter 1 (SOP) programs (22.4 percent) and a 9.7 percent
decrease in the number served under all other programs. More than half
the increase in the number served under Chapter 1 (SOP) programs
occurred in two States(Florida and New York). Florida reported serving
9,460 infants and toddlers in Chapter 1 (SOP) programs in 1993, while
in 1992 it reported serving only 2,027 -- an increase of 7,433.
___________________________________
_TABLE 2.3 Number of Infants and Toddlers Receiving Early Intervention
Services Under Chapter 1 (SOP) and Other Programs: December 1, 1993_
_BIRTH PERCENTAGE
OTHER CHAPTER 1 THROUGH 2 OF
STATE PROGRAMS (SOP) TOTAL POPULATION POPULATION_
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama 414 780 1,194 181,899 0.66
Alaska 0 605 605 33,995 1.78
Arizona 637 998 1,635 196,188 0.83
Arkansas 798 1,160 1,958 102,777 1.91
California 14,529 936 15,465 1,750,520 0.88
Colorado 2,377 948 3,325 160,460 2.07
Connecticut 0 1,266 1,266 137,767 0.92
Delaware 943 40 983 31,924 3.08
District of
Columbia 746 308 1,054 24,195 4.36
Florida 0 9,460 9,460 569,524 1.66
Georgia 2,703 189 2,892 325,338 0.89
Hawaii 2,853 793 3,646 57,865 6.30
Idaho 0 764 764 51,318 1.49
Illinois 2,483 5,030 7,513 555,545 1.35
Indiana 1,479 2,763 4,242 242,863 1.75
Iowa 0 969 969 111,648 0.87
Kansas 129 887 1,016 109,060 0.93
Kentucky 0 978 978 156,966 0.62
Louisiana 305 2,078 2,383 206,617 1.15
Maine 756 0 756 46,520 1.63
Maryland 0 3,356 3,356 224,834 1.49
Massachusetts 0 7,197 7,197 254,606 2.83
Michigan 458 3,004 3,462 411,802 0.84
Minnesota 0 2,436 2,436 193,956 1.26
Mississippi 134 80 214 126,082 0.17
Missouri 0 2,087 2,087 222,191 0.94
Montana 0 402 402 34,437 1.17
Nebraska 0 722 722 67,649 1.07
Nevada 0 596 596 66,064 0.90
New Hampshire 19 661 680 46,280 1.47
New Jersey 464 2,369 2,833 349,884 0.81
New Mexico 950 67 1,017 82,771 1.23
New York 0 5,914 5,914 832,200 0.71
North Carolina 6,222 874 7,096 301,792 2.35
North Dakota 0 195 195 25,659 0.76
Ohio 13,945 0 13,945 485,629 2.87
Oklahoma 0 1,460 1,460 140,632 1.04
Oregon 0 1,271 1,271 124,222 1.02
Pennsylvania 0 6,227 6,227 481,857 1.29
Puerto Rico 4,325 0 4,325 . .
Rhode Island 0 672 672 42,930 1.57
South Carolina 0 1,399 1,399 164,877 0.85
South Dakota 16 286 302 32,922 0.92
Tennessee 1,378 2,059 3,437 217,389 1.58
Texas 122 8,676 8,798 941,199 0.93
Utah 388 1,106 1,494 108,073 1.38
Vermont 13 160 173 2,333 0.77
Virginia 280 2,334 2,614 283,114 0.92
Washington 280 2,226 2,506 235,308 1.06
West Virginia 202 1,307 1,509 64,625 2.34
Wisconsin 0 2,998 2,998 206,904 1.45
Wyoming 0 427 427 19,959 2.14
American Samoa 0 0 0 . .
Guam 86 18 104 . .
Northern Marianas 44 44 88 . .
Palau . 5 5 . .
Virgin Islands . 0 0 . .
Bureau of Indian
Affairs . . . . .
--------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. & Outlying
Areas 60,478 93,587 154,065 11,865,169 1.30
50 States,D.C.,
and P.R. 60,348 93,520 153,868 11,865,169 1.30
Note: Data presented in the column "Chapter 1 (SOP)" were taken from
the certified reports on the number of infants, toddlers, and children
(birth through 21) served under Chapter 1 (SOP) and submitted by the
Stated Educational Agencies. Data presented under "Other Programs"
were taken from reports of the number of infants and toddlers served
that were submitted by Part H Lead Agencies.
Note: Population figures are July estimates from the Bureau of the
Census. No Census data are available for Outlying Areas.
Note: Data as of October 1, 1994.
Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education
Programs, Data Analysis System (DANS).
___________________________________
Florida reported that expansion of services, new definitions for
eligibility, and rapid population growth were the main reasons the
increase occurred. New York reported serving 5,914 infants and
toddlers under Chapter 1 (SOP) in 1993 compared to 3,730 in 1992--an
increase of 2,184. New York reported that the increase was due to a
change in reporting methodology. In the past, New York surveyed
service providers to produce a child count. In 1993, they switched to
performing an actual child count.
The 9.7 percent decrease in the number of infants and toddlers served
under all other programs would have been even larger if not for: (1)
large service population increases in California (14,529 in 1993
versus 10,943 in 1992), which reported it was able to serve more
infants and toddlers because it had more funds to do so; (2) Indiana
(1,479 versus 515 in 1992), which reported an increase in the number
of children identified as "at-risk"; and (3) Ohio (13,945 in 1993
versus 11,394 in 1992), which reported an expansion of services at the
local level. But the decrease is otherwise accounted for by very large
decreases in (1) Connecticut (which did not report a reason for the
decrease), (2) Florida and Missouri (which now serve all eligible
children from birth through age 2 under the Chapter 1 (SOP) program),
and (3) Massachusetts (which now uses improved reporting methods,
enabling it to avoid the duplicate reporting of past years). These
four States reported serving no infants and toddlers in programs other
than Chapter 1 (SOP) during 1993, although in 1992 their combined
count of nearly 12,000 was about one-fifth of all infants and toddlers
served in those early intervention programs other than Chapter 1
(SOP).
Regardless of whether infants and toddlers are counted as receiving
services in Chapter 1 (SOP) or non-Chapter 1 (SOP) programs, the
overall proportion served changed little in most States. As in 1992,
most States and jurisdictions served less than 2 percent of their
total from birth through age 2 population in programs for infants and
toddlers with disabilities in 1993, although the range across States
varied widely. Some of the variation may be explained by variability
in eligibility criteria, the child find and outreach strategies used,
and because some States operate non-mandated programs for infants and
toddlers who have been identified as "at-risk" for developing a
disability. While these "at-risk" programs are not required under Part
H, those States utilizing this option include "at-risk" infants and
toddlers in their child counts.
Services and Settings
Table 2.4 provides information on the location of services provided to
infants and toddlers and their families on December 1, 1992. Most
States and jurisdictions provided information. However, data from one
State and three jurisdictions were not received . Furthermore, three
States did not use all of the available categories of information and
therefore provided incomplete data. The amount of missing and
incomplete data makes detecting trends across categories difficult.
However, the data indicate that the general trend from previous years
has persisted. That is, among all infants and toddlers receiving
services, the home remains the most frequent location for services
(40,896 or 29 percent), even though five States and jurisdictions did
not use this reporting category. Outpatient services (37,409 or 27
percent) was the next most frequently cited location. This was closely
followed by the early intervention classroom setting (36,541 or 26
percent). In 1992, early intervention classroom settings were used
more frequently than outpatient services. The change may be related to
the data reporting categories used by California.
___________________________________
_Table 2.4 Number of Infants and Toddlers from Birth Through Age Two
Receiving Services in Different Early Intervention Settings: December
1, 1992_
_U.S. AND 50 STATES, D.C.,
SETTING OUTLYING AREAS AND P.R._
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Early intervention
classroom 36,541 36,483
Family day care 703 698
Home 40,896 40,826
Hospital (inpatient) 8,122 8,096
Outpatient service
facility 37,409 37,390
Regular nursery school
/day care 4,444 4,441
Residential facility 105 105
Other setting 10,987 10,982
All settings 139,207 139,021
Note: Data as of October 1, 1994.
Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education
Programs, Data Analysis System (DANS).
___________________________________
The patterns of use of the various settings differs somewhat by the
age of the infants and toddlers receiving services (see figure 2.1).
For infants and toddlers from 0 to 1, services are equally likely to
be delivered at the home or at the outpatient service facility (32
percent each). Only 16 percent of infants and toddlers from 0 to 1
receive services in early intervention classrooms. Infants and
toddlers age 1 to 2 are even more likely to receive services in the
home (38 percent). However, they are nearly equally likely to receive
services in either the early intervention classroom (23 percent) or in
outpatient services facilities (25 percent).
Figure 2.1 Setting in which Early Intervention Services Are
Delivered, by Age Group, 1992-93
AGE 0-1
Early Intervention Classroom: 16 percent
Outpatient Service Facility: 20 percent
Home: 32 percent
All Other: 32 percent
AGE 1-2
Early Intervention Classroom: 23 percent
Outpatient Service Facility: 14 percent
Home: 38 percent
All Other: 25 percent
AGE 2-3
Early Intervention Classroom: 33 percent
Outpatient Service Facility: 15 percent
Home: 36 percent
All Other: 16 percent
All Infants and Toddlers Birth through 2
Early Intervention Classroom: 25.5 percent
Outpatient Service Facility: 16 percent
Home: 35.6 percent
All Other: 23 percent
Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education
Data Analysis System (DANS)
Infants and toddlers with disabilities age 2 to 3 are most often
provided services in either the home (36 percent) or early
intervention classroom (33 percent). Only 16 percent receive services
in outpatient services facilities.
The methods used to collect data on the services delivered to infants
and toddlers with disabilities and their families are also evolving.
Some States report that this information is an accurate description of
services, but others have not been able to collect complete data
(see table 2.5). The 1992-93 data shows that (1) special
instruction, (2) family training, counseling and home visits, and (3)
speech or language pathology were the services most often provided,
and that they were provided with similar frequency. This pattern is
somewhat different from the previous year's data, which indicated that
special instruction was the service most often provided, followed by
speech/language pathology, social work, occupational therapy, and
physical therapy.
Personnel Employed and Needed
The information on personnel employed and needed to provide early
intervention services to infants and toddlers with disabilities and
their families is even more difficult for States to collect and
report. The available data on personnel (see table 2.6) are therefore
quite incomplete. In general, the largest category of personnel
employed to serve infants and toddlers with disabilities is
paraprofessionals, followed by special educators, "other" personnel,
and speech/language pathologists. Speech/language pathologists are the
personnel in greatest demand. The paraprofessional category is defined
by individual States.
___________________________________
_TABLE 2.6 Number of Personnel Employed and Needed to Provide Early
Intervention Services to Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities and
Their Families: December 1, 1992_
_ALL STAFF
STATE FTE EMPLOYED FTE NEEDEDa/_
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama 126 35
Alaska 55 0
Arizona 157 53
Arkansas 228 47
California . .
Colorado 73 10
Connecticut 254 13
Delaware 102 18
District of Columbia 125 29
Florida 174 173
Georgia 525 234
Hawaii 300 81
Idaho 109 463
Illinois 294 44
Indiana 450 126
Iowa 22 0
Kansas 247 68
Kentucky 0 73
Louisiana 321 154
Maine 376 0
Maryland 446 12
Massachusetts 571 718
Michigan 441 0
Minnesota 1,122 0
Mississippi 61 20
Missouri 127 0
Montana 74 3
Nebraska 135 0
Nevada 63 1
New Hampshire 73 1
New Jersey 0 0
New Mexico 167 0
New York 15,224 2,311
North Carolina . .
North Dakota 26 1
Ohio 2,390 283
Oklahoma 138 10
Oregon 0 0
Pennsylvania 1,004 174
Puerto Rico 225 0
Rhode Island 50 18
South Carolina 119 0
South Dakota 189 53
Tennessee 561 78
Texas 1,073 47
Utah 56 3
Vermont 20 31
Virginia 1,796 422
Washington 0 527
West Virginia 138 11
Wisconsin 366 0
Wyoming 95 83
American Samoa 31 0
Guam 19 8
Northern Marianas 13 0
Palau . .
Virgin Islands . .
Bureau of Indian Affairs . .
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. and Outlying Areas 30,747 6,434
50 States, D.C., and P.R. 30,684 6,426
_a_/ These figures include: (1) the number of _unfilled vacancies_ in
funded positions that occurred during the 1992-93 school year (12
months), and (2) the number of additional personnel that were needed
during the 1992-93 school year (12 months) to fill positions occupied
by persons who were not fully certified or licensed. These figures
include additional personnel needed by public and private agencies.
Source:U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education
Programs, Data Analysis System (DANS).
___________________________________
OSEP Activities on State-reported Data
As noted earlier, OSEP has been working with States for the past
several years to improve the quality of the early intervention
services data. OSEP has been engaged in a number of activities to
improve the quality of the early intervention data collection and to
assist States in collecting and reporting more accurate data. For
example, OSEP has been working with States to improve the Part H
personnel data collection format. The design of the initial Part H
personnel data collection forms was based on forms used for Part B and
Chapter 1 (SOP) personnel data collections. As the Part H program has
developed, it has become increasingly clear that these forms are
inadequate for collecting information about Part H programs. Part H
programs differ from Part B and Chapter 1 (SOP) in several respects.
They have a higher percentage of contracted vs. employed personnel;
wide variations in service delivery settings exist; and infants and
toddlers are not generally in a central location.
OSEP has also begun reviewing the State-reported Part H data more
stringently. This review is identical to the one annually conducted on
Part B and Chapter 1 (SOP) data, and was conducted on the Part H data
presented in this Annual Report. To conduct the review, Part H data on
the number of infants and toddlers and their families served and
services provided to infants and toddlers were compared to data from
the previous year. These comparisons have three purposes: 1) they
provide additional checks on the data preparation process; 2) they
provide checks on possible data aggregation problems at the State
level; and 3) they permit an initial evaluation regarding whether the
variation from one year to the next is reasonable or logical. OSEP has
set specific guidelines for what defines a logical change from the
previous year.
States with large variations from the previous year were asked to
explain them. In some cases, States provided revised counts, while
others provided explanations for the variations. These explanations
appear in the Data Notes section of Appendix A. States were also
questioned about count discrepancies that were identified when OSEP
compared the data across data tables. See the Data Notes in Appendix A
for a summary of these States' explanations for the discrepancies.
Part H Implementation Issues
The Part H program is still evolving. States are still refining their
data collection systems, and the data collection forms are undergoing
changes. States are also struggling to coordinate the wide range of
multiple funding sources, legislation, and programs that serve this
population. These factors affect States' ability to define eligibility
criteria, predict the range of needed services, and identify children
who may be eligible for services. For example, the funds can come from
any of the following sources: (1) Part H grants; (2) Medicaid and
Maternal and Child Health Block grants; (3) State and local funds; (4)
private insurance; (5) non-profit groups; and (6) fees paid by parents
for services. Many of these funding sources have their own eligibility
criteria, methods of disseminating information about their program,
and methods of identifying infants and toddlers with disabilities.
_______________________
1 Under the Part H regulations, Micronesia and the Marshall Islands
are not eligible to receive Part H program or Preschool Grants Program
funds. Therefore, they are not in the tables in the chapter.
2 Throughout this chapter, Chapter 1 (SOP) refers to the Chapter 1
Handicapped Program of ESEA which supports State operated and
supported programs for persons with disabilities.
3 The Improving America's Schools Act (IASA) of 1994 merged the
Chapter 1 Handicapped program with IDEA as of fiscal year 1995. For
1995, $34,000,000 of the appropriation of Part H will be distributed
based on the count of children aged birth through 2 on December 1,
1994 who would have been eligible to participate under the Chapter 1
Handicapped program, as in effect prior to the enactment of the IASA.
In addition, for fiscal years 1995-1999, the IASA added a hold
harmless provision whereby no State may receive less than the combined
total it received for children birth through 2 under the Chapter 1
handicapped and Part H programs in fiscal year 1994. However, in
fiscal years 1998 or 1999, if the total number of children aged birth
through 2 for a State declines below the number reported for the State
fiscal year 1994, the hold harmless amount would be reduced by the
same percentage.
----------
Implementation of the Preschool Grants Program
Since FY 1992, in order to be eligible for a Preschool Grant, States
must make FAPE available to all 3- through 5-year-old children with
disabilities. As shown in table 2.7, 10 States and jurisdictions
provide FAPE from birth. Virginia does so at age 2. All other States
begin at age 3. The table also shows the school year in which States
assured FAPE for all children with disabilities 3 years of age. About
half the States had mandates in place prior to FY 1992.
___________________________________
_TABLE 2.7 Age at which Children Are Eligible for FAPE,
and the Legislative Year in which States and Outlying Areas Assured
FAPE_
_Age at which
Year FAPE Children Are
Was Eligible for
State Assured FAPE_
------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama 1991-92 3
Alaska 1974-75 3
Arizona 1991-92 3
Arkansas 1991-92 3
California 1991-92 3
Colorado 1991-92 3
Connecticut 1991-92 3
Delaware 1991-92 3
District of Columbia 1983-84 3
Florida 1991-92 3
Georgia 1991-92 3
Hawaii 1980-81 3
Idaho 1989-90 3
Illinois 1973-74 3
Indiana 1991-92 3
Iowa 1975-76 Birth
Kansas 1991-92 3
Kentucky 1991-92 3
Louisiana 1977-78 3
Maine 1991-92 3
Maryland 1978-79 Birth
Massachusetts 1976-77 3
Michigan 1973-74 Birth
Minnesota 1986-87 Birth
Mississippi 1991-92 3
Missouri 1991-92 3
Montana 1990-91 3
Nebraska 1977-78 Birth
Nevada 1990-91 3
New Hampshire 1977-78 3
New Jersey 1983-84 3
New Mexico 1991-92 3
New York 1991-92 3
North Carolina 1991-92 3
North Dakota 1985-86 3
Ohio 1991-92 3
Oklahoma 1991-92 3
Oregon 1992-93 3
Pennsylvania 1991-92 3
Rhode Island 1976-77 3
South Carolina 1991-92 3
South Dakota 1976-77 3
Tennessee 1991-92 3
Texas 1974-75 3
Utah 1988-89 3
Vermont 1991-92 3
Virginia 1975-76 3
Virgin Islands 1981-82 3
Washington 1985-86 3
West Virginia 1991-92 3
Wisconsin 1973-74 3
Wyoming 1990-91 3
American Samoa 1977-78 Birth
Federated States of
Micronesia 1992-93 Birth
Guam 1981-82 Birth
Marshall Islands 1992-93 3
Palau 1989-90 Birth
Puerto Rico 1985-86 Birth
Northern Marianas 1990-91 3
Note: The Bureau of Indian Affairs is not included in this table.
Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education
Programs (OSEP).
___________________________________
States are awarded Preschool Grants Program funds based on the number
of 3- through 5-year-old children with disabilities receiving special
education and related services on December 1 of the previous year.
Congress appropriated $339,257,000 in FY 1994 for the Preschool Grants
Program, 4.1 percent more than the $324,773,000 appropriated in FY
1993.
The children with disabilities age 3 through 5 are also counted to
generate funds under Section 611 of Part B. However, States are not
obligated to use their Part B funds for the preschool population and,
in fact, many States do not use their Part B funds for services to
preschoolers. The preschool grants under Section 619 are the only
funds that States are required to use to provide FAPE to children with
disabilities age 3 through 5. Because the per child Part B award was
$413, each State received approximately $1,122(the $709 Preschool
Grants Program amount plus the Part B amount) under IDEA for every
child age 3 through 5 with a disability receiving special education
and related services on December 1, 1993. State-by-State grant awards
for FY 1994 are shown in table AG1 in Appendix A.
State-reported Data on the Preschool Grants Program
Three types of data are collected from States and Outlying Areas about
the Preschool Grants Program. These data include the count of children
with disabilities age 3 through 5 being served, the teachers employed
and needed to serve preschoolers with disabilities,4 and the
environments in which services are provided.
Number of Preschoolers with Disabilities Served
In December 1993, States and jurisdictions reported they were
providing special education and related services to 493,425 children
with disabilities age 3 through 5 under the Preschool Grants Program
and Chapter 1 (SOP).5 This was an increase of 37,896 (8.3 percent)
over the number served in 1992-93, and represents 4.2 percent of the
total population of 3- through 5-year-olds, as compared to 4.03
percent in 1992-93. As seen in table AA13 in Appendix A, the
percentage of the total preschool population served varied across
States and jurisdictions, from a low of 1.29 percent in the District
of Columbia to a high of 8.16 percent in Kentucky. Thirty-four States
or jurisdictions provided special education services to between 3 to 5
percent of their age 3 through 5 resident population.
Five-year-olds constituted 46 percent of the preschoolers receiving
special education and related services under the Preschool Grants
Program and Chapter 1 (SOP). Four-year-olds constituted 34 percent,
and 3-year-olds 20 percent, of the preschoolers served by those
programs in 1993-94. These proportions are consistent with trends
reported in previous years.
Teachers Employed and Needed to Serve Preschoolers with Disabilities
Access to FAPE depends on an adequate supply of teachers to meet the
needs of preschool children age 3 through 5 with disabilities. Each
year, States and Outlying Areas report to OSEP the number of teachers
employed to provide special education and related services to
preschoolers age 3 through 5 with disabilities (see table 2.8). They
also report the number of additional teachers needed due to staff
vacancies and instances when positions are filled by teachers who are
not fully certified or trained for their position. Data are not
collected for the number of regular education teachers working with
preschoolers with disabilities who are served in regular education
settings.
During the 1992-93 school year nearly 19,000 FTE special education
teachers were employed to serve students age 3 through 5 with
disabilities, 8.0 percent more than in the 1991-92 school year (see
table 2.8). The rate of increase in the number of FTE special
education teachers was somewhat less than the rate of increase in the
number of preschoolers with disabilities over the same time period
(the number of preschoolers with disabilities increased by 8.4 percent
between 1991-92 and 1992-93). States reported that an additional 2,209
FTE teachers were needed in the 1992-93 school year, 3 percent less
than the number needed in 1991-92.
___________________________________
_TABLE 2.8 Number of Special Education Teachers Employed and Needed to
Serve Children with Disabilities Age 3-5: School Year 1992-93_
_All Disabilities
FTE Employed FTE Neededa/_
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama 249 44
Alaska 72 1
Arizona 225 9
Arkansas 90 11
California 1,843 59
Colorado 205 5
Connecticut 352 6
Delaware 86 6
District of Columbia 53 12
Florida 1,080 101
Georgia 498 33
Hawaii 95 1
Idaho 127 41
Illinois 716 12
Indiana 389 31
Iowa 389 37
Kansas 256 5
Kentucky 253 20
Louisiana 603 275
Maine 162 14
Maryland 311 3
Massachusetts 428 0
Michigan 934 46
Minnesota 636 130
Mississippi 208 18
Missouri 411 96
Montana 42 28
Nebraska 101 1
Nevada 95 10
New Hampshire 88 7
New Jersey 901 10
New Mexico 154 3
New York 948 307
North Carolina 694 206
North Dakota 114 10
Ohio 821 89
Oklahoma 156 12
Oregon 359 32
Pennsylvania 509 4
Puerto Rico 108 0
Rhode Island 72 0
South Carolina 200 44
South Dakota 142 3
Tennessee 316 5
Texas . 202
Utah 101 30
Vermont 105 0
Virginia 1,024 130
Washington 303 13
West Virginia 174 3
Wisconsin 713 34
Wyoming 49 2
American Samoa 15 1
Guam 5 4
Northern Marianas 5 3
Palau . .
Virgin Islands 12 1
Bureau of Indian Affairs . .
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. and Outlying Areas 18,997 2,209
50 States, D.C., and P.R. 18,960 2,200
_a_/These figures include:(1) the number of _unfilled vacancies_ in
funded positions that occurred during the 1992-93 school year (12
months), and (2) the number of additional personnel that were needed
during the 1992-93 school year (12 months) to fill positions occupied
by persons who were not fully certified or licensed. These figures
include additional personnel needed by public and private agencies.
Note: The total FTE for the U.S. and Outlying Areas and the 50 States,
D.C., and Puerto Rico may not equal the sum of the individual States
and Outlying Areas because of rounding.
Note: Please see data notes for an explanation of individual State
differences.
Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education
Programs, Data Analysis System (DANS).
___________________________________
Educational Placements of Preschoolers with Disabilities
States have been reporting data to OSEP for a number of years on the
settings where preschoolers with disabilities receive special
education and related services. States reported that over 90 percent
of 3-through 5-year-olds with disabilities were served in regular
school buildings in 1992-93. Preschoolers with disabilities were
placed in separate schools 7.7 percent of the time. The remainder were
served either in residential facilities or in home or hospital
environments. However, the validity and reliability of these data have
come into question because the categories used on the reporting form
are the same for children age 3 through 5 and children 6 through 21.
The categories used to report data for children age 6 through 21 have
limited relevance to preschool settings and may make the placements
appear more restrictive than they actually are.
Implementation Issues
Providing programs to children with disabilities age 3 through 5
remains challenging. The following section presents some of the
current developments and emerging issues related to providing special
education and related services to preschool children.
_Administering and Funding the Preschool Grants Program_
The National Early Childhood Technical Assistance System (NEC*TAS)
annually produces and disseminates a national profile of the
implementation of the Preschool Grants Program (Heekin and Tollerton,
1994). This profile provides an overview of how States are
implementing the program. The 1994 Profile presents information from
all 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and seven
Outlying Areas. However, not all respondents answered every question
on this edition's questionnaire. The following information summarizes
some of the key questions and responses from the 619 Profile.
In 43 of the 57 States or jurisdictions responding to a query
concerning responsibility for administration, the Preschool Grants
Program is administered by the SEA's special education unit. Seven
administer the program within the SEA's early childhood unit but not
within special education (Colorado, Connecticut, Kentucky,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Ohio and Virginia). Six split responsibility
for the program between special education and another unit, such as
early childhood (Florida, Maine, Michigan, North Carolina, Minnesota
and Rhode Island). New Hampshire is unique in that special education
teams are integrated into all units.
The Section 619 Profile provides information on how States use
Preschool Grants Program funds. For example, according to the statute,
States have options open to them for 25 percent of Preschool Grants
Program funding. Five percent of Preschool Grants Program funding may
be set aside for administration. Of the 53 States and jurisdictions
reporting on how they use the set-aside, 43 use the full 5 percent for
administration. Two use 4 percent, four use between 2 and 3 percent,
and four use none. Administrative funds are typically used to provide
State-level direction and leadership for preschool special education
funding in States.
States and jurisdictions may set aside an additional 20 percent of
Preschool Grants Program funding for State-level discretionary use.
Allowable activities include planning and developing a statewide
comprehensive service delivery system for children with disabilities
from birth through age 5; providing direct and support services for
children with disabilities age 3 through 5; and, at the State's
discretion, providing FAPE to 2-year-old children with disabilities
who will reach age 3 during the school year. In the 1994 Profile, 54
States and jurisdictions reported how these discretionary funds are
used. Most of the SEAs (30) use the full 20 percent discretionary
set-aside. Eight SEAs use between 15 and 19 percent; 4 use 10 to 14
percent; 4 use between 1 and 9 percent; and 7 use none. Discretionary
funds are reported to be used most often for training and technical
assistance. Consistent with previous years, other common uses include
pilot programs, materials, planning/coordination, and direct services.
States and jurisdictions included in the NEC*TAS profile reported
using 18 different funding sources in addition to Section 611 and
Preschool Grants Program funds to finance preschool special education
services. This year, States and jurisdictions reported much greater
utilization of Federal Head Start funds. All 60 States and
jurisdictions reported using Federal Head Start funds, and 15 reported
using State Head Start funds. This is a vast increase over last year,
when only 24 reported using Federal Head Start funds. Other common
funding sources include State special education funds (41 States),
Chapter 1 (SOP) funds (41 States), Medicaid (34 States), and Early
Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment (EPSDT) funds (33 States).
Twenty-nine States or jurisdictions reported that they contribute
financially to collaborative activities with other early childhood
initiatives within the jurisdiction -- for example, collaboration with
public awareness efforts.
_Coordinating Part H and Preschool Programs_
States and jurisdictions use a number of mechanisms to improve service
delivery system coordination among programs that serve children with
disabilities from birth through age 5. According to NEC*TAS, the Part
H Interagency Coordination Council (ICC) works to improve coordination
in 15 of the 57 States and jurisdictions that responded to this item.
States and jurisdictions are required to include an SEA representative
on the ICC. The representatives from the SEA most often included are
the special education director or section chief for special education
(23 jurisdictions) and the early childhood/special education
coordinator (22 jurisdictions). SEA representatives also are involved
in a variety of Part H ICC task forces, including those on personnel
preparation (24 jurisdictions), transition (24 jurisdictions), and
child find/public awareness activities (18 jurisdictions). Thirty-one
States or jurisdictions reported that public awareness efforts are
directed toward the entire birth through age 5 population.
Of the 50 States or jurisdictions responding to a query about the use
of IFSPs instead of IEPs beyond age two, 23 are using or are
considering using IFSPs for preschool services. Oregon and Maine use
IFSPs on a statewide basis for all preschool services. Fifteen States
or jurisdictions allow local discretion in IFSP use. Six are
collecting data for future decision making.
_Interagency Coordination_
SEA representatives also continue to focus on interagency
collaboration strategies to help coordinate services within their
States. Fifty-one States and jurisdictions responded to queries
concerning collaborative activities such as interagency agreements,
joint training, and planning and coordination. Interagency agreements
occur most often with Head Start agencies (43 jurisdictions).
Thirty-eight States or jurisdictions reported that an SEA
representative is involved in the planning and coordination for Even
Start programs. Thirty-six of 49 States or jurisdictions responding
reported that an SEA representative is involved in planning and
coordination of Child Care Developmental Block Grant activities, and
31 offer special considerations for children with disabilities in
Child Care Developmental Block Grants activities. Twenty-seven offer
joint training activities with the Child Care Developmental Block
Grant program. Many States and jurisdictions also report collaboration
in child find, public awareness, and/or training activities among such
State agencies as Head Start, Developmental Disabilities, Health,
Human/Social Services, and Health and Human Services.
Interagency agreements with Head Start continue to strengthen. Since
the 1993 adoption of performance standards for services to children
with disabilities in the Head Start program, 20 States and SEAs have
revised or are in the process of revising their Head Start agreements.
Some of the elements included in these revised agreements center on
issues such as who is responsible for child identification, referral,
assessment, evaluation, and placement; services and other fiscal
responsibilities; FAPE and procedural safeguards; and information and
data sharing. In addition, many Head Start activities have shifted
focus. One element included in some SEA Head Start agreements is
guidelines for LEA agreements. The results of the 1994 619 Profile
indicate that in 13 States, LEAs and/or intermediate educational units
(IEUs) have entered into agreements with local Head Start programs.
The guidelines written at the State level may have been a contributing
factor.
_Transition _
Transition from early intervention Part H programs to preschool
programs continues to be an area of concern in some States. Many
technical assistance activities have focused on the issue of
transition. The statutory language is flexible on this issue, and
State representatives have found that to be helpful for developing
workable systems. In some States, successful systems have been
developed. Of 47 States and jurisdictions responding to this NEC*TAS
survey item, 22 have developed or are developing policies allowing
Preschool Grants Program funds to be used for children transitioning
into Part B programs before their third birthday. Twenty-two SEAs use
their Preschool Grants Program discretionary funds for projects
related to the transition of preschoolers into kindergarten or first
grade. Twenty-two have developed or are developing agreements for
transitions from preschool to kindergarten/first grade. Fifteen SEAs
use those funds for transition from Head Start into public school.
_Providing Preschool Services in Inclusive Environments _
Providing special education services in inclusive settings has become
an important national issue for children with disabilities of all
ages. Implementing strategies that support inclusion for school-age
children has been challenging. Doing so for children with disabilities
age 3 through 5 is even more challenging for a number of reasons. The
biggest barrier to providing services in inclusive settings is that
most LEAs do not provide preschool programs for preschoolers without
disabilities. Thus, it is difficult to place children with
disabilities in settings that enable them to interact with peers who
do not have disabilities while at the same time receiving the special
education and related services required to meet their unique needs.
When addressing inclusion issues for preschool children with
disabilities, States and jurisdictions have focused on strengthening
traditional alliances with such programs as Head Start and creating
new alliances with the child care and private nursery school
organizations, as well as community-based programs. More recently SEAs
have begun to develop a more inclusive approach to programming. The
NEC*TAS profile reports that 30 SEAs have promoted inclusion, and 8
States have a preschool-specific inclusion statement (Connecticut,
Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, North Carolina,
and Rhode Island). Thirteen States report that other State agencies
also have a philosophy promoting inclusion.
Some SEAs have chosen to implement accreditation standards for
preschool programs. Eleven SEAs report that they apply the National
Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) accreditation
program or self-study project to LEA preschool programs. Nine use
those standards for community-based preschools. Nine also reported
that they have developed or are developing their own preschool
accreditation or self-study process.
_______________________
4 There is no separate report of these personnel serving preschool
students with disabilities. State report numbers of personnel other
than teachers providing related services to preschoolers combined with
the data for such personnel serving school-age children. A discussion
of the number of personnel other than teachers providing services for
the 3-21 population of students with disabilities was provided in
Chapter 1.
5 The Chapter 1 (SOP) program was not reauthorized under the Improving
America's Schools Act that reauthorized ESEA. Beginning July 1, 1995,
funding for services to all eligible children and youth age 3 through
21 will be provided under IDEA, Part B.
----------
Other OSEP Programs and Projects Benefitting Young Children with Disabilities
OSEP continues to support a number of projects designed to promote
innovative strategies for the delivery of services to young children
with disabilities and their families. Priorities include development
of more effective practices, development of region-specific or
population-specific program models, enhancing training for existing
personnel, preservice training and identification of strategies to
recruit individuals into relevant fields of study.
The Early Education Program for Children with Disabilities
The Early Education Program for Children with Disabilities (EEPCD),
originally named the Handicapped Children's Early Education Program
(HCEEP), has been operating for the past 26 years. Its original
mission was to establish model demonstration projects for the delivery
of special education and related services to young children with
disabilities from birth through age 8. It has evolved as State and
local early intervention systems have matured. EEPCD presently
supports States in two ways: first, development of comprehensive
services for infants and toddlers with disabilities from birth through
age 2 and their families; and second, expansion of services for
children with disabilities age 3 through 8 and their families. During
FY 1994, EEPCD supported 116 projects: 34 demonstration projects, 45
outreach projects, 21 in-service training projects, 4 experimental
projects, 6 research institutes, 5 statewide data systems projects and
1 national technical assistance center.
_Demonstration Projects_
EEPCD's demonstration projects address a variety of topics. They
include the following:
* the unique needs of children with low incidence disabilities, such
as deaf-blindness;
* the use of technology to enhance services for young children with
disabilities;
* multidisciplinary intervention services for children and families;
* interagency collaboration in the provision of services;
* family and professional collaboration;
* an examination of differing service delivery models;
* coordination between public and private agencies;
* curriculum and materials development; and
* services for infants with special health needs, including HIV
infection.
_Outreach Projects_
Outreach projects have two goals: to increase the availability of
high-quality services to young children with disabilities and to
promote replication of innovative models or components of models that
were developed under the demonstration or inservice components of
EEPCD or have been developed with other funding. All of the 45
projects receiving outreach funding have a multi-State or national
focus and are funded for three years. Outreach efforts focus on
improving training and services, as well as on interagency and
inter-State collaboration. Allare required to coordinate their
dissemination and replication activities with the State lead agencies
under Part H and/or the Preschool Grants Program.
_Inservice Training Projects_
Projects in this priority area develop and evaluate inservice training
models that will prepare professionals and paraprofessionals to
provide, coordinate, or enhance early intervention, special education,
and related services for infants and toddlers with disabilities and/or
for preschool children with disabilities. Inservice training projects
are funded for 3 years. During FY 1994, eight new projects were
funded.
_Experimental Projects_
Non-directed experimental projects provide a comparative analysis
among educational practices and intervention procedures related to
early childhood services. During FY 1994, four projects addressed
language instruction, intervention in inclusive versus segregated
settings, bilingual/bicultural training for preschoolers who are deaf,
and paraprofessional training systems.
_Research Institutes_
Six research institutes are supported. These institutes investigate:
* cost and effectiveness of early intervention;
* interventions for children affected by parental substance abuse;
* the challenges and barriers to preschool inclusive service
delivery;
* developmental care and intervention in the neonatal intensive care
unit;
* influences on service patterns and utilization in early
intervention and preschool programs; and
* barriers to inclusion in educational, cultural, and community
contexts.
_Statewide Data Systems Projects_
Statewide data systems projects expand States' capabilities for
tracking and linking services for children with disabilities and those
at-risk for disabilities. During FY 1994, five projects were funded.
NEC*TAS (National Early Childhood Technical Assistance System)
OSEP also supports NEC*TAS, which brings together individuals and
organizations representing a range of disciplines and parental
perspectives to address the infant, toddler, and preschool provisions
of IDEA. A central organizational function is providing technical
assistance to States' Part H and Preschool Grants Program grantees, as
well as the projects funded under EEPCD. Main areas of technical
assistance for the Part H system include service coordination,
finance, State and local interagency issues, procedural safeguards,
personnel, data collection, monitoring, child identification and
public awareness, and State technical assistance systems. Main areas
of technical assistance for the Preschool Grants Program community
include program standards and monitoring, LRE and inclusion,
personnel, finance, interagency agreements, child identification,
interpreting legislation, transition, and public awareness.
Personnel Preparation
Personnel preparation is another component of the OSEP mission. During
FY 1994, the Division of Personnel Preparation (DPP) funded 20 new
projects and 95 continuation projects addressing personnel needs in
early intervention and preschool services. Projects focus on preparing
personnel to serve infants, toddlers, and preschoolers; leadership
personnel projects; special projects; projects to prepare related
services personnel; and projects to serve special populations, rural
populations, and low-incidence populations.
Research Projects
The Department has sponsored several studies of specific issues
related to the Part H program. Two of these studies, "The Feasibility
of Determining the Cost of Providing Early Intervention Services," and
its companion study "The Use of Family Payment Systems in the Part H
Program," are discussed in this section. These studies were conducted
by Pelavin Associates.
In the feasibility study, applications from 18 States that had fully
implemented the Part H program requirements were reviewed during FY
1991 and FY 1992, and 5 States were selected to participate. The five
States were chosen because of their differing geographic locations,
the population characteristics they represented, and the range of
service provision models they had developed. The main purpose of the
study was to collect information on the feasibility of determining the
costs of providing early intervention services. The specific research
questions addressed are listed below.
1. To what extent do State Part H grant applications describe the
availability of data on the costs of early intervention services?
2. What information is available about children being served and the
services being provided to them and their families?
3. What data are collected on the expenditures on early intervention
services?
4. Where, how, and how often are the data collected and stored?
5. What data are available on the costs of administering the
statewide system?
6. Are any data available that would permit projections of costs of
early intervention services?
7. How comparable are the data across States and in what ways are the
data not comparable?
Because of the small sample size and the nature of the questions
asked, the analysis for this study was mainly qualitative.
The researchers found that data available from individual State
records were insufficient to analyze Part H program costs and
caseloads, for two reasons. One, some of the information collected by
local providers was maintained at the local level and not available to
State agencies. Two, the elements listed above in the specific
research questions that were essential components to this evaluation
were not contained in full in any one set of State records. In
addition, each State had developed a unique system to comply with the
Federal reporting requirements. Therefore, aggregate information from
all 5 States was not obtained for any of the seven research questions.
Although counts of children served were available in all five States,
the time periods covered, and the count accuracy, varied. The
researchers received unduplicated counts from four of the five States.
Two of those four were unduplicated counts of all children served
during the year. The other two States provided unduplicated December 1
counts. In the fifth State, the researchers received only duplicated
counts. The varying time periods and count accuracy are additional
reasons why the data from these States could not be aggregated.
The findings described below were derived from the data.
* Eligibility criteria were found to be an important determinant of
the costs of providing early intervention services. Providing
services only for children with significant disabilities costs
more per child than providing services to children with mild
disabilities. In contrast, limiting services to children with
significant disabilities keeps the number of children served low
and lowers the total cost of the program.
* States collected data largely for billing and administrative
purposes. None of the States had designed data collection systems
to track the various costs of providing early intervention
services.
* Only one State was able to provide the total expenditures from
Federal, State, local, and private sources that funded its Part H
services. Additionally, when States did have access to funding
data such as Medicaid records, the data systems were generally not
set up to identify early intervention services or Part H-eligible
children.
* One State had an integrated data system that cross-referenced
individual records. All of the States were working to better
integrate the various funding source data.
* Three States administered their statewide early intervention
systems themselves. In two States, this function was performed by
contractors. All of the States were able to provide high quality
data on the costs of administering their Part H system.
The companion study entitled "The Use of Family Payment Systems in the
Part H Program" collected information about the decision to either
implement or not implement fee payments and sliding fee scales in
selected States. Twenty-three States were surveyed. Nine of the 10
States that had family payment systems, and the 13 States that did
not, responded. The study addressed the three questions below.
1. Why have some States chosen to implement family payment systems,
whereas others have not?
2. How do family payment systems contribute to the provision of early
intervention services?
3. What are the common characteristics of these service systems and
what are their advantages and disadvantages?
All quantifiable responses were tabulated and frequencies developed,
as appropriate. Open-ended qualitative responses were reviewed and
analyzed to identify the key dimensions of the response to the
relevant study question.
The Part H statute provides that "`early intervention services' must
be provided at no cost except where Federal or State law provides for
a system of payments by families, including a schedule of sliding
fees" . However, States may not charge parents
for (1) child find; (2) evaluation and assessment; (3) service
coordination; (4) administrative and coordinating activities related
to the development, review, and evaluations of IFSPs; and (5)
implementation of procedural safeguards. Additionally, if the State
guarantees the provision of FAPE, then the State may not charge
parents for any services that are provided as part of a FAPE.
Distinct viewpoints emerged between States that chose to implement
family payment systems and those who chose not to charge families for
services. Of the nine States with family payment systems, five had
such systems in place before the Part H program began. The other four
States have instituted them since 1991. Three administrative
structures were used by the nine States to manage the payment
systems--locally controlled, State-controlled, and jointly (local and
State) controlled family payment systems. In eight of the States, the
method of determining fees varied by locality. In most of the States,
the calculations of ability to pay also differed by locality.
Six States reported that they generated revenue from family payment
systems. However, only two States were able to estimate the amount of
revenue generated. The study reported that the inability to estimate
revenues was probably related to local level control of family payment
services. The study also reported that service providers bear the
costs of administration in most States.
States that use family payment systems reported that they do so not
only to generate revenue, but for other reasons. For example, a common
feeling among proponents of family payment systems was that "families
that can pay should pay."
Of the 13 States surveyed that do not have family payment systems for
early intervention services, two stated that they had not considered
them because they were aware of the poor experiences of other States
that had implemented such programs. The other 11 States actively
considered adopting family payment systems at one time or another.
Informal discussions in the lead agency or State ICC were the most
common method used to arrive at the decision not to use a family
payment system. Three States conducted a cost-benefit analysis and
found that they would lose money by adopting payment scales. Eleven
States provided responses describing deterrents that led them to
decide not to adopt a family payment system. In nine States,
administrative costs and other administrative difficulties were
reported as the main reasons for not adopting payment systems. In six
States, barriers created by fees and potential reduction in services
were reported as key factors in the decision.
In five States, a philosophical opposition to family payment systems
was given as the main reason for not using them. These States reported
that some families would refuse to seek services if they were charged
any fees, even if the fees were based on sliding scales. Also cited as
reasons for not charging families were the fact that historically,
private nonprofit organizations have not charged families for early
intervention services, and the State agencies belief that FAPE should
be extended to children with disabilities from birth to age 2.
----------
Summary and Implications
FY 1993 was a milestone year for the Part H program.It marks the first
year that all States and jurisdictions assured full implementation of
the Part H program.Also, the appropriations for FY 1993 rose to
$213,280,000, 23 percent more than the $172,800,000 appropriated in FY
1992.
States reported that, on December 1, 1993, they were serving
approximately 154,065 infants and toddlers or 1.3 percent of the total
birth through age 2 population. Most States and jurisdictions served
less than 2 percent of their birth through age 2 population. These
data represent the number of infants and toddlers served on a given
day and therefore may differ from the cumulative total.
According to current data, the home remains the most frequent service
site, with 36 percent of services provided there. The early
intervention classroom is the next most frequent service site (26
percent), followed closely by outpatient service facilities (23
percent).
States continue to grapple with significant issues as they implement
their Part H systems. It is difficult for States to predict funding
needs because data collection systems continue to undergo changes and
States must coordinate multiple funding sources. In addition, multiple
funding sources result in multiple eligibility definitions.
Establishment of productive interagency agreements and other
collaborative efforts continue to progress slowly. These persistent
issues affect the delivery of services to infants and toddlers with
disabilities.
OSEP has been working with the Part H Personnel Task Force to improve
the Part H personnel data collection forms. As the result of meetings
held in February and June of 1994, a new reporting format was drafted.
OSEP conducted a field test of the form in early 1995 to determine the
feasibility of using the form and the quality of the data generated.
The number of children with disabilities age 3 through 5 receiving
services continues to grow. The number served increased to 493,425 in
1993-94, 8. 3 percent more than in 1992-93. It is likely that much of
this increase is related to early identification of children through
the Part H program. However, the $339 million FY 1994 appropriation
was only 4 percent more than the FY 1993 appropriation. The percentage
of the total preschool population served varied across States and
jurisdictions, from a low of 1. 3 percent in the District of Columbia
to a high of 8. 16 percent in Kentucky.
The 1994 NEC*TAS Preschool Grants Program profile survey highlighted
several trends. States and jurisdictions reported using 18 different
funding sources in addition to Section 611 and Preschool Grants
Program funds to finance preschool special education services. To
increase coordination between Part B, Chapter 1 (SOP), and the Part H
program, 23 States or jurisdictions are using or considering using
IFSPs for preschoolers. Also, in 15 States or jurisdictions the Part H
ICC works to improve service delivery coordination. Many SEA
representatives are increasing their involvement with outside agencies
through interagency agreements, joint training, and planning and
coordination activities. Finally, many States and jurisdictions are
developing transition plans for movement from the Part H program to
the Preschool Grants Program and from the Preschool Grants Program to
kindergarten/first grade programs.
Reference
Heekin, S. , and Tollerton, D. (1994).
_Section 619 Profile._ National Early Childhood Technical
Assistance System:Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
----------
Chapter 3
_______________________________________________________________________
The Relationship of Secondary School Experiences to the Early Post-School
Results of Youth with Disabilities
In 1983, the first generation of children with disabilities to
complete their entire elementary school education under the provisions
of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHA, P.L. 94-142,
now the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), was about
to begin secondary school. The secondary school students with
disabilities who preceded them had left school, and reports were
surfacing in some States and communities regarding how they were
faring as workers, postsecondary students, and citizens (Mithaug and
Horiuchi, 1983). Their graduation, employment rates, and wages were
low. Most of these students were not participating in postsecondary
education. Social adjustment often was difficult.
At that time, the real extent of these problems was not defined. How
widespread were these problems? Were students with particular
characteristics more prone to have difficulty making the transition
from school to adult life? What could schools or service agencies do
to support students in making that transition more effectively?
To obtain answers to these kinds of questions, Congress directed the
Department of Education to commission a study of "a sample of
handicapped1 students, encompassing the full range of handicapping
conditions, examining their educational progress while in special
education and their occupational, educational, and independent living
status after graduating from secondary school or otherwise leaving
special education" . In 1985, SRI
International, under contract to OSEP, began to develop the design,
sample, and instruments for the National Longitudinal Transition Study
of Special Education Students (NLTS). In 1987, under a separate
contract, SRI initiated the study. 2
Since 1987, the NLTS has helped document much of what is known
nationally about the experiences of young Americans with disabilities
while in secondary school and in the years immediately afterward.
Information on secondary school programs is now available, including
data on course-taking patterns, support services delivery, and
involvement in regular education classes (Wagner, 1993). Information
on student performance was also collected, including indicators for
absenteeism, grades, reading and mathematics performance levels, and
school completion (Wagner, Blackorby, and Hebbeler, 1993). Because the
NLTS includes a nationally representative sample of youth with
disabilities, it has been able to document the results for youth with
disabilities as a whole, and youth in each of the 11 Federal special
education disability categories.3 The NLTS has examined the various
life paths of young adults after high school, such as participation in
postsecondary education, employment, residential arrangements of
various kinds, and marriage and parenthood (Wagner, D'Amico, Marder,
Newman, and Blackorby, 1992).
This chapter is based on that study and on other research concerning
the affect of time spent in regular education on post-school outcomes
for young adults with disabilities. The chapter consists of four
sections and a summary.
* _Assessing the Impact of Secondary School Experiences_ reviews
information about the role of supports in creating an inclusive
educational environment and discusses a survey of chief State
school officers conducted by the National Center on Educational
Restructuring and Inclusion (NCERI).
* _Post-School Results_ examines the contributions of high school
and post-school experiences to the post-school results achieved by
youth with disabilities. Four post-school results for youth who
had been out of high school up to three years were
examined:postsecondary education participation, employment,
residential arrangements, and community participation.
* _Interpreting the Impact of Time in Regular Education_
discusses the difficulties of analyzing the relationship between
the amount of time spent in regular education and positive results
for young adults with disabilities.
* _Understanding the Context_ describes the time period and
conditions under which the data were collected. This section also
discusses the use of supports in inclusive environments.
Describing the experiences of students with disabilities and the
results they experience in school and beyond is only the first step to
understanding how public policy, educational programs, and related
services can be used more effectively to help these students improve
those results. Policy makers, educators, parents, and service
providers also need to know what school experiences help students with
disabilities achieve their goals after leaving school. It is important
to know whether some school programs or experiences benefit particular
kinds of students more than others. To help meet this information
need, this chapter addresses the following questions:
* What supports were given to students with disabilities in regular
high school placements?
* What were the post-school results achieved by youth with
disabilities?
* How did post-school results relate to secondary school programs
and experiences? How did these relationships differ for youth with
different types of disabilities?
_______________________
1 "Handicapped" is used here because it was the language used in the
states.
2 Findings from the NLTS are based on data from more than 8,000 youth
who were ages 13 to 21 and in special education in secondary schools
(grade 7 through 12 or ungraded programs) in 1985-86. Data were also
collected in 1990 for youth who had been out of school 3 to 5 years.
3 In 1985 when the sample was selected, there were 11 Federal
disability classifications. Autism and traumatic brain injury had not
yet been added.
----------
Assessing the Impact of Secondary School Experiences
Secondary school has many facets for youth receiving special
education:what courses they take, where they take them (in regular or
special classes), what supports they receive in the regular classroom,
what type of school they attend (regular or special),the size of the
school, the characteristics of the student body, how students spend
their time both in and out of school, and whether they have friends
and how those friends spend their time. Any of these and many other
factors could act and interact to influence young adults' chances for
successful results when they leave school. Unfortunately, not all of
these could be measured within the resources of the NLTS, and space
does not permit reporting on all those that were measured (for
additional information about the school programs of youth with
disabilities, see Wagner, 1993).
The NLTS data were based on the secondary school programs attended by
students with disabilities between 1985 and 1990. The data show how
those students did under the set of circumstances that existed at that
time. It is clear that schools as they existed in the late 1980s were
not the only way schools could be structured. The massive amount of
attention currently devoted to school reform at multiple levels within
the educational system is an indicator that change is desired. From
the NLTS, it is possible to glean several insights into why students
with disabilities encountered problems in regular education courses.
When comparing regular and special education classroom settings, the
NLTS found that the regular academic classes averaged one teacher and
23 students, two or three of whom had disabilities. Seven percent of
teachers reported that they had aides in their classrooms to help the
students with disabilities. The special education classes averaged one
teacher and a part-time aide and nine students. Fewer than half of
students with disabilities in regular academic classes had their
progress monitored by a special education teacher. Tutoring from a
special education teacher was provided to slightly more than one-third
of students who were placed in regular classes. Nearly all students
placed in regular classes had regular education teachers who reported
receiving some kind of support, but most of that support was in the
form of consultation from the special education staff. Only one in
five students had teachers who reported receiving training in the
needs of students with disabilities, and only 14 percent had teachers
who reported that special materials had been made available to them.
The National Center on Educational Restructuring and Inclusion (NCERI)
(1994) has conducted a national survey of all chief State school
officers. Their preliminary results show that inclusive programs are
being implemented across the nation in both large and small districts
and that eight factors are necessary for inclusion to succeed. These
factors highlight some of the problems that NLTS found to exist and
emphasize the types of changes needed:
1. foster visionary leadership that promotes the view that all
children can learn, teachers and schools have the capacity to
change, and that everyone benefits from inclusion;
2. make available to individual teachers the support systems that
provide collaborative assistance and that enable them to engage in
cooperative problem solving;
3. refocus the use of assessments in a way that builds greater
understanding of the student and his or her needs;
4. provide supports for staff that include systematic staff
development and flexible planning time for special education and
regular education teachers to meet and work together.
5. support students with aides, curriculum adaptations, needed
therapy, peer supports, and computer technology and other
assistive devices;
6. establish funding formulas that support inclusion;
7. encourage parental participation through family support services
as well as the development of educational programs which engage
parents as co-learners with their children; and
8. develop models and classroom practices that support inclusion by
focusing on cooperative learning, team teaching, and consultant
and resource teacher models.
----------
Post-School Results
The contributions of high school and post-school experiences to
post-school results achieved by youth with disabilities are discussed
in this section. The NLTS focused on the following four post-school
results for youth who had been out of high school up to three
years:postsecondary education participation; employment; residential
arrangements; and community participation.
Postsecondary Education Participation
Two measures of postsecondary education enrollment are considered
here:
* _Enrollment in an academic program_ - whether at any time since
the youth left high school he or she had been enrolled in a
four-year college or in a two-year college program the parent or
youth described as primarily academic; and
* _Enrollment in a vocational program_ - whether at any time since
the youth left high school he or she had been enrolled in a
postsecondary vocational school (public or private) or in a
two-year college program the parent or youth described as
primarily vocational.
Youth with disabilities were less likely than their peers in the
general population to participate in postsecondary education (Marder,
1992). However, the American Council on Education (1992) reported that
of the total number of freshman entering college, the number of
freshman with disabilities tripled between 1978 and 1991 (from 2.6
percent to 8.8 percent). NLTS data suggest that, among youth with
disabilities out of secondary school up to three years, 16.5 percent
enrolled in academic postsecondary programs, and 14.7 percent in
vocational postsecondary programs (see table 3.1). It also found that
youth in some disability categories pursued postsecondary education in
greater numbers than others.
___________________________________
_CAPTION:_ _TABLE 3.1 Post-School Results for Youth with Disabilities
Up to 3 Years
Out of Secondary School_
Percentage enrolled in postsecondary academic program since high
school Percentage enrolled in postsecondary vocational program since
high school Percentage currently competitively employed Average annual
total compensation (dollars, all youth) Average annual total
compensation (dollars, workers) Percentage living independently
All Conditionsa/
(n=1,763) 16.5
(2.1) 14.7
(2.0) 55.0
(2.8) 5,524
(429) 10,840
(557) 27.8
(2.5)
Specific Learning Disability
(n=265) 18.7
(3.3) 17.8
(3.2) 63.1
(4.1) 6,932
(724) 11,671
(808) 33.9
(4.0)
Serious Emotional Disturbance
(n=119) 15.3
(4.7) 13.3
(4.4) 52.0
(6.5) 5,310
(926) 11,267
(1,023) 21.1
(5.1)
Speech or Language Impairments
(n=115) 37.0
(6.6) 17.9
(5.3) 58.5
(6.7) 4,389
(829) 8,145
(1,087) 36.4
(6.3)
Mental Retardation
(n=188) 2.5
(1.6) 5.7
(2.4) 40.8
(5.0) 3,078
(490) 8,274
(701) 14.8
(3.5)
Visual Impairment
(n=235) 53.9
(4.9) 14.9
(3.5) 30.3
(4.5) 2,027
(448) 7,303
(.) 39.3
(4.7)
Hard of Hearing
(n=211) 35.0
(4.8) 20.0
(4.1) 43.6
(5.0) 2,773
(489) 7,596
(811) 25.9
(4.4)
Deaf
(n=253) 28.3
(4.3) 19.9
(3.8) 24.8
(4.0) 1,689
(387) 8,897
(906) 32.3
(4.3)
Orthopedic Impairments
(n=161) 30.9
(5.5) 13.4
(4.0) 26.4
(5.2) 1,636
(467) 7,586
(.) 16.6
(4.3)
Other Health Impairments
(n=101) 35.1
(7.4) 23.5
(6.5) 47.5
(7.6) 4,388
(954) 9,723
(.) 17.2
(5.7)
Mulitple Disabilities
(n=100) 8.0
(4.0) 4.0
(2.9) 15.8
(5.2) 778
(332) --- 8.0
(3.9)
a/ _All conditions_ includes youth in each of the 11 Federal special
education disability categories. Percentages are reported separately
only for categories with at least 25 youth. Schools were those
attended by youth with disabilities in the 1985-86 or 1986-87 school
years; special and regular schools are included.
Source: The National Longitudinal Transition Study
___________________________________
Among students with disabilities who did participate in postsecondary
academic programs, a large majority (70 percent) spent 75 percent or
more of their time in high school in regular education. As shown in
table 3.2, only 7 percent of those who went on to postsecondary
academics spent less than 25 percent of their time in regular
education classrooms during high school. Among those who did not
enroll in postsecondary academics, only 45 percent had been in regular
education for three-quarters or more of their school day.
___________________________________
_TABLE 3.2 Regular Education Participation and Postsecondary School
Enrollment_
_Students Taking:_
------------------------------------------------
_Postsecondary Academic Postsecondary
Courses Vocational Courses
Yes No Yes No_
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
_Percentage of
youth with time in
regular education_
0% - 25% 7.2 19.2 17.3 17.2
(3.7) (2.4) (5.6) (2.3)
26% - 74% 22.5 35.8 29.5 34.3
(6.1) (2.9) (6.8) (2.9)
75% - 100% 70.3 45.0 53.2 48.5
(6.6) (3.1) (7.4) (3.1)
n = 524 1,254 282 1,497
Note: Based on students in regular and special schools with at least
one year of course data. Information gathered from 1990 student
transcripts; 1987 school record abstracts; postsecondary data from
1990 parent/youth interviews.
Note: Standard errors are in parentheses.
Source: "Traversing the Mainstream:Regular Education and Students with
Disabilities in Secondary School," National Longitudinal Transition
Study (NLTS):1993.
___________________________________
No relationship is apparent between pursuing additional vocational
training after high school and time in regular education. The
distribution of time in regular education is similar for those who did
and did not take postsecondary vocational courses. Of those who
furthered their education through postsecondary vocational training,
53 percent had spent three-fourths or more of their time in high
school in regular education. Among those who did not go on, the figure
was 49 percent.
Students' post-school results were expected to be influenced not just
by their secondary school programs and courses, but also by how well
they did in them. Conventional wisdom holds that students who do well
in school are on their way to success in adulthood. A primary
indicator of academic performance is staying in school either until
graduation or reaching the maximum age of attendance. Leaving school
without a diploma or certificate of attendance or completion deprives
a young person of the credential that is a prerequisite for many adult
opportunities, particularly in the area of postsecondary education and
training. Overall, 30 percent of students with disabilities who had
been enrolled in 9th through 12th grades left school by dropping out.
An additional 8 percent left school before reaching 9th grade. This
dropout rate was particularly high for youth with specific learning
disabilities or serious emotional disturbance. Of youth with specific
learning disabilities who started the ninth grade, 29 percent dropped
out, as did 48 percent of students with serious emotional disturbance.
As might be expected, dropouts were less likely to enroll in
postsecondary vocational, or academic programs. The relationship
between dropping out and not continuing one's education held for youth
with disabilities as a whole.
Employment
There are many factors that influence the chances of successful
employment. This section discusses three important determinants for
success:(1) time in regular education and employment; (2) work
experience during secondary school; and (3) vocational education
during secondary school.
Overall, youth with disabilities as a group were employed at rates
well below those of their peers in the general population (Marder,
1992). On the national level, 55 percent of youth with disabilities
overall were competitively employed when they had been out of
secondary school up to three years (table 3.1). Employment data from a
Harris Survey (1994) and SRI (1993) indicate that a larger percentage
of individuals with disabilities age 16 to 24 are employed (62
percent) compared to individuals with disabilities age 16 to 64 (31
percent). This suggests that in recent years, more individuals with
disabilities are entering the work force after leaving school than was
the case in previous decades. This trend may be even larger than it
initially appears, because many youth age 16 to 24 are enrolled in
secondary school or post secondary programs, and consequently, are
expected to have lower employment rates than their older counterparts.
_Time in Regular Education and Employment_
Two employment results are considered for youth in their first three
years after high school.
* Whether the youth currently held a competitive job outside the
home for which he or she was paid (sheltered, supported, and
volunteer work were not included as competitive paid employment),
and
* An estimate of the annual total compensation the youth received
for his or her work.4
Students with disabilities who had spent more time in regular
education courses in high school were more likely to be employed and
to earn higher salaries than students who had taken fewer regular
education courses (table 3.3). Other analyses show that the
relationship between regular education and employment was strongest
for those up to 1 year out of school, suggesting that those with more
time in regular education were able to locate jobs more quickly. By 2
to 3 years out of high school, their classmates with less time in
regular education were employed at similar rates.
___________________________________
_TABLE 3.3 Regular Education and Employment_
_Currently Employed Annual Compensation_
-------------------------------------------------
_Yes No None $10,000_
---------------------------------------------------------------------
_Percentage of youth
with time in
regular education_
0% - 25% 10.1 25.6 25.6 14.9 5.8
(2.2) (3.7) (3.7) (4.0) (2.7)
26% - 74% 33.5 33.1 33.1 34.9 34.9
(3.5) (4.0) (4.0) (5.3) (5.5)
75% - 100% 56.4 41.2 41.2 50.1 59.4
(3.7) (4.2) (4.2) (5.5) (5.7)
n = 766 1,049 1,049 383 246
Note: Based on students in regular and special schools with at least
one year of course data. Information gathered from 1990 student
transcripts; 1987 school record abstracts; postsecondary data from
1990 parent/youth interviews.
Note: Standard errors are in parentheses.
Source: "Traversing the Mainstream: Regular Education and Students
with Disabilities in Secondary School," National Longitudinal
Transition Study (NLTS):1993.
___________________________________
The average compensation for all youth, including those who were not
employed, was $5,524. Those employed for pay earned an average annual
compensation, including wages and benefits, of $10,840. Working youth
in most disability categories earned less than $10,000 annually. Those
with more time in regular education earned more at both time points,
but the difference was greatest for those 2 to 3 years out of school.
Increased compensation may be the benefit of a longer work history for
the youth with more time in regular education.
_Work Experience During Secondary School_
Research suggests that paid work experience is more likely to result
in jobs for pay after school because it offers youth a chance to
develop work-related skills in real work situations (Hasazi, Gordon,
and Roe, 1985). The NLTS has shown that work experience programs are a
part of the secondary educational experience for many youth with
disabilities (Blackorby, 1993). Overall participation was 39 percent
over the four years of high school, ranging from 50 percent of youth
with multiple disabilities to 27 percent of their peers with visual
impairments. In addition, Wagner, Blackorby, and Hebbeler (1993) found
that participation in work experience programs was associated with a
number of positive secondary school results, most notably a lower
dropout rate.
_Vocational Education During Secondary School _
Vocational education provides access to job-related training, thereby
increasing the chances of labor market success for many youth. It is
believed that improved vocational skills acquired in secondary school
translate into post-school employment benefits (Gill and Edgar, 1990;
Hasazi and Cobb, 1988). Two measures of vocational education were
examined:participation in unrelated survey vocational classes (any
number of unrelated vocational courses such as typing, woodwork,
automechanics) and participation in coordinated series of vocational
classes (also referred to as a concentration).5
The NLTS found that almost all youth with disabilities had access to
some form of vocational education in secondary school, and that many
of them had those experiences as early as 9th grade (Blackorby, 1993).
Far fewer students (34.4%), however, enrolled in a concentration.
Other NLTS analyses showed that students with disabilities who took
either survey or concentrated coursework in vocational education were
significantly less likely to drop out of school than those who took
nonvocational (academic) or prevocational (e.g., career exploration,
basic work skills) coursework (Wagner, 1991a; Blackorby, 1993).
NLTS data show that both kinds of vocational training contributed
significantly to the probability of competitive employment. Among all
youth with disabilities, those who took survey courses in vocational
education were more likely to be employed in the first three years
after high school than those who took no courses at all. Other NLTS
analyses suggest that employment gains grew over time for youth taking
a concentration of courses, whereas the employment rate was fairly
stable over time for those taking unrelated survey courses (Wagner,
Blackorby, Cameto, and Newman, 1993).
The greatest benefits for both kinds of vocational course-taking
accrued to youth with specific learning disabilities, speech or
language impairments, mild mental retardation, and serious emotional
disturbances who were not in institutions. Further, concentrating in
vocational education was especially lucrative. Concentrators earned
$6,247 more annually than students who had been in nonvocational or
prevocational courses. Youth with disabilities who had later taken
survey vocational courses when in high school also earned nearly
$4,000 more per year than peers who took none.
Residential Arrangements
A mark of independence in the life of a young adult is moving out of
one's parents' house and setting up a home of one's own. This
post-school result examined whether youth were living
independently--that is, living alone, with a spouse or roommate, in a
college dormitory, or in military housing not as a dependent. This is
a choice not available to as many young people with or without
disabilities today because of the high cost of maintaining a household
and the relatively low wages paid to those recently out of high
school. For others, it is a choice they can afford but choose not to
exercise. Fewer youth with disabilities were living independently
shortly after secondary school than were peers in the general
population (Marder, 1992). The NLTS found that 28 percent of youth
with disabilities up to 3 years out of high school were living
independently (table 3.1). Students with visual impairments had the
highest percentage of youth living independently (39 percent) which is
due in part to their relatively high attendance at postsecondary
schools. Groups with especially low rates of independent living in the
3 years after high school were those with multiple disabilities (8
percent), mental retardation (15 percent), orthopedic impairments (17
percent), or other health impairments (17 percent).
Two-thirds of those living independently after high school had
participated in regular education 75 percent or more of their time in
high school (table 3.4). This compares with only 43 percent of those
who were not living independently. At the other extreme, among those
living independently, only 9 percent had been in regular education 25
percent or less of their time in high school. For those not living
independently, the figure was 21 percent.
___________________________________
_TABLE 3.4 Independent Living and Regular Education_
_Lived Independently
Yes No_
--------------------------------------------------------------------
_Percentage of youth with time
in regular education_
0% - 25% 8.7 20.7
(2.9) (2.6)
26% - 74% 25.6 36.6
(4.4) (3.1)
75% - 100% 65.7 42.7
(4.6) (3.2)
n = 552 1,316
Note: Standard errors are in parentheses.
Note: Information gathered from 1990 student transcripts; 1987 school
record abstracts; living arrangements from 1990 parent/youth
interviews.
Source: "Traversing the Mainstream:Regular Education and Students with
Disabilities in Secondary School," National Longitudinal Transition
Study (NLTS):1993.
___________________________________
General Community Participation
The findings described above illustrate particular dimensions of the
experiences of youth with disabilities. The NLTS also uses a result
measure called _general community participation_ that attempts to
describe the lives of young people with disabilities across multiple
dimensions. Life profiles were created across the individual measures
to reflect various levels of the overall community participation of
youth with disabilities. Dimensions of community participation
include:
* _Engagement in work- or education-related activities outside the
home._ Were youth engaged in work, schooling, or job training? To
what extent (i.e., full time, part time, volunteer work, sheltered
jobs)?
* _Residential arrangements._ Were youth living independently?With
family members?In institutions?
* _Social activities._ Were youth seeing friends, belonging to
groups, establishing relationships and becoming engaged or getting
married?
Youth who had spent more time in regular education were significantly
more likely to be fully participating in their communities. Community
participation was a composite measure of independence that included
employment status, postsecondary attendance, residential arrangement,
and social activities. Youth with more time in regular education in
their backgrounds also were less likely to be inactive in their
communities on these dimensions. Table 3.5 shows that over 50 percent
of students with disabilities who spent 75 percent or more of their
time in regular education were employed or in school, not socially
isolated, and either married or engaged.
___________________________________
_TABLE 3.5 Dimensions of Community Participation and Regular Education_
_Employed or Married or
in School Socially Isolated Engaged_
-------------------------------------------------
_Yes No Yes No Yes No_
---------------------------------------------------------------------
_Percentage of
youth with time
in regular
education_
0% - 25% 16.3 20.3 30.6 16.1 10.3 18.7
(2.3) (5.7) (11.0) (2.1) (4.1) (2.4)
26% - 74% 30.7 41.0 43.4 32.7 33.4 33.2
(2.9) (6.9) (11.8) (2.7) (6.3) (2.9)
75% - 100% 53.0 38.7 26.0 51.2 56.3 48.1
(3.2) (6.9) (10.4) (2.9) (6.6) (3.1)
n = 1,358 353 150 1,631 224 1,598
Note: Based on students in regular and special schools with at least
one year of course data. Information gathered from 1990 student
transcripts; 1987 school record abstracts; 1990 parent/youth
interviews.
Note: Standard errors are in parentheses.
Source: "Traversing the Mainstream: Regular Education and Students
with Disabilities in Secondary School," National Longitudinal
Transition Study (NLTS): 1993.
___________________________________
Variations Among Disability Groups
The relationships between time in regular education in high school and
positive results as a young adult were different across the disability
groups. Time spent in regular education was related to employment and
dollars earned for those with sensory impairments (visual impairments,
hearing impairments, deafness) and those with physical impairments
(orthopedic impairments, other health impairments). No relationship
between regular education and employment was found for those with
other impairments. The likelihood of achieving full community
participation was higher for those students with non-sensory
impairments who spent more time in regular education. Those with
physical impairments and more time in regular education were also less
likely to experience negative results (e.g., unemployment, social
isolation) in their first three years out of high school.
_______________________
4 In calculating an estimate of total compensation, unemployed youth
were considered to receive no compensation. Estimates for paid workers
involved multiplying the reported hours typically worked per week by
the reported hourly wage. A typical work year was assumed to involve
49 work weeks for those who did not receive paid sick leave or
vacation. For workers who received paid sick leave and vacation, the
work year, for purposes of calculating total compensation, was assumed
to include 52 paid weeks. Medical insurance received as an employment
benefit was valued at 6.1 percent wages, as commonly calculated by the
U.S. Bureau of the Census (1990).
5 A concentration in vocational education was defined as taking four
or more classes within a single vocational education content area
(e.g., business occupations.
----------
Understanding the Context
Several cautions must be applied to all of the data reported in this
chapter. Collecting systematic data on a national level requires
reducing the totality of the secondary school experience to a limited
number of simple measures, but the complexity remains nevertheless.
For example, one of the critical factors examined is the amount of
time spent in regular education. However, clock hours tend to gloss
over several important distinctions.
_The structure of education at the secondary level differs
considerably from structure of education in elementary school._ The
secondary school day is fragmented, generally into six or seven
"periods" for each student. Many students have some choice in the
kinds of courses they take (e.g., academic courses, vocational
courses). No student takes all of the courses possible. Unlike
elementary school, there is not a typical classroom or even a single
track into which students with disabilities can be included. The issue
for a student with a disability, as for all students, is which set of
courses best meet his or her needs? Furthermore, high school
coursework emphasizes content and presumes the mastery of basic skills
(Lieberman, 1992). This can be problematic for many students with
disabilities, who often are substantially behind their peers in both
basic and higher-order skills by the time they reach secondary school
(Schumaker and Deshler, 1988).
_Regular education is not one setting but many different settings that
vary considerably from one classroom to the next._ MacMillan and
Hendrick (1993) point out that "the issue of setting assumes that
where the child is taught is more important than what is done with the
child once he or she is placed. Further, it assumes homogeneity of
treatments (i.e., the same thing goes on in all special classes)..."
(pp. 33-34). The lack of homogeneity also holds for advanced academic
classes or vocational classes. Not all special education settings are
either good or poor places to educate students with disabilities;
neither are all regular education settings. A good education is
defined by what goes on in the setting, not just who else is in it or
what it is called. The study could not measure the interactions inside
classrooms that may be so important for student achievement.
_Results of the high school experience include the attainment of many
different goals including academic, functional, and personal or social
goals._ For students with disabilities, the academic and
personal/social domains may sometimes conflict. A setting or course
that promotes one may negatively affect the other. A student may
experience academic success in a special education class but receive
behavioral benefits from friendships with students in regular classes.
The course content in the regular class may be at a higher level, and
the student's difficulty in mastering the content may lower
self-esteem. There may be no one best setting to achieve all types of
results.
_What could happen for students with disabilities in regular
classrooms is not necessarily what has happened or is happening._ As
Kauffman (1993) notes "we understand relatively little about how
students' placement determines what is possible and what is probable
as far as instruction and its results are concerned" (p. 8). NLTS data
is for students who were in secondary school between 1985 and 1990.
The relationships of their regular education placements to results
reflect the nature of regular education provided _at that time_ to
students with disabilities. They do not reflect the nature of regular
education being provided now, or of regular education that could be
provided to students with disabilities in an environment of
appropriate reform or adequate resources. What was the case in the
late 1980s should not limit our expectations for what might be the
case for students with disabilities in regular classes in the future.
Survey research, such as that conducted as part of the NLTS, is
inherently conservative in that it can report only what existed during
a particular time frame. Different types of studies are required to
examine the impact of pushing the limits of what can happen.
_Students are not assigned at random to certain classes or even
schools. Their course-taking is tied to the knowledge and skills they
have acquired previously._ The NLTS went to great analytic lengths to
examine the effects of regular education and other school program
features on results, independent of student and other characteristics.
However, the possibility still remains that what appears to be an
effect for factors such as regular education or advanced coursework is
actually a reflection of the higher competencies of students placed in
those classes. Other data from the NLTS show that frequently students
with less significant disabilities spend more time in regular
education. The same set of students would be expected to have better
results as young adults. Although analytic techniques have been used
to try to understand some of the complexities of the antecedents and
consequences of secondary education programs, our understanding is
limited to the variables measured in the study. To the extent that
important contributing variables were not measured, program
characteristics such as time in regular education may be a consequence
of rather than a contributing factor to student competencies.
----------
Interpreting the Impact of Time in Regular Education
The important, but difficult, question raised by these findings is
whether spending time in regular education actually brought about
these positive results for young adults with disabilities.
The interpretation of the relationship between more time in regular
education and positive results as a young adult is not apparent. It is
reasonable that the intellectually and socially most competent
students with disabilities enrolled in more regular education courses,
and that these same traits served those youth well when they left
school. It is equally reasonable that increased time in regular
education classes enhanced overall intellectual and social competence
by providing better preparation for adulthood and, thus, more regular
education actually led to greater success in the years after school.
Both hypotheses could be true. Additional research is needed to
further understand why more time in regular education in high school
for students with disabilities was associated with better results as a
young adult.
The positive nature of this relationship is particularly interesting,
given how difficult some regular education courses were. Regular
education courses exposed students to significant academic risk, yet
the students who took more of them did better in adulthood -- if they
managed to graduate from high school. Across a number of analyses of
postschool results, the message was the same: those who spent more
time in regular education experienced better results after high
school. Before we can draw policy or educational implications from
this finding, however, more information is needed on why it occurred.
----------
Summary and Implications
These analyses from the NLTS document the early post-school results
that were achieved by young people with disabilities who had gone
through secondary school in the mid- to late 1980s. Data from the
study show that many features of secondary school programs, including
time in regular education, or taking vocational courses were
associated with a number of positive post-school results. What happens
in schools can make a difference in what students later achieve.
Findings from the NLTS show that the impact of schools works in both
directions. Taking vocational education was found to be associated
with improved life results in the first three years after school.
Students who spent more time in regular education were also found to
have better results. Other NLTS analyses show that the relationship of
time spent in regular education to results is somewhat complex,
because increased time in regular education was also found to be
strongly associated with increased likelihood of course failure
(Hebbeler, 1993). Many students with disabilities experience high
failure rates in high school, especially in 9th and 10th grades.
Course failure, in turn, was one of the strongest predictors of
dropping out. Dropping out, a negative result in itself, is related to
other negative results in the next several years after students leave
school. Time in regular education then is related to positive results
for those who can earn passing grades. For those who can't, the result
can be extremely detrimental.
The NLTS shows that secondary school programs can produce post-school
benefits for students with disabilities--but only for students who can
succeed in them. Perhaps the greatest positive contribution schools
can make to the post-school success of students with disabilities is
to contribute to the in-school success of those students, regardless
of their placement. As the inclusion movement gains momentum, great
care must be paid to issues of quality and support.
The proper use of supports is a key factor in creating an inclusive
environment that works for students with disabilities (Ferguson, 1993;
Ferguson, Meyer, Jeanchild, and Zingo, 1992; MacKinnon and Brown,
1994). Information on how best to offer these supports is increasing.
For example, the National Association of State Boards of Education
(NASBE) (1992) developed a checklist for key players creating an
inclusive system which promotes cooperative teaching approaches,
consultation and in-class support, places a high priority on sustained
training that fosters inclusion, and incorporates inclusion goals in
hiring practices, evaluation instruments, architectural planning and
construction of buildings, and overall budgeting. Simon, Karasoff, and
Smith (1992) also recommend a three-tiered system for building
inclusive environments. The technical assistance planning guide they
developed is designed to facilitate educational change, to focus on
local ownership, and to provide self-assessment checklists that
examine whether effective practices are implemented at the State,
district, and school site levels.
Finally, NLTS analyses of contributions to results for students with
different kinds of disabilities confirm that there is no single
special education policy or strategy that offers benefits to all
students. In shaping policy and programs for students with
disabilities, a range of options, tailored to the individual needs of
students, continues to be the most effective approach to meeting the
wide range of needs, preferences, and abilities of students who
participate in special education.
The NLTS gives us solid information on the contributions of schools to
the post-school results of students with disabilities. However, it is
clear that American education has undergone considerable reform in
many places across the country since the NLTS data were collected.
School programs are changing for many high school students -- both
those with and without disabilities. For secondary school students
with disabilities, specific initiatives could markedly reshape their
secondary school experiences. Some examples are the recent mandate to
incorporate transition planning into secondary school programming and
the continued efforts to increase the degree to which students with
disabilities are included in regular education settings. Data on
school programs, student results, and post-school achievements must
continue to be collected if policy makers, educators, parents, and
other concerned parties are to stay abreast of changes in special
education programs and document their evolving relationships to the
results of youth with disabilities.
References
American Council on Education, Health Resource Center. (1992).
_College freshman with disabilities: A statistic profile._
(p.3) Los Angeles: Author
Blackorby, J. (1993).
Participation in vocational education by students with
disabilities. In Wagner, M. (Ed. ), _The secondary school
programs of students with disabilities. A report from the
National Longitudinal Transition Study of Special Education
Students._ Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
Ferguson, D. L. (1993).
Regular class participation system (RCPS): A final report.
Eugene, OR: Specialized Training Program, University of Oregon.
Ferguson, D. L. , Meyer, G. , Jeanchild, L. , and Zingo, J. (1992).
Figuring out what to do with the grown up: How teachers make
inclusion work for students with disabilities. _Journal of the
Association of Persons with Severe Handicaps,_ 17(4), 218-226.
Gill, D. , and Edgar, E. (1990).
Outcome of a vocational program designed for students with mild
disabilities: The Pierce county vocational/special education
cooperative. _The Journal for Vocational Special Needs
Education, 12_(3), 17-22.
Hasazi, S. , and Cobb, R. B. (1988).
Vocational education of persons with mild handicaps. In
Gaylord-Ross, R. (Ed.), _Vocational education for persons with
handicaps_ (pp. 331-354). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield
Publishing.
Hasazi, S. , Gordon, L. R., and Roe, C. A. (1985).
Factors associated with the employment status of handicapped
youth exiting high school from 1979 to 1983. _Exceptional
Children, 51_(6) 455-469.
Hebbeler, K. (1993).
Overview of the high school experiences of students with
disabilities. In Wagner, M. (Ed.), _The secondary programs of
students with disabilities. A report from the National
Longitudinal Transition Study of Special Education Students._
Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
Kauffman, J. M. (1993).
How we might achieve the radical reform of special education.
_Exceptional Children, 60_(1), 6-16.
Lieberman, L. M. (1992).
Preserving special education: For those who need it. In
Stainback, W. , and Stainback, S. (Eds. ), _Controversial
issues confronting special education:Divergent perspectives_
(pp. 13-25). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Louis Harris and Associates, Inc. , (1994).
N. O. D. /_Harris Survey of Americans With Disabilities._
(Study number 942003, p. 37). New York: Author
MacKinnon, J. D. and Brown, M. E. (1994).
Inclusion in secondary schools: An analysis of school structure
based on teachers' image of change. _Educational Administration
Quarterly, 30_(2), 126-152.
MacMillan, D. L. , and Hendrick, I. G. (1993).
Evolution and legacies. In Goodlad, K. I. , and Lovitt, T. C.
(Eds. ), _Integrating general and special education_ (pp.
23-48). New York: Merrill.
Marder, C. (1992).
_How well are youth with disabilities really doing?A comparison
of youth with disabilities and youth in general. A report from
the National Longitudinal Transition Study of Special Education
Students._ Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
Mithaug, D. E. and Horiuchi, C. N. (1983).
Colorado statewide followup survey of special education
students. Denver, CO: Colorado Department of Education.
National Center on Educational Restructuring and Inclusion (1994).
_National survey on inclusive education._ (Bulletin No. 1) The
Graduate Schools and University Center:City of New York.
National Association of State Boards of Education (1992).
_Winners All: A call for inclusive schools._ Alexandria, VA:
Author.
Schumaker, J. B. , and Deshler, D. D. (1988).
Implementing the Regular Education Initiative in secondary
schools: A different ball game. _Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 21_(1), 36-42.
Simon, M. , Karasoff, P. , Smith, A. (1992).
_Effective practices for inclusive programs: A technical
assistance planning guide._ Unpublished manuscript, California
Research Institute, San Francisco State University.
SRI International. (1993).
_The transition experiences of young people with disabilities._
Palo Alto: Author.
Wagner, M. (1991a).
_Dropouts with disabilities: What do we know? What can we do?_
Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
Wagner, M. (Ed. ). (1993).
_The secondary school programs of students with disabilities. A
report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study of
Special Education Students._ Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
Wagner, M. , Blackorby, J. , and Hebbeler, K. (1993).
_Beyond the report card: The multiple dimensions of secondary
school performance of students with disabilities. A report from
the National Longitudinal Transition Study of Special Education
Students._ Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
Wagner, M. , D'Amico, R. , Marder, C. , Newman, L. , and Blackorby, J.
(1992).
_What happens next? Trends in post-school outcomes of youth
with disabilities. The second comprehensive report from the
National Longitudinal Transition Study of Special Education
Students._ Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
Wagner, M. , Blackorby, J. , Cameto, R. , and Newman, L. (1993).
_What makes a difference? Influences on post-school outcomes of
youth with disabilities. A report from the National
Longitudinal Transition Study of Special Education Students._
Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
----------
Chapter 4
_______________________________________________________________________
Results for Students with Disabilities
_This chapter reports on the work of the National Center on
Educational Outcomes (NCEO), one of several research centers funded by
OSERS. The views expressed here are those of NCEO, and do not
necessarily represent the views of the Department of Education._
Our nation continues to face the challenge of finding ways to improve
student performance levels, strengthen the skills that students have
when they enter the workplace, and improve the standing of U.S.
students relative to students in other nations. Legislation has been
enacted reforming education in general (the Goals 2000: Educate
America Act), school-to-work transitions (the School to Work
Opportunities Act), and elementary and secondary education,
particularly Title I programs (the Improving America's Schools
Act). Each of these Acts reinforces the concept that educational
reforms are meant to benefit all students, including students with
disabilities. These Acts not only have the objective of producing
improved student performance, but also require that the collection of
data on the results of education of every student be improved, and
that the data be more useful and descriptive. Improving the quality of
the information on the results of education for students with
disabilities has been a major focus of the work of the NCEO since it
was established by OSEP in 1990.
Numerous factors have affected the quality of the information on the
results of education for students with disabilities. Among them are
excluding students with disabilities from assessment programs that
collect data on students; resistance to using appropriate
accommodations that enable students with disabilities to participate
meaningfully in assessments; and failing to report data on those
students with disabilities who do participate in assessments. These
difficulties have affected both national data collection programs and
State assessment programs. In the past year, significant progress has
been made toward including students with disabilities in assessment
programs and providing them with appropriate accommodations. It is
likely that our national education data collections will soon provide
more information on the performance of most students with disabilities
in selected academic areas.
Several NCEO activities are related to assessing the results of
education for students with disabilities. Among these are developing a
conceptual model of outcomes that is appropriate for all students,
annually surveying State assessment activities, and analyzing data on
students with disabilities that currently exists in State and national
data bases. This chapter describes NCEO's ongoing analyses of current
State and national assessment practices for students with
disabilities. First, recent developments in State assessments of
students with disabilities are described. Then, the actions taken to
include children with disabilities in the 1992 National Adult Literacy
Survey (NALS) and the Early and Childhood Longitudinal Study (ECLS)
are described.
----------
Data from State Assessment
Much research and reform activity is occurring in the field of State
assessments. Nearly every State and Outlying Area now has some type of
statewide assessment, or is considering implementing one. Each year,
NCEO surveys the educational agencies of States and Outlying Areas
that receive Federal special education funds concerning their
assessments and other activities related to the results of education
for students with disabilities. The surveys have two purposes:
* to create a tracking system that can collect data describing how
States are assessing educational results, particularly those for
students with disabilities; and
* to work with SEAs that have data that might be used to describe
the educational results of students with disabilities nationally.
In addition, NCEO is identifying persistent barriers to using the
results derived from assessment efforts, with the goal of
providing information that will help States overcome the barriers.
The NCEO report _Special Education Outcomes 1993_ provides updated
findings concerning the status of statewide educational results
assessment of students with disabilities. The major findings are
described below.
* States continue to focus on participation and exit data for
students with disabilities.
* States are attempting to produce better information on the number
of students with disabilities taking part in statewide
assessments.
* Guidelines are being created that help define who participates in
statewide assessments, with the apparent goal of increasing the
number of students who participate.
* Guidelines on acceptable testing accommodations and adaptations
are being created. The trend is to allow more types of
modifications.
* States implementing non-traditional forms of assessment seem to
retain the same approach as used in their traditional assessments
for including students with disabilities.
* While it is still not possible to use State assessments to produce
a composite of the educational results, several States are
collecting some type of data and are willing to share them. The
variability in measures, grades assessed, and content areas make
it impossible to integrate the data in a meaningful way.
Based on these findings, NCEO has concluded that States are making
discernible progress in several aspects of the State-level assessment
of educational results for students with disabilities. This progress
is evident in three critical areas: _identifying students with
disabilities, developing guidelines for participation of students with
disabilities, and developing guidelines for accommodations._
Identifying Students with Disabilities in State-level Assessments
State-level assessments continue to emphasize measurement of academic
achievement. Of the 59 States and Outlying Areas surveyed in 1993, all
but 6 included students with disabilities in their State-level
achievement assessments or did not have a State-level assessment (see
figure 4.1). In 1992, all but 9 included students with disabilities or
did not have a State-level assessment.
Figure 4.1 States and Outlying Areas Collecting Achievement
Data on Students with Disabilities
Collected State-level information in 1992 and 1993
--------------------------------------------------
Alabama Maine Tennessee
Alaska Maryland Texas
Arizona Massachusetts Utah
Arkansas Michigan Vermont
California Mississippi Virginia
Connecticut Nevada Washington
Delaware New Hampshire West Virginia
Florida New Jersey Wisconsin
Georgia New Mexico American Samoa
Hawaii New York Bureau of Indian
Idaho North Carolina Affairs
Illinois North Dakota Northern Marianas
Indiana Ohio Guam
Iowa Oregon Palau
Kansas Rhode Island Puerto Rico
Kentucky South Carolina Marshall Islands
Louisiana South Dakota Virgin Islands
Collected State-level information in 1993
-----------------------------------------
District of Columbia Oklahoma Pennsylvania
Does not collect State-level information
----------------------------------------
Colorado Missouri Nebraska
Minnesota Montana Wyoming
Source: National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO)
However, the increase in the number of States and Outlying Areas in
which students with disabilities are included in assessments is not
accompanied by an increase in the number with accessible achievement
data on these students. In 1993, the 20 States and Outlying Areas that
could not produce this data in 1992 were again unable to produce it
(see figure 4.2).
Figure 4.2 States and Outlying Areas with Accessible Achievement Data
on Students with Disabilities in 1993 States having accessible
achievement data ----------------------------------------- Alabama
Louisiana Oregon Alaska Maine Rhode Island Arizona Maryland South
Carolina Arkansas Massachusetts Tennessee California Michigan Texas
Florida Mississippi Utah Georgia Missouri Virginia Hawaii Nevada
Washington Idaho New Jersey American Samoa Illinois New Mexico Bureau
of Indian Indiana New York Affairs Kansas North Carolina Palau
Kentucky North Dakota Puerto Rico Marshall Islands States not having
accessible achievement data
--------------------------------------------- Colorado Nebraska West
Virginia Connecticut New Hampshire Wisconsin Delaware Ohio Wyoming
Dist. of Columbia Oklahoma Northern Marianas Iowa Pennsylvania Guam
Minnesota South Dakota Virgin Islands Montana Vermont Source: National
Center of Educational Outcomes (NCEO)
In States where students with disabilities do participate in
assessments, the percentage of all students with disabilities
participating ranges from less than 10 percent to more than90 percent,
according to the States' own estimates (see table 4.1). Three States
and the District of Columbia increased the percentage of students with
disabilities participating in statewide assessments in 1993.
___________________________________
_TABLE 4.1 State and Outlying Area Estimates of the Percentage of
Students with Disabilities Participating in Statewide Assessments of
Academic Achievement_
_under 10% 10-24% 25-49% 50-74% 75-90% more than 90%_
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colorado Kansas California Delaware Indiana Kentucky
Florida Palau Connecticut Massach. Maine _Maryland_
Georgia _Hawaii_ New Jersey N. Carolina
Louisiana Idaho _New York_ Amer. Samoa
Michigan Illinois_b_/ Rhode Is.
Minnesota_a_/ Iowa S. Carolina
Missouri Oregon S. Dakota
New Mexico Tennessee
North Dakota Texas
Washington _District of_
Wisconsin _Columbia_
Guam CNMI
Puerto Rico
_a_/ Minnesota has a voluntary assessment process and is therefore not
shaded in Figure 4.1.
_b_/ In the 1992 survey, Illinois was unable to determine the
percentage of students participating in its statewide assessment.
Note: States and Outlying Areas in bold increased the percentage of
children with disabilities included in their statewide assessment in
1993. Of the 59 States and Outlying Areas surveyed, four do not
include students with disabilities in their statewide assessments; 14
do not know what percentage are included in their assessments; and
Wyoming and Nebraska do not have statewide assessments.
Source: National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO).
___________________________________
State Guidelines on Participation of Students with Disabilities in
Assessments
As part of its annual survey, NCEO asks States and Outlying Areas to
describe their guidelines for making decisions about who participates
in statewide assessments. Results from the 1993 survey show that the
number of States and Outlying Areas with written guidelines about
inclusion of students with disabilities in statewide assessments
continues to increase (see figure 4.3).
Figure 4.3 States Outlying Areas with Written Guidelines for Inclusion
of Students with Disabilities in Statewide Assessments in 1993 a/
Reporting Formal Written Guidelines
------------------------------------------ Arizona Massachusetts Rhode
Island Arkansas Michigan South Dakota California Mississippi Texas
Connecticut Missouri Utah Florida Montana Virginia Georgia Nevada
Washington Hawaii New Jersey West Virginia Idaho New York Wisconsin
Indiana North Carolina Bureau of Indian Kentucky North Dakota Affairs
Louisiana Ohio Dist. of Columbia Maine Oregon Palau Maryland
Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Not Reporting Formal Written Guidelines
---------------------------------------------- Alabama Minnesota
Vermont Alaska Nebraska Wyoming Colorado New Hampshire American Samoa
Delaware New Mexico Guam Illinois Oklahoma Marshall Islands Iowa South
Carolina Northern Marianas Kansas Tennessee Virgin Islands a/ Some
States reporting written guidelines in the 1992 Annual Report are not
shaded this year because the guidelines are undergoing revisions in
those States.
Thirty-four States and four Outlying Areas indicated that in 1993 they
had written guidelines about the participation of students with
disabilities in statewide assessments. In 1991, 28 States and Outlying
Areas had such guidelines; in 1992, 35 did. The nature of the
guidelines that are used to make decisions about participation is
shown in table 4.2. Most States and Outlying Areas use more than one
criterion to decide who should participate in statewide assessments.
Decisions based on the characteristics of the student's program or
curriculum or on a decision about participation previously written
into the student's IEP were most common. Much less frequent were
guidelines that allowed decisions to be influenced in part by a) the
parent's or guardian's opinion, b) the effect of participation on the
student, or c) the effect of participation on the overall assessment
results.
___________________________________
_TABLE 4.2 State and Outlying Area Criteria Included in Written
Guidelines on Participation of Students with Disabilities in Statewide
Assessments_
_Criterion Number Percentage
of States of Statesa/_
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Characteristics of Student's Program
/Curriculum 19 55.9
IEP Specification 17 50.0
Need for Appropriate Accommodations 11 32.4
Characteristics of Student 10 29.4
Parent/Guardian Opinion 7 20.6
Effect on Student 6 17.6
Effect on Test Results 5 14.7
_a_/ Percentage is based on the number of States and Outlying Areas
that had written guidelines on participation of students with
disabilities in assessments (n=34).
Source: National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO).
___________________________________
State Guidelines on Assessment Accommodations for Students with Disabilities
NCEO also surveyed States and Outlying Areas concerning the nature of
their written guidelines for making decisions about the use of
accommodations, adaptations, and other modifications in statewide
assessments. Some typical accommodations are shown in table 4.3. In
general, States have made increased use of each type of category (see
figure 4.4). These increases have been noted in all of the four major
categories of accommodations: timing/scheduling, presentation format,
setting, and response format.
___________________________________
_TABLE 4.3 Some Typical Types of Accommodations Used in Statewide
Assessments_
_Type of Accommodation Examples_
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Timing/Scheduling Extended time
Breaks during testing schedule
Testing on certain days
Presentation Format Braille edition
Large-print version
Tape record directions
Sign language presentation of directions
Setting In separate room
In carrel
In small group
Response Format Computer-generated responses
Scribe to write answers
Point to answers
Mark in test booklet
Other Out-of-level testing
Source: National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO).
___________________________________
Figure 4.4 Modifications Used in Statewide Assessments
Timing/Scheduling:
1991 - 22 States
1992 - 33 States
1993 - 35 States
Presentation Format:
1991 - 30 States
1992 - 43 States
1993 - 44 States
Setting:
1991 - 22 States
1992 - 34 States
1993 - 35 States
Response Format:
1991 - 16 States
1992 - 36 States
1993 - 37 States
Twenty-five States and two Outlying Areas indicated that in 1993 they
had written guidelines on the use of accommodations in assessments of
students with disabilities. The nature of the guidelines is shown in
table 4.4.
___________________________________
_TABLE 4.4 Number of States and Outlying Areas Using Written
Guidelines on Assessment Accommodations for Students with Disabilities_
_Type of Number Percentage
Accommodation of States of Statesa/_
-------------------------------------------------------------
Presentation Format 22 88.0
Timing/Scheduling 20 80.0
Other 18 72.0
Response Format 17 68.0
Setting 16 64.0
a/ Percentage is based on the number of States that had written
guidelines on accommodations for students with disabilities in
assessments (n=25).
Source: National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO).
___________________________________
Most States and Outlying Areas that had written guidelines include
more than one type of accommodation in those guidelines. Alterations
in presentation format (88 percent) and in timing or scheduling (80
percent) are most frequent.
New Forms of Assessment: Performance Assessments
In a follow-up study of a survey of all 50 States conducted by the
Council of Chief State School Officers and the North Central Regional
Educational Laboratory, NCEO surveyed State assessment personnel about
their use of non-traditional assessments, including performance,
authentic, portfolio, and other similar assessments. The purpose of
the survey was to ascertain the extent to which accommodations are
being made for students with disabilities participating in
non-traditional assessments. Because non-traditional assessments are a
recent development and are often still undergoing design, assessment
personnel often have more freedom to consider how to include students
with disabilities early in the assessment program development process.
They can also plan to use accommodations and modifications that can
increase the numbers of students with disabilities who participate in
the assessment.
The results of the survey, which are presented in detail in _State
Special Education Outcomes 1993_ (Shriner, Spande, & Thurlow, 1994),
parallel most of the findings of similar studies of traditional forms
of assessment, as shown below.
* Only 7 of the 21 States that were using a non-traditional form of
assessment knew how many students with disabilities were
participating.
* In eight States, accommodations and adaptations guidelines for
non-traditional assessments were based on IEPs. In seven States,
they were based on factors other than IEPs. Six States had no such
guidelines.
* States vary greatly in the way traditional or non-traditional
assessment data are reported for students with disabilities. Eight
States combine the data on students with disabilities who took
traditional and non-traditional assessments in their overall
report. Three States present that data separately. Four States
collect the data but do not include it in any report. Six States
do not provide any data on assessments of students with
disabilities.
Based on these findings, NCEO concluded that States implementing
non-traditional forms of assessment use the same approach to including
students with disabilities and making accommodations as in their
traditional assessments.
NCEO's Recommendations for State Guidelines on Participation and
Accommodations
In May 1994, the Center convened a group of State assessment program
directors, State special education directors, and other individuals
knowledgeable about assessment and students with disabilities to
discuss how decisions about participation and accommodation might be
made (Ysseldyke, Thurlow, McGrew, & Shriner, 1994). Before formulating
a set of recommendations, NCEO felt that it was important that the
group state explicitly the assumptions underlying the guidelines for
making participation and accommodations decisions. These assumptions
are presented in table 4.5.
_CAPTION:_ _TABLE 4.5 Assumptions Underlying NCEO's Recommendations
for State Participation and Accommodation Decisions_
1. All students should be included in assessment programs. Any time
data are collected for the purpose of making policy or
accountability decisions, include all students. Not all students
need to take the same test.
2. The critical question to ask when considering the use of a
different assessment is why the student is in a different
curriculum. Inclusion in the curriculum is the first critical
decision that is made for a student as an IEP is developed. If the
student is not in the regular curriculum, it is important to ask
why not. Then questions about the assessment can be asked.
3. State assessment programs are conducted for multiple purposes.
There is a need to differentiate participation and accommodation
decisions as a function of purpose.
4. Accuracy and fairness should characterize State assessment
programs.
5. Assessment procedures should be sensitive to the needs of students
with disabilities.
6. Accommodations are used for equity, not advantage. Students who
use accommodations during an assessment do so to be able to take
an assessment on an equal playing board as other students who do
not need accommodations. Accommodations are not provided to help
the student with a disability do better than other students.
7. Assessment programs should make clear that the same high standards
are expected of all students. State advisory boards should decide
the range of performance permitted for each content standard.
8. Assessment should be characterized by practicality and cost
effectiveness.
9. Assessment should be consistent with students' instructional
programs and accommodations.
Source: Ysseldyke, J. E., Thurlow, M. L., McGrew, K. S., Shriner, J.
C., (1994). Recommendations for making decisions about the
participation of students with disabilities in statewide assessment
programs. (Synthesis Report 15). Minneapolis, MN: NCEO
The group's recommendations for statewide assessment practices related
to students with disabilities were made in three areas:participation,
accommodations and adaptations, and implementation checks. The
recommendations in each of these areas are summarized below.
_Participation._ Including students with disabilities in statewide
assessments needs to occur at three points:instrument development,
instrument administration, and reporting of results.
1. _Instrument Development:_ Include students with disabilities when
testing assessment items in order to identify problems. In this
way, instruments can be modified during the development phase to
allow greater numbers of students with disabilities to participate
meaningfully.
2. _Instrument Administration:_ Include all students with
disabilities in some form of the assessment. When a sampling
procedure is used for an assessment, the sample must be
representative of all students. This can be accomplished by
allowing partial participation and alternate assessments.
3. _Reporting of Results:_ Include students with disabilities in
reports of results. Data on the performance of all students are
needed. Therefore, scores must be reported for all students.
Reports of results from students taking different assessments and
from information provided by informed respondents should be
included in these reports. If a student is excluded from testing
for any reason, that student should still be included in the
denominator used when calculating averages.
_Accommodations and Adaptations._ Not all students with disabilities
will need modified assessments, but modifications should be used when
needed. Accommodations and adaptations that teachers use with students
during instruction, and that are accepted in work and community
environments, should be used during assessments. It is recognized that
some modifications may affect measurement validity. These
modifications should still be used and the scores from them identified
so that the impact of the modifications can be further analyzed. Also,
research on the effects of various accommodations in statewide
assessments is needed. Finally, as new technologies and procedures for
accommodations and adaptations are developed, they should be included
in the array of possible accommodations and adaptations for
instruction and testing.
It is particularly important for States to examine conflicting
guidelines. For example, some States use accommodations that other
States specifically prohibit. Among these are, for example, reading
items to a student, allowing extended time to finish tests, and
out-of-level testing.
There are several ways States can increase student participation in
assessment programs, as described below.
* _Allow partial participation in an assessment._ Some assessments
have several components (e.g., reading, math, writing). When a
student can participate in one component but not in others, the
student should not be excluded from the entire assessment, but
rather included in that component in which the student can
participate. In other words, include students with disabilities in
component(s) of an assessment even it they cannot take the entire
assessment.
* _Use a different assessment for some students_ (such as students
in a functional skills curriculum). Students whose curriculum is
significantly different from the content of the assessment should
be assessed with a different instrument. It is very important to
assess critically the student's participation in the regular
curriculum at this point. There must be justification for a
student being placed in a different curriculum.
* _Allow an informed respondent to provide information on what the
student can do_ (i.e., information on the student's current level
of functioning).
_Implementation Check._ Assessment personnel should check on adherence
to the intent of the recommendations by making sure that no student is
excluded who could participate if accommodations and adaptations were
used. This can be done by requiring a specific person in the district
to approve the decision that a particular student not participate in
the regular assessment. In addition, the actions described below can
be taken.
* Conduct follow-up studies to verify that the students who were
excluded could not participate in the assessment with reasonable
modifications. Report the results of the follow-up studies.
* Conduct follow-up studies to determine what accommodations were
used for students who were included.
* Remove incentives for exclusion, using either rewards or
sanctions. For example, providing information through the media is
often an effective way of promoting change. Another strategy for
removing incentives is to assign the lowest possible proficiency
level score to all who are excluded from assessments. The
reporting of information on all students is a critical aspect of
removing incentives for exclusion.
* Set up a panel to review requests for new forms of testing
modifications. The panel would decide if the requested
modifications are reasonable or if further research is needed
before a decision can be made.
State personnel that participated in the meeting recognized that a
State might not be able to implement all aspects of the recommended
practice at once. However, it is possible to implement one or two
aspects without implementing the others. The group also felt that SEAs
would benefit from examining other States' guidelines (see Thurlow,
Scott, & Ysseldyke, 1994a, 1994b) and talking with assessment
personnel from other States.
The group convened by NCEO also recognized that guidelines for making
decisions about inclusion and accommodations could vary as a function
of the way the assessment affected the student. The changes in
guidelines described above are for "low-stakes" assessment. However,
States increasingly use "high-stakes" assessments. When they do,
motivation to exclude those students who are perceived to bring
average scores down increases. When students with disabilities
participate in a "high-stakes" statewide assessment, such as a
graduation exam, it is imperative that guidelines be considered. This
does not mean that students with disabilities should be excluded from
"high-stakes" assessments, but rather that appropriate accommodations
must be made.
----------
Data From National Assessments
Prior to the 1990s, people with disabilities participated in national
assessments at extremely low rates, and data were seldom reported for
those who did participate. Now, however, people with disabilities are
being included in assessments at an increasing rate. The 1992 National
Adult Literacy Survey (NALS) included people with disabilities, and
even though methodological inadequacies may have affected the
reliability of the results for those people, it is notable that the
attempt was made. In addition, during 1993-1994, the National
Center for Education Statistics (NCES) began making significant
planning efforts to provide accommodations for and include students
with disabilities in such assessments as the National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP). This section describes the NALS study and
the plans for administering the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study
(ECLS).
National Adult Literacy Survey (NALS)
In 1988, Congress asked the Department of Education to conduct a
national literacy study of American adults. As a result, NALS was
conducted in 1992. The instrument was a national household survey, and
13,600 individuals age 16 and older participated. Approximately 12
percent of the respondents indicated, through self-reporting, that
they had a physical, mental, or other health condition that kept them
from participating fully in work or other activities. No
accommodations were provided to people who identified themselves as
having a disability.
The NALS study defined literacy as "using printed and written
information to function in society, to achieve one's goals, and to
develop one's knowledge and potential" (Kirsch, Jungeblut, Jenkins, &
Kolstad, 1993, p. 2). Three scales were identified:
_Prose literacy_ -- the knowledge and skills needed to
understand and use information from texts that include
editorials, news stories, poems, and fiction. For example,
finding a piece of information in a newspaper article,
interpreting instructions from a warranty, inferring a theme
from a poem, or contrasting views expressed in an editorial.
_Document literacy_ -- the knowledge and skills required to
locate and use information contained in materials that include
job applications, payroll forms, transportation schedules,
maps, tables, and graphs; for example, locating a particular
intersection on a street map, using a schedule to choose the
appropriate bus, or entering information on an application
form.
_Quantitative literacy_ -- the knowledge and skills required to
apply arithmetic operations, either alone or sequentially,
using numbers embedded in printed materials; for example,
balancing a checkbook, figuring out a tip, completing an order
form, or determining the amount of interest from a loan
advertisement.(pp. 3-4)
These scales were the basis for the 165 tasks in the total survey.
Each respondent was asked during a personal interview to complete one
booklet containing tasks estimated to require a total of 45 minutes to
complete. Each participant was asked to complete a number of tasks
related to each literacy area, thus completing a subset of the total
set of literacy tasks. Sampling procedures were used to ensure that
all tasks were administered to a nationally representative sample.
During the part of the interview in which background and personal
information were obtained, respondents were also asked to describe any
illnesses and disabilities. Four questions were used to identify
individuals with "physical, mental, or other health conditions":
One question asked respondents whether they had a physical, mental,
or other health condition that kept them from participating fully
in work, school, housework, or other activities. Two other
questions asked whether they had visual or hearing difficulties.
Finally, respondents were asked whether they had a learning
disability, any mental or emotional condition, mental retardation,
a speech disability, a physical disability, a long-term illness
(for six months or more), or any other health impairment.
Respondents were permitted to report each type of disability or
condition they had. (Kirsch, Jungeblut, Jenkins, Kolstad, 1993, p.
42.)
The NALS report included the results of the literacy assessment of
individuals in ten self-reported disability condition categories. The
following percentages of respondents reported that they had various
conditions: physical disability (9 percent), long-term illness (8
percent), visual difficulty (7 percent), hearing difficulty (7
percent), other health impairment (6 percent), learning disability (3
percent), mental or emotional condition (2 percent), speech disability
(1 percent), and mental retardation (< 1 percent). Overall, these
individuals with disabilities were more likely than people without
disabilities who participated in the survey to perform at the lowest
literacy levels. The first NALS report described this lower
performance of individuals with various disabilities and conditions in
the excerpts below.
* Adults with mental retardation, for example, were about four times
more likely than their peers in the total population to perform in
Level 11 on the prose, document, and quantitative scales. On
the prose scale, 87 percent of the respondents with mental
retardation were in this level, compared with 21 percent of adults
in the population as a whole. (Kirsch, Jungeblut, Jenkins,
Kolstad, 1993, p. 43)
* On each scale, more than half of the individuals with vision
difficulties performed in Level 1 (53 to 55 percent), for example,
and another 24 to 26 percent performed in Level 2. (Kirsch,
Jungeblut, Jenkins, Kolstad, 1993, p. 45)
* Finally, it is interesting to note the average performance
differences between individuals who reported having certain
disabilities and adults in the population as a whole. The smallest
gap was between those who said they had difficulty hearing and
adults in the population overall; the difference was 24 to 29
points on each literacy scale. Across the other groups, the
performance gap between those who reported having a particular
disability or illness and those in the total population ranged
from 32 to 72 points. The only exception was among adults who
reported having some form of mental retardation; here the gap
ranged from 120 to 154 points across the scales. (Kirsch,
Jungeblut, Jenkins, Kolstad, 1993, p. 45).
However, Kirsch et al., also reported that within nearly every
disability group, in each literacy category (prose, document,
quantitative) there are some individuals with disabilities who perform
at levels 4 and 5, the top two levels of literacy reached by about 20
percent of the 13,600 individuals in the total sample. The percentages
of individuals in these two levels within each condition or disability
are shown in table 4.6.
___________________________________
_TABLE 4.6 Percentage of Adults with Disabilities and Other Conditions
Performing in Levels 4 and 5_
_Literacy Scale
Disability/Condition Prose Document Quantitative_
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Physical, mental, or other health 6 6 7
Visual difficulty 5 6 6
Hearing difficulty 10 9 13
Learning disability 5 5 5
Mental/emotional condition 10 10 10
Mental retardation 4 3 1
Speech disability 7 6 7
Physical disability 7 6 8
Long-term illness 8 7 10
Other health impairment 8 7 11
Source: Data are from Kirsch, Jungeblut, Jenkins, & Kolstad (1993, p.
44).
___________________________________
The NALS report data are among the first available from a national
education survey that includes data about people with disabilities.
Unfortunately, the data related to people with disabilities have some
major limitations. First, relying on self-reports can result in
underestimation of the incidence of certain disabilities in the
sample. For example, learning disabilities would probably be
underreported by adults who left the school system before schools
became widely aware of such disabilities and how to diagnose them.
Also, the stigma sometimes still associated with disabilities such as
mental retardation or emotional disturbance may discourage respondents
from reporting the condition. Second, self-reports can also result in
overestimation of some disabilities. Third, the lack of accommodations
that might have enabled some people to better accomplish some
assessment tasks may also have affected the results. For example,
people with visual difficulties might have been at a disadvantage
because print may not have been large enough for them to see
accurately.
Plans for Future Assessments (ECLS)
NCES has also begun work on a new data collection effort, the Early
Childhood Longitudinal Study (ECLS). A kindergarten cohort is to be
tracked for five years. A birth cohort might also be tracked if other
agencies wish to participate. Various ways for including students with
disabilities in this study are being explored as the study is designed
and the instruments are developed. This approach to achieving
inclusion is consistent with that recommended by participants in a
meeting of NCES personnel, NCEO, and other experts in assessment and
national data collection programs (Ysseldyke, Thurlow, McGrew, &
Vanderwood, 1994).
_______________________
1 Performance was based on 5 levels. Level 1 tasks involve matching or
entering information onto a document while Level 5 tasks require the
reader to extract information from a complex display or to infer
information.
----------
Summary and Implications
The National Center on Educational Outcomes believes that there has
been noticeable progress in assessing the results of education for
students with disabilities. While complete national or State-level
data on students with disabilities has not yet been collected, more
valid information about how many students with disabilities actually
participated in various assessments is being gathered. Also, more
aggressive policies to facilitate the participation of more students
with disabilities in assessments are being developed.
NCEO found that aggregating data on the educational results of
students with disabilities into a composite picture of their status
and performance is not yet feasible. The measures States use vary too
much to allow such aggregation. In addition, States use different
measures at different grade levels and in different content areas.
There continues to be considerable variability in State guidelines
used to determine which students will participate in State-level
assessments and what accommodations can be used. The variability is
such that a student included in a State-level assessment in one State
might be excluded in the next. An accommodation that is recommended in
one State might be prohibited in another. NCEO believes that these
kinds of inconsistencies can be lessened by developing consistent
national guidelines.
In the opinion of the NCEO, the new types of assessments being
developed or considered also highlight the importance of consistent
national guidelines. States using non-traditional forms of assessment,
such as performance, authentic, or portfolio assessment, tend to use
the same approaches to including students with disabilities and making
accommodations as they use in their traditional assessments. This
occurs despite the opportunity to include students with disabilities
in every aspect of new development activities such as item
development, procedures, and options for accommodations.
NCEO believes that despite its shortcomings in the areas of data
collection and accommodations, NALS is an example of a new commitment
to inclusion of individuals with disabilities when conducting national
educational data collection. The Center found even more encouraging
NCES plans to include students with disabilities in the ECLS, provide
them with needed accommodations, and consider the needs of these
students in the initial stages of assessment development. Therefore,
it is likely that national education data collections will soon
provide more information on the performance of most students with
disabilities in selected academic areas.
References
Kirsch, I. S., Jungeblut, A., Jenkins, L., & Kolstad, A.(1993).
_Adult literacy in America:A first look at the results of the
National Adult Literacy Survey._ Washington, DC: National
Center for Education Statistics.
Shriner, J. G., Spande, G. E., & Thurlow, M. L.(1994).
_State special education outcomes 1993._ Minneapolis, MN:
National Center on Educational Outcomes.
Thurlow, M. L., Scott, D., & Ysseldyke, J.(1994a).
_Compilation of states' guidelines for accommodations in
assessments for students with disabilities _(Synthesis Report
18). Minneapolis, MN: National Center on Educational Outcomes.
Thurlow, M. L., Scott, D., & Ysseldyke, J.(1994b).
_Compilation of states' guidelines for including students with
disabilities in assessments_ (Synthesis Report 17).
Minneapolis, MN: National Center on Educational Outcomes.
Ysseldyke, J. E., Thurlow, M. L., McGrew, K. S., & Shriner, J.
G.(1994).
_Recommendations for making decisions about the participation
of students with disabilities in statewide assessment programs_
(Synthesis Report 15). Minneapolis, MN: National Center on
Educational Outcomes.
Ysseldyke, J. E., Thurlow, M. L., McGrew, K. S., & Vanderwood,
M.(1994).
_Making decisions about the inclusion of students with
disabilities in large-scale assessments_ (Synthesis Report 13).
Minneapolis, MN: National Center on Educational Outcomes.
----------
Chapter 5
_______________________________________________________________________
Financing Services for Students with Disabilities
_This chapter reports on the work of the Center for Special Education
Finance (CSEF), one of several research centers funded by OSERS. The
views expressed here are those of the CSEF, and do not necessarily
represent the views of the Department of Education. _
Issues related to special education finance have gained considerable
importance over the past few years. The continued growth in the number
of children with disabilities and the cost of providing special
education programs have focused increased attention on how resource
constraints affect the quality of services provided. One of the
primary objectives of the Center for Special Education Finance (CSEF)
is to provide policy makers and administrators at the Federal, State,
and local levels with data, analyses, expertise, and opportunities to
share information about special education finance issues.1
CSEF is guided by one overarching policy question that places a broad
range of questions pertaining to special education finance into a
single conceptual framework and set of activities:
_How can the quality of educational services be maximized for students
with special educational needs within the context of limited
resources?_
The CSEF research agenda focuses primarily on issues related to
special education resource allocation. However, funding issues cannot
be isolated from issues related to program design and measuring
program results and quality. Decision makers at each level of
government must ultimately decide how best to allocate limited
resources to produce the desired results. A major CSEF objective is to
provide information that can facilitate that process.
This chapter summarizes some of CSEF's research during its first two
years of operation (FY 1993 and FY 1994). Separate sections focus on:
* Federal funding for special education services, including a
historical overview of Federal legislation;
* State special education funding, with an emphasis on State
finance reform efforts; and
* a case study of a State-level cost analysis project.
_______________________
1 CSEF is supported through a cooperative agreement with the U.S.
Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs.
----------
Federal Funding for Special Education
Historical Overview
The Federal presence in elementary and secondary education in general,
and special education in particular, was negligible until the 1960s.
In 1966, hearings before an ad hoc subcommittee of the House of
Representatives Education and Labor Committee revealed that only about
one-third of the 5. 5 million children and youth with disabilities in
the country were being provided appropriate special education
services. According to the committee report, the remaining two-thirds
were either totally excluded from public schools or "sitting idly in
regular classrooms awaiting the time when they were old enough to
'drop out.'" Federal programs directed at children with disabilities,
the Committee reported, were "minimal, fractionated, uncoordinated,
and frequently given a low priority in the education community" (House
Report No. 72-611, June 26, 1975, p. 2).
As a result of these hearings, Congress added Title VI to the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (P. L. 89-750) in 1966,
establishing a two-year project grants program to assist the States in
educating children and youth with disabilities. Allotments were based
on the population of exceptional children age 3 through 21 in the
State. The Elementary and Secondary Education Amendments of 1970
repealed Title VI as of July 1971 and created the Education of the
Handicapped Act (EHA), P. L. 91-230. EHA consolidated a number of
separate Federal grant programs related to children with disabilities
under one statute. This new authority, the precursor of the current
IDEA, was the first free-standing statute written expressly for
children and youth with disabilities.
Part B of EHA provided a new formula grant program to replace the
previous population-based grant. The maximum amount of the grant that
a State could receive was equal to the number of children with
disabilities age 3 through 21 receiving special education and related
services times a specified percentage of the national average per
pupil expenditure (APPE) in public elementary and secondary schools in
the United States. See table 1.1 in Chapter 1 for a summary of Part B
grants and APPE amounts since 1977.
The new formula was a significant change from the way funds had
previously been distributed. Prior law based allocations (a) to States
on the number of all children, i. e., population, ages 3 through 21
within a State, times $8.75 per child, and (b) within States on a
discretionary project basis. The new system for distributing funds
within States made allotments based on the number of students eligible
for special education services. The new system's objectives were to
allow funds to flow to areas with relatively higher rates of eligible
students (and therefore greater need) and create an incentive to
locate and serve those students.
The 1990 Amendments to EHA changed its name to the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). To assist States in providing FAPE
to children and youth with disabilities, IDEA authorizes three State
formula grant programs and several discretionary grant programs.
The discretionary grant programs (Parts C through G of IDEA) have the
objective of stimulating improvements in educational services for
children with disabilities. Included are grant programs designed to
promote recruitment and training of special education personnel,
research and demonstration projects, development and dissemination of
instructional materials and information to teachers and parents, and
some direct services for children.
----------
Special Education Funding in the States
IDEA mandates FAPE for all students with disabilities. The States are
primarily responsible for providing special education programs and
services, and provide 56 percent of the financial support for them.
"Although States continue to bear the fiscal burden of educating
students with disabilities, there is a paucity of recent data on
the levels of funding actually provided by States and local
governments. The most recent data available (from the 1987-88
school year) show the States providing 56 percent of the funds
expended for special education programming across the nation, as
compared to 36 percent from local sources, and 8 percent from the
Federal government" (Moore et al. , 1988).
States are struggling to provide FAPE to students with disabilities
with limited public resources that are being strained by the growing
demand for other types of social services. As a result, many States
are actively changing or considering changes in the ways they finance
special education programs. In fact, State efforts to reform special
education finance appear to be at their highest level since the
enactment of IDEA.
State Special Education Finance Reform Movement
In 1994, CSEF conducted a telephone survey of SEA personnel in all 50
States to learn of any efforts States may be making to reform their
special education finance systems. The survey revealed that 18 States
have implemented some type of finance reform in the past five years.
Twenty-eight States are currently considering major changes in special
education fiscal policy. Nine of these States expect to implement some
variation of their existing funding system, or have a clear idea for a
new one. The other 20 States are as yet undecided about the specific
changes they will make. Of these 29 States, seven implemented some
type of finance reform in the past five years and are considering
reforming their special education finance systems again.
Table 5.1 describes the special education finance reform movement by
State and by type of funding formula, (column 2), as defined in the
table key. In addition, the basis on which the funding allocation is
made is provided (column 3). The basis on which the allocation is made
is important for understanding the policy implications of funding
alternatives. For example, allocations based on type of student
placement tend to afford the least flexibility to local decision
makers. Allocations based on less specific criteria, such as total
district enrollment, are likely to allow them much more discretion
when identifying and placing students.
Another important factor is whether State special education funds must
be spent exclusively on special education students (column 4).
Although such a restriction favors fiscal accountability, it tends to
reduce local control. In fact, although this restriction is often
presumed to exist, 33 of the States surveyed _do not_ require that all
special education funds be spent exclusively on special education
services.
___________________________________
_CAPTION:_
Table 5.1 Special Education Finance Reform in the States
State Current Funding Formula Basis of Allocation State Special
Education Dollar for Target Population Only Implemented Reform
within
Last
5 Years Considering Major Reform
Alabama Pupil weights Placement and condition
X X
Alaska Pupil weights Type of placement
X
Arizona Pupil weights Disabling condition
Arkansas Pupil weights Type of placement
X X
California Resource-based Classroom unit
X
Colorado Percent reimbursement Allowable costs X
X
Connecticut Percent reimbursement Actual expenditures
X
Delaware Resource-based Classroom unit
X X
Florida Pupil weights Disabling condition
X
Georgia Pupil weights Disabling condition For 90% of funds
Hawaii Pupil weights Placement and condition X X
Idaho Percent reimbursement Actual expenditures
X
Illinois Resource-based Allowable costs X
X
Indiana Pupil weights Disabling condition
Iowa Pupil weights Type of placement
X
Kansas Resource-based Number of special education staff X
X
Kentucky Pupil weights Disabling condition
X X
Louisiana Percent reimbursement Actual expenditures X
X
Maine Percent reimbursement Allowable costs
Maryland Flat grant Total district enrollment X
Massachusetts Flat grant Total district enrollment
X
Michigan Percent reimbursement Allowable costs
X
Minnesota Percent reimbursement Actual expenditures X X
Mississippi Resource-based Number of special education staff
X
Missouri Resource-based Number of special education staff
X
Montana Flat grant Total district enrollment X X
Nebraska Percent reimbursement Allowable costs X
X
Nevada Resource-based Classroom unit X
New Hampshire Pupil weights Type of placement
X
New Jersey Pupil weights Placement and condition
X
New Mexico Pupil weights Type of placement
X
New York Pupil weights Type of placement
X
North Carolina Flat grant Special education enrollment X
X
North Dakota Actual expenditures Percent reimbursement
X X
Ohio Resource-based Classroom unit X
X
Oklahoma Pupil weights Disabling condition
Oregon Pupil weights Special education enrollment
X
Pennsylvania Flat grant Total district enrollment X X
Rhode Island Percent reimbursement Actual expenditures
X
South Carolina Pupil weights Disabling condition X
X
South Dakota Percent reimbursement Actual expenditures X X
Tennessee Resource-based Classroom unit
X X
Texas Pupil weights Type of placement
X X
Utah Pupil weights Type of placement
X
Vermonta/ Flat grant Total district enrollment
X
Virginia Resource-based Classroom unit
X
Washington Resource-based Classroom unit X
West Virginia Flat grant Special education enrollment
Wisconsin Percent reimbursement Allowable costs X
Wyoming Percent reimbursement Actual expenditures X
a/ Vermont's special education funding formula also contains a
substantial percent reimbursement component.
_Table Key_
Pupil weights - Two or more categories of student-based funding for
special programs, expressed as a multiple of regular education aid.
Resource-based - Funding based on allocation of specific education
resources (e.g., teachers or classroom units). Classroom units are
derived from prescribed staff/student ratios by disabling condition or
type of placement.
Percent reimbursement - Funding based on a percentage of allowable or
actual expenditures
Flat grant - A fixed funding amount per student or per unit.
Source: Center for Special Education Finance (CSEF)
___________________________________
_Issues Driving Reform._ When respondents were asked to identify the
issues driving reform, as a group they provided more than a dozen
answers. However, the consensus was that (1) more flexible ways to
provide special education services are needed, and (2) incentives that
lead to restrictive placements need to be eliminated. Responses also
indicated that reforms are also being driven by the more traditional
goals of fiscal accountability, formula simplicity, ensuring adequate
service, and equity. Two other important issues cited were rising
special education costs and enrollments and the influence of
widespread support for more inclusive educational practices on special
education finance reform.
Nature of Reforms Underway
To address some of the issues discussed above, States have instituted
a variety of fiscal and program reforms. Some States, like California
and Oregon, have responded to growing fiscal pressures by capping the
growth of special education aid by limiting the number of students
eligible for reimbursement (Beales, 1993). To try and remove fiscal
incentives for identifying special education students, Massachusetts,
Montana, Pennsylvania, and Vermont have revised their State finance
formulas to decouple funding from the special education student count.
These States now primarily provide funds to districts based on some
form of a census-based funding system. With this type of funding
arrangement, the amount of State special education aid received by a
district is determined by the overall count of students enrolled in
the district, rather than the number of students specifically
identified for special education services. Such a system breaks the
link between funding and local policies that determine how students
with disabilities are identified and placed in special education
programs.
At the same time, while some States are moving away from the more
traditional special education funding approaches, such as pupil
weights (see definition and States using this approach in table 5.1),
other States are considering adopting them. For example, Oregon
educators wanted to design a system that could be easily understood,
that was placement-neutral, and that would dramatically reduce
documentation and paperwork requirements. To these ends, Oregon
adopted a single funding weight for all special education students.
The per pupil special education allocation is twice that of the per
pupil general education allocation.
Interviews conducted by CSEF staff with a broad range of interested
persons in Oregon constituents in 1994 indicated a general consensus
that the objectives cited above were largely being met by the new
formula. However, concerns that a financial incentive still existed to
continue to identify special education students up to the State
funding limit of 12 percent were sometimes expressed (Montgomery,
1995).
CSEF believes there are some important issues that a State should
consider when making decisions about the retention or adoption of a
pupil weight funding formula. First, should the amounts of these
weights vary by type of placement (as in Iowa), by type of disabling
condition (as in Arizona), or should there just be a single weight
that applies to all special education students (as in Oregon)? It is
the opinion of the CSEF that weights based on placement have the
advantage of being more closely linked to actual program cost, but may
a so create inappropriate financial incentives for more costly, and
therefore sometimes more restrictive, placements. Weights based on
disability type have the advantage of being placement-neutral (i. e.,
no financial incentives for one type of placement over another), but
are generally not closely linked to variations in the actual costs
districts face.
Any pupil weight system will create an incentive to identify students
as needing special education services. Some consider this type of
incentive to be appropriate, because it is thought to create a better
link between State special education aid and the district cost of
providing such aid. Others argue that this type of fiscal incentive
for identifying additional special education students should be
removed. States that agree with the latter argument have adopted the
types of census-based funding systems described above. 2
_______________________
2 For a more extensive discussion of the incentives and disincentives
contained in alternative types of special education funding formulas,
see Parrish (1994).
----------
Fiscal Policies that Foster Inclusion
CSEF has also examined barriers to inclusion initiatives have often
been found in existing special education funding provisions (Parrish,
1994). How can fiscal policies be altered to foster and support
inclusive special education services? A set of guidelines, developed
by CSEF (Parrish, 1994) for States attempting to revise their special
education funding formals to remove incentives for restrictive
placements are described below.
_First, fiscal incentives favoring restrictive and separate placements
should be removed._ Theoretically, this could be achieved under most
types of special education funding systems. Even systems in which
funding decisions are based on student categories could develop a
weighting structure that would foster greater inclusion by assigning
larger weights to an array of higher- and lower-cost general education
placements. Thus far, however, the States attempting to reduce the
number of restrictive placements have tended to implement funding
systems that do not base funding decisions on student placement
categories.
_Second, States must make decisions about the extent to which they
wish to encourage private special education placements._ Some States
may decide that private, as opposed to public, placements are more
restrictive under any circumstances and may wish to create fiscal
disincentives for their use. Other States may decide that private
placements are an integral component of the continuum of available
placements for their special education students and that these types
of placements should not be discouraged. Regardless of how they view
private placements, it is difficult for States to rationalize fiscal
incentives favoring them. In some States, however, these incentives
are clearly in place. Comparable public services may not be available
in some States simply because districts have never been allowed to use
the State aid they are allotted for private tuition to develop public
services.
_Third, funding systems should be developed in which funds follow
students as they move to less restrictive placements._ For example, if
funds followed children when they returned to neighborhood schools,
savings in transportation costs could offset other types of costs
associated with this type of move. Districts may have internal
mechanisms for resource allocation in place that support places rather
than students. As students move from specialized to neighborhood
schools, districts will also need to rethink their internal systems
for allocating resources.
_Fourth, States could enhance fiscal support for district training._
States reporting the most success in fostering more inclusive service
systems emphasize the need to support direct training for these types
of program interventions. As fiscal disincentives favoring restrictive
services are removed, district personnel must be provided with
training and assistance in overcoming the many practical difficulties
associated with the higher levels of inclusion that may result.
_Fifth, States could fund and encourage the use of appropriate
interventions for all students._ Some argue that service option
restrictions result in some students who need intervention services
being identified as eligible for special education because that is the
only way to provide them with intervention services. State funding
systems that actively support alternative interventions for all
students will be less likely to lead to special education program
placements that are unnecessarily restrictive.
----------
State-Level Cost Analyses: Kentucky Case Study
The types of special education fiscal policy issues presented in this
chapter thus far represent a major element of the overall CSEF
research agenda. A second important element of CSEF research is
special education cost analysis. Policy makers at all levels of
governance sometimes express surprise that more is not known about the
costs of special education. As previously mentioned, the last major
examination of special education costs across the nation is based on
data from the 1985-86 school year (Moore, et al., 1988).
Prior studies were generally consistent with the findings of Moore, et
al., who found that per pupil special education costs are
approximately 2.3 times that of general education. However, a great
deal of change has occurred in education over the past ten years, and
CSEF has identified a number of important questions about special
education costs that remain unanswered. For example, what are the
comparative costs of individual types of special education programs,
such as public versus private placements for comparable students? What
are the fiscal implications of alternative special education program
policies? For example, are general classroom placements in
neighborhood schools more or less costly for students with
low-incidence disabilities? To what extent, if any, do special
education costs exceed revenues, thereby affecting the resources
available for students in general education programs? 3
Unfortunately, existing budgeting and expenditure records are not of
much assistance when estimating the actual costs of educational
programs. As described by Levin (1983), they generally do not include
all of the cost information that is needed, usually are organized by
line item rather than by type of program, and due to varying
interpretations of cost information and accounting conventions are
generally not comparable across districts. As a result, "the costs of
any particular intervention are often embedded in a budget that covers
a much larger unit of operation" (page 50). This approach to gathering
educational cost data focuses on individual classrooms, such personnel
measures as numbers of staff and student counts, and such
non-personnel resource measures as materials and equipment. 4 The
conceptual design for the last major national special education
expenditure study, developed by the current CSEF co-directors, was
based on this type of resource cost methodology. 5
A major CSEF research goal is to further develop basic special
education cost analysis methodologies and procedures and make them
more useful for and applicable to special education policy
development. This goal is comprised of three related research
objectives. First, it is important to have a better understanding of
the types of special education cost questions that local, State, and
Federal policy makers need answered, so that solutions address the
appropriate questions. Second, more cost-effective methods of data
collection need to be developed. One reason more special education
cost analyses are not conducted is that they tend to be time-consuming
and labor-intensive. Finally, ways to make the best possible use of
existing data must be found.
To achieve these three research objectives, which are related to the
overall development of enhanced special education cost analysis
capabilities, CSEF has formed collaborative arrangements with
Kentucky, Oregon, and Massachusetts. CSEF chose these States because
they had recently enacted, or were on the verge of enacting, special
education finance reform; had specific special education cost-related
policy questions to be addressed; and had an interest in forming a
relationship with the Center for the purpose of developing an ongoing
statewide education cost analysis capacity.
The special education cost analysis projects in Oregon and
Massachusetts are currently underway. In the Oregon project, an
examination of the costs and benefits of inclusive special education
placement practices in a selected group of districts that are actively
implementing such policies is under way. In Massachusetts, CSEF is
conducting a statewide special education cost analysis of recently
enacted special education finance reform.
As an example of the kinds of cost questions that are of interest to
States and the information produced through these types of studies,
the results of the Kentucky Special Education Finance Study are
presented below as a case study. This study was completed in October
1994.
Overview
The Kentucky State legislature mandated this special education cost
study. The study's purpose was to review Kentucky's existing approach
to special education funding and develop recommendations for a funding
mechanism that could be used to achieve the objectives of special
education. Special education in Kentucky is currently funded under the
auspices of the Kentucky Educational Reform Act (KERA). The study
sought to answer the three major research questions below.
* _What does special education cost statewide, and how does this
compare with special education revenues? Is special education
adequately funded in the State?
Which types of districts exhibit systematic differences in the
relationship between expenditures and revenues for special
education?
How do the three funding weights currently in use in the State
compare with the actual costs of serving these various categories
of students?_
In order to address these questions, a series of statistical analyses
were conducted on a combination of data sets derived from existing
State data files and data collection efforts carried out by CSEF staff
during the 1993-94 school year. The data gathered by CSEF came from a
sample of 63 schools in 17 districts. The districts were stratified
according to size and the percentage of children identified as
eligible for special education services.
Results
_What does special education cost statewide, and how does this compare
with special education revenues? Is special education adequately
funded in the State?_
Total expenditures for special education services in Kentucky were
estimated at $218.5 million, compared to total State and Federal
funding of $218.8 million (table 5.2). These results suggest that,
overall, public school districts in Kentucky are spending
approximately the same amount of money on special education as that
generated by State and Federal funding.
___________________________________
_Table 5.2 Comparing Statewide Expenditures and Revenues for Special
Education_
_Total Amount
(millions)_
---------------------------------------------------------------------
_Revenues_ (Federal and State add-on) $218.8
_Expenditures_
Personnel $204.8
Non-personnel 4.2
Tuition for out-of-district placements 9.5
------
Total $218.5
_Excess of revenues over expenditures_ $ 0.3
Source: Center for Special Education Finance (CSEF).
___________________________________
Determining whether this funding level is adequate requires subjective
judgments to be made about the overall quality of services being
provided. However,State and Federal revenues appeared to be sufficient
to support current levels of special education across the State.
CSEF's _best overall estimate_ of special education costs versus
special education revenues showed a very high degree of alignment
statewide ($218.5 million versus $218.8 million). However, because of
the difficulty in obtaining accurate information on the cost of
non-personnel special education resources,our _upward bound estimate_
of statewide expenditures is $247.6 million, which would equal a
statewide funding deficit of $28.8 million.
_Which types of districts exhibit systematic differences in the
relationship between expenditures and revenues for special education?_
The data show a fairly wide range of variation in the ratio of
expenditures to revenues among districts. The following patterns of
variation in the ratio of special education expenditures to revenues
were found.
* Districts that identified students as in need of special education
at higher rates and that had greater percentages of special
education students, at-risk populations, and students in poverty
were likely to spend a lower percentage of special education
revenues on special education services, such as equipment.
Instead, more revenues were spent on transportation and salaries.
* Districts with higher levels of average household income and
housing values were more likely to spend a greater percentage of
the special education revenues on special education services. In
summary, despite the high degree of parity between special
education revenues and costs statewide, considerable differences
in the relative degree of alignment across individual types of
districts were found. On average, the ratio of expenditures to
revenues for special education were lowest in districts serving
the poorest students and in those showing the highest special
education identification rates.
_How do the three funding weights currently in use in the State
compare with the actual costs of serving these various categories of
students?_
Table 5.3 presents an approach to comparing the study cost estimates
to the State funding weights currently in place. Special education
expenditures are based on data collected on samples of special
education students. The costs of instruction in the general education
program represent a combination of the basic costs of instructional
personnel, and is derived from the data CSEF collected at the school
and district level. The value in the estimated weight column is
calculated by subtracting 1 from the ratio of total per pupil special
education costs to total per pupil general education costs. In theory,
the estimated weight value is what should be used to calculate the
add-on special education revenues. The KERA weights actually used to
calculate the add-on revenues are presented in the last column for the
purpose of comparison. Only for the high-incidence special education
students are the estimated weights lower than the KERA weights. The
overall average estimated weight for the speech or language students
is 50 percent more than the current KERA weight, and the weight for
the low incidence students is only .22 points (or 9.4% = 100 x
.22/2.34) higher.
___________________________________
_Table 5.3 The Relationship Between the Costs Per Pupil of Special
and Regular Education Personnela/_
_Estimated
Student Category Estimated Total Per Ratio of
and Percentage Total Per Pupil Special to
of State Special Pupil General General
Education Special Education Education Estimated KERA
Population Cost Cost Costs Weight Weight_
--------------------------------------------------------------------
_Elementary school_
Speech or
language
(18. 7) $3,172 $2,398 1.32 0.32 0.24
High incidence
(47. 7) $4,756 $2,398 1.98 0.98 1.17
Low incidence
(5. 3) $7,511 $2,398 3.13 2.13 2.34
_Middle/junior high
and high schools_
Speech or
language (0.2) $3,662 $2,250 1.63 0.63 0.24
High incidence
(24.9) $4,579 $2,250 2.04 1.04 1.17
Low incidence
(3.2) $9,468 $2,250 4.21 3.21 2.34
_Overall average_
Speech or
language (18.9) $3,177 $2,324 1.37 0.37 0.24
High incidence
(72.6) $4,695 $2,324 2.02 1.02 1.17
Low incidence
(8.5) $8,278 $2,324 3.56 2.56 2.34
a/ The data in this table do not include non-personnel costs (e. g. ,
books, supplies and materials, furnishings and equipment, utilities,
travel, fees, and school and district buildings). In addition, the
costs of transportation and food services are excluded from these
calculations.
___________________________________
Sizable differences between these cost estimates and the revenues
generated by the State's current three special education funding
categories were also observed. Special education funding weights based
on the results of this study suggest that students in the speech or
language category were underfunded by approximately 50 percent (0.24
versus 0.37), that high incidence students were overfunded by about 16
percent (1.17 versus 1.02), and that low incidence students were
underfunded by about 13 percent (2.34 versus 2.56).
_______________________
3 This latter concern was illustrated in a recent Ohio court case
ruling that "non-handicapped children are (also) entitled to equal
protection. . . " Citing the encroachment of special education
services on general education funds, the court found "no rational
basis for funding the education of non-handicapped students at a
funding level based on what remains after funding special education. .
. " (DeRolph v. Ohio, 1994).
4 For a more thorough discussion of the conceptual underpinnings of
this methodology, see Levin's description of the "ingredients"
approach (1983), or for discussion and examples of its
operationalization, see Chambers and Parrish (1982, 1984, 1993).
5 Jay Chambers and Tom Parrish, co-directors of CSEF, created the
basic design for the last national special education cost study
completed by Moore, et al. , (1988) under a subcontract to Decision
Resources Corporation.
----------
Summary and Implications
This chapter has provided an overview and summary of the work
completed by the Center during its first two years of operation (FY
1993 and FY 1994). During that time, CSEF completed three major
projects related to its goal of providing policy makers and
administrators at the Federal, State, and local levels with data,
analyses, expertise, and opportunities to share information about
special education finance issues. These projects were a survey of
State educational funding reform trends, formulation of a set of
fiscal policy guidelines for inclusion, and a case study of a
State-level cost analysis project.
In 1994, CSEF surveyed special education personnel in all 50 States
concerning special education reforms that might be taking place in
their State. CSEF learned that during the last 5 years, 18 States had
implemented some type of fiscal reform, and 29 States were considering
major changes. Twenty States were undecided about carrying out any
specific reforms at the time of the survey. Respondents identified
five major issues driving reform:(1) the need for more flexible ways
to provide special education; (2) the need to eliminate incentives
that lead to restrictive placements; (3) the fact that reforms are
driven by fiscal accountability; (4) rising special education costs
and enrollments; (5) the influence of support for more inclusive
educational practices.
CSEF has developed a set of guidelines to develop fiscal policies that
promote inclusion. They are: (1) remove fiscal incentives that favor
restrictive and separate placements, (2) make decisions about the
extent to which the State wishes to encourage private special
education placements, (3) develop funding systems in which funds
follow students as they move to less restrictive placements, (4)
enhance fiscal support for district training, and (5) fund and
encourage the use of appropriate interventions for all students.
CSEF conducted a special education cost study of Kentucky's approach
to special education funding. The study also indicated that, despite a
high degree of parity between special education revenues and costs
statewide, considerable differences in the relative degree of
alignment across individual types of districts were found. On average,
total special education expenditures in relation to revenues were
lowest in districts serving the poorest students and in the districts
showing the highest special education identification rates. Finally,
the study indicated that the funding weights currently in use in the
State were apparently not aligned with the costs of educating some
categories of special education students.
In addition to current research, CSEF also plans to conduct research
that can help produce a better understanding of whether various
alternative special education fiscal provisions can result in the
types of criteria specified for effective special education finance
policy, as defined in this chapter. Three major areas of research
include how to best:
* finance special education;
* track special education cost and expenditure information; and
* design and implement concepts for tracking the costs and
responsibilities of paying for special education services.
In considering the first issue, CSEF might consider what types of
funding mechanisms can be developed that will reflect true differences
in costs and other circumstances among local districts. These
mechanisms would not include too many reporting requirements or overly
constrain local flexibility.
As to the second issue, CSEF believes that greater understanding of
how much is spent on special education, the specific types of
resources that are purchased, and how the resources are used to
produce special education services is needed. It also believes that
better data about special education resource allocation issues is
needed, such as whether one type of program is more costly than
another, how alternative program policies affect special education
finance, and how special education finance affects other types of
educational programs.
As to the third issue, CSEF believes that better special education
monitoring and evaluation systems are needed. In its opinion, existing
mechanisms almost exclusively adhere to requirements and procedures
regarding program provision and resource use. Rather than simply
tracking special education funds to determine if they are being spent
on services to children in various disability categories, CSEF
proposes to collect better information about how much is being spent
on specific types of programs and services. In addition, CSEF plans to
work on developing better measures of the success of these programs.
This would involve data systems that not only determine whether
special education funds are being spent properly, but also determine
whether they are being spent well.
References
Beales, J.R.(1993).
_Special education: Expenditures and obligations._ Los Angeles,
CA: Reason Foundation.
Chambers, J. G., Parrish, T. B., Goertz, M., Marder, C., & Padilla,
C.(1993).
_Translating dollars into services: Chapter 1 resources in the
context of state and local resources for education._ Contract
No. LC91030001. Palo Alto, CA: American Institutes for
Research.
Chambers, J. G. & Parrish, T. B.(1984).
_The development of a program cost model and a
cost-of-education index for the state of Alaska:_ Final report,
Volumes I-IV. Palo Alto, CA: Associates for Education Finance
and Planning, Inc.
Chambers, J. G. & Parrish, T. B.(1982).
_The development of a resource cost model funding base for
education finance in Illinois_ (Volume I: Executive Summary;
Volume II; Technical Report). Prepared for the Illinois State
Board of Education. Palo Alto, CA: Associates for Education
Finance and Planning, Inc.
Fraas, C. J.(1986).
P.L. 94-142, _The Education for all Handicapped Children Act:
Its development, implementation, and current issues._(86-552
EPW). Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.
Levin, H. M.(1983).
_Cost-effectiveness: A primer._ Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE
Publications, Inc.
Montgomery, D. L.(1995).
_Profile of special education finance reform in Oregon_ (State
Analysis Series No. 1). Palo Alto, CA: Center for Special
Education Finance, American Institutes for Research.
Moore, M. T., Strang, E. W., Schwartz, M., & Braddock, M.(1988).
_Patterns in special education service delivery and cost._
Washington, DC: Decision Resources Corporation.
Parrish, T. B.(1994).
_Removing incentives for restrictive placements_ (Policy Paper
No. 4). Palo Alto, CA: Center for Special Education Finance,
American Institutes for Research.
Parrish, T. B. & Verstegen, D. A.(1994).
_Fiscal provisions of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act _(Policy Paper No. 3). Palo Alto, CA: Center for
Special Education Finance, American Institutes for Research.
U.S. Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. Subcommittee of the
Handicapped.(1976).
Education of the Handicapped Act as Amended through December
31, 1975 (Report No. 72-611). Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office.
----------
Chapter 6
_______________________________________________________________________
Assisting States and Localities in Educating All Children with Disabilities
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires States
receiving funds under the Act to make a free appropriate public
education (FAPE) available to all eligible children with disabilities.
As part of its responsibilities under IDEA, the Department must
"assess the impact and effectiveness of State and local efforts . . .
to provide . . . free appropriate public education" to children and
youth with disabilities (20 U. S. C. 1418(a)(1)-(2)). The U. S.
Department of Education, primarily through its Office of Special
Education Programs (OSEP), aids State educational agencies and local
school districts in implementing the nation's special education
mandates by making grants pursuant to Congressional appropriations,
and providing monitoring oversight, policy support, and technical
assistance.
As noted above, one of OSEP's central roles is to ensure that States
fulfill their responsibilities under IDEA. As stated in 34 CFR 300.1,
the purpose of Part B is to:
ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a
free appropriate public education that includes special education
and related services to meet their unique needs; to ensure that the
rights of children with disabilities and their parents are
protected; to assist States and localities to provide for the
education of all children with disabilities; and to assess and
ensure the effectiveness of efforts to educate those children.
Thus, Congress recognized that specially designed instructional
services, procedural protections, financial and informational
assistance to educational agencies, and ongoing assessment of system
effectiveness were all necessary to meet IDEA's ultimate purpose -- to
ensure that all children with disabilities have access to appropriate
educational services that will enable them to learn to high standards.
Accordingly, IDEA sets forth a number of specific requirements,
funding authorities, and other mechanisms for implementing the Act's
purpose, and OSEP recognizes that it must use a combination of
compliance, funding, technical assistance, dissemination, and other
leadership strategies to improve educational results for all children
and youth with disabilities.
Part B of the IDEA sets forth very specific requirements for
identifying children with disabilities, ages birth through 21, and for
providing a free appropriate public education to children with
disabilities, ages three through 21. OSEP -- and its customers --
children with disabilities and their families -- and its partners --
LEAs, SEAs, and advocacy groups -- recognize that an effective
accountability system is critical to ensure continuous progress in
achieving educational results for children with disabilities.
----------
The Federal Program Review Process
Each State must meet a number of statutory and regulatory requirements
in order to receive Federal financial assistance under the Part B
program. Among the most critical are the mandates in 34 CFR 300.121(a)
and 300.600(a) that the State demonstrate to the Secretary that:
* The State has in effect a policy that assures all children with
disabilities the right to a free appropriate public education; and
* The State Educational Agency (SEA) shall be responsible for
ensuring that the requirements of Part B are carried out and that
each educational program for children with disabilities within the
State, including each program administered by any other public
agency, is under the general supervision of the persons
responsible for educational programs for children with
disabilities in the SEA and meets the educational standards of the
SEA.
To ensure that SEAs are accomplishing their responsibilities
consistent with the Part B and Education Department General
Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) requirements, OSEP uses a
multifaceted program review process that includes the following
activities:
* providing technical assistance to States on an ongoing basis
regarding legal requirements and best practice strategies for
ensuring compliance in a manner that ensures continuous progress
in educational results for students with disabilities;
* reviewing State policy and technical assistance documents, SEA
monitoring reports regarding LEAs and other public agencies, and
other information utilized by an SEA to administer Part B;
* reviewing and approving State Plans;
* conducting compliance monitoring reviews;1
* verifying the implementation of corrective action plans (CAPs);
* reviewing, when appropriate, final decisions of SEA complaint
resolutions;
* establishing ongoing communication with SEAs, national and State
organizations, parents and advocates, and other constituents; and
* conducting specific issue reviews.
_______________________
1 See table 6.1, which summarizes generally the monitoring
procedures used by OSEP during the 1993-1994 school year. OSEP has
implemented several refinements to these procedures, which are not
reflected in Table 6.1, but which are also summarized in this chapter.
As summarized in table 6.2, OSEP conducted on-site compliance
reviews in 15 entitles during the 1993-94 school year and 16 during
the 1994-95 school year. As listed in table 6.3, OSEP issued 14
final reports during FY 1994. Requirements for which OSEP included
findings in three or more of those final monitoring reports are
summarized in table 6.4.
----------
Refinements to OSEP'S Monitoring Procedures Implemented in the 1994-95 School
Year
The Context of Monitoring Refinements
Over the past two years, OSEP has worked -- internally, with other
components of the Department, and with its customers -- to reorient
and strengthen its monitoring system so that it will -- in conjunction
with OSEP's research, innovation, and technical assistance efforts --
serve as an effective vehicle to support systemic reform that will
produce better results for students with disabilities, while
recognizing the need to continue to look at procedural compliance. In
assessing the effectiveness of its current monitoring system and
identifying strategies to strengthen that system, OSEP received input
from parents and a myriad of groups that advocate for children with
disabilities and their families, and from State directors of special
education and monitoring personnel. OSEP also used data from the
National Longitudinal Transition Study (NLTS) and other research
regarding learner results and systemic reform to inform its assessment
of and refinements to its system for ensuring accountability.
Based upon information from all of the sources described above,
together with ongoing formal and informal dialogue with State
educational agencies, advocacy groups, and other OSERS and Department
staff, OSEP identified essential characteristics of a strong
accountability system, including the following.
1. Strong and diverse customer input in the monitoring process.
2. Effective methods for ensuring compliance with Part B and related
Federal requirements, with strongest emphasis on those
requirements that relate most directly to continuous improvement
in learner results (e. g. , those requirements that relate most
directly to access to challenging curriculum, effective education
together with students who do not have disabilities, preparation
for work, etc.).
3. Prompt identification and correction of deficiencies.
4. Corrective action requirements and strategies that will yield
improved access and results for students, rather than simple
"paper compliance. "
Table 6.1 summarizes the monitoring procedures that OSEP implemented
during the 1993-1994 school year; with the exception of eliminating
the step of issuing a separate draft monitoring report, OSEP continued
to implement those basic procedures during the 1994-95 school year.
However, the ways in which these procedures are being implemented have
been refined for the 1994-95 school year. OSEP anticipates that these
changes will be the beginning of a process of further refining its
monitoring system over the next several years.
_TABLE 6.1 Typical Steps in On-Site Monitoring Reviews_
_Step 1: Select and inform States that OSEP will monitor during
following school year_
* Select States that OSEP will monitor during the following school
year. (Under the current schedule, OSEP visits approximately 15
States each school year.)
* In the spring, inform States that will be monitored the following
school year.
_Step 2: Conduct monitoring academy and arrange visit dates_
* In the spring, conduct monitoring academy for States that OSEP
will monitor the following year. SEA staff and representatives
from Parent Training and Information Projects are invited to
participate.
* At the time of the academy or shortly thereafter, arrange dates
with each State for public meeting/pre-site visit and on-site
visit. Issue memo to national organizations informing them of
dates for pre-site public meetings and on-site visits.
_Step 3: Conduct public meeting/pre-site visit_
* Send written notice to SEA and to State and national advocacy
organizations to inform them of upcoming compliance review and the
purpose, schedule, and location of public meetings, and to invite
their oral or written comments.
* Conduct public meetings to gather input from interested
organizations and individuals regarding appropriate issues and
geographical focuses of OSEP compliance review.
* While in State for public meetings, meet with SEA officials to
plan on-site visit, to collect data regarding State systems for
general supervision, and to collect other information to assist in
identifying appropriate issues and geographical focuses for OSEP
compliance review.
_Step 4: Plan on-site data collection procedures_
* After return from pre-site visit, continue to receive (and, if
appropriate, solicit) written and telephone comments to assist in
identifying appropriate issues and geographical focuses for OSEP
compliance review.
* Analyze and synthesize information from the public meetings and
other comment sources; pre-site meetings with SEA; SEA documents
(including State plan, monitoring and LEA application review
documents, placement data, funding formulas, etc.); previous OSEP
monitoring report(s) and related CAP documents; and other relevant
information.
* Use information from public input, preliminary interviews of State
officials, and review of State Plan and other documents, to
determine appropriate focuses for compliance review, to design
data collection and verification strategies and forms, and to
select State agencies and LEAs to be visited to collect data
regarding the effectiveness of SEA's systems for general
supervision.
_Step 5: Conduct on-site review_
* Interview SEA officials and review SEA documents to complete
collection of data regarding SEA's systems for general
supervision.
* Interview officials from other State agencies that provide
educational and/or residential services to students with
disabilities, to determine whether the educational programs for
such students are under the general supervision of the SEA and
meet the requirements of Part B and the standards of the SEA.
* Collect data in a number of public agencies, including local
educational agencies, to determine effectiveness of SEA's systems
for general supervision. (Data collection methods include
reviewing student records and interviewing agency administrators,
teachers, related service providers, and parents.)
* Note exemplary programs and practices.
* Summarize preliminary findings in exit conference with SEA
officials.
_Step 6: Analyze data and prepare draft report_
* Analyze and synthesize data collected from all sources to
determine areas of noncompliance.
* Prepare report that identifies legal requirements, findings of
noncompliance, data that support each finding, and results
expected from the corrective actions.
* Issue draft report to the SEA, informing State that it has 30 days
to respond in writing to accuracy and completeness of the draft
report.
_Step 7: Analyze State response to draft report and develop final
report_
* Analyze State's response to draft report and review OSEP data that
support any challenged findings.
* Revise report, if needed to ensure accuracy and completeness.
* Issue final report to State and disseminate to public.
_Step 8: Develop corrective action plan_
* Assist State, as needed, in developing its preliminary corrective
action plan (CAP) to be presented to OSEP.
* Agree on a CAP, including activities, timelines and needed
resources, using the State's preliminary CAP as the basis. This
will be done in a meeting or conference call with representatives
from the SEA, the State Advisory Panel and OSEP staff.
_Step 9: Review State documentation of corrective action_
* Review State's corrective action products and procedures, as
submitted.
* Document completion of State's CAP.
Source: U.S. Department of Education Program, Office of Special
Education Programs, Division of Assistance to the States.
The Focus of Monitoring
The NLTS identified several factors that are strong predictors of
postschool success in living independently, obtaining employment, and
earning higher wages for youth with disabilities. These factors
include: high school completion, participation in regular education
with appropriate supplementary aids and services, and access to
secondary vocational education, including work experience.
OSEP recognizes that while all IDEA requirements are important, some
of its requirements have a more direct relationship to student results
than others. OSEP appreciates the importance of focusing monitoring
activities on the requirements with the most direct relationship with
student results, and on emphasizing those requirements in the
corrective action process. OSEP understands that primary
responsibility for each State's compliance with IDEA lies with the
State, rather than with OSEP, and that parents must have access to
effective systems for ensuring compliance. It is, therefore, critical
that OSEP's monitoring system also focus on each State's systems for
general supervision.
OSEP is, therefore, focusing its compliance reviews on the
requirements with the strongest link to results and general
supervision. These requirements include:
1. Students with disabilities must have access to the full range of
programs and services available to nondisabled children (and the
supports and services that they need to learn effectively in those
programs), including regular and vocational education programs and
curricula and work-experience programs;
2. Individualized education programs (IEPs) must include a statement
of needed transition services for students with disabilities
beginning no later than age 16 (and younger if determined
appropriate);
3. Children with disabilities must be educated in the regular
education environment, unless their education cannot -- with the
use of supplementary aids and services -- be achieved
satisfactorily without removal from the regular education
environment. A continuum of alternative placements, as described
in the Part B regulations, must be available to meet the needs of
children with disabilities for special education and related
services and to the extent necessary to implement the IEP for each
child with a disability; and
4. Each State must use its systems for general supervision, including
its complaint management and due process hearing systems, to
ensure that all public agencies comply with the requirements of
Part B, including those emphasized above, in providing services to
students with disabilities.
Monitoring Procedures
_1. Customer Input and Involvement_
a. During the Pre-site Phase of the Monitoring Review
(1) _Monitoring Schedule_
OSEP has begun sending a schedule of all monitoring visits that
will occur during the next school year to a wide range of
national organizations that advocate on behalf of students with
disabilities and their families. Having this schedule enables
these organizations to assist local advocacy groups and parents
of children with disabilities in the affected States in
maximizing their input to OSEP regarding appropriate issue
foci, sites to visit, and data sources for each State.
(2) _Public Meetings_
As part of its monitoring review of each State, OSEP conducts
one or more public meetings. These meetings give parents,
parent and student advocates, educators, and other interested
individuals and groups an opportunity to provide information to
OSEP that will help determine the issues upon which the
monitoring review should focus and the sites in which data
should be collected to make compliance determinations. OSEP
mails a letter to parent and other advocacy organizations
within each State, informing them of the upcoming public
meetings and on-site visit to the State, and inviting them to
provide input to OSEP (through the public meetings, written
comments, and telephone conversations) regarding appropriate
issue foci, sites to visit, and data sources.
OSEP strengthened the public meeting process in two key ways:
(a) _Issues Addressed_
OSEP revised the letters it uses to announce the public
meetings. These letters now invite input regarding
systemic noncompliance and suggested corrective actions.
Interested parties are specifically asked to address
concerns and suggest corrective actions regarding the
following monitoring foci:
(i) Factors that may affect placement, such as the
State's funding system for special education;
(ii) Access to regular education curricula and
programs, including vocational education, and to
supports and modifications to enable students with
disabilities to learn effectively in regular
education environments;
(iii) The development and implementation of needed
transition services, including vocational education
and work experience;
(iv) Discipline procedures, including suspension
and expulsion;
(v)Disproportionate placement of students,
including students from minority backgrounds, in
inappropriately restrictive placements; and
(vi) Exemplary State and local educational programs
and practices that impact students with
disabilities.
(b) _Groups Invited_
OSEP continues to invite comments at public meetings and
written comments from such groups as the State's Parent
Training and Information center(s) (PTI centers), the
State's Protection and Advocacy agency for persons with
developmental disabilities and mental illness (P & A),
and other agencies that advocate for children and youth
with disabilities and their parents. OSEP broadened the
groups invited to include such groups as the State
Special Education Advisory Panel (SEAP), Independent
Living Centers (ILCs), organizations that represent
specific ethnic or language minorities, and organizations
that represent teachers, administrators, and school
boards.
(3) _Outreach Meetings_
The participation of individuals and groups representing a
broad range of perspectives in the public meeting and written
comment processes has greatly assisted OSEP in preparing for
the "on-site" components of the monitoring process. OSEP noted,
however, that dialogue is difficult, if not impossible, in the
public meeting format (in which a large number of individuals
and organizations wish to provide comments in a limited period
of time). OSEP began, therefore, to invite groups such as the
PTI center(s), P & A, SEAP, and ILCs to outreach meetings in
which OSEP can meet with representatives of these groups in a
smaller, more interactive group process to receive more
comprehensive information. The State's director of special
education is also invited to these meetings, so that the State
can also benefit from the information provided and questions
raised.
(4) OSEP receives a number of "complaint" letters in which
parents and other individuals and groups raise allegations that
the State educational agency or a local educational agency has
acted in a manner inconsistent with the Part B requirements.
(OSEP refers these letters to the State for resolution under
the State's Part B complaint procedures.)OSEP also receives a
number of letters requesting that the Secretary review
decisions made by the State educational agency on such
complaints.
These complaints and requests for Secretarial review, and the
State's response to the complaints that it receives, are a very
rich source of information regarding compliance issues and the
manner in which the State exercises its responsibility for
general supervision of all educational programs for students
with disabilities administered within the State. OSEP
implemented more systematic procedures for reviewing and
analyzing these letters and related materials as part of its
process for identifying appropriate issue foci, sites to visit,
and data sources for the on-site visit to each State.
b. During the On-site Phase of the Monitoring Review
(1) OSEP began to conduct a parent "focus group" in at least
one of the public agencies that it visits as part of our data
collection procedures in each State. The purpose of these focus
groups is to give parents an opportunity to inform OSEP of
their experiences in the development and implementation of an
educational program and placement for their children with
disabilities.
OSEP invites parents to these meetings from a list of parents
of children with disabilities provided by the local educational
agency; depending upon State- or district-specific issues or
concerns, OSEP may choose to invite parents whose children fall
into a specific category (e. g. , parents from an ethnic or
language minority if placement practices appear to have a
disproportional impact on such students, parents of students
over the age of sixteen if transition services is a
particularly strong concern, etc. ).
(2) OSEP may also contact parents who have filed complaints as
part of its data collection to determine the effectiveness of
the State's procedures for resolving complaints.
c. During the Post-site Phase of the Compliance Review
(1) As described in greater detail below, OSEP began during the
1994-1995 school year to use a more interactive process to
develop the corrective action plan component of its monitoring
reports. OSEP invites the State educational agency and the
Chairperson of the State's SEAP to participate in a meeting or
conference call to identify specific corrective action
requirements and strategies that will ensure timely compliance
and support the State's systemic reform efforts and continuous
improvement in student results.
(2) OSEP provides a copy of its monitoring report and the
agreed-upon corrective action plan to all individuals and
organizations that request copies.
_2. Timely Identification and Correction of Deficiencies_
a. Expedited Procedures for Final Monitoring Reports
For monitoring visits prior to the 1994-95 school year, OSEP
issued separate draft and final monitoring reports. OSEP and
many of our customers were concerned that the issuance of a
draft report, followed by 30 to 60 days for the State to
respond, then a further period of time for OSEP to analyze the
State's response and prepare the final report, resulted in
unnecessary delays in the initiation and completion of needed
corrective actions. As OSEP strengthened its procedures for
ensuring that its draft reports are accurate and clear, it
noted that very few significant changes occurred in findings
and corrective actions from draft to final reports, further
underlining the widespread recognition that the issuance of
draft reports was unnecessarily delaying corrective action and
attendant systemic reform.
Beginning with the 1994-95 monitoring cycle, OSEP no longer
issued separate draft and final reports. Instead, OSEP now
issues a single final monitoring report to the Chief State
School Officer and the State director of special education. The
State has 15 calendar days from the date on which it receives
the OSEP report within which to submit a letter to the OSEP
director documenting any instances in the report in which a
finding is without legal and/or factual support. Should OSEP
find it necessary to delete or revise a finding, a letter
setting forth the deletion or revision would be appended as a
part of the official report.
b. "Follow-up Visits" to Determine Effectiveness of Corrective Actions
OSEP conducted a pilot "follow-up" visit during the 1993-1994
school year and three follow-up visits during the 1994-95
school year. The purpose of these focused visits, the majority
of which were scheduled within twelve to twenty-four months
after the State has received its final monitoring report, has
been to determine the extent to which the State has effectively
implemented selected components of the agreed-upon corrective
action plan.
_3. Corrective Action Requirements and Strategies Yielding Improved
Access and Results for Students_
In the past, each OSEP monitoring report has included a corrective
action plan developed by OSEP with limited dialogue with the State.
OSEP recognizes that to better ensure that corrective actions
positively impact student results in a State, it is important to
include the State in the development of the corrective action
requirements and to integrate technical assistance with the
development, implementation, and evaluation of the corrective actions.
During the 1994-95 school year, OSEP implemented the following revised
procedures for the development of a corrective action plan to address
findings of noncompliance.
a. Each report has set forth parameters for the development of
a corrective action plan. These parameters specify the relevant
Federal requirement(s) and expected results of corrective
action for each finding. The extent to which the report
prescribes the specific steps that the State must follow to
ensure correction, and specific timelines for each step,
depends upon a configuration of factors, including the severity
of the findings, and the persistence of the identified
noncompliance (including whether the same violations were
identified in a previous monitoring report).
b. The cover letter to each report has also invited the State
to meet with OSEP (here in Washington or through a conference
telephone conversation) to establish more specific steps and
timelines for the corrective action plan. OSEP has also invited
the chairperson of the State's Special Education Advisory Panel
to participate in the meeting or conference call, and
encouraged the State to invite additional resource people, such
as Regional Resource Center staff, who could assist in the
development of the corrective action plan.
The cover letter to the report has also informed the State that
the corrective action plan must be developed within 45 days of
the State's receipt of the report. OSEP has also informed each
State that a if corrective action plan were not jointly
developed within 45 days, OSEP would unilaterally develop a
detailed corrective action plan for the State. (As appropriate,
monitoring staff have consulted with other OSEP staff who are
knowledgeable about technical assistance resources, including
systems change initiatives, research and dissemination
projects, Regional Resource Centers and other technical
assistance centers, etc.)In the meeting with the State, OSEP
has identified resources that could assist OSEP and the State
in the development of a corrective action plan, and the State
in the implementation of a plan, in a manner that will ensure
compliance and support systemic reform that will result in
improved student results.
----------
Summary and Implications
OSEP and its customers recognize that an effective accountability
system is critical to ensure continuous progress in achieving
educational results for children with disabilities. Over the past two
years, OSEP has worked -- internally, with other components of the
Department, and with its customers -- to reorient and strengthen its
accountability system so that it will -- in conjunction with OSEP's
research, innovation, and technical assistance efforts -- serve as an
effective vehicle to support systemic reform that will produce better
results for students with disabilities, while recognizing the need to
continue to look at procedural compliance.
To this end, in the 1994-95 school year OSEP refocused its monitoring
procedures to place emphasis on those requirements that relate most
directly to improving student results. Further, OSEP has sought and
used broad public input in the monitoring process, has worked closely
with States to ensure corrective action that results in legal
compliance and improved results for students, and has continued to
provide extensive technical assistance to States to assist them in
meeting the requirements of Part B in a manner that supports improved
results for students.
----------
Chapter 7
_______________________________________________________________________
Serving Students with Disabilities in Rural Areas
Special educators and administrators in rural areas face unique
challenges in providing a free appropriate public education to
students with disabilities, as required by the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Addressing these challenges
successfully may have a lasting impact on the ability of students with
disabilities in rural areas to obtain positive in-school and
post-school outcomes.
Due to the diversity among rural areas, programs tailored to
particular types of rural communities may be more effective than
generalized programs. Bender et al. (1985) described seven different
types of rural communities differentiated by economic base, population
characteristics, and the presence of Federally-owned land. These
communities include: those primarily dependent on farming,
manufacturing, or mining; those specializing in government functions;
those in persistent poverty; those composed mainly of Federal land;
and those whose population includes large numbers of retirees. Even
rural communities with similar population numbers, densities, and the
like, vary tremendously because of the variety of subcultures they
contain.
----------
Defining Rural School Districts and Schools
The lack of a clear, widely accepted definition of "rural" has impeded
research in the field of rural education. It is necessary to define
what areas are rural in order to determine the number of students
residing in rural areas, and to describe the characteristics of
educational programs for students with disabilities in rural areas.
When defining the term rural, population density and remoteness are
essential considerations because these factors strongly influence
school organization, availability of resources, and economic and
social conditions.
The U. S. Census Bureau defines a rural area as one that is not urban.
"Urban" is defined as either an urbanized area or places with
populations of 2,500 or more outside urbanized areas. An urbanized
area includes places and their adjacent densely settled surrounding
territory that together have a minimum population of 50,000 (U. S.
Department of Commerce, 1992).
Similarly, the Census Bureau defines non-metropolitan counties as
those outside metropolitan areas. Metropolitan areas are either (1)
those central counties of a large city (population of 50,000 or more)
and the outlying counties that have close economic and social ties to
the central city, or (2) a Census-defined urbanized area and a total
central county population of at least 100,000 (75,000 in New England)
(U. S. Department of Commerce,1992). This 1990 definition differs from
the 1980 one, which did not specify Census-defined urbanized areas
with a total population of 100,000 as metropolitan areas.
Because the geographic size of the areas or counties in the Census
Bureau classifications may be relatively large, rural and non-rural
territories may be included in any single area or county classified as
urban on the basis of its population. In addition, school district
lines may cross county lines, making it difficult to classify
districts that straddle rural and non-rural counties.
The Common Core of Data (CCD)1 Public Agency file contains
information on school districts across the country, including a
metropolitan/non-metropolitan code. However, the metropolitan status
code assignment is based on the county in which the district office is
located. As stated previously, non-metropolitan counties, as defined
by the Census Bureau, include all those counties outside metropolitan
areas. Because the size of the counties classified under this Census
Bureau scheme may be large, rural and non-rural territories may be
included in a single county or school district.
The CCD Public School Universe file contains information for each
public elementary and secondary school in the country. Locale code
assignments are based on the school building mailing address. Rural is
defined as a place with less than 2,500 people or a place with a ZIP
code designated as rural by the Census Bureau. The locale codes used
in the CCD Public School Universe file classify schools more
specifically than the CCD Public Agency file because the school codes
are tied to a place (related to the school mailing address) rather
than a county.
To classify the rural/non-rural status of school districts more
precisely, Elder (1992) has created a district-level file that uses
locale codes from the CCD Public School Universe file. Because
districts may contain rural and non-rural schools, one way to classify
districts as rural or non-rural is to examine the percentage of the
districts' students that attend rural schools (as recorded in the CCD
Public School Universe file). The 1990 data suggest that, based on the
types of schools students attend, most districts are either all rural
(43 percent) or all non-rural (47 percent). Ten percent of the
districts include both rural and non-rural schools.
To classify these mixed rural/non-rural districts as either rural or
non-rural, Elder (1992) set a 75 percent cutoff. If the percentage of
students in a district attending rural schools is 75 percent or more,
the district is classified as rural. Ninety percent of these mixed
rural/non-rural districts have less than 75 percent of their students
attending rural schools, while 10 percent have over 75 percent in
rural schools. Based on this adjustment, 44 percent of all districts
are rural. During the 1989-90 school year, 22,412 regular public
schools were located in rural areas, or about 28 percent of all
regular public schools in the U. S.
Data from the Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS)2 suggest slightly
lower figures for the 1990-91 school year. An estimated 21,701, or 27
percent, of all public schools were located in rural areas, as defined
by the U. S. Census Bureau.
_______________________
1 The Common Core of Data (CCD) survey collects information o
elementary and secondary public education the U.S. Data are collected
annually from the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Outlying
Areas. A total of 57 State-level educational agencies report
information on staff and students for approximately 85,000 public
schools and about 15,400 local educational agencies. Information about
revenues and expenditures is also collected at the State level (NCES,
1993a).
2 The Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) is an integrated mail survey
that provides information on teacher supply and demand, the
composition of the administrator and teacher work force, and the
status of teaching and schooling generally. SASS has four main
components; the Teacher Demand Shortage Survey, the School
Administrator Survey, the School Survey, and the Teacher Survey.
Respondents include school teachers, school principals, and school
district administrators. In 1990-91, some 12,958 schools (public and
private and administrators and 65,217 teachers were selected for
participation (NCES, 1993b).
----------
Number and Characteristics of Students with Disabilities in Rural Districts
To describe the population of students with disabilities in rural
school districts, data from the CCD Public School Universe File were
used to designate districts as rural or non-rural. The resulting file
was merged with data from the 1990 Office for Civil Rights Elementary
and Secondary School Survey.3 Together, the data describe rural and
non-rural school districts in terms of the disabilities and English
proficiency of their students with disabilities during the 1990-91
school year.4 Also presented in this section are data comparing
rural and non-rural areas in terms of socioeconomic status.
Disabilities
The data presented in table 7.1 indicate that rural and non-rural
districts serve very similar percentages of students with
disabilities. The overall percentage of students served in rural and
non-rural districts is similar, as is the distribution across
disability categories.
According to the SASS data for the 1990-91 school year, public schools
in rural areas served an estimated 497,000 students in special
education programs. The Office for Civil Rights Elementary and
Secondary School Survey, used in conjunction with the CCD Public
School Universe File, produced a similar estimate of 475,510. Slight
differences between the two surveys may be due to the different
criteria used to define rural schools and school districts.
___________________________________
_TABLE 7.1 Estimated Number and Percentage of Students with
Disabilities in Rural and Non-Rural School Districts During the
1990-91 School Year_
_Disability Rural Non-Rural
Number Percent Number Percent_
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Mental retardation 55,061 1.25 495,094 1.36
Hearing impairment 4,587 0.11 40,541 0.11
Speech/language impairment 131,319 2.98 940,762 2.59
Visual impairment 1,710 0.04 16,603 0.05
Serious emotional disturbance 25,588 0.58 245,249 0.67
Orthopedic impairment 3,484 0.08 41,221 0.11
Other health impairment 5,104 0.12 47,189 0.13
Specific learning disability 243,269 5.52 1,724,647 4.75
Deaf-blindness 97 0.00 1,152 0.00
Multiple impairments 5,291 0.12 81,011 0.22
All disabilities 475,510 10.80 3,633,469_a_/ 10.0
_a_/ The total number of students with disabilities in non-rural
districts equals the sum of students reported in each disability
category. Some districts reported different figures for 1) the total
number of students, and 2) the number of students by disability. As a
result, the figure presented is larger than the State-reported total
number of students with disabilities in non-rural areas by 60,768
students.
Source: The 1990 Office for Civil Rights Elementary and Secondary
School Survey and the 1990 Common Core of Data Public School Universe
File. Data is for students pre-kindergarten through grade 12.
___________________________________
Socioeconomic Status
Rural school districts serve a larger percentage of children living in
poverty than non-rural districts. Because socioeconomic status,
educational levels, and family structure have been shown to be related
to academic achievement (Laosa; Brown; Carter and Segura; Duran;
Henderson; Lambert; NCES; and Rosenthal, Baker, and Ginsburg in Young
et al. , 1986), poverty levels may affect the need for educational
services. A recent Children's Defense Fund report (Sherman, 1992)
indicates that 22.9 percent of rural children live in poverty,
compared to 20.6 percent of all American children and 20 percent of
non-rural children. The report also reveals that 41 percent of poor
rural children live in "extreme poverty," defined as a family income
below 50 percent of the Federal poverty threshold.
Rural districts are also more likely than non-rural districts to serve
children who live in poverty for long periods of time. Data from the
University of Michigan's Panel Study of Income Dynamics indicate that
rural children who become poor are more likely than urban children to
remain poor for at least three years (Sherman, 1992).
In a study examining differences between rural and urban school
districts in a midwestern State, Capper (1990) noted that in the
lower-income rural and small-town communities, community expectations
for student achievement varied according to the degree of poverty and
relative population sparsity. That is, the lower the income level and
the more rural the community, the lower the expectations teachers had
for students (Capper, 1990).
Data from the National Longitudinal Transition Study indicate that
rural counties had higher rates of unemployment than urban or suburban
counties. Whereas the unemployment rate in rural counties was over 9
percent, the rate in urban and suburban counties was 7 percent (Valdes
et al., 1990).
Limited English Proficiency
While rural areas have fewer students with limited English proficiency
than do urban areas, providing services for language minority-limited
English proficient (LM-LEP) students with disabilities may be
especially challenging in areas with limited access to specially
trained staff. The 1990 Office for Civil Rights Elementary and
Secondary School Survey estimates that 28,831 students with
disabilities in rural districts required language assistance in
addition to special education services to benefit from classroom
instruction. This represents 1.2 percent of all students with
disabilities in rural districts. In comparison, 2.3 percent of all
students with disabilities in non-rural districts require language
assistance.5
_______________________
3 The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) Elementary and Secondary School
Survey collects data on the characteristics of students enrolled in
public schools across the country. Public school districts and the
schools within those districts are surveyed to generate State and
natural estimates of the number of students identified as having
speech impairments, learning disabilities, educable mental
retardation, trainable mental retardation, serious emotional
disturbance, hearing impairments, orthopedic impairments, other health
impairments, deaf-blindness, and multiple disabilities. Other student
characteristics, such as ethnicity, gender, and English language
proficiency are also included in the file. The 1990 survey included
the 100 largest public school districts, those special interest (i.e.,
court order, compliance review), and a stratified random sample of
approximately 3,500 districts representing 40,000 schools (NCES,
1993a).
4 Disability definitions used by OCR are consistent with those used by
the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, with the
exception of the subcategories for students with mental retardation.
5 Detailed information on special education served for LM-LEP students
with disabilities appeared in the Fifteenth Annual Report to Congress
(U.S. Department of Education, 1993).
----------
Factors Associated with the Provision of Special Education to Students with
Disabilities in Rural Districts
Rural school districts face many challenges in meeting the needs of
all their students, including students with disabilities. Research
indicates that very small districts, those with 200-300 students,
spend more per pupil than larger districts. This occurs because a
school board, superintendent, principal, faculty, and equipment are
needed no matter how small the district, and because low enrollment
districts are likely to occur in sparsely populated areas that require
more costly transportation (Walberg and Fowler in Hobbs, 1988). These
costly administrative expenditures increase the per pupil cost while
simultaneously reducing the funds available for education and
education services, such as an expanded curriculum or specialized
teachers.
A 1990 survey of superintendents and business managers of small rural
school districts identified rural location and small size as negative
effects on education because of:
* isolation imposed by terrain and distance;
* declining economies in many rural areas (including high rates of
poverty and unemployment);
* the financial burden of Federal and State-mandated but underfunded
or unfunded programs;
* reduced community value placed on formal education; and
* inappropriate and/or poor fiscal management practices (Freitas,
1992).
A recent communication panel convened by the National Association of
State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE) consisting of special
education directors from eight rural States agreed that these are the
most prevalent issues in providing programs and services for students
with disabilities living in rural areas. Other issues were rural
district's inability to compete in the teacher job market; limited
opportunities for in-service training or preservice training
specifically designed for special educators in rural areas; crime,
violence, and drug abuse; and limited curricular offerings due to
small district size. However, of the eight panel members, five
identified personnel recruitment and retention as the most critical
issue facing their States. They recommended various financial
solutions for improving special education for students with
disabilities in rural areas. These include increased teacher salaries,
funding for technology and materials in rural areas, and federally
funded grants to rural areas (Hicks, 1994).
The geographic isolation common to rural districts can impede every
aspect of the special education process -- identification and
assessment, service delivery, and availability of adequate personnel.
Factors Affecting Identification and Assessment in Rural Areas
A 1986 survey of school psychologists in rural areas of California,
Georgia, Indiana, and Iowa examined challenges to effective assessment
in rural settings. Among the major challenges school psychologists
identified were difficulty finding psychometrically adequate measures
of adaptive behavior, heavy caseloads, and travel demands. The
psychologists felt that heavy caseloads and travel demands reduced the
time available to perform the comprehensive evaluations required by
IDEA (Huebner et al., 1986).
IDEA requires that States must assure that testing and evaluation
materials and procedures used to determine placement of students in
special education programs are non-discriminatory. However, many
standardized tests have limited capacity to assess the abilities of
children from minority backgrounds, including students from rural
areas. Hilton (1991) indicates that the culturally biased nature of
many standardized tests may lead to low test performance among
students with primarily rural life experiences and students from rural
cultures.
In a study of 214 rural children from middle-class farm homes and 214
matched children from middle-class suburban metropolitan homes, Hilton
(1991) found rural and suburban cultures led to significantly
different performance profiles on the Preschool Language Survey. A
significantly higher proportion of rural children failed a wide age
range of verbal ability and auditory comprehension items. Anecdotal
data from the study indicated that more of the rural students were ill
at ease in the strange surroundings, were quieter, would not venture a
guess as often, and were less willing to interact with the unfamiliar
adult examiners.
In order to address cultural bias in assessment materials and
procedures, the following are some of Hilton's (1991) suggestions.
* Develop a cultural awareness inservice curriculum to increase
knowledge and awareness of unique cultural differences.
* Develop local norms for frequently used standardized tests.
* Conduct item analyses to identify specific problems hidden by
aggregate scores.
* Rely heavily on feedback from those administering the test to
identify evidence of cultural bias.
* Implement modified testing procedures in response to evidence of
cultural bias.
* Modify the dialectical language used by the examiner and accept
dialectical differences used by the child.
Factors Affecting Special Education Service Delivery in Rural Areas
The geographic isolation common to rural areas may affect delivery of
special education and related services through factors such as
placement, personnel, and parental involvement. For example, service
delivery may be difficult in rural communities in which the population
fluctuates in response to a local industry such as mining. Some
administrators, faced with seemingly "overnight" doubling of their
client population because of temporary influxes of community workers,
find that by the time they locate resources to provide services, those
populations have significantly decreased, as the workers move on
(Helge, 1991). In remote areas of Nevada, for example, the population
fluctuates dramatically in relation to the prices of gold and other
metals mined in the area. Within a 30-day period, a district can lose
a substantial proportion of its average daily attendance (and student
turnover in a single school can be 50 percent or more) because the
price of gold has fallen below a certain point and the mines shut down
(Scott, 1984).
Providing Services in the Least Restrictive Environment
Rural districts serve a greater percentage of students with
disabilities in regular classroom placements than do non-rural
districts. As shown in table 7.2, rural districts serve 14.6 percent
of students with disabilities in full-time special education programs,
compared to 25.3 percent for non-rural districts. These full-time
programs remove students from regular classes for 60 percent or more
of the school day. The data indicate that for each disability group,
except for students with deaf-blindness, rural districts serve a
smaller proportion of students in full-time special education
programs, compared to non-rural districts.
___________________________________
_TABLE 7.2 Estimated Percentage of Students with Disabilities in
Full-Time and Part-Time Special Education Placements for Rural and
Non-Rural Districts During the 1990-91 School Year_
_Rural Non-Rural
Disability Part-Time Full-Time Part-Time Full-Time_
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Mental retardation 60.9 39.1 33.9 66.1
Hearing impairment 81.8 18.2 60.5 39.5
Speech/language
impairment 95.2 4.8 92.3 7.7
Visual impairment 84.1 15.9 68.2 31.8
Serious emotional
disturbance 73.3 26.7 56.8 43.2
Orthopedic impairment 77.6 22.4 53.8 46.2
Other health impairment 79.6 20.4 67.5 32.5
Specific learning
disability 88.2 11.8 80.2 19.8
Deaf-blindness 29.6 70.4 39.2 60.8
Multiple impairments 45.2 54.8 22.8 77.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------
All disabilities 85.4 14.6 74.7 25.3
Source: The 1990 Office for Civil Rights Elementary and Secondary
School Survey and the 1990 Common Core of Data Public School Universe
File. Data is for children pre-kindergarten through grade 12.
___________________________________
Data from the 1990 Office for Civil Rights Elementary and Secondary
School Survey also provide information on the number of students with
disabilities served outside of their home districts. While one might
assume that, because of a lack of resources, rural districts would
have a greater percentage of out-of-district placements, the data do
not support this assumption. The data indicate that both rural and
non-rural districts serve 5.5 percent of students outside of their
home districts.
Rural school districts have utilized a variety of approaches to
providing services for students in the least restrictive environment.
In some cases, students requiring specialized instructional or related
services are served in residential facilities far from their home
district. In other cases, students are served in regional programs,
cooperatives, or intermediate education units that offer specialized
services for students from a group of districts located in the same
general area. These placements may require long hours of travel each
day. In some cases, rural States and districts have developed means of
serving students with significant impairments in local schools and
classes.
* A personnel preparation program in Vermont, funded by the U.S.
Department of Education's Office of Special Education Programs
(OSEP), prepares instructional assistants for the education of
students with severe disabilities in their local public schools
and other community settings. The competency-based certificate
program targets trainees who are already employed as instructional
assistants in small and rural districts. Trainees take coursework
and participate in a practicum focusing on school-based and
community-based instruction for students with severe disabilities.
Approximately 60 trainees are accepted into the program each year.
* Since 1985, Southlake Special Services in Idaho has joined five
rural school districts together in a cooperative to provide work
experience and community-based instruction to youth with
disabilities. Students in the program receive employment skills
training and transition support services. A 1987 survey indicated
that all of the students who participated in the program were
either employed or attending vocational/trade school (Pierce and
Beebe, 1988).
* In an effort to support all students with disabilities within
their local public schools, Vermont received a grant from OSEP to
prepare educational specialists trained to work with students with
serious emotional disturbance in rural settings. Students with
serious emotional disturbance are among those often placed outside
of their home district for services. The graduate students in the
program take 21 course credits and complete a practicum focusing
on school-based and family-based intervention services for
students with serious emotional disturbance.
Recruiting and Retaining Qualified Personnel
Recruiting and retaining staff qualified to serve students with
disabilities is particularly difficult in rural areas. Factors
impeding successful recruitment and retention include salaries that
are not competitive with those offered in more urban areas, distances
from urban cultural centers and universities, the frequency with which
staff must travel to serve students, and professional isolation.
Recruiting related services personnel may be particularly difficult.
In rural areas, there are rarely enough students to have separate
programs for students with different disabilities. Staff must often be
qualified to serve students with a variety of disabilities. However,
certification requirements in many States mandate that teachers
specialize in one or more disability areas and be certified to serve
students with particular disabilities. If efforts to recruit fully
certified staff are unsuccessful, rural districts may be forced to
apply for emergency certificates in order to fill vacant positions.
Teacher retention is also a problem for rural districts, and among
special education teachers in rural districts, attrition can be as
high as 20 percent nationally. Personnel turnover has been estimated
at 30 to 60 percent annually in specialized areas such as speech and
physical therapy. Turnover is also especially acute among
professionals who must travel long distances from site to site to
serve, on an itinerant basis, students with disabilities (McIntosh,
1986).
A study of rural teacher turnover in Kansas indicated that 20.9
percent of teachers in the study sample did not return the next year.
Of those who did not return, 70.7 percent accepted positions in larger
school districts. Many teachers reportedly resigned because of the
isolation of their social and cultural lives. Furthermore, the
teachers' level of community satisfaction, which was the largest
determinant of whether a teacher remained in the rural community, was
affected to the greatest extent by marital status. Married teachers
were not affected by the social and cultural isolation of rural areas
to the same degree as were single teachers. Two other effective
predictors of community satisfaction were similarity of the community
where a teacher worked to their home community and community size
preference (Anshutz, 1988).
In addition to social and cultural isolation, many rural educators
feel professionally isolated. Capper (1993) indicates that the small
numbers of teachers at rural schools and school districts' inability
to send teachers to training and development programs restrict
professional development opportunities. Rural educators may be unable
to participate in professional development opportunities because of
the travel times involved (Capper and Larkin, 1992). Without this
professional contact, educators may feel "left behind" and unable to
learn new teaching strategies.
In an attempt to combat professional isolation and diminish the high
turnover among its rural special educators, Maine administers the
Support Network for Rural Special Educators. The Network offers
regional support groups that meet three times a year, two teacher
academies that run for four days in the summer, and a yearly statewide
winter retreat. In 1990, 90 percent of all school districts and 75
percent of special education teachers and support service personnel in
the State were involved in some aspect of Maine's Network (National
Clearinghouse for Professions in Special Education, 1990).
Other efforts to increase recruitment and retention rates include
OSEP-funded programs to train and retrain special education personnel
to work in rural areas. Some of these programs are described below:
* Ohio's Bowling Green State University conducts Project RAISE to
train teachers to meet the needs of rural special education
students, improve the quality of teachers in rural special
education, and assist in recruiting and retaining such teachers.
The program teams students who are majoring in special education
and were originally from rural areas in the State with practicing
special education teachers with no formal training in rural
special education. The program provides academic coursework in
rural special education and practical teaching experience in
remote/rural areas of northwest Ohio. Participants who
successfully complete the program receive a masters of education
degree in special education with specialization in rural special
education (Russell et al., 1992).
* The University of Wisconsin at Whitewater has implemented a
graduate program to train early intervention professionals to work
in rural areas with the birth to three-year-old special education
population and their families. Project TRAIN includes coursework,
fieldwork, and two six-week practicum experiences (Reid and Bross,
1993).
* In order to increase the number of licensed personnel serving
students with hearing impairments in Minnesota's rural areas, as
well as areas of Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota, Idaho, and
northern Wisconsin, the University of Minnesota received an OSEP
personnel preparation grant to develop a curriculum to provide
continued support to teachers in rural areas. The program recruits
teachers with substantial work experience in rural areas. They
will be trained in areas throughout the State. This is a
cooperative venture involving State universities, the State
Academy for the Deaf, the State educational agency, and local
districts and cooperatives.
* Project RESPOND, designed by the University of Nebraska-Lincoln
and funded by OSEP, will recruit and train speech-language
pathologists for rural Nebraska school districts. The project
features coursework dealing with issues that confront rural
practitioners and an extended practicum in a rural educational
agency, in addition to more standard coursework. The project will
support seven full-time candidates per year over three years.
Maintaining Active Parent Involvement
Parents of students with disabilities in rural areas may also feel
isolated from their peers. Many rural areas do not have
parent-oriented organization chapters, such as the Arc (formerly the
Association for Retarded Citizens) or the Learning Disabilities
Association. Rural parents are scattered widely, making participation
in such organizations difficult. As a result, parents of students with
disabilities in rural areas may not have as many opportunities as
parents in more urban settings to become involved in their children's
education.
In an effort to increase parental involvement, the University of
Washington Early Childhood Home Instruction Program provides
home-based services to birth to three-year-old children with hearing
impairments and their families. A trained "parent facilitator"
provides year-round services to families in rural western Washington.
A family service plan, outlining family goals and objectives, is
developed, based on child and family assessments and parent input. In
weekly home visits, parent facilitators work to educate parents about
hearing impairments and the child's special needs, and suggest
activities parents can use to stimulate the child's learning. For
families that live close to the University or can provide their own
transportation, parent support groups, sign language classes, and play
group activities for children with hearing impairments and their
siblings are offered several times a week. Approximately 65 children
with hearing impairments and their families participate in the program
each year (Thompson, 1994).
----------
Services for Students with Disabilites in Rural Schools
The National Longitudinal Transition Study (NLTS) was mandated by
Congress in 1983 to provide information on the transition of youth
with disabilities from secondary school to early adulthood. The NLTS
provides a broad array of data on a nationally representative sample
of secondary special education students who were 13 to 21 years old in
the 1985-86 school year. Furthermore, the study sample was designed to
provide data by type of community--rural, suburban, and urban (Valdes
et al., 1990).6 This section presents data from the NLTS describing
services available to and received by students with disabilities in
rural, suburban, and urban secondary schools across the country.7
Data from the NLTS indicate that students with disabilities in rural
secondary schools spent an average of 52 percent of class time on
academic subjects, such as English/language arts, mathematics,
science, social science, and foreign language. This was slightly lower
than the percentage for students with disabilities in urban schools
(56 percent). Table 7.3 shows coursetaking patterns for secondary
students with disabilities in rural, suburban, and urban schools. In
their most recent school year, over 90 percent of secondary students
with disabilities in rural schools took English/language arts, 72
percent took mathematics, 55 percent took science, and 70 percent took
other academic courses. The percentage of students enrolled in each
academic course was slightly higher in urban schools than in rural
ones. Students in suburban schools had coursetaking patterns similar
those of students in rural schools.
___________________________________
_TABLE 7.3 Courses Taken by Students with Disabilities in Rural,
Suburban, and Urban Schools During Their Most Recent Year in Secondary
School_
_Academic Courses Taken Rural Suburban Urban_
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage taking English/language
arts classes 90.6% 89.6% 93.3%
(1.5) (1.7) (1.6)
Percentage taking mathematics classes 72.2% 74.1% 78.2%
(2.3) (2.4) (2.6)
Percentage taking science classes 55.0% 54.3% 55.8%
(2.6) (2.7) (3.2)
Percentage taking other academic
classes 70.2% 69.5% 76.1%
(2.4) (2.5) (2.7)
Percentage taking nonacademic classes 86.1% 88.7% 84.0%
(1.8) (1.7) (2.3)
Percentage taking nonsubject specific
special education classes 8.1% 10.3% 9.8%
(1.4) (1.7) (1.9)
Note: Academic courses include English/language arts, mathematics,
science, social science, and a foreign language. Other courses are
considered nonacademic. Data is for students age 13-21.
Note: Standard errors are in parentheses.
Source: National Longitudinal Transition Study, SRI International.
___________________________________
Students with disabilities in rural secondary schools received a
variety of special education and related services in order to meet
educational needs stemming from a disability. As shown in table 7.4,
54 percent of all secondary students with disabilities in rural
schools received job training during their most recent school year, 28
percent received occupational therapy/life skills training, 18 percent
received speech/language therapy, and 15 percent received personal
counseling/therapy.
___________________________________
_TABLE 7.4 Services Received by Youth with Disabilities in Rural,
Suburban, and Urban Schools During Their Most Recent Year in Secondary
School_
_Services Received Rural Suburban Urban_
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Job training 53.5% 61.3% 50.6%
(2.6) (2.6) (2.9)
Occupational therapy/life skills
training 28.3% 27.9% 25.1%
(2.3) (2.4) (2.5)
Speech/language therapy 17.5% 20.3% 21.2%
(2.0) (2.1) (2.4)
Personal counseling/therapy 14.6% 14.8% 23.1%
(1.8) (1.9) (2.5)
A tutor, reader, or interpreter 14.1% 15.1% 17.1%
(1.8) (1.9) (2.2)
Help with transportation because of
disability 7.8% 11.2% 13.5%
(1.4) (1.7) (2.0)
Physical therapy/mobility training 6.5% 3.5% 6.3%
(1.3) (1.0) (1.4)
Note: Data is for students age 13-21.
Note: Standard errors are in parentheses.
Source: National Longitudinal Transition Study, SRI International.
___________________________________
Similar percentages of students with disabilities in rural, suburban,
and urban schools received occupational therapy/life skills training,
tutor, reader, or interpreter services, or physical therapy/mobility
training during the year. A slightly higher percentage of students in
suburban areas received job training than did students in urban or
rural areas. Students with disabilities in urban areas were more
likely than students in other types of communities to receive personal
counseling or transportation assistance.
Because the NLTS focused on the transition from secondary school to
adult life, a great deal of data were collected on vocational
education services. As shown in table 7.5, 62 percent of secondary
students with disabilities in rural schools were enrolled in some form
of vocational education in their most recent year of schooling,
compared to 69 percent of students in suburban schools and 59 percent
of students in urban schools. Of those rural secondary students with
disabilities enrolled in vocational courses, approximately half took
occupationally-oriented courses. The other half took either home
economics-oriented courses or other vocational education courses, such
as prevocational courses, work exploration, or on-the-job training. On
average, secondary students with disabilities were enrolled in
approximately 5 hours of vocational coursework per week.
___________________________________
_TABLE 7.5 Percentage of Students with Disabilities in Rural,
Suburban, and Urban Schools Participating in Vocational Education
During Their Most Recent Year in Secondary School_
_Vocational Education Courses
Taken Rural Suburban Urban_
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage enrolled in:
Any vocational education 62.4% 68.6% 58.9%
(2.3) (2.3) (2.7)
Occupationally-oriented vocational
education 49.6% 55.5% 44.0%
(2.3) (2.5) (2.7)
Home economics-oriented vocational
education 30.0% 25.9% 24.8%
(2.4) (2.4) (2.8)
Other vocational education_a_/ 11.9% 17.5% 16.4%
(1.5) (1.9) (2.0)
Average hours per week in:
Any vocational education 5.2 5.5 4.5
(0.3) (0.3) (0.3)
Occupationally-oriented vocational
education 3.5 3.7 2.7
(0.2) (0.3) (0.3)
Home economics-oriented vocational
education 1.3 1.1 1.0
(0.1) (0.1) (0.1)
Other vocational education 0.7 1.0 1.0
(0.1) (0.1) (0.2)
_a_/ Other vocational education includes training in prevocational
skills, work exploration/work experience, and on-the-job training.
Data is for children age 13-21.
Note: Standard errors are in parentheses.
Source: National Longitudinal Transition Study, SRI International.
___________________________________
As shown in table 7.6, youth with disabilities in rural areas attended
schools that provided a wide range of vocational education services,
including life skills programs (92 percent), vocational assessment
counseling (90 percent), work adjustment training (84 percent),
specific job skills training (70 percent), work exploration/experience
(50 percent), job development/placement services (58 percent), and
post-employment services (25 percent). In less than 2 percent of rural
schools, none of these vocational services were available. Slightly
larger percentages of suburban schools reported providing service and
programs than urban and rural schools.
___________________________________
_TABLE 7.6 Services and Programs Available in Rural, Suburban, and
Urban Schools Attended by Secondary Students with Disabilities_
_Services/Programs Rural Suburban Urban_
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage of schools that made
available to secondary special
education students:
Life skills program 91.7% 91.4% 86.8%
(1.4) (1.5) (2.1)
Vocational assessment/counseling 89.8% 93.1% 89.7%
(1.6) (1.4) (1.9)
Work adjustment training 84.4% 85.0% 91.8%
(1.9) (1.9) (1.7)
Specific job skills training 69.8% 73.4% 70.0%
(2.4) (2.4) (2.9)
Job development/placement services 58.0% 69.9% 71.8%
(2.6) (2.4) (2.8)
Work exploration/experience 49.8% 74.4% 69.9%
(2.6) (2.3) (2.9)
Post-employment services 25.2% 45.9% 49.6%
(2.2) (2.7) (3.2)
None of these 1.6% 0.6% 0.9%
(0.6) (0.4) (0.6)
Note: Data is for children age 13-21.
Note: Standard errors are in parentheses.
Source: National Longitudinal Transition Study, SRI International.
___________________________________
Despite the widespread availability of various vocational education
services, relatively small percentages of secondary students with
disabilities reportedly received such services. As shown in table 7.7,
12 percent of secondary students with disabilities in rural schools
received testing/assessment services, 14 percent received specific job
skills training, 13 percent received basic skills training, 12 percent
received career counseling, and 12 percent received job placement
services. It is unclear from these data whether students chose not to
enroll in the available vocational courses or if there were not enough
spaces available to serve all those who requested such services.
___________________________________
_TABLE 7.7 Percentage of Youth with Disabilities who Received
Different Vocational Services in Rural, Suburban, and Urban Schools in
Their Most Recent Year of Secondary School_
_Service Characteristics Rural Suburban Urban_
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage who received:
Job skills training 13.9% 16.2% 11.8%
(1.8) (2.0) (1.8)
Basic skills training 12.9% 13.8% 8.4%
(1.8) (1.8) (1.6)
Career counseling 12.2% 14.9% 11.2%
(1.7) (1.9) (1.8)
Job placement services 12.2% 14.3% 11.6%
(1.7) (1.9) (1.8)
Testing/assessment 11.5% 15.3% 11.7%
(1.7) (1.9) (1.9)
Note: Data is for children age 13-21.
Note: Standard errors are in parentheses.
Source: National Longitudinal Transition Study, SRI International.
___________________________________
When one looks more closely at the types of vocational education
students received, slight differences among rural, suburban, and urban
schools become more apparent. Secondary students with disabilities in
rural areas were most likely to study construction trades (32
percent), office occupations (22 percent), and agriculture (20
percent). As one might expect, students in rural schools were more
likely than students in urban or suburban schools to take agricultural
courses, and less likely to study office occupations (see table 7.8).
Students with disabilities in rural schools were also less likely than
their urban and suburban peers to participate in on-the-job work
programs.
___________________________________
_TABLE 7.8 Percentage of Students with Disabilities in Rural,
Suburban, and Urban Schools Studying Specific Vocational Education
Fields During Their Most Recent Year in Secondary School_
_Vocational Education Courses Rural Suburban Urban_
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage of vocational
education students studying:
Construction trades 32.4% 24.9% 18.8%
(2.9) (2.8) (3.0)
Office occupations 21.9% 25.0% 30.0%
(2.6) (2.8) (0.5)
Agriculture 19.8% 9.2% 4.5%
(2.5) (1.8) (1.6)
Machine/auto/motor repair 16.9% 13.3% 12.3%
(2.3) (2.2) (2.5)
Prevocational skills 16.7% 16.6% 23.3%
(2.3) (2.4) (3.2)
Food service 9.6% 8.0% 8.8%
(1.8) (1.7) (2.1)
Manufacturing/industrial arts 7.2% 7.1% 5.1%
(1.6) (1.6) (1.7)
On-the-job/work experience 6.6% 11.0% 11.2%
(1.6) (2.0) (2.4)
Painting/decorating/graphic art/
commercial art/drafting 6.5% 7.7% 8.3%
(1.5) (1.7) (2.1)
Distributive education 4.1% 5.1% 5.0%
(1.2) (1.4) (1.7)
Custodial services 3.9% 3.6% 3.8%
(1.2) (1.2) (1.4)
Electronics/communications 2.7% 2.7% 2.4%
(1.0) (1.0) (1.2)
Personal services 2.5% 1.6% 2.8%
(1.0) (0.8) (1.3)
Health occupations 1.6% 2.8% 2.6%
(0.8) (1.1) (1.2)
Other
1.1% 5.6% 7.9%
(0.7) (1.5) (2.0)
Note: Data is for children age 13-21.
Note: Standard errors are in parentheses.
Source: National Longitudinal Transition Study, SRI International.
___________________________________
In order to describe in more detail the types of topics covered in
vocational education classes, the NLTS surveyed schools regarding
course content. Schools providing work adjustment training typically
cover specific instructional areas, such as relationships with
coworkers, attendance/punctuality, appropriate grooming, job-related
practices, use of transportation, and work skills. The vast majority
of rural, suburban, and urban schools providing work adjustment
training addressed most of these areas of instruction. One exception
was use of transportation. Rural schools providing work adjustment
training were less likely than urban or suburban schools to cover this
instructional area, presumably due to the lack of transportation
alternatives in many rural areas.
In schools providing job development and placement services, specific
services included referrals to potential employers, transporting
students to and from interviews, reviewing interview experiences,
helping prepare resumes, and working with employers on job
modifications. Rural schools providing job development and placement
services were less likely than suburban or urban schools to refer
students to potential employers, 76 percent, 89 percent, and 94
percent, respectively. Furthermore, 58 percent of special education
students participating in job development programs in rural schools
were placed in jobs. Suburban schools had a somewhat better placement
rate of 67 percent.
The vast majority of rural schools providing life skills programs for
students with mild disabilities included training in functional
skills, such as telling time (87 percent), home care skills (92
percent), planning/goal setting (100 percent), social skills (100
percent), and use of community resources (94 percent). Self-care
skills were considerably less common (37 percent). Patterns were quite
similar for urban and suburban schools.
For students with more severe impairments, rural schools offering life
skills training tended to focus on planning/goal setting (100
percent), social skills (95 percent), and use of community resources
(88 percent). They offered functional skills instruction (66 percent)
and self-care skills (48 percent) less often.
Data in table 7.9 indicate that fewer schools in rural areas (42
percent) than in urban (64 percent) or suburban areas (61 percent) had
vocational education classes designed specifically for students with
disabilities. Staff in participating rural schools reported using a
variety of techniques to help students with disabilities in regular
vocational classes. Increasing teacher contact and simplifying
instructions were the most common techniques. Staff also reported
making physical adaptations and providing aides. While the percentage
of urban, suburban, and rural schools providing these types of
assistance were fairly similar, slightly fewer rural schools reported
providing aides for students with disabilities in vocational classes.
Furthermore, rural schools reported fewer hours, on average, spent in
community-based vocational education experiences compared to urban and
suburban schools.
___________________________________
_TABLE 7.9 Accommodations Provided for Secondary Students with
Disabilities in Vocational Education Classes in Rural, Suburban, and
Urban Schools_
_Services/Programs Rural Suburban Urban_
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage in schools with vocational
classes designed specifically for
students with disabilities 42.3% 60.5% 63.6%
(2.5) (2.6) (3.0)
Percentage in schools that helped
students with disabilities in
regular vocational classes by:
Increasing teacher contact 70.0% 78.0 73.2%
(2.5) (2.4) (3.2)
Simplifying instruction 67.4% 69.9% 56.5%
(2.5) (2.6) (3.6)
Making physical adaptations 44.1% 47.4% 39.3%
(2.7) (2.9) (3.6)
Providing human aides 30.0% 55.1% 49.2%
(2.5) (2.9) (3.6)
Other accommodations 7.9% 10.8% 6.8%
(1.5) (1.8) (1.8)
Note: Data is for children age 13-21.
Note: Standard errors are in parentheses.
Source: National Longitudinal Transition Study, SRI International.
___________________________________
Data from the NLTS indicate that secondary students with disabilities
who took vocational courses in rural schools spent 63 percent of their
course time in classroom instruction, 13 percent in community-based
experiences, and 13 percent in work experiences at school. Special
education students in urban and suburban schools spent slightly more
time in community-based experiences, 19 percent and 16 percent,
respectively.
For those students in rural schools receiving vocational services, the
average hours per year of vocational instruction was 150 (see table
7.10). The services accounting for the greatest hours of service were
tutor/reader/interpreter services (52) and occupational therapy/life
skills instruction (35). For students receiving
tutor/reader/interpreter services, speech/language therapy, and help
with physical needs, suburban schools tended to provide more hours of
service per year than did urban or rural schools.
___________________________________
_TABLE 7.10 Average Hours of Services Received by Youth with
Disabilities in Rural, Suburban, and Urban Schools During Their Most
Recent Year in Secondary School_
_Service Rural Suburban Urban_
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Average hours of vocational services
provided recipients in past year 150 169 138
(8.9) (9.9) (11.1)
Average hours of service provided
to recipients in past year:
Tutor/reader/interpreter services 51.7 67.6 50.1
(9.5) (17.5) (12.4)
Occupational therapy/life skills
training 35.4 25.6 24.0
(7.8) (5.7) (7.4)
Speech/language therapy 14.0 21.7 14.1
(3.5) (4.7) (3.5)
Help with physical needs 9.0 19.0 10.2
(6.6) (11.7) (7.3)
Counseling/therapy 7.8 7.7 11.0
(2.9) (2.1) (3.5)
Note: Data is for children age 13-21.
Note: Standard errors are in parentheses.
Source: National Longitudinal Transition Study, SRI International.
___________________________________
The data from the NLTS provide an overview of some of the services
available for students with disabilities in rural schools, and provide
an opportunity to compare and contrast services in rural, suburban,
and urban schools. Because the study was so extensive,only a small
percentage of data available on services for students with
disabilities in rural schools was presented here. Additional data are
available from the study's _Statistical Almanac, Volume 1: Overview_
(Valdes et al., 1990).
_______________________
6 The types of communities in which youth last attended secondary
school are categorized as rural, suburban, or urban based on the U.S.
Department of Commerce definitions of metropolitan statistical areas
as outlined on page 7-2.
7 For each percentage and mean, the NLTS tables include the
approximate standard error in parentheses.
----------
Summary and Implications
When considering the challenges of serving rural students with
disabilities, it is important to remember the diversity that exists
within rural America. Rural areas may differ in terrain, climate,
population density, language, economic base, and culture. These
differences must be considered when addressing the needs of students
with disabilities in rural settings.
Approximately 475,000 students with disabilities reside in rural
school districts. Rural and non-rural districts serve similar
percentages of students with disabilities, and the distribution of
students across disability groups is also similar. However, data
suggest that rural districts serve a larger proportion of students
living in poverty, which may affect educational performance.
Factors such as availability of appropriate assessment instruments,
placement in the least restrictive environment, availability of
appropriate personnel, and maintaining active parental involvement can
present challenges to staff in rural areas. However, data suggest that
a smaller percentage of students with disabilities in rural districts
are placed in full-time special education classes compared to
non-rural districts.
Data from the National Longitudinal Transition Study provide a great
deal of information on services for secondary students with
disabilities in rural, suburban, and urban schools. The data indicate
that secondary students with disabilities spend over half the day
studying academic subjects, such as language arts, mathematics, and
science. In addition, 62 percent of secondary students with
disabilities in rural schools took some type of vocational education
in their most recent year of schooling. Despite the fact that a wide
range of vocational education services are available in schools that
students with disabilities attend, the percentage of students
enrolling in such courses is fairly low. For those who did participate
in vocational education, services averaged 150 hours per year.
In future special education studies, researchers should make every
effort to collect data that can be analyzed for similarities and
differences between rural and non-rural districts, as was done with
the NLTS. In this way, researchers will ensure that the unique needs
of rural schools and school districts are not neglected as service
providers, administrators, and policy makers develop and implement
programs for students with disabilities.
References
Anshutz, J. (1988).
_Contributors to Rural Teacher Turnover._ Presentation at the
Rural and Small Schools Conference, Manhattan, KS.
Bender, L. et al. (1985).
_The Diverse Social and Economic Structure of Nonmetropolitan
America._ Washington, DC: Economic Research Services.
Capper, C. (1993).
Rural community influences on effective school practices.
_Journal of Educational Administration._
Capper, C. (1990).
_Exploring the Influence of Community Socioeconomic Class,
Location, and Culture on Effective School Linkages for
Preschool Students with Disabilities._ Madison, WI: Department
of Educational Administration, Wisconsin University.
Capper, C. and Larkin, J. (1992).
The regular education initiative: Educational reorganization
for rural school districts. _Journal of School Leadership, 2,_
232-245.
Elder, W. (1992).
_The Use of Census Geography and County Typologies in the
Construction of Classification Systems for Rural Schools and
Rural School Districts._ Paper presented at Annual Meeting of
American Education Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
Freitas, D. (1992).
_Managing Smallness: Promising Fiscal Practices for Rural
School District Administrators._ Charleston, WV: ERIC
Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools, Appalachia
Educational Laboratory.
Helge, D. (1991).
_Rural, Exceptional, At Risk._ Reston, VA: The Council for
Exceptional Children.
Hicks, J. (1994).
Special education in rural areas:Validation of critical issues
by selected State directors of special education. Alexandria,
VA: National Association of State Directors of Special
Education.
Hilton, L. (1991).
Cultural Bias and Ecological Validity in Testing Rural
Children. _Rural Education, 12,_ 16-20.
Hobbs, D. (1988).
_Relationships between school and school district size,
educational costs and student performance - A review of the
literature._ Unpublished manuscript.
Huebner, E. S. et al. (1986).
Barriers to Effective Assessment in Rural Areas. _Rural
Educator,_ 7(2), 24-26.
McIntosh, D. (1986).
Problems and solutions in delivery of special education
services in rural areas. _Rural Educator, 8_(1), 12-15.
National Center for Education Statistics. (1993a).
_Digest of Education Statistics: Guide to Sources._ Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Education.
National Center for Education Statistics. (1993b).
_1990-91 Schools and Staffing Survey: Sample Design and
Estimation. Technical Report._ Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Education.
National Clearinghouse for Professions in Special Education. (1990).
_Maine's support network for rural special educators: Success
through communication._ Reston, VA: The Council for Exceptional
Children.
Pierce, C. and Beebe, V. (1988).
_Southlake special services transition program for handicapped
youth: Comprehensive summary._ A paper presented at the Eighth
Annual ACRES National Rural Special Education Conference,
Monterey, CA.
Reid, B. and Bross, M. (1993).
Project TRAIN: Training rural area interventionists to meet
needs. _Rural Special Education Quarterly,_ 12(1), 3-8.
Russell, S. et al. (1992).
_Rural America institute for special educators: A collaborative
preservice teacher training program for rural special
education._ Paper presented at the Annual Conference of Teacher
Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children,
November 11-14, 1992, Cincinnati, OH.
Scott, R. (1984, September).
Teaching and Learning in Remote Schools: A Dilemma Beyond Rural
Education. _Information from the National Information Center
for Handicapped Children and Youth._ Washington, DC.
Sherman, A. (1992).
_Falling by the Wayside: Children in Rural America._
Washington, DC: Children's Defense Fund.
Thompson, M. (1994).
Management of young hearing-impaired children and their
families. In J. Roush and N. Matkin (Eds. ), _Infants and
Toddlers with Hearing Loss: Family Centered Assessment and
Intervention._ Parkton, MD: York Press.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. (1992).
_1990 Census of Population and Housing: Summary Population and
Housing Characteristics, Appendix A--Area Classifications.
_Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs.
(1993).
_Appendix F. Special Populations: Limited English Proficient
Students with Disabilities, in The Fifteenth Annual Report to
Congress on the Implementation of The Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act._ Washington, DC: Author.
Valdes, K., Williamson, C., & Wagner, M. (1990)
The National Longitudinal Transition Study of Special Education
Students: Statistical Almanac, Volume 1, Overview. SRI
International: Palo Alto, CA.
Young, M. et al. (1986).
_Instructing Children With Limited English Ability._ Arlington,
VA: Development Associates