The U.S. Department of Education has published a 1996 annual report on the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). To help one browse or print the document, I've inserted a line of 10 dashes and a page break between sections. Since it is about 525K in size, I've also put "End of Document" at the bottom to indicate whether you received it completely. If not and you want it, let me know and I'll send it on disk. 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_ Eighteenth Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act U.S. Department of Education 1996 ---------- Eighteenth Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act U.S. Department of Education 1996 _________________________________________________________________ Table of Contents Title page * Preface * List of Abbreviations and Acronyms * Executive Summary * Chapter 1. School-Age Students with Disabilities Served, Exiting Patterns, and Personnel Who Provide Special Education and Related Services + Formula Grant Program + Number and Disabilities of Children and Youth Served Under IDEA, Part B + Students with Disabilities Exiting Special Education + Services Anticipated to be Needed by Exiting Students with Disabilities: Results of the Second PASS Field Test + Personnel Serving Students with Disabilities + Summary and Implications * Chapter 2. Meeting the Needs of Preschool Children and Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities + Implementation of the Preschool Grants Program + Implementation of the Part H Program + Other OSEP Programs and Projects Benefitting Young Children with Disabilities + Summary and Implications * Chapter 3. Progress in Achieving the Full Participation of Students with Disabilities in their Schools and Communities: Federal Initiatives + What the Data Show: The Positive Results of IDEA + Educational Placements for Students with Disabilities + Statewide Systems Change for Students with Severe Disabilities + Summary and Implications * Chapter 4. Meeting the Needs of Students with Disabilities in the Inner Cities + Number and Characteristics of Students with Disabilities in Inner-City Districts + Factors Associated with the Provision of Special Education to Students with Disabilities in Inner Cities + Outcomes for Youth with Disabilities in Urban Areas + Summary and Implications * Chapter 5. Assisting States and Localities in Educating All Children with Disabilities * _Appendices_ + Appendix A. Data Tables (not included in this version) + Appendix B. Summaries of State Agency/Federal Evaluation Studies Program + Appendix C. Abstracts of State Agency/Federal Evaluation Studies Program + Appendix D. Profiles of the Program Agenda + Appendix E. Activities of the Regional Resources Centers + Appendix F. Activities and Results of the State Transition Grants + Appendix G. Methodology Used to Project Personnel Needs Over a Five-Year Period ---------- Preface _______________________________________________________________________ This _Annual Report to Congress_ marks the 20th anniversary of the passage of P.L. 94-142. Since 1975, educational services for students with disabilities have changed dramatically as a result of this legislation. Substantial progress has been made toward meeting the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act's (IDEA's) goal of providing a free appropriate public education for all children with disabilities. But access to a free appropriate public education and procedural safeguards do not guarantee positive educational results. The Goals 2000: Educate America Act, the School-to-Work Opportunities Act, the Improving America's Schools Act, and the Department of Education's proposal for the reauthorization of IDEA focus on improving educational results for all students, including students with disabilities. A major goal during IDEA's third decade will be to build upon the successes of the past 20 years and to achieve improved educational results for students with disabilities. Before IDEA was enacted, one million children with disabilities were excluded from school, and many others were housed in institutions that did not address their educational needs. Today, one of the basic goals of the law--ensuring that children with disabilities are not excluded from school--has been largely achieved. Almost 5.5 million children and youth with disabilities are currently receiving special education services. All States and jurisdictions now provide services to preschoolers with disabilities, and all States and jurisdictions now assure full implementation of the Part H program for infants and toddlers with disabilities. During the past 20 years, results for children with disabilities have improved dramatically. Graduation rates are higher. More students are going to college. Today, half of all adults with a disability have completed some college or received a degree, compared with only 30 percent in 1986. More than half of all youth with disabilities (56 percent) are competitively employed within 5 years of leaving school. The number of children served in costly State institutions has declined significantly; today, just over 1 percent of all children with disabilities live in institutions. Research and understanding of how to improve educational results for children with disabilities have also improved significantly. As a result of more than 20 years of research, demonstration projects, information dissemination, and technical assistance, an important knowledge base exists on effective teaching and learning strategies for children with disabilities. For example, as described in Chapter 3 of this_ Annual Report_, the Department of Education recently sponsored 5-year grants in 16 States to increase the physical, social, and academic inclusion of students with severe disabilities. Other States, school districts, and schools are also translating the accumulated knowledge base into improved practice and improved results for students with disabilities. While significant progress has been made toward providing a free appropriate public education to students with disabilities and improving results for those students, several challenges remain. Two of these challenges are highlighted in this report--inclusion in regular education settings and providing services to students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds in urban areas. First, a central purpose of IDEA is to ensure an effective and individualized education designed to address each child's unique needs in the least restrictive environment. IDEA requires that students with disabilities be educated in the regular classroom with appropriate aids and services, with their nondisabled peers in the school they would attend if not disabled, unless the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with use of supplemental aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily. States and school districts have made and continue to make progress in meeting this goal. States report that an increasing proportion of students are served in regular classes. Where students with disabilities are appropriately educated in inclusive environments, research shows that students--both those with disabilities and those without disabilities--benefit academically and socially. Second, significant challenges exist to providing special education services to students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, particularly in urban settings. These students are often inappropriately identified and served. Patterns of disproportionate representation--overidentification of some groups and underidentification of others--have been observed in some States and school districts. These issues are currently a focus of Federal and State efforts to ensure that these students are identified and placed appropriately. This year's_ Annual Report_ describes the Department of Education's efforts to work in partnership with States to maximize results for students with disabilities. These efforts include monitoring and technical assistance activities which are tailored to individual State needs. The _Annual Report_ consists of five chapters. Current and historical service patterns for school-age students with disabilities are discussed in Chapter 1 and for infants, toddlers, and preschoolers in Chapter 2. Chapter 3 describes the progress made toward achieving full participation of students with disabilities in their schools and communities and the results achieved by these students. Chapter 4 outlines the challenges to providing special education services to students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, particularly in urban settings, and provides information on some services and programs found to be effective in serving these populations. Finally, Chapter 5 focuses on OSEP's efforts to ensure continuous progress in achieving educational results for children with disabilities while maintaining procedural compliance with IDEA. ---------- List of Abbreviations and Acronyms _______________________________________________________________________ _BIA_ Bureau of Indian Affairs _CAP_ corrective action plan _CCD_ Common Core of Data _CPS_ Current Population Survey _DANS_ Data Analysis System _DID_ Division of Innovation and Development _DPP_ Division of Personnel Preparation _EEPCD_ Early Education Program for Children with Disabilities _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 _GLARRC_ Great Lakes Area Regional Resource Center _HCEEP_ Handicapped Children's Early Education Program _IASA_ Improving America's Schools Act _ICC_ interagency coordinating council _IDEA_ Individuals with Disabilities Education Act _IEP_ individualized education plan _IEU_ intermediate educational unit _IFSP_ individualized family service plan _LEA_ local educational agency _LEP_ limited English proficient _LRE_ least restrictive environment _MPRRC_ Mountain Plains Regional Resource Center _MSRRC_ Mid-South Regional Resource Center _NASDSE_ National Association of State Directors of Special Education _NCES_ National Center for Education Statistics _NEC*TAS_ National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center _NERRC_ Northeast Regional Resource Center _NHES_ National Household Education Survey _NLTS_ National Longitudinal Transition Study of Special Education Students _NTN_ National Transition Network _OCR_ Office of 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 _SAFES_ State Agency/Federal Evaluations Studies _SARRC_ South Atlantic Regional Resource Center _SASS_ Schools and Staffing Survey _SEA_ State education agency _WRRC_ Western Regional Resource Center ---------- Executive Summary _______________________________________________________________________ The _Eighteenth 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 detailed 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 report. _Chapter 1_: School-Age Students with Disabilities Served, 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. * The Improving America's Schools Act of 1994 (IASA) amended the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) by eliminating the Chapter 1 Handicapped Program and including funding for all eligible children and youth with disabilities under IDEA. The adjustment affects the way the numbers of students served are reported. * Funds appropriated in 1995 for IDEA, Part B increased by 8 percent, from $2,149,686,000 in 1994 to $2,322,915,000 in 1995. This includes $82,878,000 in appropriations from the Chapter 1 Handicapped Program. However, the total increase was not solely attributable to the merger of these two programs. The per child allocation rose from $413 in 1994 to $418 in 1995. * A total of 5,439,626 children and youth ages 3-21 were served under IDEA, Part B during the 1994-95 school year. This figure represents an increase of 3.2 percent from the previous year. * Children ages 3-5 had the largest growth rate (6.7 percent) in 1994-95, followed by students ages 12-17 (3.6 percent). The number of students ages 18-21 decreased by 1.2 percent. The number of students ages 6-11 showed a moderate increase of 2.5 percent. * The percentage of students with learning disabilities remained level for a second year in a row at 51.1 percent. Students with speech or language impairments (20.8 percent), mental retardation (11.6 percent), and serious emotional disturbance (8.7 percent) made up an additional 41.1 percent of all students with disabilities ages 6-21. * A review of 5-year trends shows that from 1990-91 through 1994-95, the number of students served under IDEA, Part B increased by 12.7 percent. The largest increase occurred in the number of students with other health impairments. Much of the increase in this category may be related to an increased number of students diagnosed with attention deficit disorder. * During the past 5 years, the percentage of students with disabilities ages 14 and older graduating with a certificate or diploma has remained fairly stable. Of all students ages 14- 21 in special education in 1993-94, the students most likely to graduate with a diploma were those with visual impairments, hearing impairments, orthopedic impairments, and traumatic brain injury. Students with mental retardation and deaf-blindness were most likely to graduate with a certificate of completion or modified diploma. * Data from the second PASS (Performance Assessment for Self-Sufficiency) field test (PASS is designed to measure services anticipated to be needed by exiting students with disabilities) was conducted in 8 States for over 2,200 students exiting the educational system. The results of the second field test were similar to the results of the first field test. The most prevalent primary need was case management (80 percent of the total sample), followed by alternative education (51 percent), and services to support postsecondary education (49 percent). * The number of personnel needed to serve students with disabilities has grown along with the increase in the number of children with disabilities served. During the 1993-94 school year, the number of teachers employed to serve children ages 6-21 increased 6.5 percent to 331,392, and the number of teachers needed (employed-not fully certified and vacant) declined 4.4 percent to 24,697. The two largest categories of special education teachers employed were specific learning disabilities and cross-categorical, and the largest number of vacant positions were in the speech or language impairments, specific learning disabilities, and cross-categorical categories. _Chapter 2_: Meeting the Needs of Preschool Children and Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities This chapter provides an update on the implementation of the Preschool Grants Program (Section 619 of Part B) and the Early Intervention Program for Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities (Part H). It includes a detailed analysis of the State-reported data and OSEP-funded projects related to serving children with disabilities from birth through age 5. * In FY 1995, Congress appropriated $360,265,000 for the Preschool Grants Program, 6.2 percent more than the $339,257,000 appropriated in FY 1994. However, the number of 3- through 5-year-olds served increased 6.7 percent from 491,685 to 524,458 in FY 1995. This figure includes more than 16,000 children who would have been served under the Chapter 1 Handicapped Program in FY 1994. * During the 1993-94 school year, more than 22,000 FTE special education teachers were employed to serve students ages 3-5 with disabilities, almost 19 percent more than in 1992-93. Slightly over 2 percent of the funded positions were vacant, and an additional 8.5 percent of the positions were filled by teachers not fully certified. Almost 85 percent of the fully certified teachers were retained from the previous year, and more than 66 percent of the teachers not fully certified were retained from 1992-93. * In 1993-94, 48 percent of preschoolers were served in regular classes, 31 percent in separate classes, 9 percent in separate schools, and the remaining 2.3 percent in residential facilities and home/hospital programs. * To help promote smooth, effective transitions for children and their families, as reported in the _Section 619 Profile,_ 25 States and Outlying Areas have developed or are developing policies that allow the use of Section 619 funds for children before their third birthday. Also, 23 States and Outlying Areas have a policy that allows Part H funds to be used past a child's third birthday. Coordination is also achieved through the Part H Interagency Coordinating Councils (ICCs). Fourteen States and Outlying Areas have ICCs that focus on the birth through age 5 populations. Additionally, many States reported their State educational agencies (SEAs) have developed interagency agreements with other agencies in an effort to reduce duplication of efforts and maximize scarce resources. * In FY 1995, $315,632,000 was appropriated for the Part H program, including $34,000,000 to compensate for the addition of children served under the Chapter 1 Handicapped Program prior to FY 1995. This is almost a 25 percent increase over the $253,152,000 appropriated in FY 1994. * On December 1, 1994, the number of infants and toddlers receiving early intervention services increased to a total of 165,253 (1.4 percent of the entire birth through age 2 population). This total included infants and toddlers with an Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP) who would have been eligible under the Chapter 1 Handicapped Program and those who received early intervention services through other programs. * The majority of all infants and toddlers continue to receive most of their services in one of three settings: home (47 percent), early intervention classrooms (30 percent), and outpatient service facilities (16 percent). The five most commonly provided services for eligible infants and toddlers were: (1) special instruction; (2) family training, counseling, and home visits; (3) speech and language pathology; (4) physical therapy; and (5) occupational therapy. * Among the 15 reporting categories for personnel employed and needed to provide early intervention services to infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families, the three categories with the largest number of personnel were special educators, paraprofessionals, and speech and language pathologists. * States are engaged in efforts to improve the capacity of their statewide systems to deliver early intervention services, including setting up ICCs at the local level (41 States). Also, States are exploring a variety of ways to increase the number of qualified personnel. * Innovative projects continue to be supported by OSEP. During FY 1995, the Early Education Program for Children with Disabilities supported 125 projects: 41 demonstration projects, 47 outreach projects, 27 inservice projects, 4 research institutes, 5 statewide data systems projects, and 1 national technical assistance center. _Chapter 3_: Progress in Achieving the Full Participation of Students with Disabilities in Their Schools and Communities: Federal Initiatives This chapter highlights the progress made toward full participation by students with disabilities as a result of the implementation of the Act. It includes data from several sources that highlight the postschool results for students with disabilities, and the State-reported school placement data for students ages 6-21. A summary of findings from site visits to five States that had OSEP-sponsored statewide systems change grants is also included. * During the 1993-94 school year, approximately 12 percent of elementary and secondary students received special education services (a 44 percent increase since the beginning of the program in 1975), and 95 percent of those students are served in regular school buildings. Overall, educational levels have risen for individuals with disabilities, and the percentage of college freshmen reporting disabilities has tripled from 2.6 percent in 1978 to 8.8 percent in 1991. Also, in the years since the implementation of IDEA, employment rates for individuals with disabilities have improved. * Time in regular education and vocational classes for secondary education students was associated with positive school results, according to results from the National Longitudinal Transition Study of Special Education students (NLTS). For example, secondary education students who succeeded in regular education had higher employment, independent living, and community participation rates. * Quality education and proper supports are essential components of successful school experiences. Also, there is no single special education policy that benefits all students. A range of options, tailored to meet the individual needs of all students, continues to be the most effective approach. * Data for students with disabilities ages 6-21 show that during the past several years, the percentage of students with disabilities served in regular classes has increased, while the percentage of students in resource rooms has decreased. Other placement percentages have remained stable. * States report a tendency to serve a larger percentage of students with disabilities ages 6-11 in regular classrooms; that percentage decreases for students ages 12-17 and 18-21. This pattern holds across all disability groups except specific learning disabilities. The percentage of 18- through 21-year-olds with learning disabilities in regular classes was larger than the percentage of 12- through 17-year-olds in regular classes. * Placement patterns vary by disability. The majority of students with speech and language impairments are served in regular classes. Students with learning disabilities, orthopedic impairments, serious emotional disturbance, and traumatic brain injury are generally placed in regular school buildings, but are then spread across regular classes, resource rooms, and separate classes. Separate classroom placements are most prevalent for students with mental retardation, autism, and multiple disabilities. However, resource room placements are also commonly used to serve students with mental retardation and multiple disabilities. * Between 1987 and 1990, 16 States received 5-year statewide systems change grants to increase the physical, social, and academic integration of students with severe disabilities; increase the capacity of State and local education agencies to provide effective services to students with severe disabilities; empower parents; and promote collaboration among parents, students, and service providers. * Site visits in five States that were awarded statewide systems change grants--Colorado, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Washington--were conducted. Contextual factors such as stake-holder support, relationships among key individuals, the presence of necessary preconditions for change, and local culture affected the extent and type of change achieved. * The level of SEA support for change was a critical factor in understanding statewide systems change. Some of the indicators of State support for inclusive programming included: a strong association between the systems change project and the SEA; proactive statewide policies; the presence of State-level reform efforts that are compatible with systems change; State efforts to close separate schools and/or regional centers and transition students back to their home schools; and the availability of State funds to supplement the Federal systems change grant. * The States visited conducted relatively similar project activities. However, different States chose to emphasize different avenues to systems change. States developed or adapted frameworks for best practices, provided technical assistance to selected schools or school districts to facilitate inclusive programming, promoted awareness of systems change efforts through inservice training and other dissemination strategies, and reformed preservice training. * The nature of systems change also varied by State. Colorado and Vermont were particularly successful in changing State policy to promote inclusion of students with disabilities. Pennsylvania changed the role of its intermediate units from providing direct services to providing technical support and moving students from regional programs to local ones. Washington and Pennsylvania were particularly successful in leveraging State funds to expand technical assistance. Vermont, Pennsylvania, and Michigan reported moving sizable numbers of students to more inclusive settings during the grant period, and Vermont reduced its special education child count through enhanced general education services. All five States enhanced statewide awareness of inclusion. * Challenging issues for most or all States included: spreading change from the target site to other locations; institutionalizing change at the secondary level; meeting the needs of students with emotional impairments in inclusive settings; and defining appropriate roles for paraprofessionals. _Chapter 4_: Meeting the Needs of Students with Disabilities in the Inner Cities This chapter explores the unique challenges of special education programs in inner cities. The chapter synthesizes information from a variety of sources to provide a profile of special education in the nation's inner cities. * Inner-city and non-inner-city areas appear to have similar percent-ages of students in special education--10.4 percent and 10.8 percent, respectively. Little variation exists between the two types of areas by disability. * Thirty percent of all inner-city students live in poverty, compared to 18 percent of students living outside inner cities. Data from the NLTS on secondary education students indicate that families of students with disabilities in urban areas are more likely to live in poverty than families of students with disabilities in suburban or rural areas. * Inner-city districts enroll a greater percentage of limited English proficient students than non-inner-city districts, and data suggests that 5 percent of special education students in inner-city districts have limited English proficiency, compared to 1 percent in non-inner-city districts. * Public schools in inner cities enroll almost twice as many African American and Hispanic students as do non-inner-city schools. The percentage of African American students enrolled in special education is generally high relative to their representation in the general student population. In some individual States and in some disability categories, Hispanics are over and underrepresented relative to their proportion of the total population. In general, Asian American students are represented in special education at a lower rate proportional to the general population. * Although a large number of African American and Hispanic students attend inner-city schools and are reportedly over-represented in special education, two types of areas apparently enroll virtually the same percentage of students in special education. According to an analysis of NLTS data, the disproportionate representation of African Americans in special education is a function of relatively low income and the disabilities associated with poverty. When income is accounted for, disproportionate representation remains in the categories of speech or language impairments, visual impairments, and mental retardation. * IDEA and its implementing regulations require that the special education assessment process be conducted in a nondiscriminatory manner. However, in inner-city schools and school districts, identification and assessment of students for special education is complicated by the effects of poverty, race/ethnicity, and limited English proficiency. A central concern over the disproportionate representation of minority students in special education is the role of intelligence tests in identifying students with disabilities. * Current research suggests that for limited English proficient students, it is very difficult to distinguish between the effect of a disability on the student's achievement and the student's failure to understand the majority language and culture. This difficulty is a serious impediment to accurately assessing the student's disability. * Data from the Office of Civil Rights suggest that students with disabilities living in inner cities are more likely to be placed in restrictive environments. NLTS data confirm that urban secondary students with disabilities spend less time in regular education classrooms than students living in nonurban areas. * NLTS data indicate that secondary students with disabilities in urban areas spend a slightly higher percentage of their class time in academic subjects than students with disabilities in rural or suburban schools. * Special education teachers are in particularly short supply in inner-city areas. Also, schools have failed to attract a sufficiently diverse work force, and over the past 20 years the proportion of African American college graduates entering teaching has declined to a lower level than that of whites. * Two national datasets on parental reports of disability among their children provide inconsistent results. In the Current Population Survey data, which includes families of children ages 5-17, white families reported that their children had a disability at a higher rate (5.6 percent) than African American families (4.6 percent) or Hispanic families (2.7 percent). In the National Household Education Survey data, which includes families of children age 3 through grade 2, white and African American parents reported prevalence rates of 12.4 and 12.1 percent respectively, while Hispanics reported a prevalence rate of 14.4 percent. In both sets of data, reports of disability diminish as income increases, and rates by race/ethnicity become more similar in the higher income ranges. * According to NLTS data, youth in urban areas were less likely than their peers in suburban and rural areas to graduate from high school and were more likely to drop out of school. Suburban youth with disabilities who were out of secondary school two years or more reported taking any postsecondary courses in the past year at a slightly higher rate (17 percent) than urban youth with disabilities (14 percent) or rural youth with disabilities (12 percent). * Employed youth with disabilities in urban areas earned slightly more than youth in suburban or rural areas. A sizeable proportion of youth in urban, suburban, and rural areas were employed in manual labor and restaurant work. _Chapter 5_: 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 systems. * OSEP works in partnership with States, institutions of higher education, students with disabilities and their families, advocacy groups, and others to ensure positive educational results for children. OSEP also recognizes the critical importance of its monitoring responsibility and activities to ensure compliance with Congress' mandates. * OSEP has determined that the requirements with the strongest links to results and general supervision include: (1) access to the full range of programs and services, with proper supports as determined through an Individualized Educational Program (IEP), available to nondisabled children; (2) statements of needed transition services for students with disabilities no later than age 16; and (3) education in the least restrictive environment (LRE). * During the past 3 years, OSEP has worked intensively to reorient and strengthen its monitoring system so that it will--in conjunction with research, innovation, and technical assistance efforts--support systematic reform that produces better results for students with disabilities and ensures compliance. * OSEP uses research, dissemination, demonstration, systems change, and other technical assistance strategies to provide State and local educational agencies with tools to assist them in improving teaching and learning. * To ensure a strong accountability system, OSEP has placed emphasis on customer input in the monitoring process, the requirements that relate most directly to continuous improvement in learner results, prompt identification and correction of deficiencies, and corrective action requirements and strategies that yield improved access and results for students with disabilities. * During the 1994-95 school year, OSEP conducted comprehensive monitoring visits to 14 States, Puerto Rico, and the Pre-College Programs of Gallaudet University. OSEP is conducting comprehensive monitoring visits to 11 States during the 1995-96 school year. * During FY 1995, OSEP issued 21 final monitoring reports that concentrated in the areas of student access to instruction and vocational preparation, procedural safeguards for children with disabilities and their parents, and the SEA's exercise of its general supervision responsibility. ---------- Chapter 1 _______________________________________________________________________ School-Age Students with Disabilities Served, 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 have access to a free appropriate public education (FAPE) that is determined on an individual basis and designed to meet their unique needs. This education must be provided in the least restrictive environment (LRE), and the rights of the child and family are protected through procedural safeguards. IDEA also requires the Secretary of Education to determine how well the States are fulfilling these requirements. To determine how well the States are providing FAPE to students with disabilities, several data sources are used. One of those sources is the State-reported data required 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. States also provide data on educational placements (which are included in Chapter 3 of this report), the exiting status for students with disabilities, and the number of personnel employed and needed to serve these students. Information on monitoring, compliance, and procedural safeguards is reported in Chapter 5. This chapter consists of the five main sections described below. * _Formula Grant Program_ describes the financial assistance provided to States in educating children and youth with disabilities under IDEA, Part B. * _Number and Disabilities of Children and Youth Served Under IDEA, Part B_ reports the number of children and youth with disabilities ages 3-21 receiving services under IDEA, Part B during the 1994-95 school year, and describes trends over time in the number of children served. * _Students with Disabilities Exiting Special Education_ reports the status of students ages 14-21 who exited special education programs in 1993-94. * _Services Anticipated to Be Needed by Exiting Students with Disabilities: Results of the Second PASS Field Test_ reports the results of the second field test of the Performance Assessment for Self-Sufficiency (PASS) instrument and expert system for reporting data on anticipated service needs. * _Personnel Serving Students with Disabilities_ reports the number of teachers and other personnel employed and needed to serve students with disabilities during the 1993-94 school year. Revisions to the collection of data on personnel employed and needed are discussed. ---------- Formula Grant Program The funding structure of the IDEA, Part B State Grant Program, which provides States and Outlying Areas with financial assistance to educate children and youth with disabilities, is reviewed in this section. 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 2.1 The IDEA, Part B program distributes funds to the States and Outlying Areas based on the total number of students with disabilities ages 3-21 reported by the States and Outlying Areas as receiving special education and related services. To obtain this count, each State education agency (SEA) conducts a child count on December 1 of each year and submits it to OSEP. The State's IDEA, Part B grant for the next fiscal year is based on that count. The Improving America's Schools Act of 1994 amended IDEA in a number of ways: On October 20, 1994, the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994 (IASA) was enacted. This Act reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA). However, the Chapter 1 Handicapped program,2 Subpart 2 of Part D of Chapter 1 of Title I of the ESEA, was not reauthorized. Beginning with the fiscal year 1995 appropriation, all children with disabilities are to be served under programs authorized by Part B and Part H of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The IASA included a number of amendments to the IDEA to provide for a smooth transition to serving all children under IDEA programs. The IASA made a number of changes to facilitate the merger of the Chapter 1 Handicapped program with the Grants to States program under Part B of the IDEA. The major change is a hold-harmless provision under which no State may receive an allocation of less than the total it received from the fiscal year 1994 appropriation for children with disabilities aged 3 through 21 years old under the Grants to States and Chapter 1 Handicapped programs. In fiscal years 1998 or 1999, if the number of children with disabilities aged 3 through 21 years old served by a State declines below the total number of such children counted under the Grants to States and Chapter 1 Handicapped programs for that State for allocating the fiscal year 1994 appropriation (December 1, 1993 count), the hold-harmless amount would be reduced by the same percentage by which the number of children declined below the number in 1994. (OSEP, 1995) The provisions of this merger that pertain to infants and toddlers are discussed in Chapter 2 of this Report. The IASA also made changes to the cap in IDEA that are described below. The IASA changed the cap in the IDEA pertaining to the Grants to States program which specified that children with disabilities aged 3 through 17 in excess of 12 percent of the number of all children in the State in that age range cannot be counted for the distribution of funds. The cap has been changed to the greater of 12 percent or the combined percentage of children counted for the purpose of making fiscal year 1994 allocations under the Grants to States and Chapter 1 Handicapped programs. (OSEP, 1995) Table 1.1 summarizes the amount of IDEA, Part B funding appropriated to States and Outlying Areas for FY 1977 through FY 1995. Funds appropriated under IDEA, Part B have increased steadily from $251,770,000 in 1977 to $2,322,915,000 in 1995. During the same period, the average per child IDEA, Part B allocation increased from $71 to $418. ___________________________________ _TABLE 1.1 IDEA, Part B State Grant Program: Funds Appropriated, 1977-95_ _Appropriation_ _IDEA, Part B_ _Per Child_ _Year_ _State_ _Grants_a/ _Allocation_b/ ---- ----------- ---- 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 1995 2,322,915,000c/ 418 a/ The figures from 1977 through 1994 include amounts appropriated to the Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of the Marshall Islands. In 1995, those entities received no appropriations. b/ The per child allocation excludes children and funds for the Outlying Areas and BIA and is based on the child count information available as of July 1 of the fiscal year. c/ This amount includes $82,878,000 added to the Grants to States appropriation because of the elimination of the Chapter 1 Handicapped Program. Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Data Analysis System (DANS). ___________________________________ At least 75 percent of a State's IDEA, Part B funds must be distributed to local educational agencies (LEAs) to assist in the education of students with disabilities [34 §CFR 300.706]. The LEAs are required to ensure that these funds do not supplant State and local funds, 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 IDEA, Part B funds for State 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 State 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 for such activities during FY 1985. _______________________ 1 These two programs will be referred to as Part H and the Preschool Grants Program throughout this Report. 2 This program will be referred to as the Chapter 1 Handicapped Program throughout this Report. ---------- Number and Disabilities of Children and Youth Served Under IDEA, Part B Total Number of Children and Youth Served In 1994, IASA amended the ESEA by eliminating the Chapter 1 Handicapped Program and including funding for all eligible children and youth with disabilities under IDEA. This adjustment affects the way data on students served are reported. Prior to 1994-95, infants and toddlers served through Chapter 1 Handicapped Program funds were reported under both the Chapter 1 Handicapped Program count, which was combined with the IDEA, Part B count for reporting purposes, and the Part H count. As of December 1, 1994, more than 100,000 infants and toddlers who would have been served under Chapter 1 Handicapped Program were reported exclusively under Part H. Therefore, this section will only discuss data on children and youth with disabilities ages 3-21 served under the IDEA, Part B program. ___________________________________ _TABLE 1.2 Students Ages 3-21 Served: a/ Number and Percentage Change, School Years 1987-88 through 1994-95_ _Change in Total_ _Number Served from_ _School Year_ _Previous Year (%)_ _Total Served_ ----------- ------------------ ------------ 1987-88b/ --- 4,455,985 1988-89 1.7 4,533,793 1989-90 2.3 4,638,605 1990-91 2.5 4,756,517 1991-92 3.4 4,920,227 1992-93 3.3 5,081,023 1993-94 3.8 5,271,847 1994-95 3.2 5,439,626 a/ The data for 1987-88 through 1993-94 include children 3 through 21 years of age served under IDEA, Part B and Chapter 1 of ESEA (SOP). For 1994-95 all children ages 3-21 are served under Part B, which includes children previously counted under the Chapter 1 Handicapped Program. b/ 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 of the fiscal year and the following October 1. Updates received from States for previous years are included, so totals may not match those reported in previous Annual Reports to Congress. c/ Although States must make FAPE available to all eligible children with disabilities as reported here, funds are based only on the number of children with disabilities served for up to 12 percent of the State's total school population. This is commonly referred to as "the 12 percent cap." Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Data Analysis System (DANS). ___________________________________ Table 1.2 shows the number and percent change of children and youth with disabilities provided special education under Part B and the Chapter 1 Handicapped Program from 1987-88 through 1994-95.3 A total of 5,439,626 children and youth with disabilities ages 3-21 were served under IDEA, Part B during the 1994-95 school year, an increase of 167,779 (3.2 percent) from the previous year (see table 1.3). While this increase was somewhat less than in the previous year, the rate of growth in the number of students receiving special education continues to exceed the rate of growth in the ages 3-21 resident population (which increased by 793,570, or 1.1 percent, in 1994-95) and the rate of growth in the number of children enrolled in school (which increased by 671,161, or 1.5 percent, in 1994-95). In the resident population, the percentage of children ages 3-21 served under IDEA, Part B increased from 7.5 percent in 1993-94 to 7.7 percent in 1994-95. ___________________________________ _TABLE 1.3 Number of Children Served by Age Group: School Years 1993-94 through 1994-95_ _Number of Children_ _Change_ _Percentage of_ _Age_ _1993-94_ _1994-95_ _Number Percentage_ _Total 3 through 2 1_ --- ------- ------- ------ ---------- ------------------ 3-5 491,685 524,458 32,773 6.7 9.6 6-11 2,458,924 2,520,863 61,939 2.5 46.3 12-17 2,079,094 2,154,963 75,869 3.6 39.6 18-21 242,144 239,342 -2,802 -1.2 4.4 3-21 5,271,847 5,439,626 167,779 3.2 100.0 NOTE: For 1993-94, funding for children and youth with disabilities includes children counted under IDEA, Part B and the Chapter 1 Handicapped Program. For 1994-95, all children and youth ages 3 through 21 with disabilities are included under IDEA, Part B. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Data Analysis System (DANS). ___________________________________ Age Groups of Students Served under IDEA, Part B The two largest age groups served under IDEA, Part B in 1994-95 were ages 6-11 (2,520,863) and 12-17 (2,154,963) (see table 1.3). The remaining age groups, ages 3-5 (524,458) and 18-21 (239,342) comprised less than 15 percent of all students served under IDEA, Part B. Analyzing the growth in the number of children by age range provides some insights into the dynamics of the 3.2 percent increase (from 5,271,847 to 5,439,626) in the number of children ages 3-21 served under IDEA, Part B. Students ages 6-21 comprised about 90 percent of the special education population. However, they accounted for only 80 percent of the increase in total number of children served. Preschool children ages 3-5, who were only 9.6 percent of all children receiving special education, accounted for about 20 percent of the growth in the number of students served. Preschool children also had the largest growth rate of all age groups served with a 6.7 percent increase (from 491,685 to 524,458), followed by students ages 12-17 with a 3.6 percent increase (from 2,079,094 to 2,154,963). The number of students ages 18-21 served decreased by 1.2 percent (from 242,144 to 239,342). This decrease may be attributable to the 1.8 percent decrease in the 18-21 resident population between 1993-94 and 1994-95. ___________________________________ _TABLE 1.4 Number and Percentage Change of Students Ages 6-21 Served: School Years 1993-94 through 1994-95_ _Total_ _Change_ _Percent of_ _Disability_ _1993-94_ _1994-95_ _Number_ _Percent_ _Total 6 -21_ ---------- ------- ------- ------ ------- ---------- Specific learning disabilities 2,428,062 2,513,977 85,915 3.5 51.1 Speech or language impairments 1,018,208 1,023,665 5,457 0.5 20.8 Mental retardation 553,869 570,855 16,986 3.1 11.6 Serious emotional disturbance 415,071 428,168 13,097 3.2 8.7 Multiple disabilities 109,730 89,646 -20,084 -18.3 -1.8 Hearing impairments 64,667 65,568 901 1.4 1.3 Orthopedic impairments 56,842 60,604 3,762 6.6 1.2 Other health impairments 83,080 106,509 23,429 28.2 2.2 Visual impairments 24,813 24,877 64 0.3 0.5 Autism 19,058 22,780 3,722 19.5 0.5 Deaf-blindness 1,367 1,331 -36 -2.6 0.0 Traumatic brain injury 5,395 7,188 1,793 33.2 0.1 All disabilities 4,780,162 4,915,168 135,006 2.8 100.0 NOTE: For 1993-94, funding for children and youth with disabilities included children counted under IDEA, Part B and the Chapter 1 Handicapped Program. For 1994-95, all children were counted under IDEA, Part B. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Data Analysis System (DANS). ___________________________________ Disabilities of Students Served Under IDEA, Part B IDEA, Part B served 4,915,168 students ages 6-21 during the 1994-95 school year. The number of students in each disability category is reported in table 1.4.4 The information in this section refers only to children ages 6-21 because the 1986 Amendments to EHA, P.L. 99-457 (now IDEA) ended the practice of collecting disability category data on children less than 6 years old. Students with specific learning disabilities continue to account for more than half of all students with disabilities (51.1 percent). During the 1994-95 school year, 2,513,977 students with specific learning disabilities were served under IDEA, Part B, 3.5 percent (85,915) more than in 1993-94 under the Part B and Chapter 1 Handicapped Programs. However, the 1994-95 percentage of students with learning disabilities in the resident population ages 6-21 is identical to the 1993-94 percentage. Students with speech or language impairments (20.8 percent), mental retardation (11.6 percent), and serious emotional disturbance (8.7 percent) made up an additional 41.1 percent of all students ages 6-21 with disabilities. Again, these percentage distributions are similar to the 1993-94 distributions. The increases within several disability categories were proportionately greater than the 2.8 percent increase across all categories (see table 1.4). The largest increase occurred in the traumatic brain injury category, which increased by 33.2 percent (from 5,395 to 7,188). Significant increases also occurred in the categories of other health impairments (28.2 percent from 83,080 to 106,509) and autism (19.5 percent from 19,058 to 22,780). There was a significant decrease in the category of students with multiple disabilities (from 109,730 to 89,646, or -18.3 percent). The increases in the number of students with autism and traumatic brain injury are probably due to the relative newness of those reporting categories. The 1994-95 school year was the third year States were required to report the number of students in those categories (reporting was optional for those categories in 1991-92). Many States attributed these increases to the provision of technical assistance to districts on the identification and evaluation of students with autism and traumatic brain injury. States also indicated that during triennial review and evaluations, these relatively new categories were likely used for students who previously were reported under other disability categories. The increase in the number of students with other health impairments appears to be the result of an expansion of the service population. Many States indicated that the increase was primarily due to increased service provision to students with attention deficit disorder. This is the third year several States have reported increases in the number of students identified as having other health impairments because of increased services to students with attention deficit disorder. The decrease in the number of students with multiple disabilities was primarily due to Wisconsin's decision to stop using the category and report all students under their primary disability condition. In 1993-94, over 20 percent of all students with multiple disabilities were served in Wisconsin. Five-Year Trends in Number of Students Served The number of students ages 6-21 served increased by 12.7 percent (553,417) from 1990-91 through 1994-95 (see table 1.5). The increases within several disability categories were proportionately greater than the 12.7 percent increase across all categories. The largest increase occurred in the number of students with other health impairments, which increased by 89 percent (from 56,349 to 106,509). As noted earlier, much of the increase may be related to students with attention deficit disorder. A large increase also occurred in the category of students with orthopedic impairments (22.8 percent from 49,340 to 60,604). The increase in the percentage of students with orthopedic impairments and other health impairments is partly related to the relatively small number of students served in these categories. For a number of years, Michigan has combined the orthopedic impairments category with the other health impairments category. Students in both of these categories are reported under students with orthopedic impairments. Specific learning disabilities increased by 17.3 percent (from 2,144,017 to 2,513,977). There were also increases in the new categories of autism over a 4-year period (from 5,415 to 22,780) and traumatic brain injury5 (from 245 to 7,188). Two categories have decreased since 1990-91: deaf-blindness (-12.7 percent from 1,524 to 1,331) and multiple disabilities (-8.2 percent from 97,629 to 89,646). The decrease in the multiple disability category occurred in 1994-95 as a result of a decision by the Wisconsin SEA to report all students by their primary disability condition. _CAPTION:_ _TABLE 1.5_ Number of Students Ages 6-21 Served a/ During the 1990-91 Through 1994-95 School Years School Year Change from 1990-91 through 1994-95 Disability Condition 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 Number Percent Specific learning disabilities 2,144,017 2,247,004 2,366,487 2,428,112 2,513,977 369,960 17.3 Speech or language impairments 987,778 998,904 998,049 1,018,208 1,023,665 35,887 3.6 Mental retardation 551,457 553,262 532,362 553,869 570,855 19,398 3.5 Serious emotional disturbance 390,764 400,211 401,652 415,071 428,168 37,404 9.6 Multiple disabilities 97,629 98,408 103,279 109,730 89,646 -7,983 -8.2 Hearing impairments 59,211 60,727 60,616 64,667 65,568 6,357 10.7 Orthopedic impairments 49,340 51,389 52,588 56,842 60,604 11,264 22.8 Other health impairments 56,349 58,749 66,063 83,080 106,509 50,160 89.0 Visual impairments 23,682 24,083 23,544 24,813 24,877 1,195 5.0 Autism NA 5,415 15,580 19,058 22,780 22,780 -- Deaf-blindness 1,524 1,427 1,394 1,367 1,331 -193 -12.7 Traumatic brain injury NA 245 3,960 5,395 7,188 7,188 -- All disabilities 4,361,751 4,499,824 4,625,574 4,780,212 4,915,168 553,417 12.7 a/ The data for 1990-91 through 1993-94 include children 6 through 21 years of age served under IDEA, Part B and Chapter 1 Handicapped Program. For 1994-95 all children ages 6-21 are served under Part B, which includes children previously counted under the Chapter 1 Handicapped Program. Autism and traumatic brain injury were introduced as separate reporting categories in the 1991-92 school year as a result of P.L. 101-476, the 1990 Amendments to IDEA. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Data Analysis System (DANS). _______________________ 3 From 1987-1994, these counts reflected the number of students with disabilities served under IDEA, Part B and the Chapter 1 Handicapped Program. These counts are now combined under IDEA, Part B. The 1987-88 school year was the first year that data were available for the 3-21 age group served under the Chapter 1 Handicapped Program. 4 Students are reported by the following 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. 5 Autism and traumatic brain injury were introduced as separate reporting categories in the 1991-92 school year as a result of P.L. 101-476, the 1990 Amendments to IDEA. ---------- Students with Disabilities Exiting Special Education Research indicates that the school exit status of students with disabilities is an important predictor of postschool success. High school graduates with disabilities are significantly more likely to be engaged in productive activities outside the home, such as employment, postsecondary education, or volunteer work, than high school dropouts (Wagner et al., 1991). Due to requirements in IDEA, OSEP has been collecting these data since 1984-85. However, the data have changed somewhat over the years, and 1993-94 was the first year for which all States reported data on students exiting special education using revised OSEP data categories. These exit categories include: * graduated with diploma, * graduated with certificate, * reached the maximum age for services, * returned to regular education, * died, * moved, known to be continuing, * moved, not known to be continuing, and * dropped out. In addition to collecting data in new exit categories, the method of analyzing these data has also changed. Rather than calculating percentages based on the number of total exiters with disabilities as in the past, percentages are now calculated based on total child count for students ages 14 and older. This revision was made primarily to make OSEP dropout rates comparable with rates used by other Federal agencies. Readers must keep in mind that not all students ages 14-21 will exit special education each year, and, as a consequence, percentages of exiting students will not sum to 100 percent.6 The new rates, as shown in figure 1.1, indicate the annual rate at which students with disabilities 14 and older continue to be enrolled in and exit special education through the various bases. ___________________________________ _FIGURE 1.1 Enrollment and Exit Status of Students with Disabilities Ages 14-21: 1993-94_ Continuing in ====================================================> 73% Special Ed. Graduated with ===> 7% Diploma Graduated with => 2% Certificate Reached => 0.3% Maximum Age Returned to ==> 4% Regular Ed. Moved, Known to ==> 5% be Continuing Moved, Not Known => 3% to be Continuing Dropped Out ==> 5% +------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+ 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Percent NOTE: The figure does not include students who died SOURCE: Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Data Analysis Systems (DANS) ___________________________________ Students Who Graduated with a Diploma or Certificate Graduation with a standard high school diploma was the most common basis of exit for students with disabilities; 7.5 percent of all students ages 14-21 graduated with a diploma. That graduation rate varied by disability category. Of all students ages 14-21 in special education in 1993-94, the students most likely to graduate with a diploma were those with visual impairments (10.3 percent of all students with visual impairments ages 14-21), hearing impairments (9.7 percent), orthopedic impairments (9.0 percent), and traumatic brain injury (9.5 percent). Those students least likely to graduate with a diploma were those with multiple disabilities (3.2 percent) and autism (2.9 percent). Among the 1.6 percent of students who graduated with a certificate of completion or modified diploma, students with mental retardation (3.8 percent of all students with mental retardation ages 14-21) and deaf-blindness (4.6 percent) were most likely to graduate in this manner. Graduation with a certificate of completion or modified diploma was also common for students beyond the typical age for secondary school students; during the year, almost one-fourth of all students ages 21 and older received a certificate or modified diploma. During the past 5 years, the percentage of all students with disabilities ages 14 and older graduating with a diploma or certificate has remained fairly constant, although the percentage decreased slightly in 1993-94, as shown in figure 1.2. The decline in the percentage of students graduating in 1993-94 reflects a smaller proportion of students receiving certificates of completion and modified diplomas. Some of this decline may be accounted for by policy changes in the States. For example, Texas no longer offers students with disabilities a modified diploma. ___________________________________ _FIGURE 1.2 Percentage of Students with Disabilities Ages 14 and Older Graduating with a Diploma or Certificate: School Years 1989-90 to 1993-94_ [figure omitted] ___________________________________ Students Who Returned to General Education States reported that 4 percent of students with disabilities ages 14-21 returned to general education programs in 1993-94 (see table 1.6). This was true for a large percentage of students with other health impairments (18 percent of students in this category) and those with speech and language impairments (17 percent). The nature of the disabilities for students with other health impairments (e.g., asthma, and other chronic or acute health conditions) may result in a relatively short-term need for special education services, followed by a return to general education programs. In addition, States reported similar percentages of students with disabilities returning to general education programs across the secondary age range. Because this was the first year data were required on students returning to general education, the percentage reported as returning is expected to increase over the next few years as States continue to modify their data collection systems. There were a small number of States and Outlying Areas that did not report any students returning to regular education, presumably because their State and local data systems were not prepared to process these data. Because percentages are based on the national child count for students 14 and older, nonreporting tends to lower national estimates slightly. In a recent Michigan study, the authors analyzed data on the number and characteristics of students ages 6-26 who had returned to general education through declassification, and the results of a one-year followup of declassified students. Figure 1.3 shows the number of students declassified in Michigan by age and disability. ___________________________________ _FIGURE 1.3 Number of Students Returning to General Education in Michigan, by Disability and by Age: 1993_ [figure omitted ___________________________________ The largest numbers of students who were declassified were in the upper elementary age ranges, although declassification continued through early adulthood. The students declassified at younger ages were more likely to have speech or language impairments. Students declassified in secondary school were more likely to have learning disabilities or serious emotional disturbance (Carlson & Parshall,1995). Michigan teachers and school counselors reported generally positive academic, social, and behavioral adjustments for declassified students who returned to general education programs. However, teachers and counselors of 11 percent of declassified students indicated that, in their opinion, the students continued to require special education services. Students with serious emotional disturbance were most likely to be perceived as in need of additional special education support (Carlson & Parshall, in press). Students Who Died During the 1993-94 school year, very few students with disabilities ages 14 and older died (0.1 percent) (see table 1.6). The highest annual death rates were reported for students with deaf-blindness (1.1 percent of all students ages 14-21 in this category), orthopedic impairments (0.5 percent), other health impairments (0.4 percent), and multiple disabilities (0.3 percent). The percentage of student deaths increased with student age. ___________________________________ _TABLE 1.6 Number and Percentage of Students with Disabilities 14 and Older Exiting Special Education by Disability and Basis of Exit: 1993-94_ Graduated with Diploma Graduated with Certificate Reached Maximum Age Returned to Regular Education Moved, Known to Be Continuing Moved, Not Known to Be Continuing Died Dropped Out Total Specific learning disabilities 76,735 8.4 10,871 1.2 891 0.1 34,229 3.8 45,447 5.0 22,944 2.5 438 0.1 44,244 4.9 235,799 25.9% Speech or language impairments 3,423 7.0 473 1.0 121 0.2 8,358 17.0 2,377 4.9 2,059 4.2 31 0.1 1,875 3.8 18,717 38.2% Mental retardation 13,900 5.8 9,117 3.8 2,307 1.0 2,273 0.9 9,899 4.1 4,739 2.0 361 0.2 10,270 4.2 52,866 21.9% Serious emotional disturbance 11,251 6.0 1,649 0.9 331 0.2 8,041 4.3 20,170 10.7 10,905 5.8 184 0.1 17,370 9.2 69,901 37.0% Multiple disabilities 1,254 3.2 675 1.7 553 1.4 330 0.8 1,192 3.1 324 0.8 133 0.3 531 1.4 4,992 12.8% Hearing impairments 2,209 9.7 391 1.7 48 0.2 518 2.3 896 3.9 370 1.6 11 0.1 570 2.5 5,013 22.0% Orthopedic impairments 1,557 9.0 285 1.7 133 0.8 1,259 7.3 635 3.7 280 1.6 82 0.5 412 2.4 4,643 26.9% Other health impairments 2,250 8.5 191 0.7 44 0.2 4,733 17.9 1,528 5.8 536 2.0 97 0.4 1,005 3.8 10,384 39.8% Visual impairments 931 10.3 105 1.2 53 0.6 218 2.4 324 3.6 164 1.8 19 0.2 195 2.2 2,009 22.2% Autism 169 2.9 120 2.1 80 1.4 51 0.9 148 2.6 75 1.3 3 0.1 55 1.0 701 12.1% Deaf-blindness 34 6.0 26 4.6 8 1.4 11 1.9 32 5.6 17 3.0 6 1.1 8 1.4 142 24.9% Traumatic brain injury 232 9.5 45 1.8 25 1.0 73 3.0 157 6.4 47 1.9 3 0.1 73 3.0 655 26.7% All disabilities 113,945 7.5 23,948 1.6 4,594 0.3 60,094 4.0 82,805 5.5 42,460 2.8 1,368 0.1 76,608 5.1 405,822 26.8% Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Data Analysis System (DANS). ___________________________________ Students Who Moved The effects of mobility on student performance are well documented. According to a 1994 study by the General Accounting Office, of the third graders who changed schools frequently, 41 percent achieved below grade level in reading, compared to 26 percent of third graders who had never changed schools. Students who changed schools four or more times by eighth grade were four times more likely to drop out than those who remained in the same school. In the course of the year, 8.3 percent of all students with disabilities ages 14-21 moved to another district or State (see table 1.6). Of that 8.3 percent, 5.5 percent were known to be continuing their education in another district or State. There was insufficient information to determine whether the other 2.8 percent were enrolled in another district or State. By far, students with serious emotional disturbances moved most often. Annually, 16.4 percent of all students ages 14-21 with serious emotional disturbance move, almost twice the rate of any other disability group. It is not clear if this rate occurs because students with serious emotional disturbance move in search of special education services, or for some other reason. Students Who Dropped Out The annual dropout rate for students with disabilities ages 14-21 was 5.1 percent (see table 1.6). Students with serious emotional impairments dropped out at higher rates than any other students with disabilities (9.2 percent of all students ages 14-21 in this category). Those with the lowest dropout rates included students with autism (1.0 percent), multiple disabilities (1.4 percent), and deaf-blindness (1.4 percent). Nineteen- and 20-year-olds were most likely to drop out (17.4 percent and 14.7 percent respectively), but a sizeable proportion of younger students also dropped out of school. The annual dropout rate for students with disabilities at each individual age can be combined to estimate a cohort dropout rate. The cohort dropout rate estimates the percentage of students who will drop out over the course of their entire high school careers. Given current trends, approximately 26 percent of students with disabilities will drop out of school. 7 The U.S. Bureau of the Census (1995) collects data on annual and cohort dropout rates for students nationwide. The Census Bureau reports an annual dropout rate of 5 percent for students in grades 10-12, the same as the rate for students with disabilities ages 14-21, and a cohort rate of 13.3 percent for persons ages 14-24. The discrepancy in cohort rates may be a result of differences in dropout recovery rates among students with (26 percent) and without (13.3 percent) disabilities, which directly influence the cohort dropout rate, but not the annual rate. Data suggest that dropouts with disabilities are far less likely than dropouts without disabilities to eventually earn their high school diploma. _______________________ 6 For individual States, percentages of students exiting in low incidence disability categories may sum to over 100 percent. This is due to the fact that exit data are collected over a 12-month period, while child count data are collected for a single day, December 1. As a result, students ages 14-21 who enter special education after December 1, and exit prior to December 1, may appear in the numerator (exiters), but not in the denominator (child count). 7 Based on 1993-94 data presented above, annual event dropout rates for ages 14-17 and 18-21 are 0.9 percent, 1.8 percent, 5.2 percent, 7.8 percent, and 13.2 percent, respectively. If one begins with a group of 1,000 14-year-olds, 0.9 percent (9) drop out at age 14 and 991 remain. Of those remaining, 1.8 percent (18) drop out at age 15; 973 remain. At age 16, 5.2 percent (51) drop out, leaving 922. At age 17, 7.8 percent (72) drop out and 850 remain. From ages 18-21, 13.2 percent (112) drop out, leaving 738. The cumulative dropout rate is (9+18+51+72+112)/1,000=26.2 percent. ---------- Services Anticipated to be Needed by Exiting Students with Disabilities: Results of the Second _PASS_ Field Test IDEA requires that the Secretary of Education collect data on those services anticipated to be needed for students ages 12-21 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 3 years. Data on anticipated services 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 education system. Initially, OSEP collected the data from States on an aggregate basis. However, at least two problems with these data were identified. In some cases, State personnel based service needs estimates on the student's disability classification. 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. In order to address these problems, OSEP developed the PASS (Performance Assessment for Self-Sufficiency) system in conjunction with transition experts and State and local administrators and practitioners in special education and adult services. PASS instruments, which capture information about the functional performance of students, are completed by teachers on the basis of their knowledge of their students. This information is then fed into an expert system that translates the teachers' assessments into useful information that special education and adult services agencies at all levels can use to anticipate service needs, and to plan services for young adults with disabilities. Results of the Second Field Test The PASS instrument collects data on individual students. Because of the technical complexity of the data collection, OSEP elected to conduct a second field test of the PASS. (The _Seventeenth Annual Report to Congress_ reported on the first PASS field test.) The primary goals of this second field test were to determine the administrative feasibility of conducting a student-level data collection, to provide checks on the decision rule base of the expert system, and to collect anticipated services data as required by law. Eight States were involved in the second field test: Arizona, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, and West Virginia. Four of these States--Minnesota, Mississippi, North Carolina, and North Dakota--participated in the original field test as well. In the second field test, 2,206 assessments were completed for students exiting the educational system. This sample was more than twice as large as that of the first field test. Additionally, two States--Nebraska and West Virginia--completed assessments for nonexiting students. In Nebraska a sample of students with disabilities who returned to regular education (n=171) was assessed. In West Virginia, PASS instruments were completed for 755 nonexiting students with disabilities for use in transition planning. Overall, the adult service needs projected from the second field test were similar to findings from the earlier test.8 Table 1.7 shows the percentage of exiting students with disabilities having primary needs in the 16 adult service categories. Primary needs are defined as those needs judged to be essential for the student. The most prevalent primary need was case management (80 percent of the total sample). The majority of all exiting students in all eight States were considered to require this service. The percentage of students requiring this service ranged from 67 percent of exiting students with disabilities in Nebraska to 93 percent of the exiting students with disabilities in Minnesota. ___________________________________ _TABLE 1.7_ Percentage of Students with Disabilities Exiting the Educational System in the 1994-95 School Year Anticipated to Have a Primary Need for Services Beyond High School Anticipated Services Arizona (n=272) Minnesota (n=116) Mississippi (n=98) Nebraska* (n=593) Nevada (n=433) North Carolina (n=234) North Dakota (n=178) West Virginia (n=282) Total (2,206) Mobility 21% 11% 28% 8% 15% 20% 23% 17% 15% Specialized transportation 8% 3% 13% 2% 8% 7% 8% 6% 6% Technological aids 28% 22% 20% 23% 33% 45% 35% 14% 28% Medical and medically-related 18% 29% 16% 10% 15% 23% 24% 15% 17% Communication 41% 48% 32% 30% 26% 47% 60% 22% 35% Independent living 31% 24% 48% 22% 22% 25% 22% 31% 26% Residential living 8% 16% 8% 10% 9% 25% 22% 31% 26% Social skills training 26% 22% 36% 33% 26% 21% 30% 31% 29% Mental health 18% 21% 14% 24% 17% 26% 21% 18% 20% Vocational training and job placement 3% 0% 1% 4% 9% 3% 2% 1% 4% Ongoing employment-related 22% 16% 26% 27% 23% 15% 25% 18% 22% Alternative education 59% 59% 59% 55% 39% 45% 53% 49% 51% Services to support postsecondary education 51% 67% 24% 53% 46% 59% 68% 28% 49% Recreation and leisure 42% 45% 44% 48% 32% 42% 43% 35% 41% Family services 15% 5% 22% 14% 9% 15% 6% 9% 12% Case management 91% 93% 89% 67% 83% 91% 91% 68% 80% No goods or services anticipated 6% 3% 4% 4% 6% 3% 1% 16% 6% * Students assessed in Nebraska exited the school system in the 1993-94 school year. Note: The numbers in parentheses indicate the sample size in each State. Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP). ___________________________________ In Arizona, Mississippi, Nebraska, and West Virginia, alternative education, which includes programs for continuing adult education, Adult Basic Education (ABE), General Educational Development (GED), adult high school diploma, and adult compensatory or special education, was the next most common primary need found among the sampled students. In Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina, and North Dakota, services to support postsecondary education were considered a primary need for the majority of students assessed. Communication services--assistance and training related to the act of communication, including speech/language therapy, interpreter services, reader services, braille training, and tactile interpreting services--were considered primary needs for over a third of the total sample. However, in North Dakota 60 percent of the exiting students with disabilities were projected to require this service from adult service providers. Vocational training and job placement were reported as a primary need for relatively low percentages of students. In no State were as many as 10 percent of the students considered to have this need. These percentages are comparable to those in the first field test. However, these percentages seem lower than those that might be expected, given the anecdotal information provided by the States. During the next year, OSEP will review the data on which these projections were based to identify any problems in the decision rules or the assessment items that might be affecting the projection of vocational service needs. In the total sample, only 6 percent of the students had no anticipated services. This percentage varied across States. West Virginia reported the largest percentage (16 percent) of students projected as not needing adult services. In North Dakota only 1 percent of the sample had no adult service needs. Few students with disabilities were projected as having secondary needs for adult services. Secondary needs are defined as those needs considered warranted, but which experts felt were not critical. No exiting students with disabilities were identified as having secondary needs in the areas of mobility, specialized transportation, medical services, and recreation and leisure services. The most common secondary need was for services to support postsecondary education. Again, these findings are consistent with those of the first field test. OSEP Activities on Anticipated Services Data OSEP provided funding to the National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE) to query States not participating in the PASS field test to identify alternative methods used to collect anticipated services data that would meet the IDEA data requirement, as well as provide useful information to adult service providers. Nine States--Arkansas, California, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, and Vermont--provided information to NASDSE concerning these alternative methods. Seven of the States use monies from transition system change grants to address the issue of anticipated services for a sample of students. The types of activities pursued in these system change projects include case studies, follow-up surveys to assess post-school functioning, and school district self-evaluations. Vermont currently collects anticipated services data for all students with disabilities. Teachers complete a one-page form and indicate the services that will be needed upon exit from school. The five areas of need used by Vermont are living arrangements, employment, postsecondary education, community participation, and other. In Kentucky, a "Student Career/Transition Plan" is completed for all students (those with disabilities and those without) in the ninth grade and above. A checklist of needed services is composed of 15 items, including additional vocational assessment, career counseling, social skills, community skills, continuing education support, vocational rehabilitation, job placement, employability skills, work-based learning, self-sufficiency, representative postsecondary education, community college/university, employment services, ongoing job support, and other. The plan for students with disabilities includes an additional list of services, such as domestic or community skills instruction, family support, medical needs/therapies, residential services, assistive technology, and case management. OSEP will continue to develop the PASS system as a resource for States and school districts to use. OSEP will also continue its investigations into other States' model programs in an effort to provide information to adult service providers that will enhance the seamless transition of students with disabilities into the adult world. _______________________ 8 The discussion below is based only on assessments completed for students exiting the educational system. ---------- Personnel Serving Students with Disabilities To ensure that all students with disabilities have access to a free appropriate public education, there must be an adequate supply of teachers and other instructional and noninstructional staff with appropriate training or certification. Each year, States report to OSEP the number of special education teachers and other personnel employed to provide 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 regular education teachers who work with students with disabilities. In 1993-94, the data collection formats were changed for these personnel data. The revised formats were necessary to meet the changes mandated in the 1990 Amendments to IDEA (P.L. 101-476) to provide 5-year projections of personnel demand. A task force was convened to identify the best method to collect data and to review models that could be adopted for this purpose. See Appendix G for a discussion on the methodology that was used. The new categories designed to capture data about personnel employed and needed to serve students with disabilities are discussed below. _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. This section presents the first year of data for which States used these new categories. In addition, States were allowed to report these counts either by the Federal disability categories or by some other classification scheme used in the State, such as assignments/placement categories or staff certification. Personnel data for both teachers and related services personnel are reported by the States in full-time equivalents (FTE). Special Education Teachers Serving Students with Disabilities Each year States allocate resources for a specific number of positions for teachers who will provide special education to students with disabilities. Those positions can be filled by teachers that are fully certified (i.e, have appropriate State certification or licensure for the position held) or by teachers who are not fully certified (i.e., were employed on an emergency, provisional, or other basis and did not hold State certification or licensure for the position to which they were assigned). The latter group of teachers includes those teachers seeking certification but who must teach a specified number of hours in their area of specialization prior to receiving certification. In some cases, positions remain vacant because schools are unable to find appropriate personnel. Figure 1.4 shows the configuration of special education teachers employment for 1993-94. Over 90 percent of the special education positions are held by fully certified teachers. Only 1 percent of the positions were vacant as of December 1,1993. ___________________________________ _FIGURE 1.4 Percentage of Special Education Teachers' Positions (Funded to Serve Students with Disabilities Ages 6-21) and Related Services Personnel Positions (Funded to Serve Students with Disabilities Ages 3-21) by Employment Classification During School Year 1993-94_ SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHERS Employed-Fully Certified 92.6% (310,338) Employed-Not Fully Certified 6.3% (21,054) Vacant Positions 1.1% (3,643) RELATED SERVICES PERSONNEL Employed-Fully Certified 92.9% (311,142) Employed-Not Fully Certified 6.0% (20,214) Vacant Positions 1.1% (3,653) SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education, Data Analysis Systems (DANS) ___________________________________ Approximately 6 percent of the teachers were employed on a provisional or emergency basis. This same employment pattern (92 percent fully certified, 6 percent not fully certified, and 1 percent vacant) holds for personnel supplying related services. During the 1993-94 school year, 331,392 special education teachers were employed (fully certified and not fully certified) to work with students ages 6-21, 6.5 percent more than in 1992-93.9 In 1993-94, the number of teachers needed (employed not fully certified and vacant positions) was 24,697, a 4.4 percent decline from the previous year. The majority of States and Outlying Areas reported data using the Federal disability categories, which includes a category for teachers providing services across disability categories. Five States and Outlying Areas--Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Palau, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands--used taxonomies other than the Federal disability categories. Table 1.8 shows how each of these five jurisdictions reported special education teachers. ___________________________________ _TABLE 1.8 Teacher Classification Schemes Used by States Electing Not to Use Federal Disability Categories_ _Classifications Used to Report_ _State_ _Special Education Teachers_ ----- ------------------------------ Oregon Modified Student Disabilities: Handicapped Learner Hearing-impaired Visually impaired Speech-impaired Speech/language therapist Other Total Pennsylvania Staff Certification: Special Education-Comprehensive Speech/language Deaf/Hearing impaired Blind/visually impaired South Dakota Staff Certification Speech therapists Total special education teachers Palau Total special education teachers Commonwealth of the Northern Staff Certification Mariana Islands Elementary teachers of exceptional students Secondary teachers of exceptional students Resource teachers Teachers of students with severe disabilities Teachers of the hearing impaired Teachers of the seriously emotionally disturbed Consultant teachers Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Data Analysis Systems (DANS). ___________________________________ The largest category of special education teachers employed in school year 1993-94 was teachers of students with specific learning disabilities; they accounted for 85,853 FTE (27.6 percent) of all employed fully certified teachers and 6,897 FTE (32.7 percent) of employed not fully certified teachers (see table 1.9). The next largest category of special education teachers employed (84,534 FTE or 27.2 percent for fully certified and 4,501 FTE or 21.4 percent of not fully certified) taught students in cross-categorical classes. Cross-categorical classes are defined as classes in which students with several disabilities are served. In part, this category is large because Idaho, Massachusetts, and Texas report all special education teachers as cross-categorical. An additional 11 States report 50 percent or more of their special education teachers in this category. Due to changes in report formats, i.e., States being allowed to use other reporting categories, comparisons to this year's teacher classification data to that of previous years would be misleading. ___________________________________ _TABLE 1.9 Special Education Teacher Positions Funded to Serve Students Ages 6-21 Under IDEA, Part B by Employment Classification: School Year 1993-94_ _FTE Employed_ _Disability/_ _Fully_ _Not Fully_ _Vacant_ _Total_ _Other Classification_ _Certified_ _Certified_ _Positions_ _Positio ns_ -------------------- --------- --------- --------- --------- Specific learning disabilities 85,853 6,897 771 93,522 Speech or language impairments 36,807 1,655 1,097 39,559 Mental retardation 39,342 2,530 353 42,225 Serious emotional disturbance 26,171 3,608 373 30,151 Multiple disabilities 7,118 520 67 7,705 Hearing impairments 5,738 285 84 6,107 Orthopedic impairments 2,684 239 126 3,049 Other health impairments 2,065 239 43 2,347 Visual impairments 2,433 1,439 68 2,640 Autism 1,418 285 24 1,727 Deaf-blindness 102 13 3 118 Traumatic brain injury 110 23 2 136 Cross-categoricala/ 84,534 4,501 559 89,594 Other classificationb/ 15,962 119 74 16,155 TOTAL 310,338 21,054 3,643 335,035 a/ Three States, Idaho, Massachusetts, and Texas, report all special education teachers as cross-categorical. b/ Includes counts of special education teachers for the five jurisdictions--Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Palau, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands--not using Federal disability categories. Note: The total FTE shown in both the row and column totals may not equal the sum of the individual States and Outlying Areas because of rounding. Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Data Analysis System (DANS). ___________________________________ The largest number of vacant positions was in the area of speech or language impairments (1,097 FTE or 30.1 percent of all vacant positions), followed by specific learning disabilities (771 FTE or 21.2 percent), and cross-categorical (559 FTE or 15.3 percent). The number of teachers needed (employed-not fully certified and vacant positions) declined for the second year; 4.4 percent fewer teachers were reported being needed in 1993-94 than in 1992-93. The 1993-94 school year was the first year that data were collected on the number of personnel retained from the previous year. This category represents a subset of the total number of personnel employed. In 1993-94, States reported that 270,027 (87 percent) of the employed-fully certified teachers were retained from the previous year. Additionally, States reported that 13,169 (62.5 percent) of the teachers not fully certified were retained from the previous year. Related Services Personnel Serving Students with Disabilities For the 1993-94 data collection, in addition to the changes mentioned above, the formats for collecting related services personnel data were expanded to include the two new personnel categories described below. * _Rehabilitation counselor:_ A qualified professional who provides services in individual or group sessions that focus specifically on career development, employment preparation, achieving independence, and integration in the workplace and community of a student with a disability. * _Interpreters:_ A qualified professional who provides translation between spoken and manual (sign language) communication. In 1993-94, 331,356 personnel other than special education teachers were employed to work with students with disabilities ages 3-21 (see table 1.10). Teacher aides accounted for three-fifths of all positions for staff other than special education teachers, representing 60.7 percent of those employed-fully certified, 64.2 percent of those employed-not fully certified, and 35.2 percent of the vacant positions. In addition, psychologists (20,104 FTE or 6.5 percent), nonprofessional staff (18,844 FTE or 6.1 percent), and other professional staff (18,053 FTE or 5.8 percent) were the next largest numbers of related services personnel employed-fully certified by the States. Twenty-two percent of personnel employed-not fully certified were in the categories of other professional and nonprofessional staff. Nearly one-third of all reported vacancies were in positions requiring occupational therapists, physical therapists, and psychologists. Year-to-year variations in the number of related services personnel needed tend to be greater than the year-to-year variations in the number of special education teachers needed to serve students with disabilities ages 6-21. However, in 1993-94 the increase in the number of related services personnel needed was significantly greater than the changes that occurred in the last 5 years: 9,394 more related services personnel (67.5 percent) were reported as needed in 1993-94 over the previous year. This national increase can be attributed primarily to increases reported by California and Texas. California reported an increase of 5,124 (545 percent) in staff other than special education teachers needed; Texas showed an increase of 3,035 (699 percent). ___________________________________ _TABLE 1.10 Special Education Personnel Positions Other Than Teachers Funded to Serve Students with Disabilities Ages 3-21 Under IDEA, Part B by Employment Classification: School Year 1993-94_ _FTE Employed_ _Fully_ _Not Fully_ _Vacan_t _Total_ _Type of Personnel_ _Certified_ _Certified_ _Positions_ _Positions_ ----------------- --------- --------- --------- --------- School social workers 11,026 463 106 11,595 Occupational therapists 5,331 207 459 5,997 Recreational & therapeutic recreational therapists 256 61 8 325 Physical therapists 3,536 131 390 4,057 Teacher aides 189,011 12,968 1,286 203,265 Physical education teachers 4,971 251 60 5,282 Supervisors/ administrators (LEA) 14,502 344 161 15,007 Other professional staff 18,053 3,002 139 21,194 Psychologists 20,104 424 336 20,864 Diagnostic & evaluation staff 8,464 76 167 8,707 Audiologists 836 22 22 880 Work study coordinators 1,407 85 42 1,534 Vocational education teachers 4,123 115 97 4,335 Counselors 7,269 127 108 7,504 Supervisors/ administrators (SEA) 1,021 10 39 1,070 Rehabilitation counselors 179 6 8 193 Interpreters 2,209 470 60 2,739 Nonprofessional staff 18,844 1,452 165 20,461 TOTAL 311,142 20,214 3,653 335,009 Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Data Analysis System (DANS). _______________________ 9 This comparison to the number employed in the previous year may be slightly inflated due to the changes in data collection categories. ---------- Summary and Implications IDEA continues to ensure that all children with disabilities have access to a free appropriate public education. In an effort to ensure implementation of IDEA, OSEP continues to work closely with States through monitoring and technical assistance activities. The intent of these activities is to improve compliance and maximize results for students with disabilities. In particular, OSEP focuses its compliance efforts on those requirements that effect students with disabilities and their families. Each year since 1977, the total amount appropriated to the IDEA, Part B State Grants Program has increased. Funds appropriated in 1995 for IDEA, Part B increased by 8 percent, from $2,149,686,000 in 1994 to $2,322,915,000 in 1995. Although the FY 1995 appropriations included $82,878,000 from the elimination of the Chapter 1 Handicapped Program, the total increase was not solely attributable to the merger of these two programs. The per child allocation rose from $413 in FY 1994 to $418 in FY 1995. The total number of children and youth with disabilities served also continues to increase. During the 1994-95 school year, a total of 5,439,626 children and youth with disabilities ages 3-21 were served, an increase of 167,779 or 3.2 percent. Students ages 6-21 comprised about 90 percent of the special education population, but accounted for only 80 percent of the increase in the total number served. Furthermore, children ages 3-5 had the largest growth rate (6.7 percent), followed by students ages 12-17 (3.6 percent) and students ages 6-11 (2.5 percent). The number of students ages 18-21 decreased by 1.2 percent. Overall, there is relatively little change from the 1993-94 school year to the 1994-95 school year in the percentage of students served with each disability category ages 6-21. During 1994-95, the percentage of all students served with specific learning disabilities continued to be slightly above 50 percent. The percentages of all students served with mental retardation and serious emotional disturbance also remained the same as during the 1993-94 school year. The percentage of students with speech or language impairments served dropped slightly in 1994-95. However, during the last 5 years, from 1990-91 to 1994-95, the number of students with disabilities served increased by 12.7 percent (553,417). The number of students with other health impairments, orthopedic impairments, and specific learning disabilities rose at proportionately higher rates than the number of students in other disability categories. The number of students in the two new categories, autism and traumatic brain injury, which were established during this 5-year period, have also increased rapidly. The number of students with deaf-blindness has decreased steadily since 1990-91. The data on students ages 14 and older show that the vast majority stay in school. During the 1993-94 school year, 73 percent of students with disabilities 14 and older continued to receive special education services. The other 27 percent of students with disabilities 14 and older were in the following categories: 7 percent graduated with a diploma; 5 percent moved and continued school; 3 percent moved and it is not known if they continued school; 5 percent dropped out; 4 percent returned to regular education; 2 percent graduated with a certificate; 0.3 percent reached maximum age; and 0.1 percent died. Students with serious emotional disturbance moved and dropped out at higher rates than students in any other disability category. During the past 5 years, the percentage of all students with disabilities ages 14 and older graduating with a diploma or certificate has remained fairly stable. The number of personnel needed to serve students with disabilities has grown along with the increase in the number of children with disabilities served. During the 1993-94 school year the number of special education teachers employed to serve children ages 6-21 increased 6.5 percent to 331,392, and the number of teachers needed (employed-not fully certified and vacant) declined 4.4 percent to 24,697. The two largest categories of special education teachers employed were specific learning disabilities and cross-categorical. The largest numbers of vacant positions were in the categories of speech or language impairments, specific learning disabilities, and cross-categorical. In 1993-94, the number of personnel other than special education teachers employed increased by 3 percent to 331,356. Teacher aides were the largest category of these personnel. References Carlson, E., & Parshall, L. (in press). Academic, social, and behavioral adjustment for students declassified from special education. _Exceptional Children_. Carlson, E., & Parshall, L. (1995). _Proceedings: Ninth Annual Conference on the Management of Federal/State data systems._ Rockville, MD: Westat, Inc. Keogh, B. (1990). Narrowing the gap between policy and practice. _Exceptional Children_, 57, 186-190. Office of Special Education Programs. (1995). OSEP memorandum number 95-12. Washington, DC: Author. Reschly, D. (1988). Minority representation and special education reform. _Exceptional Children_, 54, 316-323. Reynolds, M.C., Wang, M.C., & Walberg, H.J. (1987). The necessary restructuring of special and regular education. _Exceptional Children_, 53, 391-398. U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1995). _Educational Attainment in the United States: March 1993 and 1992_. Washington, DC: Department of Commerce. U.S. General Accounting Office. (1994). _Report on student mobility to the Honorable Marcy Kaptur of the House of Representatives_. Washington, DC: Author. Wagner, M., Newman, L., D'Amici, R., Jay, E. D., Butler-Nalin, P., Mendin, C., & Cox, L. (1991). _Youth with disabilities: How are they doing?_ Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. ---------- Chapter 2 _______________________________________________________________________ Meeting the Needs of Preschool Children and Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities Congress, as it wrote the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), understood that early intervention is effective for young children with disabilities, and through IDEA authorized several programs to establish a coordinated service delivery system for children with disabilities from birth through age 5. The Preschool Grants Program is authorized under Section 619 of Part B and requires that States and Outlying Areas provide services to children with disabilities ages 3-5. The Early Intervention Program for Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities (hereafter called Part H) promotes a comprehensive approach to meeting the needs of children with disabilities from birth through age 2. Also, a variety of discretionary programs, including the Early Education Program for Children with Disabilities (EEPCD) (Section 623 or Part C), support projects that finance activities such as personnel preparation and research endeavors. The Preschool Grants Program requires States and Outlying Areas to make available a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to all eligible children with disabilities ages 3-5. Federal requirements governing the Part B program also apply to the Preschool Grants Program. The Part H program was created by the passage of P.L. 99-457, the Education of the Handicapped Act Amendments of 1986, and was amended by P.L. 102-119. Part H provides funds to States and Outlying Areas to address the needs of children with disabilities from birth through age 2 and their families through "a statewide system of coordinated, comprehensive, multidisciplinary, interagency programs providing appropriate early intervention services to all infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families, including Indian infants and toddlers with disabilities on reservations" (20 U.S.C. §1476(a)). At the State's option, infants and toddlers who are at risk of having a substantial developmental delay if early intervention services are not provided may be served through the program. This chapter is divided into the three main sections described below. * _Implementation of the Preschool Grants Program_ reports the amount of the FY 1994 per child allocation, the number of children ages 3-5 served, the number of personnel serving young children with disabilities, and the settings in which services are provided. Preschool Grants Program implementation issues are also discussed. * _Implementation of the Part H Program_ summarizes the program's development and explains the "hold harmless" provision affecting the funds that were formerly available under Chapter 1 Handicapped Program.1 The number of infants and toddlers with disabilities served, the types of services provided, the number of personnel employed and needed, and the settings in which the services are provided are also reported. * _Other OSEP Programs Benefiting Young Children with Disabilities_ describes other programs OSEP sponsors that serve young children, such as the EEPCD. _______________________ 1 Chapter 1 was officially called Chapter 1 State Operated or Supported Programs for Handicapped Children Program (Chapter 1 Handicapped Program). ---------- Implementation of the Preschool Grants Program Since FY 1992, in order to be eligible for Preschool Grants Program funds States and Outlying Areas must make FAPE available to all 3- through 5-year-old children with disabilities. As shown in table 2.1, 10 States and Outlying Areas provide FAPE from birth, while Virginia does so at age 2. All other States and Outlying Areas begin to assure FAPE at age 3. The table also shows the school year in which States and Outlying Areas assured FAPE for all children with disabilities. About half the States and Outlying Areas had mandates in place prior to FY 1992. ___________________________________ _TABLE 2.1 Age at which Children Are Eligible for FAPE, and the Legislative Year in which States and Outlying Areas Assured FAPE_ Age at Age at which which Children Children Year FAPE Are Year FAPE Are Was Eligible for Was Eligible State Assured FAPE State Assured for FAPE ----- ------- ---- ----- ------- -------- Alabama 1991-92 3 New Jersey 1983-84 3 Alaska 1974-75 3 New Mexico 1991-92 3 Arizona 1991-92 3 New York 1991-92 3 Arkansas 1991-92 3 North Carolina 1991-92 3 California 1991-92 3 North Dakota 1985-86 3 Colorado 1991-92 3 Ohio 1991-92 3 Connecticut 1991-92 3 Oklahoma 1991-92 3 Delaware 1991-92 3 Oregon 1992-93 3 District Pennsylvania 1991-92 3 of Columbia 1983-84 3 Rhode Island 1976-77 3 Florida 1991-92 3 South Carolina 1991-92 3 Georgia 1991-92 3 South Dakota 1976-77 3 Hawaii 1980-81 3 Tennessee 1991-92 3 Idaho 1989-90 3 Texas 1974-75 3 Illinois 1973-74 3 Utah 1988-89 3 Indiana 1991-92 3 Vermont 1991-92 3 Iowa 1975-76 Birth Virginia 1975-76 2 Kansas 1991-92 3 Virgin Islands 1981-82 3 Kentucky 1991-92 3 Washington 1985-86 3 Louisiana 1977-78 3 West Virginia 1991-92 3 Maine 1991-92 3 Wisconsin 1973-74 3 Maryland 1978-79 Birth Wyoming 1990-91 3 Massachusetts 1976-77 3 American Samoa 1977-78 Birth Michigan 1973-74 Birth Federated States Minnesota 1986-87 Birth of Micronesia 1992-93 Birth Mississippi 1991-92 3 Guam 1981-82 Birth Missouri 1991-92 3 Marshall Islands 1992-93 3 Montana 1990-91 3 Palau 1989-90 Birth Nebraska 1977-78 Birth Puerto Rico 1985-86 Birth Nevada 1990-91 3 Northern Mariana New Hampshire 1977-78 3 Islands 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 and Outlying Areas 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 $360,265,000 in FY 1995 for the Preschool Grants Program, 6.2 percent more than the $339,257,000 appropriated in FY 1994. However, the number of children served grew from 491,685 in FY 1994 to 524,458 during FY 1995, an increase of 32,773 or 6.7 percent. The FY 1994 figure includes 16,246 children with disabilities who previously were served under the Chapter 1 Handicapped Program. Thus, in spite of the 6.2 percent increase in funding, the actual amount per child in FY 1995 dropped by $26 (a 3.7 percent decrease) per child from $709 to $683. States and Outlying Areas are not required to use their Part B State Grant funds generated under Section 611 for the preschool population and, in fact, many States and Outlying Areas do not. Section 619 of Part B is the only Federal grant program that requires States and Outlying Areas to provide FAPE to children with disabilities ages 3-5. Grant awards made to each State in FY 1995 are shown in table AG1 in Appendix A (not included in this version). State-reported Data on the Preschool Grants Program The next three sections describe the three types of data collected from States and Outlying Areas about the Preschool Grants Program. These data include the: (1) number of children with disabilities ages 3-5 who are served; (2) number of teachers serving preschoolers with disabilities;2 and (3) settings in which services are provided. _Number of Preschoolers with Disabilities Served_ Based on the December 1, 1994, child count, the number of children ages 3-5 served under Section 619, IDEA, Part B was 524,458. This was 32,773 (6.7 percent) more than the number served on December 1, 1993, and represents 4.4 percent of the total population of 3- through 5- year-olds, as compared to 4.2 percent on December 1, 1993. As seen in table AA10 in Appendix A (not included in this version), the percentage of the total preschool population served varied across States and Outlying Areas, from a low of 1.4 percent in the District of Columbia to a high of 8.9 percent in Kentucky.3 Thirty-two States and Outlying Areas provided special education services to 3 to 5 percent of their ages 3-5 resident population. This distribution is similar to the distribution based on the December 1, 1993 count. Five-year-olds constituted 45.8 percent of the preschoolers receiving special education and related services under IDEA, Part B. Four-year-olds constituted 34.3 percent, and 3-year-olds constituted 19.9 percent, of the preschoolers served in 1994-95. In 1990-91, 5-year-olds constituted 49.8 percent, 4-years-olds 28.1 percent, and 3-year-olds 14.8 percent of the total number of 3- through 5-year-olds served. The 5-year trends show that the greatest increase was for 3-year-olds (78.7 percent), followed by a 62.4 percent increase for 4-year-olds, and 22 percent for 5-year-olds. _Teachers Serving Preschoolers with Disabilities_ Access to FAPE depends on an adequate supply of teachers to meet the needs of preschool children ages 3-5 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 ages 3-5 with disabilities (see table 2.2). 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. In the past, teachers who are not fully certified or trained have been reported under both the categories of employed and needed (employed-not fully certified and vacant positions). Data are not collected for the number of regular education teachers working with preschoolers with disabilities who are served in regular education settings. Data reports used for the 1993-94 school year were changed so that OSEP could capture information that would permit 5-year projections of personnel demand, as required by the 1990 IDEA amendments. (For a complete discussion of the changes and the model selected to project personnel demand, see Appendix G.) ___________________________________ _Table 2.2 Total Number of Teachers Employed and Vacant Funded Positions (In Full-Time Equivalency) to Provide Special Education and Related Services for Children and Youth with Disabilities, Ages 3-5, During the 1993-94 School Year_ FTE Employed Fully Not Fully Vacant Total State Certified Certified Positions Positions ----- --------- --------- --------- --------- Alabama 248 53 45 346 Alaska 70 6 1 77 Arizona 200 58 5 263 Arkansas 82 97 26 205 California 1,599 117 6 1,722 Colorado 196 7 2 205 Connecticut . . . . Delaware 124 18 4 145 District of Columbia 61 4 4 69 Florida 1,290 58 24 1,372 Georgia 594 11 9 614 Hawaii 205 23 1 229 Idaho 143 2 12 157 Illinois 698 32 17 746 Indiana 367 35 4 406 Iowa 395 31 2 428 Kansas 271 . 6 277 Kentucky 326 38 15 379 Louisiana 389 321 9 718 Maine 192 8 2 201 Maryland 368 37 7 411 Massachusetts 446 . 4 450 Michigan 1,130 40 2 1,172 Minnesota 592 80 4 676 Mississippi 201 21 18 240 Missouri 321 57 4 382 Montana 95 4 4 103 Nebraska 96 0 2 98 Nevada 129 10 1 140 New Hampshire 97 8 0 105 New Jersey 1,009 0 7 1,016 New Mexico 164 10 5 179 New York 853 105 . 958 North Carolina 611 144 34 789 North Dakota 110 10 4 124 Ohio 1,265 0 108 1,373 Oklahoma 345 22 4 371 Oregon 104 . 4 108 Pennsylvania 1,033 0 2 1,035 Puerto Rico 105 0 0 105 Rhode Island 115 4 0 119 South Carolina 255 19 11 285 South Dakota 149 6 1 156 Tennessee 302 12 0 314 Texas . . . . Utah 71 26 4 100 Vermont 110 2 3 115 Virginia 1,428 210 11 1,649 Washington 437 84 9 529 West Virginia 159 34 6 198 Wisconsin 787 83 3 874 Wyoming 59 0 0 59 American Samoa 6 8 0 14 Guam 133 0 20 153 Northern Mariana Islands 1 0 1 2 Palau . . . . Virgin Islands 12 . 1 13 Bureau of Indian Affairs . . . . U.S. and Outlying Areas 20,548 1,954 473 22,975 50 States, D.C.,& P.R. 20,396 1,946 451 22,793 Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Data Analysis System (DANS) ___________________________________ During the 1993-94 school year, more than 22,000 FTE4 special education teachers were employed to serve students ages 3-5 with disabilities, 18.5 percent more than in 1992-93.5 The rate of increase in the number of FTE special education teachers was greater than the rate of increase in the number of preschoolers with disabilities over the same time period (the number of preschoolers with disabilities served increased by 6.7 percent between 1992-93 and 1993-94). Of the 22,975 positions funded to serve this population of students, 89.4 percent were filled by fully certified teachers, 8.5 percent by teachers not fully certified (i.e. holding a provisional, temporary, or emergency permit to provide services), and 2.1 percent of the positions were vacant in December 1993. The number of teachers needed (employed-not fully certified and vacant positions) increased 9.9 percent in 1993-94 over the previous year. The number of teachers needed to serve preschool children with disabilities had declined for 3 years prior to 1993-94. Several States attributed these variations to improvements in reporting. While the revised personnel forms provide more accurate data on personnel shortages by quantifying need in terms of vacancies and personnel employed but not fully certified, the data do not provide information on the quality of the personnel employed to serve the preschool population or on the factors that inhibit the projection of personnel demand. Professionals providing early intervention and special education may have received little training specific to the needs of preschoolers, even though they meet state licensing requirements (Hebbler, 1994). This is particularly true in the area of related services personnel, who receive certification based on the standards of the discipline regardless of the target population. Alternatively, individuals,particularly paraprofessionals, who have experience working with young children, may not meet state licensing requirements. Hebbler (1994) gives two other factors that may inhibit the projection of personnel demand. First, States may not have funded vacancies. One scenario in which this may occur is the following. Vacancies are measured by the number of funded positions that remain vacant. Since personnel shortages tend to drive the cost of personnel up, States may find themselves using most of their staffing dollars on an increasingly smaller number of personnel. This is particularly true of contracted personnel. The second factor given by Hebbler is that the identification of service needs on an IEP or IFSP is often adapted to personnel available. Services may be provided by paraprofessionals, by contracted personnel, or possibly not identified because there is no one to provide the service. Researchers and policymakers should be aware of these two possible data limitations. The 1993-94 school year was the first time that data were collected on the number of teachers retained from the previous year. States reported that 84.6 percent of fully certified teachers were retained from the previous year; 66.4 percent of the teachers not fully certified were retained from 1992-93. _Educational Placements of Preschoolers with Disabilities_ Each year, States and Outlying Areas report to OSEP the number of preschoolers with disabilities served in each of eight educational settings: regular classes, resource rooms, separate classes,separate schools (public and private), residential facilities (public and private), and home/hospital placements. OSEP has been working with States and Outlying Areas to develop placement categories specific to preschoolers, because the school-based placement categories in which the data are currently reported may not adequately reflect the types of service delivery models used to meet the needs of preschoolers with disabilities. In the interim, OSEP provides specific instructions to States and Outlying Areas for reporting counts of preschoolers in each of the placement categories. Table 2.3 includes a definition of each placement category as it applies to preschoolers with disabilities. In 1993-94, States and Outlying Areas reported 48 percent of preschoolers were served in regular classes, 9 percent in resource rooms, 31 percent in separate classes, 9 percent in separate schools, 0.3 percent in residential facilities, and 2 percent in home/hospital programs. ___________________________________ _TABLE 2.3 Educational Environments for Preschoolers with Disabilities_ _Regular class_ includes children who receive services in programs designed primarily for nondisabled children, provided the children with disabilities are in a separate room for less than 21 percent of the time receiving services. This may include, but is not limited to, Head Start centers, public or private preschool and child care facilities, preschool classes offered to an age-eligible population by the public school system, kindergarten classes, and classes using co-teaching models (special education and general education staff coordinating activities in a general education setting). _Resource room_ includes children who receive services in programs designed primarily for nondisabled children, provided the children with disabilities are in a separate program for 21 to 60 percent of the time receiving services. This includes, but is not limited to, Head Start centers, public or private preschools or child care facilities, preschool classes offered to an age-eligible population by the public school system, and kindergarten classes. _Separate class_ includes children who receive services in a separate program for 61 to 100 percent of the time receiving services. It does not include children who received education programs in public or private separate day or residential facilities. _Separate school_ includes children who are served in publicly or privately operated programs, set up primarily to serve children with disabilities, that are NOT housed in a facility with programs for children without disabilities. Children must receive special education and related services in the public separate day school for greater than 50 percent of the time receiving services. _Residential facility_ includes children who are served in publicly or privately operated programs in which children receive care for 24 hours a day. This could include placement in public nursing home care facilities or public or private residential schools. _Homebound/hospital_ includes children who are served in either a home or hospital setting, including those receiving special education or related services in the home and provided by a professional or paraprofessional who visits the home on a regular basis (e.g., a child development worker or speech services provided in the child's home). It also includes children 3-5 years old receiving special education and related services in a hospital setting on an inpatient or outpatient basis. However, children receiving services in a group program that is housed at a hospital should be reported in the separate school category. For children served in both a home/hospital setting and in a school/community setting, report the child in the placement that comprises the larger percentage of time receiving services. Source: OSEP Data Dictionary, Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education. ___________________________________ Preschool Implementation Issues How to create a seamless system of services for children with disabilities ages 3-5 in the most cost-effective manner is one of the most challenging issues that the Preschool Grants Program faces. This section reviews that issue by examining States' usage of some of the services provided under the Preschool Grants Program. It is based on information from the National Early Childhood Technical Assistance System (NEC*TAS) document entitled _Section 619 Profile: Sixth edition_ (Heekin & Ward-Newton, 1995). The profile draws information about the program from the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and 8 Outlying Areas. _Administering and Funding the Preschool Grants Program_ States and Outlying Areas use several methods to administer preschool special education programs. Most States and Outlying Areas, 40 of 52 that responded to this item, administer their programs through the special education unit of the SEA. Among the other 12 States and Outlying Areas, 5 administer it within the early childhood unit but not within special education, and 7 split the responsibility between 2 or more units. The _Section 619 Profile_ provides information on how States and Outlying Areas use Preschool Grants Program funds (see table 2.4). Under IDEA, States and Outlying Areas have options regarding how they may use up to 25 percent of the Preschool Grants. Five percent of the funding may be set aside for administration of the preschool program. Of the 52 States and Outlying Areas that responded to this item, 44 used the full 5 percent, 5 used between 1 and 3 percent, and 3 used none. States and Outlying Areas may set aside up to 20 percent of Preschool Grants Program funding for State-level discretionary activities. This highly flexible use of funds allows States to meet individual needs regarding implementation of preschool FAPE. 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 ages 3-5; and, at the State's discretion, providing FAPE to 2-year-old children with disabilities who will reach age 3 during the school year. The _Profile_ shows that the most common uses of the set-aside funds were personnel training, technical assistance, and purchasing materials. Again, 52 States and Outlying Areas responded to this item. Almost half (24) of the SEAs used the full 20 percent. Five SEAs used none of these funds available to them. In addition to the Preschool Grants Program funds, 18 different sources were used to finance preschool special education services. All 59 States and Outlying Areas used Federal Head Start funds. According to the _Profile_, the five most commonly used sources after Federal Head Start funds were State special education funds (46 States and Outlying Areas), Medicaid (38 States and Outlying Areas), Early Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment (EPSDT) funds (35 States and Outlying Areas), local funds (35 States and Outlying Areas), and Section 611 (Part B) funds (33 States and Outlying Areas). ___________________________________ _TABLE 2.4 State Use of the 20 Percent of Section 619 Discretionary Funds_ State Pilot Programs Training Technical Assistance Materials Local ICCs State ICC Planning/ Coordinator Direct Service Central Directory Alabama x2 x x x Alaska x x x x x Arizona x x x x x Arkansas x x x x x x California x x x x Colorado6 x1,3 x x x x x x Connecticut6 x x x x x x Delaware x x x x x x District of Columbia x1 x x x x x Florida x x x x Georgia x x x x Hawaii x x x Idaho x2,3 x x x x x Illinois x2 x x x x x x Indiana x2 x x x x x x Iowa7 x2 x5 x x x x Kansas6 x1,2,3,4 x x x x x x Kentucky x2,3 x x x x x4 x x x Louisiana x1,2 x x x x Maine x x x x x x x x Maryland7 x1,2,3 x x x x x Massachusetts6 x1,2,3 x x x x Michigan Did not respond to survey question Minnesota x1,3 x x x x x x Mississippi Did not respond to survey question Missouri Did not respond to survey question Montana Did not respond to survey question Nebraska x x x x x Nevada x2 x x x x x x New Hampshire x x x x x New Jersey x4 x x x New Mexico x1,2,3,4 x x x New York x2 x x North Carolina x x x x x x x x North Dakota x1,2,3 x x x x Marshall Islands x2,3 x Ohio x x x x x Oklahoma x2 x x x Oregon x Pennsylvania x2 x x x x x Puerto Rico x1,2 x x Rhode Island6 x x x x x South Carolina x South Dakota x x x x x Tennessee x x x x x Texas x x x x x Utah x x x x x x x Vermont x x x x x Virginia x x x x Washington x1,2 x x x x x West Virginia x x x Wisconsin x2,3 x x x x x x x x Wyoming x 1 Gather data. 2 Develop/field test model programs. 3 Develop interagency linkages. 4 Other. 5 Some of these funds support the statewide Parent Education Connection Project. 6 Some discretionary funds are used for community program participation in NAEYC accreditation. 7 Some discretionary funds are used for complaint investigations, monitoring, and evaluation. SOURCE: Section 619 Profile, 6th Edition, NEC*TAS. ___________________________________ _Transition: Coordinating Preschool Programs with Other Programs_ For many children with disabilities ages 3-5 and their families, there are two sets of transitions that occur in relatively rapid succession. Families with children who are between 2 and a half and 3 years of age are thinking about the transition to preschool, and 2 to 3 years later they are working toward a smooth transition to kindergarten or first grade. SEAs have taken the following steps to create seamless systems that can facilitate these transitions. IDEA and its regulations have several provisions that promote smooth, effective transitions for children with disabilities and their families. One such provision requires "If the State Educational Agency which is responsible for administering preschool programs under Part B of the Act, is not the lead agency under this part (Part H), an interagency agreement between the two agencies to ensure coordination on transition matters" (CFR §303.148(c)). Another provision grants States and Outlying Areas flexibility in using Part H and Section 619 funds for children above or below age 3 during the transition to preschool. States may also use their discretionary funds to plan and develop a birth through age 5 service delivery system. This is achieved through collaboration with the Part H lead agency and other relevant agencies. According to the _Profile_, 25 States and Outlying Areas have developed or are developing policies that allow using Section 619 funds for children before their third birthday. Also, 23 States and Outlying Areas have a policy that allows Part H funds to be used past a child's third birthday. Coordination is also achieved through the Part H Interagency Coordinating Councils (ICCs). Among the many functions and options related to ICCs stated in IDEA, an ICC has the option of concentrating its efforts on the coordination of activities for the birth through age 2 population or birth through age 5 population of children with disabilities and their families. Fourteen of the 52 States and Outlying Areas responding to this item stated that their ICC focuses on the birth through age 5 population. Also, the Part H lead agency is required to have a representative from the SEA on the State ICC. IDEA also allows States and Outlying Areas the flexibility to develop either an IFSP or an IEP to specify the special education and related services a child needs in order to constitute FAPE. "If FAPE is provided to a child with a disability in the age range of three through five in accordance with an IFSP, rather than an IEP, the Part H requirements for the contents of the IFSP apply, rather than the Part B requirements for the contents of an IEP" (OSEP, 1993, p. 6). Three States and Outlying Areas have developed a statewide policy of using IFSPs for all preschool services, while 19 allow local discretion in using IFSPs for preschool services. Another five States and Outlying Areas are collecting data about using IFSPs or IEPs to specify preschool services. States are interested in using IFSPs to provide FAPE, and continue to pursue development policies to do so. States and Outlying Areas are also working toward creating a seamless system that facilitates transition from preschool to kindergarten or first grade. To achieve this goal, 22 States and Outlying Areas have developed or are developing agreements for transitions from preschool to kindergarten or from Head Start to kindergarten to first grade. _Interagency Coordination_ Interagency coordination enables SEAs to combine the efforts of a variety of agencies to meet the diverse needs of preschool children with disabilities and their families. Interagency coordination helps reduce duplication of efforts and maximizes scarce resources. States and Outlying Areas report interagency agreements with Departments of Developmental Disabilities (15 States and Outlying Areas), Health (24), Human and/or Social Services (26), Health and Human Services (23), Mental Health (12) and other agencies (12). In addition, States and Outlying Areas are involved with initiatives that support comprehensive, coordinated services for young children. For example, the _Profile_ reports that States and Outlying Areas are involved in planning activities with Head Start (38 States and Outlying Areas), general early childhood initiatives (35), at-risk initiatives (23) and Child Care Developmental Block Grant programs (21). Much attention has been paid to interagency collaboration, not only because of national, State, and local fiscal problems, but also to improve service delivery systems and to ensure parental involvement. _______________________ 2 There is no separate report of personnel other than teachers serving preschool students with disabilities. States report numbers of personnel other than teachers providing related services to preschoolers combined with the data for such personnel school-age children. A discussion of the number of personnel other than teachers providing services for the population of students with disabilities ages 3-21 was provided in Chapter 1 of this report. 3 Child count figures discussed in this report include all upward and downward adjustments submitted by the States. Child count figures used by the Department of Education for allocation purposes reflect upward and downward adjustments received prior to making awards on July 1, and subsequent downward adjustments for making reallocations. 4 The number of FTE for the nation excludes data from Connecticut and Texas. Those States were unable to provide counts of the number of special education teachers serving 3- through 5-year-olds. 5 The percentage increase may in part be attributed to the change in the data collection form. The 1933-94 data collection was the first time teachers and related services personnel were reported separately on the basis of certification. ---------- Implementation of the Part H Program All States and Outlying Areas assured full implementation of the Part H program by the end of FY 1993 on September 30, 1994. That date marked the end of the two 1-year extended participation options that followed the 5-year phase-in of Part H. Therefore, all States and Outlying Areas have now been in full participation in the program for several years. To support the implementation of the Part H program during FY 1995,6 Congress appropriated $315,632,000 including $34,000,000 to compensate for the funds that would have been received under Chapter 1 Handicapped Program prior to FY 1995, 24.7 percent more than the $253,152,000 appropriated in FY 1994. Table 2.5 reports the FY 1995 Part H grant amount for each State and Outlying Area.7 ___________________________________ _TABLE 2.5 Grant Awards Under Part H Appropriation Year 1995, Allocation Year 1995-96_ State Part H State Part H ------- --------- ------------ --------- Alabama $4,367,917 New Hampshire 1,522,232 Alaska 1,524,910 New Jersey 8,552,266 Arizona 5,040,920 New Mexico 1,890,168 Arkansas 2,511,863 New York 21,361,708 California 40,347,086 North Carolina 6,809,052 Colorado 3,893,981 North Dakota 1,374,985 Connecticut 4,095,944 Ohio 10,460,369 Delaware 1,374,985 Oklahoma 3,722,478 District Oregon 3,142,903 of Columbia 1,383,883 Pennsylvania 12,590,173 Florida 15,212,617 Puerto Rico 4,107,217 Georgia 7,438,660 Rhode Island 1,564,797 Hawaii 1,590,820 South Carolina 4,103,199 Idaho 1,479,484 South Dakota 1,374,985 Illinois 13,736,885 Tennessee 5,624,612 Indiana 6,442,058 Texas 24,258,785 Iowa 2,809,586 Utah 2,826,559 Kansas 2,802,012 Vermont 1,374,985 Kentucky 3,928,148 Virginia 7,329,204 Louisiana 5,275,752 Washington 5,946,345 Maine 1,374,985 West Virginia 1,878,151 Maryland 6,239,596 Wisconsin 5,649,829 Massachusetts 8,492,708 Wyoming 1,423,267 Michigan 10,176,247 American Samoa 514,726 Minnesota 5,094,610 Guam 1,139,887 Mississippi 2,836,013 Northern Mariana Missouri 5,724,039 Islands 342,601 Montana 1,395,819 Palau 104,018 Nebraska 1,758,114 Virgin Islands 671,387 Nevada 1,759,009 Bureau of Indian Affairs 3,862,461 --------------------------- U.S. and Outlying Areas $315,632,000 50 States, D.C. & P.R. $308,996,920 SOURCE: U.S. Department of Special Education Programs, Office of Special Education Programs, Data Analysis System (DANS). ___________________________________ Table 2.6 reports the number of infants and toddlers birth through age 2 who were counted under Chapter 1 Handicapped Program on December 1, 1993, and those counted on December 1, 1994, who would have been eligible to be counted under the Chapter 1 Handicapped Program if it had continued to exist. These numbers were used to allocate the $34,000,000 added to compensate for the addition of children formally served under the Chapter 1 Handicapped Program. By far the largest change from those served on December 1, 1993, to those counted on December 1, 1994, occurred in California. The State reported it would have served 5,525 more children (590 percent). Palau reported that its percentage served would have increased by 580 percent. However, the change in the number of children in Palau was small (29). Overall, 41 States and Outlying Areas reported an increase, 11 reported a decrease, and 5 had reported serving no children in the Chapter 1 Handicapped Program on December 1, 1993. ___________________________________ _TABLE 2.6 Comparison of Infants and Toddlers Served Under Chapter 1 Handicapped Program of ESEA (SOP) on December 1, 1993 and Those Counted on December 1, 1994 _ Number of Children December 1, December 1, Change from Previous Year State 1993 1994 Number Percent ------- ------ ------ ------ ------- Alabama 780 904 124 15.9 Alaska 605 376 -229 -37.9 Arizona 998 1,303 305 30.6 Arkansas 1,160 713 -447 -38.5 California 936 6,461 5,525 590.3 Colorado 947 938 -9 -1.0 Connecticut 1,266 1,994 728 57.5 Delaware 40 70 30 75.0 Dist. of Columbia 308 204 -104 -33.8 Florida 8,619 7,696 -923 -10.7 Georgia 189 214 25 13.2 Hawaii 793 957 164 20.7 Idaho 764 869 105 13.7 Illinois 4,154 4,250 96 2.3 Indiana 2,763 3,071 308 11.1 Iowa 969 1,006 37 3.8 Kansas 887 1,106 219 24.7 Kentucky 978 1,354 376 38.4 Louisiana 2,078 2,251 173 8.3 Maine 0 0 0 0 Maryland 3,356 3,794 438 13.1 Massachusetts 7,197 8,114 917 12.7 Michigan 3,004 3,084 80 2.7 Minnesota 2,436 2,567 131 5.4 Mississippi 80 81 1 1.3 Missouri 2,087 2,322 235 11.3 Montana 402 480 78 19.4 Nebraska 722 736 14 1.9 Nevada 596 728 132 22.1 New Hampshire 661 767 106 16.0 New Jersey 2,369 2,696 327 13.8 New Mexico 67 47 -20 -29.9 New York 5,914 8,635 2,721 46.0 North Carolina 874 0 -874 -100.0 North Dakota 195 208 13 6.7 Ohio 0 0 0 0 Oklahoma 1,460 1,687 227 15.5 Oregon 1,271 1,256 -15 -1.2 Pennsylvania 6,227 6,349 122 2.0 Puerto Rico 0 0 0 0 Rhode Island 672 798 126 18.8 South Carolina 1,399 1,350 -49 -3.5 South Dakota 286 356 70 24.5 Tennessee 2,059 2,312 253 12.3 Texas 8,676 9,691 1,015 11.7 Utah 1,106 1,209 103 9.3 Vermont 160 313 153 95.6 Virginia 2,334 2,818 484 20.7 Washington 2,226 2,242 16 0.7 West Virginia 1,307 1,377 70 5.4 Wisconsin 2,998 3,321 323 10.8 Wyoming 427 432 5 1.2 American Samoa 0 0 0 0 Guam 18 0 -18 -100.0 Northern Mariana Islands 44 31 -13 -29.5 Palau 5 34 29 580.0 Virgin Islands 0 0 0 0 ------ ------- ------ ---- U.S. & Outlying Areas 91,869 105,572 13,703 14.9 50 States, D.C., & P.R. 91,802 105,507 13,705 14.9 SOURCE: Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Data Analysis System (DANS). ___________________________________ State-reported Data on the Part H Program States report to OSEP four types of information about infants and toddlers with disabilities who receive early intervention services from the States and Outlying Areas: (1) the number served; (2) the settings in which the services are provided; (3) the types of services provided; and (4) the number of personnel employed and needed. The ability of States and Outlying Areas to report complete and accurate information has improved as the implementation of the Part H program has progressed, and as data management systems continue to improve. However, certain issues continue to be problematic for many States and Outlying Areas. In some cases, obtaining data from all entities that serve infants and toddlers continues to be problematic. In other cases, producing unduplicated counts remains challenging. OSEP has been working with and will continue to work with States and Outlying Areas to improve the quality of the data. _Number of Infants and Toddlers Being Served_ States and Outlying Areas were instructed to report the total number of infants and toddlers birth through age 2 receiving early intervention services according to an individualized family service plan (IFSP) on December 1, 1994. This total included infants and toddlers who would have been eligible under the Chapter 1 Handicapped Program, and those who received early intervention services through other programs. States and Outlying Areas reported to OSEP that on December 1, 1994, a total of 165,253 infants and toddlers with disabilities (1.4 percent of the entire birth through age 2 population) received early intervention services (see table 2.7). The States serving the largest percentages of infants and toddlers with disabilities in their resident population were Hawaii (6.78 percent), Delaware(4.29 percent), Ohio (3.47 percent), and Massachusetts (3.28 percent). However, 13 States served less than 1 percent of their infants and toddlers with disabilities. ___________________________________ _TABLE 2.7 Number of Infants and Toddlers Receiving Early Intervention Services: December 1, 1994_ Birth through Resident Percentage of State Age 2 Total Population Population -------- ----------- ---------- ---------- Alabama 1,302 180,511 0.72 Alaska 390 32,368 1.20 Arizona 1,471 205,039 0.72 Arkansas 1,642 101,298 1.62 California 19,471 1,695,405 1.15 Colorado 3,459 159,325 2.17 Connecticut 1,903 135,500 1.40 Delaware 1,277 29,742 4.29 District of Columbia 204 25,881 0.79 Florida 7,115 567,277 1.25 Georgia 3,239 325,946 0.99 Hawaii 3,883 57,239 6.78 Idaho 869 51,843 1.68 Illinois 7,937 549,180 1.45 Indiana 4,138 242,796 1.70 Iowa 1,006 110,452 0.91 Kansas 1,200 108,749 1.10 Kentucky 1,334 155,144 0.86 Louisiana 2,633 202,451 1.30 Maine 475 44,433 1.07 Maryland 3,794 223,953 1.69 Massachusetts 8,114 247,643 3.28 Michigan 3,598 407,712 0.88 Minnesota 2,567 190,119 1.35 Mississippi 422 124,276 0.34 Missouri 2,322 221,299 1.05 Montana 482 34,218 1.41 Nebraska 736 67,659 1.09 Nevada 728 67,808 1.07 New Hampshire 792 46,419 1.71 New Jersey 3,010 341,222 0.88 New Mexico 1,480 82,924 1.78 New York 9,461 826,290 1.14 North Carolina 5,997 301,038 1.99 North Dakota 210 25,071 0.84 Ohio 16,056 462,468 3.47 Oklahoma 1,687 141,495 1.19 Oregon 1,256 121,768 1.03 Pennsylvania 6,349 467,630 1.36 Puerto Rico 4,183 . . Rhode Island 801 41,973 1.91 South Carolina 1,591 162,938 0.98 South Dakota 359 31,879 1.13 Tennessee 3,156 217,040 1.45 Texas 9,470 939,926 1.01 Utah 1,560 108,425 1.44 Vermont 314 21,732 1.44 Virginia 2,086 279,008 0.75 Washington 2,242 232,222 0.97 West Virginia 1,538 64,196 2.40 Wisconsin 3,321 204,350 1.63 Wyoming 423 19,230 2.20 American Samoa 35 . . Guam 134 . . Northern Mariana Islands 31 . . ------- ---------- ---- U.S. and Outlying Areas 165,253 11,704,510 1.41 50 States, D.C., & P.R. 165,053 11,704,510 1.41 NOTE: No Census data are available for the Outlying Areas. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Data Analysis System (DANS). ___________________________________ Figure 2.1 shows two distinct trends in the number of infants and toddlers served during the last 5 years. During 1990, 1991, and 1992, the total number of infants and toddlers served decreased. This decrease is probably an artifact of the data collection practices used during the early years of the program. States had difficulty obtaining unduplicated child counts, and some children who received services without the benefit of an IFSP were counted. The 1994 count represents the first time that all States were in the implementation phase. For the second year in a row since 1992, the total number of infants and toddlers with disabilities served has increased. It is likely that this increase represents the expansion of child find and public awareness efforts. ___________________________________ _FIGURE 2.1 Number of Infants and Toddlers (Birth-2 Years) Who Received Early Intervention Services From December 1, 1990 Through December 1, 1994_ 1990 ===========================================> 1991 =======================================> 1992 =================================> 1993 ===================================> 1994 =======================================> +----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+ 0 50 100 150 200 250 Number in Thousands NOTE: The totals from 1990 through 1993 represent combined totals of children served through Chapter 1 Handicapped Programs and all other programs. Starting in 1994, the programs were combined and all children birth through age 2 are now served under one program. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Data Analysis System (DANS). ___________________________________ _Settings and Services_ The settings in which infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families are served are divided into eight reporting categories. The categories are based on the location of services provided to infants and toddlers with disabilities on December 1, 1993 (see figure 2.2). If the eligible child and family receives services in more than one setting, then the setting in which the child and family receive most of their services is the one that is counted. Although the information concerning settings provided by States and Outlying Areas is improving, several entities had difficulty responding completely. However, the majority (93 percent) of all infants and toddlers continue to receive most of their services in one of three settings: home, early intervention classrooms, or outpatient service facilities. In 1993, most services were delivered at home (66,547 children or 47 percent), followed by early intervention classrooms (43,535 children or 30 percent) and outpatient service facilities (23,302 or 16 percent), while the services offered in the remaining settings totaled to approximately 7 percent. ___________________________________ _FIGURE 2.2 Percentage of Infants and Toddlers Receiving Services in Different Early Intervention Settings: December 1, 1993_ Early Intervention Classroom =========================> 30% Family Child Care => 1% Home ========================================> 47% Hospital Inpatient => 1% Outpatient Service Facility =============> 16% Regular Nursery School/Child Care ==> 2% Residential Facility 0% Other Settings ===> 3% +--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+ 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Percentage SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Data Analysis System (DANS). ___________________________________ The pattern of the settings used is the same for infants and toddlers ages 1 to 2 and 2 to 3, and only varies slightly for the birth to 1 population (see figure 2.3). At all age levels, home is the most frequently used setting. Then, for infants and toddlers ages birth to 1, the outpatient service facility is the second and the early intervention classroom is the third most common setting used. For infants and toddlers ages 1 to 2 and 2 to 3, the early intervention classroom is the second and the outpatient service facility is the third most common setting. ___________________________________ _FIGURE 2.3 Settings in Which Early Intervention Services Are Delivered, by Age Group, 1993-94_ BIRTH TO 1 ------------ Home 11,230 (53%) Early Intervention Classroom 2,779 (13%) Outpatient Service Facility 4,812 (23%) All Other 2,435 (12%) 1 to 2 ---------- Home 18,472 (48%) Early Intervention Classroom 8,903 (23%) Outpatient Service Facility 8,239 (21%) All Other 3,136 (8%) 2 to 3 ---------- Home 20,819 (39%) Early Intervention Classroom 18,697 (35%) Outpatient Service Facility 9,723 (18%) All Other 3,592 (7%) NOTE: Due to rounding, the percentages may not add to 100 percent. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Data Analysis System (DANS). ___________________________________ States and Outlying Areas also continue to improve data collection methods employed to tabulate the services provided to infants and toddlers and their families. However, three entities did not provide information about the services provided. Figure 2.4 shows the number of infants and toddlers who received each service offered. The five most commonly provided services are: (1) special instruction (69,580 infants and toddlers), which includes designing appropriate learning environments and activities, curriculum planning, and providing families with information, skills, and support; (2) family training, counseling, and home visits (49,231), which are designed to assist the family in understanding the needs of the child; (3) speech language pathology (42,137); (4) physical therapy (35,810); and (5) occupational therapy (32,212). ___________________________________ _FIGURE 2.4 Number of Infants and Toddlers and Their Families Receiving Early Intervention Services in Accord with Part H: December 1, 1993_ Number Receiving Service ------------------------ Assistive Technology 6,678 Audiology 13,684 Family Training 49,231 Health Services 19,279 Medical Services 20,203 Nursing Services 19,021 Nutrition Services 12,687 Occupational Therapy 32,212 Physical Therapy 35,810 Psychological Services 8,904 Respite Care 6,212 Social Work Services 27,861 Special Instruction 69,580 Speech Language Pathology 42,137 Transportation 21,204 Visual Services 6,201 Other EI Services 29,561 SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Data Analysis System (DANS). ___________________________________ Personnel Serving Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities There are 15 reporting categories for personnel employed and needed to provide early intervention services to infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families. Two States did not provide data on personnel, and an additional 21 States did not report on one or more of the categories. The three categories with the largest number of personnel employed to serve infants and toddlers were special educators, paraprofessionals, and speech and language pathologists. (Because of the disproportionately large number of nurses reported employed by one State, that category is not included among the highest number of personnel employed within the Part H program.) The three categories with the smallest number of personnel employed were orientation and mobility specialists, family therapists, and nutritionists. To address the problems related to the personnel data collection, OSEP convened a task force in February 1994 to review the Part H personnel form, with the goals of improving usefulness of the data collection to States and improving the quality of the data. The members represented a diverse group of experts, including selected Part H data managers, Part H coordinators, Interagency Coordinating Council (ICC) members, parents, researchers in the area of special education,personnel serving infants and toddlers, and representatives from the National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE). The task force recommended several major changes to the data collection form. In the field test, a form that expanded the number of personnel categories and categorized employment status in a different way was used. Feedback from field test participants indicated that the revised, field-tested form was too complex. Further development of personnel issues will be reexamined after reauthorization of IDEA. OSEP continues to work closely with the States on this issue. Part H Implementation Issues Overall, States and Outlying Areas continue to make progress in the development and implementation of their statewide systems of early intervention. However, several issues continue to challenge many Part H programs. Two areas that many States and Outlying Areas are working to remediate are discussed in this section: establishing a collaborative infrastructure for administering Part H programs, and finding ways to increase the number of personnel qualified to provide Part H services. To coordinate the multiple Part H funding mechanisms, disciplines, and resources, a collaborative infrastructure is necessary. The Part H legislation requires ICCs at the Federal and State levels to facilitate collaboration. Recognizing that much of the implementation of Part H occurs at the local level, 41 States have established local ICCs as an integral factor of their Part H systems (NEC*TAS, 1995). Through the ongoing activities of these local councils, a wide range of community agencies work together to build local service systems to deliver services that comply with the Part H program requirements. Some achievements of local ICCs listed in a report submitted to the Federal ICC (NEC*TAS, 1995) included: (1) developing service systems that are easily accessible and culturally sensitive; (2) expanding outreach, child find, and public awareness activities; (3) developing options that include both home-based and community-based service delivery models; (4) maximizing community resources by building on existing resources; and (5) diversifying the overall service provider base and coordinating the services provided to a broad range of participants. A second area of concern challenging many States is the shortage of personnel qualified to work with infants and toddlers and their families. The Part H legislation requires States to develop a comprehensive system of personnel development (CSPD) that is consistent with Part B of IDEA. States have identified a variety of other CSPD activities and strategies to address personnel shortages, including: (1) collaborating with institutions of higher learning to offer preservice training and recruitment incentives; (2) establishing a competency-based system for awarding credentials and certification to ensure that the highest personnel standards are met; (3) developing creative, collaborative training and technical assistance opportunities for parents and for personnel who provide early intervention services; and (4) involving parents in developing and implementing personnel training (NEC*TAS, 1995). To further address personnel shortages, States have diversified the strategies they use to obtain qualified personnel to meet the demands of providing early intervention services. Specifically, Striffler(1995) reports four different strategies that are currently being used by States. Nine States have developed procedures for recruiting and employing representative numbers of personnel who share the ethnic and cultural backgrounds of the various families in their State. Twelve States have developed procedures for recruiting and employing personnel to work in traditionally underserved areas. In addition, 18 States have developed service delivery models that have successfully placed personnel in previously underserved areas. Finally, 15 States have worked with junior and senior high schools to promote careers in early intervention. _______________________ 6 The Improving America's Schools Act (IASA) of 1994 merged the Chapter 1 Handicapped Program with Parts B and H of IDEA. While the majority of Chapter 1 Handicapped Program funds was rolled into Part B, the IASA included a number of provisions to ensure that eligible children under Part H would not be adversely affected. The hold harmless provision was the most significant one. The hold harmless provision states that for FY 1995-97, no State may receive less than the combined total it received for infants and toddlers birth through age 2 under the Chapter 1 Handicapped Program and Part H programs in fiscal year 1994. However, in fiscal years 1998 or 1999, if the total number of infants and toddlers birth through age 2 in a State declines below the number reported for fiscal year 1994, the hold harmless amount would be reduced by the same percentage. For 1995, $34,000,000 of the Part H appropriation was distributed based on the count of infants and toddlers birth through age 2 on December 1, 1994, who would have been eligible to participate under the Chapter 1 Handicapped Program. 7 Under the Part H regulations, the Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of the Marshall Islands are not eligible to receive Part H Program or Preschool Grants Program funds. Therefore, they are not in some of the tables in this chapter. ---------- 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 and 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. The program has evolved as State and local early intervention systems have matured. EEPCD presently supports States and Outlying Areas in two ways: first, by developing programs that assist in the provision of comprehensive services for infants and toddlers with disabilities from birth through age 2 and their families; and second, by expanding services for children with disabilities ages 3-8 and their families. During FY 1995, EEPCD supported 125 projects: 41 demonstration projects, 47 outreach projects, 27 inservice training projects, 4 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. _Outreach Projects_ Outreach projects have two goals. The first is to increase the availability of high-quality services to young children with disabilities. The second is to promote replication of innovative models or components of models that were developed under the demonstration or inservice components of EEPCD or that have been developed with other funding. All of the 47 projects receiving outreach funding have a multistate or national focus and are funded for 3 years. Outreach efforts focus on improving training and services, as well as on interagency and interstate collaboration. All outreach efforts are 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 1995, 10 new projects were funded for a total of 27 projects. _Research Institutes_ Four research institutes are supported. These institutes investigate: * interventions for children affected by parental substance abuse; * influences on service patterns and utilization in early intervention and preschool programs; * barriers to inclusion in educational, cultural, and community contexts; and * successful early intervention practices adopted and adapted for early primary grades. _Statewide Data Systems Projects_ Statewide data systems projects expand States' capabilities for tracking data about services for children with disabilities and those at risk for developing disabilities, and their families, and for using that information to facilitate linking those services. During FY 1995, the following five projects were in their fifth and final year of funding: * District of Columbia Department of Human Services: Statewide Data System for Birth through Eight-Year-Olds At-risk for Developmental Disabilities; * Georgia Department of Human Resources: STREAM: Strengthening the Early Assistance Model through the Refinement, Enhancement, and Further Implications for High Priority Children; * Florida Department of Education: Identification and Tracking System for Florida's At-risk Preschool Children; * North Dakota Department of Public Instruction: A Statewide Data Management System for At-risk Children in North Dakota; and * Ohio Department of Health: Linking Interagency Networks for Comprehensive Computer Systems. ---------- Summary and Implications As the implementation of Part H and Section 619 of Part B programs continues to expand, the concept of a seamless system that provides services to infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities birth through age 21 is closer to becoming a reality. OSEP continues to work closely with the States by providing ongoing technical assistance on a variety of issues, recognizing the individuality of each State. This can be seen through the wide variety of ways that States implement their Preschool Grants and Part H Programs. Passage of The Improving the America's Schools Act (IASA) of 1994 required that the Chapter 1 Handicapped Program funds be merged with IDEA (Parts B and H). IASA added a "hold harmless" provision to ensure that in Fiscal Years 1995-98 no State receives fewer Part H funds than the aggregated Part H and Chapter 1 funds it received to serve children with disabilities aged birth through 2 in FY 1994. In FY 1995, Congress appropriated $360,265,000 for the Preschool Grants Program, which serves all eligible children with disabilities ages 3-5. This is a 6.2 percent increase over the $339,257,000 appropriated in FY 1994. During the 1994-95 school year, 524,458 preschoolers were served, an increase of 6.7 percent. This represents 4.4 percent of the total population of 3- through 5-year-olds. However, the percentages of preschoolers served varied widely, from a high of 8.9 percent in Kentucky to a low of 1.4 percent in the District of Columbia. Access to the Preschool Grants Program depends on an adequate supply of personnel to meet the needs of preschoolers with disabilities. This chapter reported on the number of FTE special education teachers employed and needed to serve preschoolers with disabilities. During 1993-94, the total number of teachers employed rose to 22,975. OSEP is continuing to work with States to develop placement categories that are specific to preschoolers, because the school-based placement categories in which the data are currently reported may not adequately reflect the types of service delivery models used to meet the needs of preschoolers with disabilities. Using the current categories, which were supplemented with special instructions, States reported that almost half (48 percent) of all preschoolers with disabilities were served in regular classrooms. An additional 40 percent were served in regular school buildings in either resource rooms (9 percent) or separate classes (31 percent). States continue to look for ways to improve the implementation of the Preschool Grants Program. For example, States are using a variety of funding sources to finance preschool special education services. Also, many States have provisions which allow flexibility in using Part H and Section 619 funds during transition to preschool and use of Section 619 funds when making the transition from preschool to either kindergarten or first grade. In addition, some States are taking advantage of an IDEA provision that allows them to use either IEPs or IFSPs to specify needed preschool services. Finally, OSEP continues to support a number of projects that are designed to promote innovative strategies for the delivery of services to young children with disabilities and their families. To support the implementation of the Part H program, Congress appropriated $315,632,000 for FY 1995, 24.7 percent more than the $253,152,000 appropriated for FY 1994. The number of infants and toddlers reported served through the Part H program increased for the second year in a row. It is likely that this increase represents the expansion of child find and public awareness efforts and that service delivery agencies have become more visible to families. Also, the data systems have become more accurate. Seven States served between 2 percent and 6.7 percent of their total birth through age 2 population. However, 13 States served less than 1 percent, and the remaining States served between 1 and 2 percent of their total birth through age 2 population. The majority (95 percent) of infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families continue to receive most of their services at home (47 percent), in early intervention classrooms (31 percent), or in outpatient service facilities (17 percent). In these and other settings, a wide variety of services are being provided. The five most commonly used services are special instruction, family training counseling and home visits, speech and language pathology, physical therapy, and occupational therapy. Although data are collected on the number of personnel employed and needed to serve infants and toddlers with disabilities, these data, as in past years, remain incomplete. However, it appears that the three largest categories of personnel employed to serve infants and toddlers were special educators, paraprofessionals, and speech and language pathologists. States are engaged in efforts to improve the capacity of their statewide systems to deliver early intervention services. For example, to enhance Part H infrastructures, 41 States have set up ICCs at the local level to address a broad range of issues. Many States are exploring ways to increase the number of qualified personnel to work with infants and toddlers and their families. States' solutions have involved collaborative efforts with institutions of higher learning, credentialing boards,personnel who provide early intervention, and parents. Finally, innovative projects continue to be supported by OSEP. The priorities for these projects focus on the development of more effective practices, region-specific or population-specific programs, preservice and inservice training, and the identification of new recruiting strategies into particular fields of study. During FY 1995, EEPCD supported 125 projects: 41 demonstration projects, 47 outreach projects, 27 inservice training projects, 4 research institutes, 5 statewide data systems projects, and 1 national technical assistance center. References Hebbler, K. (1994). _Shortages in professions working with young children and their families_. Chapel Hill, NC: National Early Childhood Technical Assistance System. Heekin, S., & Ward-Newton, J. (1995). _Section 619 Profile: 6th Edition_. Chapel Hill, NC: National Early Childhood Technical Assistance System. National Early Childhood Technical Assistance System (NEC*TAS). (1995). _Helping our nation's infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families: A briefing report on Part H of the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) 1986-1995_. Chapel Hill, NC: Author. Office of Special Education Programs. (1993). OSEP Memorandum #14. Washington, DC: Author. Striffler, N. (1995). _Selected personnel policies and practices under Part H of IDEA_. Chapel Hill, NC: National Early Childhood Technical Assistance System. ---------- Chapter 3 _______________________________________________________________________ Progress in Achieving the Full Participation of Students with Disabilities in Their Schools and Communities: Federal Initiatives In 1975, when Congress enacted P.L. 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act(subsequently superseded by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act), it released a set of findings supporting the need for the Act. Congress found that there were more than eight million children with disabilities in the United States and the special educational needs of these children were not being fully met. More than half of the children with disabilities in the United States did not receive appropriate educational services that would enable them to have full equality of opportunity. One million of the children with disabilities were entirely excluded from the public school system. Many of the children participating in regular school programs, moreover, had disabilities that prevented them from having a successful educational experience because their disabilities were undetected. Because of the lack of adequate services within the public school system, families were often forced to find services outside the public school system, often at great distance from their homes and at their own expense (20 U.S.C. §1400 (b)(1)-(6)). Congress also recognized that "it is in the national interest that the Federal government assist State and local efforts to provide programs that meet the educational needs of children with disabilities in order to assure equal protection under the law" (20 U.S.C. §1400 (b)(9)). Since 1975, the Act has been amended several times. However, the purposes of IDEA have not changed; these are: "[1] to assure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs; [2] to assure that the rights of children with disabilities and their parents or guardians are protected; [3] to assist States and localities to provide for the education of all children with disabilities; and [4] assess and assure the effectiveness of efforts to educate children with disabilities" (20 U.S.C. §1400 (c)). These four purposes have provided a solid foundation for the delivery of educational services to students with disabilities since 1975. Consequently, significant progress has been made in achieving the full participation of students with disabilities in their schools and communities. Opportunities now exist for these students that were not available in the past, and results for students with disabilities have improved. One way to measure progress toward full participation by students with disabilities in their schools and communities is to examine data that reveal the changes that have occurred as a result of the Act. Results achieved by students with disabilities are important to evaluate as they empower individuals with disabilities to maximize their employment, economic self-sufficiency, independence, and integration into society. Positive results for students with disabilities are realized through the provision of a free appropriate education to students with disabilities in a continuum of educational placements. Moreover, these positive results and educational placement opportunities are possible as a result of the commitment of resources to implement innovative practices. This chapter examines data related to results for students with disabilities; the educational placements of students with disabilities; and the Federal government's commitment of resources to foster inclusion for students with disabilities. The three sections of the chapter include: * _What the Data Show: The Positive Results of IDEA_ examines the effectiveness of efforts to provide educational services to students with disabilities. Data from the National Longitudinal Transition Study of Special Education Students (NLTS) and other sources are presented to highlight the impact of Federal, State and local efforts to improve results for students with disabilities. * _Educational Placements for Students with Disabilities_ highlights the progress in providing a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to students with disabilities in the least restrictive environment by reporting the placement patterns for students with disabilities during the 1993-94 school year. * _Statewide Systems Change for Students with Severe Disabilities_ highlights one of the Department's efforts to provide assistance to States and localities to educate all students and to ensure the effectiveness of efforts to educate children with disabilities. Although reports from the field indicated that systems change projects produced very positive results, very little information that systematically assessed the efficacy of OSEP's statewide systems change grants existed. This section presents findings from a study that was designed to help OSEP assess the progress made by five States that received statewide systems change grants for students with severe disabilities. ---------- What the Data Show: The Positive Results of IDEA1 Because of IDEA, results for students with disabilities have improved dramatically during the past 20 years. One of the basic goals of the Act was that children with disabilities should not be excluded from school. This has been largely achieved. During the 1993-94 school year approximately 12 percent of elementary and secondary students received special education services (a 44 percent increase since the beginning of program). Moreover, as discussed in the next section of this chapter, over 95 percent of these students received services in regular school buildings, and many are educated in regular classrooms. A central purpose of IDEA is to ensure an effective and individualized education designed to address each child's particular needs in the least restrictive environment (LRE). Today, a continuum of placement options is being used in schools to provide special education services to students with disabilities. This practice fosters the achievement of social and academic goals by each individual child (Schnorr, 1990). A study by Evans, Salisbury, Palombaro, Berryman, & Hollywood (1992) found that social acceptance and opportunity for interaction are not uniquely associated with a child's cognitive functioning. Rather, the achievement of these social goals is affected by the environment in which services are received. The following example, described by a parent, illustrates how placement options are being used to accommodate the social and academic needs of students with disabilities (National Council on Disability, 1994, p. 10). My own daughter was born to Dave and [me] on March 3, 1980, with Down Syndrome and congenital heart disease. She was lucky to be born in the early 1980s because she is the first product of infant stimulation and early intervention programs. It is Vicki's generation of students with disabilities who will be the benchmark for how successful good quality education can and should be. When she was seven years old, Vicki was socially integrated into kindergarten, yet based in a special education classroom. For the past six years, Vicki has been a regular education student using special education supports. The success of this venture shows in Vicki's strong social skills and in her academic needs continually being challenged and met. She is going into the sixth grade this fall with the same students who have known her since first grade. She is part of their class and they are part of her class. ...Vicki's academic and personal needs have the same value as every other student enrolled in the school. The integrated educational opportunities that she experiences today will lead to Vicki being included in an integrated community for the rest of her life. (Carol Reedstrom, witness at the Chicago Hearing on Inclusionary Education, August 4-5, 1993.) This quote highlights the types of placements and supports given to one child. In addition, it reveals a parent's commitment to inclusive settings based on the positive educational results for her child. Equally important as individually tailored options are the settings in which students are served. Although challenges remain, IDEA has positively affected social and independent living results and educational attainment and employment for students with disabilities. Some of these positive results are described below, as well as factors associated with these results. Educational Attainment and Employment There has been a substantial increase in the educational levels of individuals with disabilities. The percentage of individuals who do not finish high school has decreased, while the percentage who complete some college or a 4-year college or more has increased (see table 3.1). Also, the percentage of college freshmen reporting disabilities has more than tripled since 1978; in 1978, 2.6 percent of full-time freshmen reported disabilities, and in 1991, 8.8 percent reported disabilities (American Council on Education, 1992). ___________________________________ _TABLE 3.1 Percentage Distribution of Educational Attainment of Persons by Disability Status, 1986 and 1994_ With Disabilities Without Disabilities Educational Attainment 1986 1994 1986 1994 ====================== ==== ==== ==== ==== Less than high school 40 25 15 12 High school graduate 31 30 37 41 Some college 15 28 25 26 Four-year college graduate or more 14 16 23 21 ---------------------- --- --- --- --- Total 100 100 100 100 NOTE: Due to rounding, data may not sum to 100 percent. NOTE: With Disabilities column is based on individuals ages 16 and over. Without Disabilities column is based on individuals ages 18 and older. SOURCE: Louis Harris and Associates, Inc., 1994. ___________________________________ In the years since the implementation of IDEA, rates of work force participation also have improved for individuals with disabilities. The percentage of youth with disabilities ages 16 to 24 employed (62 percent) is double that of individuals with disabilities ages 16 to 64 (31 percent) (Harris Survey, 1994; SRI, 1993). These data suggest 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 stronger than the data suggest because many youth ages 16 to 24 are enrolled in secondary school or postsecondary programs, and therefore may delay entry into the work force while they continue their education. Social Skills Social interactions serve as the basis for the acquisition of a range of important developmental skills(Hartup, 1983). According to Odem & Brown (1993), participation in socially active environments affects acquisition of peer social interaction skills most directly. The acquisition of these skills is important because they create the foundation for the development of positive social relationships within a peer group. In schools, a variety of conditions from environmental arrangements (Sainato & Carta, 1992; Twardosz, 1984; Spiegel-McGill, Bamabara, Shores, & Fox, 1984) to teacher strategies (Salisbury, Gallucci, Polombaro, & Peck, 1995; DeKlyen & Odem, 1989) have been developed to promote social skills. Post-school results show that most youth with disabilities (93 percent) who were out of school 3 to 5 years were not socially isolated. The longer youth were out of school, the less frequently they reported seeing friends; however, more than one-third still reported seeing friends 4 or more days per week. The rate of marriages or living with a member of the opposite sex was not significantly different from youth in the general population (SRI, 1993). Factors Associated with Positive Results 2 Data from the National Longitudinal Transition Study (NLTS) provide insights on those factors associated with positive results for students with disabilities. Many features of secondary school programs, including time in regular education or taking vocational courses, are associated with a number of positive postschool results, according to NLTS data. Youth with disabilities who took vocational education courses were more likely to be employed in the first 3 years after high school than those who took no courses at all. Youth who took a concentration of courses in a particular area, instead of one or more unrelated survey vocational classes, had a higher annual income. But time in regular education does not guarantee positive postschool results unless appropriate services are provided. According to the NLTS, many students in regular education have had high failure rates, particularly in the 9th and 10th grades. However, students who spent more time in regular education and succeeded had higher employment, independent living, and community participation rates. Further study is needed to determine whether the data indicate that: (1) the traits that enabled the most competent students to enroll in more regular education classes also served those youth well when they left school; or that (2) time in regular education enhanced overall intellectual and social competence by providing better preparation for adulthood; or that (3) these students' successes are a result of a combination of time in regular education and competency. The NLTS data raise two important issues. First, receiving quality instruction and proper support are important factors of successful school experiences. Second, there is no single special education policy or instructional strategy that benefits all students. In shaping policy and programs for students with disabilities, a range of options, tailored to meet the individual needs of students, continues to be the most effective approach to meeting a wide range of needs, preferences, and abilities of students who participate in special education. Equally important as quality instruction, proper support, and individually tailored options, are the settings in which students are served. The next section presents a national picture of how the full continuum of placement options is being used to provide a free appropriate public education to students with disabilities in the least restrictive environment. _______________________ 1 Portions of this section are excerpted from _Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)_ (U.S. Department of Education, 1995). 2 The information in this section summarizes the findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study(NLTS) of Special Education Students that are described in Chapter 3 of the _Seventeenth Annual Report to Congress_ (U.S. Department of Education, 1995). These findings are based on data from more than 8,000 youth who were aged 13 to 21 and in special education in secondary schools(grades 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. ---------- Educational Placements for Students with Disabilities OSEP uses several approaches to promote appropriate placements for students with disabilities in the least restrictive environment, including funded research, technical assistance, targeted grant awards for statewide systems change, and compliance monitoring. To examine State and national trends in educational placements for students with disabilities, 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 ages 3-21. Data for students ages 6-21 are collected by disability. The purpose of this data collection is to describe how States and the nation are meeting the LRE mandate as expressed in IDEA and its implementing regulations. During the past several years, the percentage of students with disabilities served in regular classes has increased considerably, while the percentage of students in resource rooms has gradually decreased (see figure 3.1). Other placement percentages have remained stable. During the past 5 years, not only have States and local school districts worked to meet the needs of students with disabilities within the general education classroom, but they have also improved their data collection and reporting procedures. As a result, for 1993-94, States reported serving 43.4 percent of students with disabilities ages 6-21 in regular classroom placements, 29.5 percent in resource rooms, 22.7 percent in separate classes, 3.1 percent in separate schools, 0.7 percent in residential facilities, and 0.6 percent in homebound/hospital placements. ___________________________________ _FIGURE 3.1 Percentage of Students with Disabilities Ages 6-21 Served in Different Educational Environments: 1989-90 to 1993-94_ YEAR -------- 1989-90 Regular Class =================> Resource Room ==============> Separate Class ================> Separate Facility ==> +----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+ 0 20 40 60 80 100 Percentage of Students in Different Environments 1990-91 Regular Class ================> Resource Room ===================> Separate Class =================> Separate Facility ==> +----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+ 0 20 40 60 80 100 Percentage of Students in Different Environments 1991-92 Regular Class ==================> Resource Room ===================> Separate Class ================> Separate Facility ==> +----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+ 0 20 40 60 80 100 Percentage of Students in Different Environments 1992-93 Regular Class ======================> Resource Room =================> Separate Class ================> Separate Facility ==> +----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+ 0 20 40 60 80 100 Percentage of Students in Different Environments 1993-94 Regular Class =========================> Resource Room ====================> Separate Class ===============> Separate Facility => +----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+ 0 20 40 60 80 100 Percentage of Students in Different Environments SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Data Analysis System (DANS). ___________________________________ Placement Patterns by Age States report a tendency to serve a larger percentage of students with disabilities ages 6-11 in regular classrooms; that percentage decreases for students ages 12-17 and 18-21 (see table 3.2 for the percentage in regular classrooms and table 3.3 for the continuum of educational placements). This pattern holds across the disability groups. The only exception is for students with learning disabilities. In that case, the percentage of students ages 18-21 in regular class placements is larger than the percentage of students ages 12-17 in regular class placements. Field-based research confirms that efforts to integrate younger students have generally been more successful than efforts with older students. This may be attributed, in part, to the departmentalized structure of secondary schools, the academic demands of the secondary curriculum, or the competitive culture that exists in many secondary schools. Furthermore, a substantial proportion of elementary school students with disabilities have speech or language impairments, which are often addressed in regular classes or resource rooms; many of these students do not require special education and related services in secondary school. ___________________________________ _TABLE 3.2 Percentage of Children in Regular Class Settings Under IDEA, Part B, and Chapter 1 of ESEA, During the 1993-94 School Year by Age Group_ Regular Class Settings ------------------------- Disability 6-11 12-17 18-21 ========== ===== ===== ===== Specific learning disabilities 40.88 37.98 40.29 Speech or language impairments 89.01 77.20 65.35 Mental retardation 10.75 7.35 6.14 Serious emotional disturbance 21.98 19.65 19.42 Multiple disabilities 11.35 7.49 4.06 Hearing impairments 32.56 30.30 19.08 Orthopedic impairments 39.30 37.49 21.94 Other health impairments 42.93 37.84 26.45 Visual impairments 47.00 45.77 28.44 Autism 10.85 9.12 4.18 Deaf-blindness 11.24 7.13 1.98 Traumatic brain injury 23.68 22.51 17.52 ---------------------------------------------------------- Total 48.78 33.29 26.59 SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Data Analysis System (DANS). ___________________________________ _TABLE 3.3 Educational Environments for Students with Disabilities_ _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. _Resource room_ includes students who receive special education and related services outside of the regular classroom for at least 21 percent but no more than 60 percent of the school day. _Separate class_ includes students who receive special education and related services outside the regular class for more than 60 percent of the school day. _Separate school_ includes students who receive special education and related services in a public or private separate day school for students with disabilities, at public expense, for more than 50 percent of the school day. _Residential facility_ includes students who receive special 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 a hospital or homebound program. SOURCE: OSEP Data Dictionary, Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education. ___________________________________ A relatively large percentage of students ages 18-21 are served in separate classes and schools (see table 3.4). Because general education students typically graduate at age 18, students with disabilities ages 18-21 who are still in school do not have same-age peers with whom to interact. Some educators assert that the most natural environments for these students are colleges and universities, work sites, postsecondary vocational training programs, or community-based instructional settings other than secondary schools. ___________________________________ _TABLE 3.4 Percentage of Students with Disabilities Served in Different Educational Environments by Age Group: 1993-94_ Age Group --------------------- Educational Environments 6-11 12-17 18-21 ======================== ==== ===== ===== Regular class 53.5 33.3 26.6 Resource room 24.8 35.1 28.1 Separate class 19.3 25.9 30.8 Separate school 1.9 3.7 10.3 Residential facility 0.3 1.1 2.9 Homebound/hospital 0.3 0.8 1.3 SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Data Analysis System (DANS). ___________________________________ Placement Patterns by Disability Placement patterns also vary considerably by disability (see table 3.5). The majority of students with speech and language impairments (87.5 percent) are served in regular classes, and an additional 7.6 percent are served in resource rooms. Students with speech and language impairments are more likely than students with any other disability to spend the majority of their day with peers who do not have disabilities. ___________________________________ _TABLE 3.5 Percentage of Students with Disabilities Ages 6-21 Served in Different Educational Environments, by Disability: School Year 1993-94_ Residen- Home- Regular Resource Separate Separate tial bound/ Disability Class Room Class School Facil. Hospital ========== ===== ==== ===== ====== ===== ======== Specific learning disabilities 39.3 41.0 18.8 0.6 0.1 0.1 Speech or language impairments 87.5 7.6 4.5 0.3 0.04 0.05 Mental retardation 8.6 26.1 57.0 7.0 0.7 0.5 Serious emotional disturbance 20.5 25.8 35.3 13.4 3.2 1.8 Multiple disabilities 9.1 19.8 44.1 21.8 3.2 2.0 Hearing impairments 30.6 20.0 30.6 7.0 11.6 0.2 Orthopedic impairments 37.4 20.7 33.3 5.3 0.5 2.9 Other health impairments 40.0 27.0 21.3 1.8 0.4 9.4 Visual impairments 45.2 21.3 18.3 4.1 10.6 0.5 Autism 9.6 8.1 54.5 23.4 3.9 0.5 Deaf-blindness 7.7 8.0 34.6 24.3 23.2 2.2 Traumatic brain injury 22.3 23.5 30.2 18.3 2.6 3.0 --------------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. and Outlying Areas 43.4 29.5 22.7 3.1 0.7 0.6 50 States, D.C., & P.R. 43.4 29.4 22.7 3.1 0.7 0.6 SOURCE: Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Data Analysis Systems (DANS). ___________________________________ Students with learning disabilities, orthopedic impairments, other health impairments, serious emotional disturbance, and traumatic brain injury are generally placed within the regular school building, but then students are spread across regular classes, resource rooms, and separate classes. It is likely that many of these students spend a portion of their day in classes with peers who do not have disabilities, but are "pulled out" for extended resource room support or alternative academic courses. Separate classroom placements are most prevalent for students with mental retardation (57.0 percent), autism (54.5 percent), and multiple disabilities (44.1 percent), although resource room placements are also commonly used to serve students with mental retardation and multiple disabilities. By definition, those in separate classroom placements may spend up to 40 percent of the school day in a regular classroom. This section has presented data on educational placements for students with disabilities. The percentage of students with disabilities served in regular classes has increased considerably over the past 5 years, although, on a national level, regular classroom placements are still primarily used with elementary-aged students and those with speech or language impairments and learning disabilities. The next section of this chapter examines one of OSEP's efforts to promote the placement of students with severe disabilities in inclusive settings. ---------- Statewide Systems Change for Students with Severe Disabilities This section highlights one of OSEP's efforts to provide assistance to States and localities to educate all students and to ensure the effectiveness of these efforts. The statewide systems change grant program described in this section exemplifies the opportunities OSEP has provided to States to explore innovative inclusion practices and promote better results for students with disabilities. As part of its effort to ensure appropriate services for students with severe disabilities and to facilitate greater inclusion of students with disabilities in general education classes and schools, OSEP provides grants to State educational agencies (SEAs) under its statewide systems change priority. Between 1987 and 1990, 16 States received 5-year statewide systems change grants to increase the physical, social, and academic integration of students with severe disabilities; increase the capacity of State and local education agencies to provide effective services to students with severe disabilities; empower parents to become actively involved in their child's education; and promote collaboration among parents, students, and service providers. Grants were in the amount of approximately $250,000 per year. To describe statewide systems change at the State and local levels, and to identify factors that facilitate or impede systems change, Westat, Inc., under contract with OSEP, conducted 1-week site visits to five States that received statewide systems change grants between 1987 and 1990--Colorado, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Washington. This section summarizes the findings from those site visits. Contextual Factors Affecting Systems Change As described by Hasazi et al. (1994), the context in which systems change was introduced was extremely important to the success of the projects. As with any reform initiative, stakeholder support, relationships among key actors, the presence of necessary preconditions for change, and the local culture all affected the extent and type of change achieved. For example, when the grant was awarded to Colorado in 1987, the SEA was promoting needs-based programming, which was student-centered and stressed creative problem solving and encouraged services based on individual need and not on any disability category. The SEA had been working with local high schools in conjunction with university faculty on inclusion through another Federal grant, and Colorado was already serving many students with disabilities in regular schools and classes. When the OSEP systems change grant was awarded, the State had already taken preliminary steps toward inclusive programming for students with disabilities. Likewise, when Vermont was awarded its 1988 systems change grant, the State had been working on systems change for several years through previous Federal grants and related State initiatives. Consequently, the activities undertaken through this grant supplemented work already conducted, including efforts to build consensus among stakeholders on necessary changes to special education service delivery and a vision for best practices. In addition, a consulting teacher model was the predominant method of staffing special education, and as a result, many special education teachers were accustomed to working collaboratively with general educators. These factors existed at the outset of the 1988 to 1993 systems change project. The local context also shaped the nature of services for students with disabilities, and the ability to change the nature of those services. In one rural intermediate unit in Michigan, a few parents of students with disabilities were dissatisfied with sending their students to a regional program, in part because of the long bus ride. District administrators were concerned about the expense of busing students long distances, and the intermediate unit was losing the lease on one of its schools. These factors all came together to facilitate changing the role of the intermediate unit from providing direct services to providing technical and programmatic support, and moving students previously served in the intermediate unit back to their local school districts. One contextual factor that seemed particularly critical in understanding statewide systems change was the level of State agency support for systems change. Some indicators of State support for inclusive programming and systems change include: * a strong association between the systems change project and the SEA; * State policies, such as a placement-neutral special education finance formula; noncategorical personnel certification, or certification standards requiring classes in inclusion or collaboration; and the nature of the statewide testing programs; * the presence of other State-level reform efforts that are compatible with systems change (e.g., prereferral, site-based management, needs-based programming); * State efforts to close separate schools and/or regional special education programs and transition students back to their home districts; and * the availability of State funds to supplement the Federal systems change grant. Project Emphasis on Various Aspects of Systems Change The statewide systems change projects that Westat visited conducted relatively similar project activities, although (as shown in table 3.6) different projects chose to emphasize different avenues to systems change. Most projects developed and disseminated frameworks for best practices or adapted products developed in other States, and provided technical assistance to selected schools or school districts to facilitate inclusive programming for students with severe disabilities and to test the processes described in the best practices documents. They provided widespread inservice training across their States, promoted awareness of systems change, and undertook efforts to reform preservice training. ___________________________________ _TABLE 3.6 Amount of Emphasis Placed on Various Aspects of Systems Change_ Develop and Intensive Disseminate Technical Statewide Reform Best Assistance Widespread Awareness- Pre- Practices in Selected Inservice level Service Framework Sites Training Training Training ========= ======== ========= ======== ======== Colorado High High Moderate High Low Michigan High High High High High Pennsylvania High High High High Low Vermont High High High High High* Washington Moderate High Moderate Moderate Moderate * In Vermont, many necessary changes in preservice training were made prior to the grant described here. SOURCE: Descriptions developed based on site visits with State and local project staff and verified by State project personnel. ___________________________________ Typically, a project staff member was assigned to work with each local site. States worked with four or five new sites per year, and assistance was provided for up to 3 years. Over the projects' 5-year existence, intensive assistance was provided to 15 to 20 sites per State. The technical assistance providers spent several days a month at each local site. In most cases, personnel at local sites, along with their technical assistance provider, completed a needs assessment, which was used to determine which activities should be carried out during the coming year. Project staff then provided inservice training on issues such as systems change, inclusion, and collaboration, and helped plan services for individual students. Projects also offered summer institutes, which provided week-long intensive training on systems change. Districts were encouraged to send teams composed of regular and special education teachers and administrators to the summer institutes. Efforts were also made to conduct training to raise the awareness of local educational personnel concerning systems change across the States, rather than restricting such training solely to project sites. Project staff conducted inservice workshops, made conference presentations, and wrote newsletters to draw attention to the issues of systems change. System changes project staff in Michigan worked in some capacity with 72 percent of that State's local school districts. While projects proposed working with faculties from various universities to reform preservice training for general and special education personnel, those efforts had limited success. In Michigan, preservice training curriculum was closely tied to State certification requirements, and most universities were reluctant to revise their preservice training curriculum until certification requirements changed. Many projects used changes to inservice training as an alternative to preservice reform. In Vermont, service providers (in both general and special education) were trained through inservice workshops to work in inclusive classrooms. The retraining of teachers to work in a collaborative, inclusive model continues to be a major challenge for project staff. Nature and Amount of Systems Change Just as the context for systems change within each State differed, the extent and nature of change also differed. Some States, such as Colorado and Vermont, were particularly successful in changing State policy to promote inclusion of students with disabilities. Others, such as Pennsylvania, changed the role of intermediate units from providing direct services to providing technical support, and moved students from regional programs back to their local schools and school districts. Washington and Pennsylvania were particularly successful in leveraging State funds to expand technical assistance activities beyond what was possible through the OSEP grant, while all five States enhanced statewide awareness of inclusion through conference presentations, inservice training, and publications. Vermont, Pennsylvania, and Michigan reported moving sizable numbers of students to more inclusive settings during the grant period, and Vermont reduced its special education child count through enhanced general education services. These results are presented in table 3.7. ___________________________________ _TABLE 3.7 Relative Amount and Nature of Change Observed in Each State_ Change Inter- mediate Units from Move Reduc- Revise Direct Revise Enhance Students tion State Services to Leverage Pre- Aware- to More in Education Technical State service ness of Inclusive Child Policies Support Funds Training Inclusion Settings Count ======== ======= ======= ======== ========= ======== ===== _Colorado_ High NA Low Low High Moderate Low _Michigan_ * Low Low Low High High Low _Pennsylvania_ Moderate High High Low High High Low _Vermont_ High NA Low Moderate High High High _Washington_ Low NA High Low High Low Low * The Michigan legislature is currently considering policy changes that facilitate inclusive programming for students with disabilities. SOURCE: Descriptions developed based on site visits with State and local project staff and verified by State project personnel. ___________________________________ Challenges to Systems Change Several areas presented difficulties for most or all of the systems change projects either at the State level or for local sites. These areas include spreading change from target schools to other locations, institutionalizing change at the secondary level, meeting the needs of students with emotional impairments in inclusive settings, and defining appropriate roles for paraprofessionals. Many projects focused on school-level change, and careful planning was required to facilitate the spread of systems change from one school to another. In one district in Pennsylvania, systems change efforts were targeted at a particular elementary school, with little district involvement. Although schoolwide efforts were extremely successful, when students left the elementary school for the middle school, there was no inclusive programming available and no systematic plan for adopting inclusive programming. In general, statewide systems change projects had more success in bringing about change in elementary schools than in secondary schools. In one district well-known for its inclusive practices, secondary school teachers expressed frustration with the lack of training and information on how to implement inclusive programming at the secondary level. Teachers were uncomfortable with parental expectations for class credits and diplomas. Grading was an issue, and secondary school teachers were seen as excessively committed to their academic discipline rather than their students. Some parents were as dissatisfied as teachers with secondary programming, reporting that some teachers took responsibility for students with disabilities in their classes, but others relied on paraprofessionals to adapt curriculum and instruction. Several parents reported that nondisabled students in middle and high school were less accepting of students with disabilities than they were at the elementary level. In a few cases, parents who had insisted on inclusive programming for their children at the elementary level placed their children in separate facilities in middle school. Of all the disability groups, students with emotional impairments remained the most difficult to accommodate. From a local perspective, these challenges were tied to the disruptive behavior displayed by many students with emotional impairments. From a broader perspective, limitations in success were tied to the scope of training and resources for meeting student needs. Another difficult issue in several States related to the role of paraprofessionals in modifying and adapting curriculum and instruction, and the expense associated with hiring these additional staff members. In general, local personnel seemed uncertain about the appropriate role of paraprofessionals in meeting the needs of students with disabilities in general education settings. Discussion of Systems Change As State and local systems change projects work to improve services for students with severe disabilities, they are faced with diminishing funds and growing needs for educational programming. The climate of fiscal austerity challenges the ability of many schools and school districts to garner the resources necessary to support systems change. In Colorado and Vermont, a wide range of State policies and practices supported local school districts in adopting inclusive practices. The administrators created what Fullan (1995) described as "incentives and conditions for change." At the time of the systems change grant, change in Michigan was primarily driven from the bottom up, although since that time the State has become far more involved in policy change to support and promote inclusion. In Michigan, parents demanded inclusive placements for their children with severe disabilities, and local school divisions worked to provide appropriate programming. The local school districts gained the advantage of being able to take credit for initiating change at the local level and establishing a sense of local ownership of policies. While they continued to face difficulties in implementing change, local staff seemed to take responsibility for those difficulties and for finding appropriate solutions. The primary limitation with locally-initiated change that was not initially supported by compatible State policy was that there were pockets of reform surrounded by areas where the status quo prevailed. The picture that emerges from these site visits is complex. No single factor or group of factors accounted for all of the change that occurred. In most cases, long-lasting reform occurred when a system was given time to adjust to successive changes. In States such as Vermont, where reform has been taking place over a long period of time, administrators and university personnel acknowledged the difficulties they experienced and the new ones they anticipated. They advised States just beginning the systems change process to acknowledge that change takes time. The systems change grants are designed to stimulate change--specifically, as noted at the beginning of this discussion, to increase the physical, social, and academic integration of students with severe disabilities; increase the capacity of State and local educational agencies to provide effective services to students with severe disabilities; empower parents to become actively involved in their child's education; and promote collaboration among parents, students, and service providers. To a large extent, the systems change grant projects did stimulate change in those areas. ---------- Summary and Implications Significant progress has been made in achieving the full participation of students with disabilities in their schools and communities since the passage of IDEA. IDEA has dramatically improved results for students with disabilities. Levels of education and employment rates are higher, and students with disabilities are acquiring social skills. State-reported data show that students with disabilities are being served in less restrictive placements. However, as shown by the experience of the States that received OSEP system change grants, achieving full participation of students with disabilities in their schools and communities is an incremental process, not a sudden singular event. Furthermore, promoting full participation does not take place in a vacuum. Context, history, and values are critical to the form and shape any change eventually takes. Because of the complexity of the educational system, fiscal policy, organizational structures, advocacy, preservice and inservice training, curriculum and instruction, monitoring, and evaluation are critical elements in promoting full participation for students with disabilities in their schools and communities. OSEP will continue to work in partnership with State and local educational agencies to achieve this goal. References American Council on Education, HEATH Resource Center. (1992). _College Freshmen with Disabilities: A Statistical Profile_ (p. #3, table 1). Los Angeles: Author. DeKlyen, M., & Odem, S.L. (1989). Activity structure and social interaction with peers in developmentally integrated play groups. _Journal of Early Intervention, 13,_ 342-351. Evans, I.M., Salisbury, C.L. Palombaro, M.M., Berryman, J., & 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. Fullan, M.G. (1991). _The New Meaning of Educational Change_ (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press. Hartup, W.W. (1983). Peer Relations. In M. Heatherington (Ed.), _Handbook of Child Psychology_ (vol. IV) pp. 103-196. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Hasazi, S., Johnston, A.P., Liggett, A.M., & Schattman, R.A. (1994). A qualitative policy study of the least restrictive environment provision of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. _Exceptional Children, 60,_ 491-507. Louis Harris and Associates, Inc. (1994.) _N.O.D./Harris Survey of Americans with Disabilities_ (Study Number 942003). New York: Author. National Council on Disability. (1994). _Inclusionary Education for Students with Disabilities: Keeping the Promise._ Washington, DC: Author. Odem, S.L., & Brown, W.H. (1993). Social Interaction Skills for Young Children with Disabilities in Integrated Settings. In M. Peck, S. Odem, and D. Bricker (Eds.), _Integrating Young Children with Disabilities into Community Programs: Ecological Perspectives on Research and Implementation._ Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Sainato, D.M., & Carta J.J. (1992). Classroom influences on the development of social competence in young children with disabilities. In S. Odem, S. McConnell, and M. McEvoy (Eds.). _Social Competence of Young Children with Disabilities: Issues and Strategies for intervention._ pp. 93-109. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Salisbury, C.L. Gallucci, C. Polombaro, M.M., & Peck, C.A. (1995). Strategies that Promote Social Relations Among Elementary Students with and Without Severe Disabilities in Inclusive Schools. _Exceptional Children,_ 62 (2), 125-137. Schnorr, R.F. (1990). Peter? He comes and goes: First graders' perspectives on a part-time mainstream student. _Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 15,_ 231-240. Spiegel-McGill P., Bamabara, L.M. Shores, R.M., & Fox, J.J. (1984). The effects of proximity on socially directed behaviors of severely multihandicapped children. _Education and Treatment of children, 7,_ 365-378. SRI International. (1993). _The transition experience of young people with disabilities._ Palo Alto, CA: Author. Twardosz, S. (1984). Environmental organization: The physical, social, and programmatic context of behavior. In M. Herson, R. M. Eisler, and P. M. Miller (Eds.). _Progress in Behavior Modification_ (vol. 18). Orlando: Academic Press. U.S. Department of Education. (1995). _Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1995: Reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)._ Washington, DC: Author. U.S. Department of Education. (1995). _Seventeenth Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Act._ Washington, DC: Author. ---------- Chapter 4 _______________________________________________________________________ Meeting the Needs of Students with Disabilities in the Inner Cities Anecdotal information suggests that special education programs in inner cities face unique challenges, and differ from nationally representative data on special education students, personnel, and services. Despite a keen interest in exploring issues of inner city needs and services, due to the scarcity of data, OSEP must rely on information collected by the Office for Civil Rights (OCR), the National Longitudinal Transition Study of Special Education Students (NLTS), and secondary data sources. This chapter synthesizes information from a variety of those sources to provide a profile of special education in the nation's inner cities. The chapter addresses the following specific questions. * What are the characteristics and needs of inner city students with disabilities as compared to students with disabilities in suburban and rural areas? * How do special education services in inner city areas compare to special education in suburban and rural areas? * How do poverty and race/ethnicity affect the need for and the nature of special education services in inner cities? * How do outcomes for youth with disabilities in urban areas compare with outcomes for youth in suburban and rural areas? Special education takes place within a community, a school district, and a school building. It is nested within a broader educational environment, and this educational environment naturally affects the need for special education services and the ability of the system to meet those needs. An example of the conditions in New York City illustrates some of the many challenges faced by inner city schools. In New York City, poor and minority children are increasing as a percentage of total student growth. The social welfare index for children continues to decline; children are currently about 42 percent worse off than they were in 1974, and their welfare is likely to get even worse in the next five years. Unemployment, poverty, and child abuse are reaching epidemic proportions in New York City....[D]iseases, like AIDS and drug abuse, whose rapid growth are associated with poverty, are increasing at an explosive rate. It is reasonable to conclude that a growing percentage of the educational budget will be needed to service the increasing number of at-risk students. Trend discrepancies in incidence rates of at-risk students and the funding allocated for services indicate that the New York City school system will most likely be unable to provide the necessary services for students in need (Richards, 1992). Similar trends have been documented in smaller cities, such as Denver, Colorado. In recent years, Denver has seen an increase in infant mortality, youth unemployment, and deaths due to child abuse. In one area, almost half the households live at or below the poverty level, compared to 16 percent of all households in the State. The city's schools serve students from a variety of racial and ethnic backgrounds, who may speak one of 89 different languages. Finally, several Denver schools report student turnover of 75 percent in a given academic year (Kozleski et al., 1993). All these factors are common to inner cities and affect the needs of students with disabilities and the ability of schools to meet those needs. This chapter consists of the three sections summarized below. * _Number and Characteristics of Students with Disabilities in Inner-City Districts_ compares and contrasts inner-city students with students in suburban and rural areas in terms of disability, socioeconomic status, language proficiency, and racial/ethnic identity. * _Factors Associated with the Provision of Special Education to Students with Disabilities in Inner Cities_ discusses factors affecting _identification and assessment_ of racial and ethnic minorities and limited English proficient students in the inner city; and factors affecting special education _service delivery,_ including educational placements for students with disabilities, efforts to employ qualified personnel, and efforts to maintain active parent involvement. This section also includes a description of services for students with disabilities in inner-city districts. * _Outcomes for Youth with Disabilities in Urban Areas_ describes outcomes for youth such as dropout rate, postsecondary enrollment, employment, and wages. In this chapter, the terms inner city and urban are used differently, with the latter term being more general and including urban fringe areas. Footnotes are used throughout the chapter to inform the reader of the definitional issues specific to various data sets. ---------- Number and Characteristics of Students with Disabilities in Inner-City Districts This section compares and contrasts inner-city students with students in suburban and rural areas in terms of disability, socioeconomic status, language proficiency, and racial/ethnic identity, using data from OCR, the Common Core of Data Public School Universe File (CCD), and other sources. For these analyses, 8 percent of all school districts in the U.S. were classified as inner-city districts. Although this is a small percentage of all districts, inner-city districts enroll 26 percent of all students, according to OCR district student counts. This reflects the large populations of students in inner-city schools and school districts, compared to those of rural or suburban districts.1 Disabilities Table 4.1 shows the percentage of students with disabilities in inner-city and non-inner-city areas by disability based on analysis of OCR2 and CCD3 data. The data suggest that inner-city and non-inner-city areas have similar percentages of students with disabilities--10.4 percent and 10.8 percent, respectively. The data also suggest little variation between the two types of areas by type of disability, although non-inner-city areas appear to report slightly higher percentages of students with speech or language impairments (2.7 percent versus 2.1 percent) and a higher percentage of students with specific learning disabilities (5.4 percent versus 5.1) than inner-city areas. ___________________________________ _Table 4.1 Estimated Number and Percentage of Students with Disabilities in Inner-City and Non-Inner-City School Districts in the 1992-93 School Year_ Inner-City Non-inner-city Disability Number Percent Number Percent ========== ======= ======= ====== ======= Specific learning disabilities 554,044 5.1% 1,684,256 5.4% Speech or language impairments 232,949 2.1 847,552 2.7 Mental retardation 147,819 1.4 403,450 1.3 Serious emotional disturbance 89,342 0.8 205,314 0.7 Multiple impairments 29,625 0.3 45,570 0.2 Hearing impairments 16,209 0.2 36,614 0.1 Orthopedic impairments 13,964 0.1 27,768 0.1 Other health impairments 23,268 0.2 58,041 0.2 Visual impairments 6,135 0.1 15,118 0.1 Autism 7,001 0.1 8,202 0.0 Deaf-blindness 713 0.0 1,115 0.0 Traumatic brain injury 463 0.0 2,661 0.0 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- All disabilities 1,121,532 10.4% 3,335,661 10.8% NOTE: Percentage in "All disabilities" row may not equal sum of other rows due to rounding. SOURCE: The 1992 Office for Civil Rights Elementary and Secondary School Survey and the 1992 Common Core of Data Public School Universe File. ___________________________________ Socioeconomic Status Many people in America's cities live in poverty. Based on the eligibility criteria for the free lunch program, OCR data indicate that 30 percent of all inner-city students live in poverty, compared to 18 percent of students living outside the inner cities. Many of those living in poverty are also members of racial or ethnic minorities. One study of special education students in a poor region of a large urban school system found that 90 percent of the students receive some form of public assistance, 95 percent belong to a minority group, and only 10 to 25 percent live with two parents (Gottlieb et al., 1994). Because socioeconomic status, educational levels, and family structure are related to academic achievement(Laosa; Brown; Carter & Segura; Duran; Henderson; Lambert; NCES; Rosenthal, Baker, & Ginsburg as cited in Hopstock et al., 1986), poverty levels may affect the need for educational services, in general, and special education, in particular. Data from the NLTS,4 which included a nationally representative sample of secondary school students, indicate that families of students with disabilities in urban areas are more likely to live in poverty than families of students in suburban or rural areas. At the time of the study, 47 percent of urban youth with disabilities lived in households with an annual income of less than $12,000 in 1986 dollars, compared to 34 percent of rural and 19 percent of suburban youth with disabilities (Valdés et al., 1990). Limited English Proficiency Between 1980 and 1990, the number of limited English proficient school-age children increased by 27 percent, from 1.9 million to 2.4 million (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1980, 1990). The majority of limited English proficient students live in three states--California, Texas, and New York. In California, 15 percent of all 5- to 17-year-olds are limited English proficient students. Urban districts in general, and inner-city districts in particular, enroll a greater percentage of limited English proficient students than nonurban schools, and some large urban centers have very high concentrations of limited English proficient students. OCR data suggest that 5 percent of special education students in inner-city districts have limited English proficiency, compared to 1 percent in non-inner-city districts. In addition, NLTS data suggest that 4 percent of secondary school students with disabilities in urban areas speak another language at home, compared to 2 percent in nonurban areas (Valdés et al., 1990). Racial/Ethnic Identity Public schools located in inner cities enroll almost twice as many African American and Hispanic students as do non-inner-city schools (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1992). Historically, nonwhite students have been disproportionately represented in special education. Although this issue has received significant attention over the past 25 years, there is evidence that the problem of disproportionate representation continues (Harry, 1992). Harry (1992) used OCR data to analyze the special education enrollment rate, by race/ethnicity, for the nation as a whole and in selected States. She reports that placement of African American students in special education is generally high relative to their representation in the general student population. Harry found that 16 percent of all students in the nation are African Americans, but they account for 35 percent of the students with educable mental retardation, 27 percent of the students with trainable mental retardation, and 27 percent of the students with serious emotional disturbance.5 In examining special education placements for Hispanic students, Harry found that in some individual States and in some disability categories, Hispanics are over and underrepresented relative to their proportion of the total population. However, Hispanic students account for 10 percent of all students in the nation and for 5 to 10 percent of those in the four disability categories, indicating no disproportionate representation nationwide. According to Harry's analysis, Asian students are generally represented in special education at a rate lower than their proportion in the population. Nationwide, Asians account for 3 percent of the student body and 0-2 percent of those in the four disability categories on which OCR collects race/ethnicity data. OCR data suggest that white students are consistently placed in programs for students with learning disabilities at a rate higher than their proportion in the population (Harry, 1992). NLTS data (in Harry, 1994) are consistent with OCR data in suggesting that African American youth are placed in programs for students with mental retardation and serious emotional disturbance at a rate higher than their proportion in the population. In addition, the NLTS data suggest that disproportionate representation of racial or ethnic minorities occurs not only in the disability categories that require professionals to make judgments about placements, such as mental retardation. Overrepresentation also occurs in categories in which professionals are supposed to be able to place students using objective criteria, such as deaf/blindness, visual impairments, orthopedic impairments, and other health impairments. According to Wagner (1995), this suggests that factors other than racial discrimination contribute to the disproportionate representation of particular groups. As the OCR data in table 4.2 indicate, non-inner-city districts have higher percentages of African American and Hispanic students in some disability categories than inner-city districts. A higher percentage of African American students in non-inner-city districts (2.8 percent) are reported to have mental retardation, compared to inner-city districts (2.0 percent). Higher percentages of both African American and Hispanic students in non-inner-city areas are reported as having specific learning disabilities compared to students in inner-city districts. However, this disproportion does not hold across disabilities. Despite the fact that a large number of African American and Hispanic students attend inner-city schools and are reportedly overrepresented in special education, data from OCR, as shown in table 4.2, suggest that inner-city and non-inner-city districts enroll virtually the same percentage of students in special education. ___________________________________ _Table 4.2 Estimated Number and Percentage of Students in Special Education in Inner-City and Non-Inner-City School Districts, by Ethnicity and Disability, 1992-93 School Year_ Race and Disability Category Inner-City Non-Inner-City Total Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent _White, non-Hispanic_ Mental retardation Serious emotional disturbance Specific learning disability 58,772 40,409 241,678 1.3 .9 5.2 269,010 157,934 1,280,875 1.1 .7 5.4 327,782 198,343 1,522,553 1.1 .7 5.3 _African American, non-Hispanic_ Mental retardation Serious emotional disturbance Specific learning disability 65,535 35,433 176,107 2.0 1.1 5.5 103,947 34,645 222,730 2.8 .9 6.1 169,482 70,078 398,837 2.5 1.0 5.8 _Hispanic_ Mental retardation Serious emotional disturbance Specific learning disability 20,339 12,362 124,042 .8 .5 5.0 20,278 8,043 138,289 .8 .3 5.5 40,617 20,405 262,331 .8 .3 5.3 _Totala/_ Mental retardation Serious emotional disturbance Specific learning disability 147,820 89,342 554,045 1.4 .8 5.1 403,451 205,314 1,684,257 1.3 .7 5.4 551,271 294,656 2,238,302 1.3 .7 5.3 _All Students with Disabilitiesb/_ 1,121,532 10.3 3,335,661 10.6 4,457,193 10.5 a/ Also includes Asian and American Indian students (not shown). b/ Consists of all students with an IEP. SOURCE: The 1992 Office for Civil Rights Elementary and Secondary School Survey and the 1992 Common Core of Data Public School Universe File. ___________________________________ Wagner (1995) suggests that poverty, and not race or ethnicity, is the important factor influencing the disproportionate representation of minority groups in special education. Using NLTS data, Wagner compared the distribution of white, African American, and Hispanic secondary school-age students with that of the general population within each of three income groups. Table 4.3 shows that after accounting for differences in income, the disproportionate representation of African American students decreases considerably. According to the analysis, the disproportionate representation of African Americans in special education is a function of relatively low income and the disabilities associated with poverty. Only in the lowest income category is the difference in African American representation between students in special education and the general population (44.4 percent and 37.4 percent, respectively) statistically significant. When income is accounted for, disproportionate representation remains in three disability categories--speech impairments, visual impairments, and mental retardation. ___________________________________ _Table 4.3 Ethnic Distribution, by Income Category, of Secondary School-Age Students with Disabilities and Those in the General Population_ Adjusted General Population of Income Category and Students with Student Students with Ethnic Distribution Disabilitiesa/ Populationb/ Disabilitiesc/ =================== ============ =========== ============= _Lowest Income Category_ Percentage who were: African American 39.6 37.4 44.4 Hispanic 10.9 16.9 -- White 47.0 58.6 54.4 _Middle Income Category_ Percentage who were: African American 21.5 20.5 23.7 Hispanic 9.4 13.8 -- White 66.8 75.5 73.7 _Highest Income Category_ Percentage who were: African American 10.4 9.2 10.7 Hispanic 2.7 6.8 -- White 83.5 87.5 86.4 a/ Income categories differ somewhat for the two populations. NLTS categories are: <$12,000, $12,000 to $24,999, and greater than or equal to $25,000. Census categories are: <$10,000, $10,000 to $24,999, and greater than or equal to $25,000. Thus, the highest income category is the most directly comparable. Students in the NLTS "other" ethnic category are not reported here because there are no corresponding figures for them, by income category, in Census data. b/ Data are from the U.S. Bureau of the Census (1990) Money Income of Households, Families and Persons in the United States, 1988 and 1989. Current Population Reports, Consumer Incomes, Series P-60, No. 172. Data are for families with one or more related children between the ages of 6 and 17. c/ Because individuals in the Census category "Hispanic" may be of any race, NLTS ethnic distributions are adjusted in this column to apportion the Hispanic population in each income category among the other categories in proportions equal to their representation in the population. SOURCE: Wagner, Mary (1995). The Contributions of Poverty and Ethnic Background to the Participation of Secondary School Students in Special Education. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. ___________________________________ This section described the population of students with disabilities in inner cities. Data suggest that inner-city districts serve similar percentages of students in special education as suburban and rural districts, but inner-city districts enroll a larger percentage of students living in poverty, a larger percentage of students with limited English proficiency, and a larger percentage of students from racial/ethnic minority groups. Data from OCR and NLTS confirm that minority students are disproportionately represented in special education, but the data suggest that over-representation may, in part, be a function of higher rates of poverty among minorities. _______________________ 1 To describe the population of students with disabilities in inner-city school districts, data from the Common Core of Data (CCD) Public School Universe File, used to designate districts as inner-city or non-inner-city, were merged with data from the 1992 Office for Civil Rights Elementary and Secondary School Survey. 2 The Office of Civil Rights(OCR) Elementary and Secondary School Survey collects data on the characteristics of students enrolled in public schools across the country primarily to monitor compliance with civil rights laws. From one portion of the survey, data from public school districts and the schools within those districts are used to generate State and national estimates of the number of students identified as having speech impairments, visual impairments, specific learning disabilities, 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 1992 survey included approximately 4,700 districts representing 43,000 schools (NCES, 1994b). 3 The Common Core of Data(CCD) survey collects information on elementary and secondary public education in the U.S. Data are collected annually from the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. 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, 1994a). 4 The NLTS, which began in 1987, was a 5-year national longitudinal study of secondary special education students to determine how they fare in terms of education, employment, and independent living. NLTS involved a nationally representative sample of more than 8,000 secondary-age youth with disabilities (NCES, 1994a). NLTS used codes for urban, suburban, and rural districts generated by the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Consequently, the schools classified as urban in this data set may include urban fringe areas as well as inner cities, which makes them different from inner-city schools in OCR/CCD. 5 Data from OCR on race/ethnicity by disability are only collected for the following disability categories: mental retardation, learning disability, speech impairments, and serious emotional disturbance. ---------- Factors Associated with the Provision of Special Education to Students with Disabilities in Inner Cities The interrelationships among socioeconomic status, language proficiency, and race and ethnicity in the U.S. make it difficult to determine how any one of them affects students' educational achievement. It is generally recognized that poverty (or at least extreme poverty) may place a child at greater risk of poor school performance. However, the range of performance within socioeconomic levels is fairly large, and considerable overlap in distributions is typical (Reschly, 1982). Poverty is an underlying condition for many students with disabilities. For example, mild mental retardation is consistently reported to be associated with low socioeconomic status, and race is highly correlated with socioeconomic status (Broman et al.; Drillien et al.; Stein & Susser; Lewis; Birch et al.; Kuschlick & Blunden; Kiely; Bayley; Munro as cited in Yeargin-Allsopp et al., 1995). A recent study (Yeargin-Allsopp et al., 1995) suggests that socioeconomic status is related to the prevalence of mild mental retardation and may account for some of the disproportionate representation of African American children in that category. The disproportionate representation of African American children in the mild mental retardation category was reduced by nearly half after controlling for sex, maternal age at delivery, birth order, maternal education, and economic status. The researchers suggest that the remaining disparity might be reduced further if other confounding factors, such as maternal intelligence and housing density, were controlled. The researchers cite previous studies demonstrating that less advantaged African American children who receive early, structured, and intensive social, medical, and educational interventions score higher, on average, on tests of cognitive ability than African American children from similar backgrounds who have not received these interventions (Wasik et al.; Martin et al.; Zigler et al.; Weikart et al. as cited in Yeargin-Allsopp, 1995). This section describes factors associated with providing special education services in inner-city districts. First, it examines factors related to identification and assessment. Second, it describes services for students with disabilities in urban areas (including placing students in the least restrictive environment, recruiting and retaining personnel, and maintaining parent involvement) and compares them with services for students in suburban and rural areas. Factors Affecting Identification and Assessment in Inner Cities In inner-city schools and school districts, identification and assessment of students for special education is complicated by the effects of poverty, race/ethnicity, and limited English proficiency. IDEA and its implementing regulations require that the special education assessment process be conducted in a nondiscriminatory fashion. Assessment must be multidisciplinary, and use instruments that do not discriminate on the basis of race or culture [34 CFR §300.530(b) and §300.532]. In practice, lower parent education levels in inner-city areas have specific implications for special education, because a mother's education level is a significant predictor of a child's age at the time special education needs are identified. Children with mothers who have completed college are identified as needing special education two years earlier on average than comparable children whose mothers only completed eighth grade (Palfrey et al., 1987). A study by Peng (1992) suggests that parent education levels are generally lower in the inner city, where 22 percent of parents have not graduated from high school, compared to 8 percent in other urban areas. _Factors Affecting Identification and Assessment of Racial and Ethnic Minorities_ Despite efforts to ensure objective assessment of student abilities and disabilities, disproportionate representation of minorities in special education continues. At the center of concern over the disproportionate representation of minority students in special education is the role of intelligence tests in identifying students with disabilities. Those who are critical of using IQ tests for this purpose argue that IQ tests are culturally loaded (Cummins, 1984), reflect a stylistic mismatch between students and schools (Hilliard, 1992), are standardized on a sample of American students that does not sufficiently represent minority students and what they know (Kaufman, 1975), and do not inform teaching and learning (Hilliard, 1987). Those defending the use of IQ tests for identifying students with disabilities agree that while they may not measure the learning potential of minority students, they may accurately predict the academic performance of students in a mainstream setting, and consequently have predictive validity (Jenson; Mercer as cited in Hamayan & Damico, 1991). IQ tests were originally designed to predict school performance (Binet as cited in Cummins, 1984) and continue to carry out this function fairly well (Clarizio as cited in Cummins, 1984). The premise of the IQ test is that previous learning of academically-related knowledge and skills is a good predictor of future learning. Intelligence tests attempt to sample from the range of what is assumed to be academically relevant knowledge and skills to which children have generally been exposed. Because learning takes place within a cultural context, some researchers consider intelligence tests to be culturally loaded (Kaufman as cited in Cummins, 1984). The extent of this cultural loading will tend to vary among different minority groups. This variation depends on the extent to which the socialization and learning experiences of the minority groups differ from the majority's, and the degree of emphasis placed on acculturation to the mainstream majority within different minority groups (Cummins, 1984). When cultural groups differ with respect to behavioral style, the misunderstanding of cultural behavioral style can lead to errors in estimating a student's (or group's) intellectual potential, abilities, or achievement (Hilliard, 1992). Hilliard describes the situation as a stylistic mismatch between students and schools. The stylistic mismatch is viewed in terms of student deficiency, when perhaps it is the schools that ought to change. Hilliard finds that what in some cases may appear to be deficient functions are merely alternative styles of processing information which have value in certain settings. Hilliard also argues that the IQ test does not provide sufficient information to inform teaching and learning, and suggests other methods and techniques that might be used to assess students (Hilliard, 1987). Some educators argue that IQ tests cannot assess the intelligence of minority students because standardization of IQ tests is based on a representative sample of American students. IQ tests, therefore, measure only those skills and knowledge that are regarded as indicators of intelligence in the majority culture. Any of the skills and knowledge that minority children learn that are specific to their culture will not be tested. In other words, for minority children, the IQ test as a measure of previous learning has no construct validity (Kaufman, 1975) because the children's previous learning experiences have not been adequately tested by the instrument (Cummins, 1984). However, other educators argue that although intelligence tests may not measure the learning potential of minority students, they may accurately predict the academic performance of students in a mainstream environment and therefore have predictive validity (Jenson; Mercer as cited in Hamayan & Damico,1991). Several studies have shown that the WISC-R scores for Hispanic students are acceptable predictors of ITBS and CAT scores. Those studies did not address the influence of English language proficiency on test reliability and validity (Dean; Oakland as cited in Hamayan & Damico, 1991). The predictive validity concept is further discounted by Travers (in Harry, 1994), who argues that to justify the use of IQ tests because they have predictive value is to assume that the prediction about a child's future performance is a valid reason for removing the child from the mainstream. This clearly conflicts with the IDEA requirement that no single procedure be used as the sole criterion for determining an appropriate educational program for a child. Critics of intelligence testing and those concerned with disproportionate representation of minorities in special education have argued that multiple criteria should be used to assess students with mild mental retardation, with particular emphasis on assessing adaptive behavior. IDEA defines mental retardation as: Significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning existing concurrently with deficits in adaptive behavior and manifested during the developmental period, which adversely affects a child's educational performance [CFR §300.5(4)]. Educators who advocate using adaptive behavior as part of the assessment process suggest doing so in four or five key dimensions, including independent functioning, social functioning, functional cognitive skills, vocational/occupational skills, and motor/mobility/travel skills (McGrew & Bruininks; Reschly as cited in Reschly & Ward, 1991). Controversy over the relative weights awarded to intellectual functioning and adaptive behavior during the assessment process continues. Recent research suggests that IQ continues to be emphasized more than adaptive behavior when students are assessed. Zeigler et al. (as cited in Reschly & Ward, 1991) suggest abandoning adaptive behavior measures because they are poorly conceptualized and psychometrically inadequate. Others have suggested that classification for educational purposes should be based entirely on adaptive behavior and achievement (Reschly as cited in Reschly & Ward, 1991). _Factors Affecting Identification and Assessment of Limited English Proficient Students_ Many of the same factors that affect identification and assessment of minority students for special education affect limited English proficient students. Current research suggests it is very difficult to distinguish between the effect of a disability on a student's achievement and that student's failure to understand the majority language and culture. This difficulty is a serious impediment to accurately assessing the student's disability. Teachers unfamiliar with the effect of language development on student achievement may refer students for special education assessment (Cegelka et al., 1986). Behaviors children normally exhibit while learning a second language--poor comprehension, limited vocabulary, or grammatical errors--may be erroneously interpreted as symptomatic of a learning disability or other disability. Further complicating the assessment process is the fact that young students rapidly learn the social language of English, but not the academic language of English used in classrooms and on assessments. Therefore, students may appear proficient in English because of their ability to function in social situations when, in fact, they have not developed the language skills necessary for academic success. Typically, among children learning a second language, social language is developed in about 3 years, and school language in about 5 to 7 years (interview with Baca, 1988). Special education assessment personnel must understand the second language acquisition process in order to consider the effects of language on student behavior and learning. Because language skills can have such a profound effect on assessment results, IDEA requires that "Such materials [tests] or procedures shall be provided and administered in the child's native language...unless it is clearly not feasible to do so..." (Sec. 612 (5) (c)). However, data show that testing of limited English proficient students is still performed primarily in English (Figueroa; Ortiz; Reuda, Figueroa, Mercado, & Cardoza as cited in Figueroa, 1989). Efforts to make assessments more functional for limited English proficient students can take several forms: (1) translating psychometric tests into the student's primary language; (2) using an interpreter during assessment; (3) using norm-referenced tests developed in the student's primary language; (4) using a bilingual psychologist (Figueroa, 1989); and (5) using nonverbal intelligence tests. These approaches also have their shortcomings. Some researchers stress the importance of using multiple criteria, as required by IDEA, when assessing limited English proficient students for special education, because any one assessment tool will be inadequate.6 Factors Affecting Special Education Service Delivery in Inner Cities Once students in inner-city areas are identified as requiring special education services, schools and school districts must provide them with a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment. The provision of appropriate services rests in part on the districts' ability to obtain an adequate supply of qualified personnel, to select appropriate curriculum and instructional methods, and to maintain active parent involvement. This section describes educational placements for students with disabilities in inner-city school districts, the nature of courses taken and services received by urban students with disabilities, and the efforts of inner-city school districts to employ qualified personnel and maintain active parent involvement. _Providing Services in the Least Restrictive Environment_ IDEA legislation and regulations require that to the maximum extent appropriate students with disabilities must be educated with their nondisabled peers. However, data from OCR suggest that students with disabilities living in inner cities are more likely to be placed in restrictive learning environments. As shown in table 4.4, in inner cities, 41.3 percent of students with disabilities are enrolled in full-time programs that remove students from regular classes for 50 percent or more of the school day, compared to 23.4 percent in non-inner-city areas. ___________________________________ _TABLE 4.4 Estimated Percentage of Students with Disabilities in Full-Time and Part-Time Special Education Placements for Inner-City and Non-Inner-City Districts, 1992-93 School Year_ Inner-City Non-inner-city Disability Part-Time Full-Time Part-Time Full-Time ========== ========= ========= ========= ========= Specific learning disabilities 64.3% 36.4% 81.2% 19.0% Speech or language impairments 86.2 13.8 93.9 6.2 Mental retardation 19.9 81.5 39.0 60.9 Serious emotional disturbance 33.0 67.7 57.9 42.1 Multiple impairments 40.0 60.0 32.9 67.2 Hearing impairments 48.2 51.8 71.5 28.5 Orthopedic impairments 43.2 57.1 66.1 33.9 Other health impairments 66.3 33.7 73.4 26.6 Visual impairments 57.4 42.5 81.0 19.0 Autism 18.1 82.0 25.9 74.2 Deaf-blindness 27.6 72.4 49.5 50.5 Traumatic brain injury 40.7 58.9 58.1 42.1 --------------------------------------------------------------------- All disabilities 58.7% 41.3% 76.6% 23.4% SOURCE: The 1992 Office for Civil Rights Elementary and Secondary School Survey and the 1992 Common Core of Data Public School Universe File. ___________________________________ NLTS data confirm that urban secondary students with disabilities spend less time in regular education classrooms than students living in nonurban areas. The average percentage of time spent in regular education classes was 41 percent for urban students with disabilities, compared to 56 percent for suburban students, and 59 percent for rural students. A higher percentage of urban students with disabilities are also placed in separate special education schools and classes. In urban areas, 11 percent of students with disabilities attend special schools, compared to 8 percent in suburban and 3 percent in rural areas. Of urban students with disabilities, 16 percent attend regular schools but not regular education classes, compared to 8 percent of suburban and 11 percent of rural students. _Services for Students with Disabilities in Urban Schools_ Data from the NLTS describe the range of services provided to secondary school-age students with disabilities in urban and nonurban schools. NLTS data indicate that students with disabilities in urban secondary schools spend an average of 57 percent of class time on academic subjects, such as English/language arts, mathematics, science, social science, and foreign language. This is slightly higher than the percentage for students with disabilities in rural or suburban schools (52 and 51 percent respectively). Table 4.5 shows that the percentage of students enrolled in each academic course is slightly higher in urban than in nonurban schools, implying a somewhat greater emphasis on academics for students with disabilities in urban schools compared to suburban and rural schools. ___________________________________ _TABLE 4.5 Courses Taken by Students with Disabilities in Urban, Rural, and Suburban Schools During Their Most Recent Year in Secondary School_ Academic Courses Taken Urban Rural Suburban ====================== ===== ===== ======== Percentage taking English/ 93.3% 90.6% 89.6% language arts classes (1.6) (1.5) (1.7) Percentage taking mathematics classes 78.2 72.2 74.1 (2.6) (2.3) (2.4) Percentage taking science classes 55.8 55.0 54.3 (3.2) (2.6) (2.7) Percentage taking other academic classes 76.1 70.2 69.5 (2.7) (2.4) (2.5) Percentage taking nonacademic classes 84.0 86.1 88.7 (2.3) (1.8) (1.7) Percentage taking non-subject-specific 9.8 8.1 10.3 special education classes (1.9) (1.4) (1.7) Standard errors are in parentheses. NOTE: Academic courses include English/language arts, mathematics, science, social science, and a foreign language. Other courses are considered nonacademic. Data is for students ages 13-21. SOURCE: National Longitudinal Transition Study, SRI International. ___________________________________ As shown in table 4.6, students with disabilities in secondary schools receive a variety of special education and related services in order to meet educational needs stemming from a disability. While urban students with disabilities are more likely to receive job training than any other service (50.6 percent), they are less likely to receive job training than students living in other areas. However, urban secondary school students with disabilities are more likely to receive personal counseling or transportation assistance than their peers living in suburban and rural areas. ___________________________________ _TABLE 4.6 Services Received by Youth with Disabilities in Urban, Rural, and Suburban Schools During Their Most Recent Year in Secondary School_ Services Received Urban Rural Suburban ================= ===== ===== ======== Job training 50.6% 53.5% 61.3% (2.9) (2.6) (2.6) Occupational therapy/life skills 25.1 28.3 27.9 training (2.5) (2.3) (2.4) Speech/language therapy 21.2 17.5 20.3 (2.4) (2.0) (2.1) Personal counseling/therapy 23.1 14.6 14.8 (2.5) (1.8) (1.9) A tutor, reader, or interpreter 17.1 14.1 15.1 (2.2) (1.8) (1.9) Help with transportation because 13.5 7.8 11.2 of disability (2.0) (1.4) (1.7) Physical therapy/mobility training 6.3 6.5 3.5 (1.4) (1.3) (1.0) Standard errors are in parentheses. NOTE: Data is for students ages 13-21. SOURCE: National Longitudinal Transition Study, SRI International. ___________________________________ _Recruiting and Retaining Qualified Personnel_ Recruiting and retaining qualified teachers and related service providers is critical to meeting students' educational needs. Although special education teachers are in short supply in many places, the shortages are particularly severe in inner-city areas. Thirty-eight percent of all public schools had teaching vacancies in special education in 1990-91, ranging from 35 percent in rural communities to 42 percent in inner cities. Public school administrators said that vacancies in special education were among the most difficult to fill, with 26 percent of schools finding them very difficult or impossible to fill. Furthermore, administrators in schools with populations composed of 20 percent or more minority students, which are likely to be urban, were more likely than those in public schools with smaller minority enrollments to find it very difficult or impossible to fill their vacancies (NCES, 1993). In general, inner-city schools seem to have greater difficulty recruiting teachers than schools in other areas. Schools have also failed to attract a sufficiently diverse workforce. Several authors recommend that schools increase the number of minority teachers they employ (Ornstein & Levine, 1989; Boyer, 1988). Several studies cite a mismatch between the racial composition of the current teaching force, which is predominately white (86 percent) and female (68 percent), and the current school population, which is 29 percent nonwhite (Grant & Secada, 1990). Over the past 20 years, the proportion of African American college graduates entering teaching has declined to a level lower than that of whites. High turnover in urban districts, where many of the older, more experienced African American teachers are concentrated, will necessitate hiring from a pool of new teachers that is increasingly white (Murnane et al., 1991). The National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE) surveyed special education directors in eight States regarding special education in urban areas (Ahearn, 1995). The directors identified personnel issues such as recruitment, retention, and staff development as their most critical concerns in urban special education. When asked for a single recommendation for improving special education in urban areas, directors recommended enhanced teacher preparation, inservice programs, and mandated staff development. Another NASDSE study examined the issues behind teacher job satisfaction in urban schools. The report highlighted the need for improved communication and exchange of information between administrators and teachers, and increased opportunities for teacher decision making and collaboration (NASDSE, 1995). _Maintaining Active Parent Involvement_ Parental involvement in the education of their children improves the well-being of families, enhances parenting skills, and improves educational results for children. As such, IDEA requires parental participation in identification and assessment processes. Parents must be provided with information, to ensure that they understand the special education placement proceedings and decisions. While all parents of children with disabilities may face some barriers to parental involvement, inner-city parents of children with disabilities may face obstacles to involvement in their child's education due to limited English proficiency, cultural factors, or the effects of poverty. For example, many parents of limited English proficient students do not speak English fluently and may not understand technical terms used during special educational assessments and individualized education plan (IEP) meetings. Some parents have feelings of inadequacy when speaking to special education or school personnel, partly due to their inability to speak English (Santos & Santos, 1984). IDEA requires that local educational agencies (LEAs) provide written prior notice in the parent's native language in matters related to identification, evaluation, and placement of students with disabilities. In addition, an interpreter must be provided at all meetings if the parents cannot communicate in English. Parental consent forms must describe evaluations, tests, records, or other reports used to make educational decisions. Ortiz and Yates (1983) suggest that lack of parental involvement may occur not because of a lack of interest on the part of parents, but due to conflicting values or limited opportunities for participation. For example, parents with lower socioeconomic status may have priorities that take precedence over their child's education, such as providing adequate housing, nutrition, and health care. While parents may wish to participate in IEP meetings, school conferences, and so forth, work schedules or difficulties with child care or transportation may make such participation difficult (Ortiz & Yates, 1983). Parents' involvement in education, familiarity with normal child development, and perceptions of disability may affect the rate at which parents report childhood disability or pursue special education services, and complicate attempts to understand the relationships among race/ethnicity, income, and disability. Furthermore, while there are several sources of data available for analyzing these relationships, they do not provide altogether consistent results. In part, this may be attributed to differences in the ages of children and youth targeted by the two sources described here, 1) the Current Population Survey (CPS),7 which includes families of children ages 5 through 17, and 2) the National Household Education Survey (NHES),8 which includes families of children age 3 through grade 2. Differences in the wording of interview questions may also account for conflicting results. ___________________________________ _FIGURE 4.1 Parental Reports of Disability Prevalence Rate Differences by Race/Ethnicity and Income for Children Ages 5-17, 1992_ INCOME PERCENT WITH A DISABILITY ====== ========================= Total: Hispanic 2.7% African-American 4.6% White 5.6% Under $10,000: Hispanic 3.3% African-American 8.3% White 8.7% $10,000 - $25,000: Hispanic 2.1% African-American 3.5% White 6.7% $25,000 - $40,000: Hispanic 2.2% African-American 2.1% White 5.2% Over $40,000: Hispanic 3.8% African-American 3.4% White 4.9% * Any physical, mental, or other health condition adversely affecting the child's ability to learn. SOURCE: 1992 CPS October Supplement on School Enrollment; original tabulations from public use files. ___________________________________ Ficke (1995) analyzed the CPS data by income and race/ethnicity as shown in figure 4.1. The data indicate that 5.6 percent of white parents reported that their children had a disability, compared to 4.6 percent of African American families and 2.7 percent of Hispanic families. Reports of disability diminish as income increases, and rates by race/ethnicity become more similar in the higher income ranges. For families with annual incomes less than $10,000, white and African American families reported similar rates of disability (8.7 and 8.3 percent, respectively), while Hispanic families reported far lower disability rates (3.3 percent). For families with annual incomes from $10,000 to $25,000, 6.7 percent of white families reported that their children had a disability compared to 3.5 percent of African American families and 2.1 percent of Hispanic families. At the $25,000 to $40,000 income level, white families reported disability rates of 5.2 percent, while African American and Hispanic families reported rates of 2.1 and 2.2 percent, respectively. For families with incomes of more than $40,000, reports of disability are more similar: 4.9 percent for whites, 3.4 percent for African Americans, and 3.8 percent for Hispanics. ___________________________________ _FIGURE 4.2 Parental Reports of Disability Prevalence Rate Differences by Race/Ethnicity and Income for Children Age 3 through Second Grade, 1993_ INCOME PERCENT WITH A DISABILITY ====== ========================= Total: Hispanic 14.4% African-American 12.1% White 12.4% Under $10,000: Hispanic 17.1% African-American 13.5% White 17.4% $10,000 - $25,000: Hispanic 14.2% African-American 12.5% White 15.0% $25,000 - $40,000: Hispanic 10.6% African-American 8.2% White 11.2% Over $40,000: Hispanic 12.3% African-American 10.2% White 10.4% * Child currently has any of the following conditions: mental retardation, serious emotional disturbance, learning disability, or vision, orthopedic, or other health impairments. SOURCE: 1993 National Household Education Survey; original tabulations from public use files. ___________________________________ Ficke (1995) also analyzed NHES data by race/ethnicity and income level. As shown in figure 4.2, overall, white and African American parents reported prevalence rates of 12.4 and 12.1 percent, respectively, while Hispanics reported a prevalence rate of 14.4 percent. When the data are analyzed by income, they show, as did the CPS data, that prevalence rates decrease as the income level increases, and differences by race/ethnicity also diminish as income increases. Compared to the CPS data, the NHES reports relatively higher rates of disability among Hispanic families. Table 4.7 shows parent reports of disability from the CPS by disability category. When the CPS data are analyzed by disability, they suggest that differences in parent reports of disability prevalence apply not only to so-called judgmental categories, such as learning disability, mental retardation, and emotional disturbance, but also to so-called objective categories, such as hearing impairments, visual impairments, and other health impairments. Data from the NHES confirm this finding (Ficke, 1995). In working to enhance parental involvement in special education, educators must be sensitive to what may be different perspectives on disability within racial/ethnic groups and income groups. Given the importance of early identification of disabilities and parental involvement in their children's education, it is crucial to inform parents about normal child development, disability, and their role in the education of their children. ___________________________________ _TABLE 4.7 Parental Reports of Disability Status of Children by Race and Hispanic Origin: 1992_ White Non-Hispanic Black Non-Hispanic Hispanica/ Other Total Number Percent Distribution Number Percent Distribution Number Percent Distribution Number Percent Distribution Number Percent Distribution Current Population Survey: Ages 5 to 17 Learning disability 3,606,564 11.1% 635,115 8.6% 304,928 5.7% 105,592 5.2% 4,651,740 9.9% Mental retardation 1,568,023 4.8 305,832 4.2 111,043 2.1 38,619 1.9 2,023,046 4.3 Speech impairment 235,296 0.7 58,957 0.8 29,857 0.6 7,631 0.4 331,270 0.7 Serious emotional disturbance 912,231 2.8 185,312 2.5 61,615 1.2 27,387 1.4 1,186,074 2.5 Deafness 328,719 1.0 71,376 1.0 35,280 0.7 6,894 0.3 441,798 0.9 Other hearing impairment 130,082 0.4 34,867 0.5 12,934 0.2 3,117 0.2 180,529 0.4 Blindness 449,921 1.4 64,312 0.9 38,486 0.7 15,898 0.8 568,146 1.2 Other visual impairment 87,743 0.3 26,302 0.4 7,376 0.1 157 0.0 121,107 0.3 Orthopedic impairment 654,257 2.0 114,751 1.6 68,986 1.3 14,082 0.7 851,605 1.8 Other health impairment 343,199 1.1 55,886 0.8 37,142 0.7 15,143 0.7 450,899 1.0 676,905 2.1 141,830 1.9 62,291 1.2 17,713 0.9 898,268 1.9 Total 1,818,532 5.6% 341,534 4.6% 139,378 2.6% 72,612 3.6% 2,371,585 5.0% a/ Hispanics can be of any race. SOURCE: Current Population Survey, 1992 Supplement on School Enrollment. _______________________ 6 For a more thorough discussion of special education for limited English proficient students, see the _Fifteenth Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 1993._ 7 The October supplement of the CPS is a nationally representative survey U.S. households in which parents are asked whether the children in the family ages 5 to 17 ever had a physical, mental, or other health condition that adversely affected their ability to learn. These data are based on parental reports of disability and, consequently, do not necessarily correspond with special education services under State and Federal criteria. 8 The NHES uses an interview technique similar to that of the CPS to collect information from U.S. families on the status of their children age 3 through grade 2. Parents are asked whether their child has any of the following conditions: mental retardation, serious emotional disturbance, learning disability, or vision, orthopedic, or other health impairments. ---------- Outcomes for Youth with Disabilities in Urban Areas In many regards, the transition from secondary school to postsecondary roles appears more difficult for youth with disabilities in urban areas compared to youth in suburban and rural areas. NLTS data indicate that urban youth with disabilities are less likely to graduate from high school, less likely to enroll in postsecondary education, and less likely to be employed in the years immediately after high school. This section compares and contrasts outcomes for youth with disabilities in urban, suburban, and rural areas using data from the NLTS. Secondary School Completion Youth with disabilities in urban areas were less likely than their peers in suburban and rural areas to graduate from high school, and were more likely to drop out of school. As shown in table 4.8, 50.8 percent of youth with disabilities in urban areas graduated from high school, compared to 66.9 percent of youth in suburban areas and 60.8 percent of youth in rural areas. The relatively low rate of graduation for urban youth corresponds with a higher dropout rate; 36.6 percent compared to 24.6 percent for suburban youth and 31.4 percent for rural youth. Research consistently shows that high school graduation is an important predictor of postsecondary success for youth with disabilities (Edgar, 1987; Hasazi, Gordon, & Roe, 1985; Porter, 1982; Wagner, Blackorby, Cameto, & Newman, 1993; Zigmond & Thornton, 1985). As such, the fact that urban youth are less likely to complete high school is a legitimate concern. ___________________________________ _TABLE 4.8 Secondary School Completion for Youth with Disabilities, by Community Type_ Urban Suburban Rural ===== ======== ===== Graduated 50.8 66.9 60.8 (4.3) (3.6) (3.5) Dropped Out 36.6 24.6 31.4 (4.2) (3.3) (3.4) Suspended/Expelled 5.5 3.4 3.0 (2.0) (1.4) (1.2) Reached Maximum Age 7.1 5.1 4.9 (2.2) (1.7) (1.6) NOTE: Standard errors are in parenthesis. SOURCE: Valdés, K. A., Williamson, C. L., & Wagner, M. (1990). _The National Longitudinal Transition Study of Special Education Students. Statistical Almanac, Volume 1_. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. ___________________________________ Postsecondary Education and Employment Given the relatively high dropout rate for urban youth with disabilities, it is not surprising that few enrolled in postsecondary education or training. Analysis of NLTS data (Valdés, 1990) shows that of those urban youth with disabilities who were out of secondary school for up to two years, 14 percent reported having taken any postsecondary course in the past year. The figure for suburban youth was slightly higher (17 percent). The figure for rural youth was lower than for urban or suburban youth (12 percent). Urban youth with disabilities were also less likely than suburban or rural youth to have been employed in the past year (50 percent for urban youth, 68 percent for suburban, and 65 percent for rural youth). Some of these youth were still enrolled in secondary school (56 percent) which accounts, in part, for the relatively low rates of employment. Employed youth in urban areas earned slightly higher wages, on average, than youth in suburban or rural areas. The mean wage for employed youth in urban areas was $4.10 per hour, compared to $4.00 per hour for youth in suburban areas and $3.60 per hour for youth in rural areas. Table 4.9 shows the types of jobs youth with disabilities held in the years immediately after leaving school. A sizeable percentage of youth in urban, suburban, and rural area were employed in manual labor and restaurant work. Youth in rural areas were more likely than those in urban areas to work in lawn care or agriculture. The percentage of youth in urban areas employed in a skilled trade was quite low (6.4 percent). ___________________________________ _TABLE 4.9 Percentage of Youth with Disabilities Employed in Various Types of Jobs, by Community Type_ Urban Suburban Rural ===== ======== ===== Lawn care or odd jobs 9.8 12.0 17.4 (3.3) (2.8) (3.1) Waiter/Waitress, Busboy, Cook 20.8 16.8 13.0 (4.5) (3.2) (2.8) Babysitting/Child Care 11.7 8.8 7.5 (3.6) (2.4) (2.2) Farm/Agricultural 0.1 4.2 16.8 (0.3) (1.7) (3.1) Factory Work 3.1 5.7 4.5 (1.9) (2.0) (1.7) Skilled Trade 6.4 11.8 12.6 (2.7) (2.8) (2.7) Other Manual Labor 30.8 33.2 27.5 (5.1) (4.0) (3.7) Sales, Store Clerk, Cashier 2.9 6.2 4.1 (1.9) (2.1) (1.6) Office/Clerical 4.9 2.7 2.2 (2.4) (1.4) (1.2) Hospital Work/Health Care 1.4 0.1 1.6 (1.3) (0.3) (1.0) Other 15.3 9.0 8.7 (4.0) (2.4) (2.3) NOTE: Standard errors are in parenthesis. SOURCE: Valdés, K. A., Williamson, C. L., & Wagner, M. (1990). _The National Longitudinal Transition Study of Special Education Students. Statistical Almanac, Volume 1_. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. ___________________________________ Overall, youth with disabilities in urban areas appear to have some difficulty in adjusting to postsecondary roles. Their relatively low high school graduation rates leave them ill-prepared for many employment opportunities. As a result, their earnings potential is severely limited. While this was also typical of many suburban and rural youth with disabilities, data on urban youth with disabilities suggest particularly difficult postschool adjustments. ---------- Summary and Implications Analysis of available data results in a complex picture of students with disabilities in inner cities. The interrelationships among urbanicity, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status and their impact on placement in special education are difficult to untangle. Several findings from the data analyses are clear, however. Students in inner cities are identified as eligible for special education at approximately the same rate as non-inner-city students. A larger percentage of families living in the inner cities live in poverty, and this pattern applies to families of students with disabilities as well. Furthermore, public schools in the inner cities enroll large percentages of students from racial and ethnic minority groups. Less clear are the relative influences of poverty and race/ethnicity on the disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic minorities in special education. Disability rates reported by parents differ by income and race, and also differ from disability rates reported by schools and school districts. Why this occurs is not clear. Data on special education services for secondary students with disabilities in inner cities and other areas indicate similar course-taking and service patterns, with some exceptions. Fewer secondary students with disabilities in inner cities are enrolled in vocational education classes compared to students in rural and suburban areas. Data also suggest that students with disabilities in inner cities are more likely than students in non-inner-city districts to be placed in more restrictive learning environments. Data from the NLTS suggest that urban youth with disabilities have a particularly difficult time adjusting to postsecondary roles. High dropout rates, low levels of enrollment in postsecondary education, and high rates of unemployment are indicative of the problems experienced by many of these youth. In response to perceived needs, OSEP recently established a priority to train scholars in historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs) and other minority institutions (OMIs) to conduct research in special education and urban issues. This will help focus attention on a much-needed area of study. OSEP also uses its compliance monitoring to ensure that _all_ students with disabilities, including those in inner cities, are receiving a free appropriate public education as guaranteed under IDEA. OSEP is committed to working with States and local education agencies continuously to improve programs and meet the changing needs of inner-city students. References Ahearn, E.M. (1995). _Special Education in Urban Areas: Validation of Critical Issues_. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of Special Education. Baca, L. Director of the Bueno Center for Multicultural Education, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, March 1988. Interview by M. Brauen and M. Coutinho. Billingsley, B.S., Pyecha, J.N., Smith-Davis, J., Murray, K., & Hendricks, M.B. (1995). _Improving the Retention of Special Education Teachers_. Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle Institute. Boyer, E.L. (1988). _An Imperiled Generation: Saving Urban Schools_. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation. Cegelka, P.T., Lewis, R. Rodriguez, A.M., & Pacheco, R. (1986). _Educational services to handicapped students with Limited English Proficiency: A California statewide study_. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children. Cummins, J. (1984). _Bilingualism and Special Education: Issues in Assessment and Pedagogy_. San Diego, CA: College Hill Press. Cummins, J. (1986). Empowering Minority Students: A Framework for Intervention. _Harvard Educational Review,_ 56(1), 18-36. Edgar, E. (1987). Secondary programs in special education: Are many of them justifiable? _Exceptional Children,_ 53(6), 555-561. Ficke, R. (1995). _Final report on extant datasets and disability classifications_. Rockville, MD: Westat, Inc. Figueroa, R. (1989). Psychological testing of linguistic-minority students: knowledge gaps and regulations. _Exceptional Children,_ 56(2), 145-154. Grant, C.A., & Secada, W.G. (1990). Preparing teachers for diversity. In W.R. Houston (Ed.), _Handbook of Research on Teacher Education_. (pp. 403-422). New York: Macmillan. Gottlieb, J., Alter, M., Gottlieb, B.W., & Wishner, J. (1994). Special Education in Urban America: It's Not Justifiable for Many. _The Journal of Special Education,_ 27(4), 453-465. Hamayan, E., & Damico, J. (1991). _Limiting Bias in the Assessment of Bilingual Students_. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. Harry, B. (1992). _Cultural Diversity, Families, and the Special Education System_. New York: Teachers College Press. Harry, B. (1994). _The disproportionate representation of minority students in special education: Theories and recommendations_. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of Special Education. Hasazi, S. B., Gordon, L. R., & 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. Hilliard, A.G., III. (1987). The Learning Potential Assessment Device and Instrumental Enrichment as a Paradigm Shift. _Negro Educational Review,_ 38(2/3), 201-208. Hilliard, A.G., III. (1992). Behavioral Style, Culture, and Teaching and Learning. _Journal of Negro Education,_ 61(3), 370-377. Hopstock, P.J., Ratner, M.S., Rivera, C., Rudes, B.A., Shaycoft, M.F., Young, M.B., & Zehler, A.M. (1986). _Instructing Children with Limited English Ability_. Arlington, VA: Development Associates. Kaufman, A.S. (1975). Factor analysis of the WISC-R at 11 age levels between 6-1/2 and 16-1/2 years. _Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology_, 43, 135-47. Kaufman, A.S., & Doppelt, J.E. (1976). Analysis of WISC-R standardization data in terms of stratification variables. _Child Development,_ 47, 165-171. Kozleski, E.B., Sands, D.J., & French, N. (1993). Preparing Special Education Teachers for Urban Settings. _Teacher Education and Special Education,_ 16, 14-22. Murnane, R.J., Singer, J.D., Willett, J.B., Kemple, J.J., & Olsen, R.J. (1991). _Who Will Teach? Policies That Matter_. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE). (1995). Teacher Job Satisfaction in the Urban School. _Liaison Bulletin,_ 25(7). Alexandria, VA: NASDSE. National Center for Education Statistics. (1993). _Schools and Staffing in the United States: A Statistical Profile,_ 1990-91. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. (1994a). _Digest of Education Statistics: Guide to Sources_. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. (1994b). _OCR data user's guide_. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Ornstein, A.C., & Levine, D.U. (1989). Social Class, Race, and School Achievement: Problems and Prospects. _Journal of Teacher Education,_ 40(5), 17-23. Ortiz, A., & Yates, J.R. (1983). Incidence of exceptionality among Hispanics: Implications for manpower training. _NABE Journal,_ 7, 41-51. Palfrey, J.S., Singer, J.D., Walker, D.K., & Butler, J.A. (1987). Early Identification of Children's Special Needs: A Study in Five Metropolitan Communities. _The Journal of Pediatrics,_ 111, 651-659. Peng, S.S., Wang, M.C., & Walberg, H.W. (1992). Demographic Disparities of Inner-City Eighth Graders. _Urban Education,_ 26(4), 441-459. Porter, S.H. (1982). Employment characteristics of handicapped graduates and dropouts. _Adult Literacy and Basic Education,_ 6(4), 238-244. Reschly, D. (1982). Assessing mild mental retardation: The influence of adaptive behavior, sociocultural status, and prospects for nonbiased assessment. In _A Handbook for School Psychology_. New York: Wiley & Sons. Reschly, D., & Ward. S. (1991). Use of adaptive behavior measures and overrepresentation of black students in programs for students with mild mental retardation. _American Journal on Mental Retardation,_ 96, 257-268. Richards, C. (1992). _Strategic Environmental Factors Constraining Fiscal Resource in Urban Schools: The Case of New York City_. New York City Board of Education, New York. Santos, S.L., & Santos, R.A. (1984). Bilingual special education: Issues in bilingual special education . (pp. 27-39). Presented at the Bilingual Special Education Conference, Denton, TX. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. (1980). _1980 Census of Population,_ U.S. Summary PC80-1-C1, table 236; individual state volumes, PC80-1-D, table 196. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. (1990a). _1990 Census of Population,_ 1990 CPH-L-98, table ED90-4, "Language Use and English Ability, Persons 5 to 17 Years, by State: 1990." Washington, DC: Author. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. (1990b). Money Income of Households, Families, and Persons in the United States, 1988 and 1989. _Current Population Reports,_ Consumer Incomes, Series P-60, No. 172. Washington, DC: Author. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. (1992). _Current Population Reports, Series P-20, School Enrollment_. Washington, DC: Author. Valdés, K.A., Williamson, C.L., & Wagner, M. (1990). _The National Longitudinal Transition Study of Special Education Students, Statistical Almanac, Vol. 1: Overview_. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Wagner, M. (1995). _The Contributions of Poverty and Ethnic Background to the Participation of Secondary School Students in Special Education_. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Wagner, M., Blackorby, J., Cameto, R., & Newman, L. (1993). _What makes a difference? Influences on postschool outcomes of youth with disabilities_. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Yeargin-Allsopp, M., Drews, C.D., Decouflé, P., & Murphy, C.C. (1995). Mild Mental Retardation in Black and White Children in Metropolitan Atlanta: A Case-Control Study. _American Journal of Public Health,_ 85, 324-328. Zigmond, N., & Thornton, H. (1985). Follow-up of postsecondary age learning disabled graduates and dropouts. _Learning Disabilities Research,_ 1, 50-55. ---------- Chapter 5 _______________________________________________________________________ Assisting States and Localities in Educating All Children with Disabilities The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) directs the Department of Education to assess the impact and effectiveness of State and local efforts to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to children and youth with disabilities. Primarily through the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), the Department assists State educational agencies and local school districts in implementing Federal special education mandates by making grants pursuant to Congressional appropriations and providing technical assistance, policy support, and monitoring oversight. As discussed throughout this report, OSEP works in partnership with States, institutions of higher education, students with disabilities and their families, advocacy groups, and others to ensure positive educational results for students with disabilities. OSEP uses research, dissemination, demonstration, systems change, and other technical assistance strategies to provide State and local educational agencies with tools to assist them in improving teaching and learning. OSEP also recognizes, however, the critical importance of its compliance monitoring responsibility and activities to ensure compliance with Congress' mandates. OSEP places the highest priority on compliance with those IDEA requirements that have the strongest relationship with improved services and results for students with disabilities and their families, and tailors its monitoring and technical assistance activities in each State to maximize positive impact on educational services and results for students in that State. Based in large part on the results of the National Longitudinal Transition Study1, OSEP has determined that the requirements with the strongest links to results and general supervision include those addressing: * 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, as determined through the development of an individualized education plan (IEP)), including regular and vocational education programs and curricula and work experience programs; * statements of needed transition services for students with disabilities beginning no later than age 16 (and younger if determined appropriate); and * education in the least restrictive environment (LRE). Because each State has the primary responsibility for the administration of educational programs for its children with disabilities, OSEP focuses its monitoring activities on each State's systems for general supervision for ensuring that all public agencies comply with the requirements of Part B, including those emphasized above, in providing services to students with disabilities. These systems include the State's procedures for monitoring public agencies and ensuring that they correct any deficiencies, its complaint management and due process hearing systems, and its procedures for ensuring that special education programs administered by State agencies other than the State educational agency meet State standards and Part B requirements. OSEP's State improvement procedures emphasize partnerships and technical assistance, as well as a strong accountability system to ensure compliance. OSEP works with States, Regional Resource Centers, and others to identify systemic strengths and weaknesses and to develop strategies for systemic reform and improvement. OSEP also provides and brokers 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. OSEP uses these strategies for State improvement in conjunction with a multifaceted compliance review process that, in tandem with ongoing technical assistance, includes: review and approval of State Plans; on-site compliance reviews; procedures to ensure the effective and timely implementation of corrective action plans; and discretionary review of final State decisions on Part B complaints. Over the past three years, OSEP has worked intensively to reorient and strengthen its monitoring system so that it will--in conjunction with research, innovation, and technical assistance efforts--support systemic reform that produces better results for students with disabilities, and ensure compliance. To ensure a strong accountability system, OSEP has emphasized: strong and diverse customer input in the monitoring process; effective methods for ensuring compliance with Part B, with strongest emphasis on requirements that relate most directly to continuous improvement in learner results; prompt identification and correction of deficiencies; and corrective action requirements and strategies that yield improved access and results for students. During the 1994-95 school year, OSEP conducted comprehensive monitoring visits to 14 States, Puerto Rico, and the Pre-College Programs of Gallaudet University. OSEP is conducting comprehensive monitoring visits to 11 States during the 1995-96 school year (see table 5.1 for the schedule of these reviews). Table 5.2 summarizes in general the procedures typically used by OSEP to plan and implement on-site reviews. However, OSEP tailors its monitoring and technical assistance activities to those that are needed in specific States. Thus, some States (for example, States with relatively few findings in their last review or with findings of a technical nature, and with good demonstrable success in correcting deficiencies) may require only a more narrow, focused review, while others will continue to require frequent OSEP comprehensive and follow-up monitoring visits. ___________________________________ _TABLE 5.1 Schedule of On-Site Monitoring Reviews_ _1994-95 Reviewsa/_ _1995-96 Reviews_ Idaho (9/94) Alabama (9/95) Minnesota (9/94) Indiana (9/95) Ohio (9/94) Vermont (9/95) Arkansas (10/94) Kentucky(9/95) Massachusetts (10/94) Nevada (10/95) Delaware (12/94) Rhode Island (1/96) Hawaii (1/95) Tennessee (1/96) California (1/95) Kansas (3/96) Louisiana (3/95) Colorado (5/96) Puerto Rico (3/95) Georgia (5/96) South Carolina (3/95) Oklahoma (5/96) North Carolina (5/95) Virginia (5/95) Maryland (5/95) Illinois (5/95) _1994-95 Follow-Up Reviews_ _1995-96 Follow-Up Reviews_ Florida (3/95) Pennsylvania (12/95) District of Columbia (3/95) New Jersey (12/95) West Virginia (5/95) New York (12/95) a/ As directed by the Congress in the Education of the Deaf Act, OSEP also conducted a special monitoring review of the Pre-College Programs of Gallaudet University in May 1995. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Division of Assistance to the States. ___________________________________ _TABLE 5.2 Typical Steps in On-Site Monitoring Reviews_ _Step_ _Specific Activities_ ==== =================== _Step 1:_ Select States that OSEP will monitor during the Select/inform States following school year. OSEP will monitor following school year In the spring, inform States that will be monitored the following school year. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ _Step 2:_ Conduct spring monitoring academy for States Conduct monitoring OSEP will monitor the following year. State academy and arrange educational agency staff and representatives visit dates from Parent Training and Information Projects are invited to attend. At the time of the academy or shortly thereafter arrange dates with each State for public meet- ing/pre-site visit and on-site visit. Disseminate to national organizations schedule of public meetings and on-site visits. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ _Step 3:_ Send notice to State educational agency, State Conduct public and national advocacy organizations, and parents meeting/pre-site to inform them of upcoming compliance review and visit the purpose, schedule, and location of public meetings, and to invite their oral or written comments. Conduct public meetings to gather input about appropriate issues and geographical focuses of visit. Meet with State educational agency officials to plan on-site visit, to collect data regarding State systems for general supervision, and to collect other information to assist in identi- fying appropriate issues and geographical focuses for OSEP compliance review. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ _Step 4:_ After pre-site visit, continue to receive (and, Plan on-site data if appropriate, solicit) comments to assist in collection identifying appropriate issues and geographical procedures focuses for OSEP compliance review. Analyze and synthesize information from: public meetings and other comment sources; pre-site meetings with State educational agency; State educational agency documents (including State plan, monitoring and local educational agency application review documents, placement data, funding formulas, etc.); previous OSEP monitor- ing report(s) and related corrective action 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 stra- tegies and forms, and to select State agencies and local educational agencies to be visited to collect data regarding the effectiveness of State educational agency's systems for general supervision. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ _Step 5:_ Interview State educational agency officials and Conduct on-site review State educational agency documents to review complete collection of data regarding State edu- cational agency's systems for general super- vision. Interview officials from other State agencies that provide educational and/or residential ser- vices to students with disabilities, to deter- mine whether the educational programs for such students are under the general supervision of the State educational agency and meet its stan- dards. Collect data in a number of public agencies, in- cluding local educational agencies, to determine effectiveness of State educational agency's sys- tems for general supervision. (Data collection methods include reviewing student records and interviewing agency administrators, teachers, related services providers, and parents.) Note exemplary programs and practices. Summarize preliminary findings in exit confer- ence with State educational agency officials. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ _Step 6:_ Analyze and synthesize data collected from all Prepare and sources to determine areas of noncompliance. disseminate report Prepare report that includes commendations and findings of noncompliance, data that support each finding, and results expected from the corrective actions. Issue report to the State educational agency and to the public. (If State concludes that evi- dence of noncompliance is significantly inac- curate and one or more findings incorrect, it may request--within 15 calendar days--reconsi- deration of the finding. If OSEP agrees facts in Report are insufficient to support finding, it will issue letter informing State the finding has been revised or withdrawn.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ _Step 7:_ Work with State to develop corrective action Develop and plan (CAP). implement corrective action plan Agree on a CAP, including activities, timelines and needed resources, using the State's prelim- inary CAP as the basis. This is done in a meeting or conference call with representatives from the State educational agency, the State Advisory Panel, and OSEP staff. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Programs, Division of Assistance to the States ___________________________________ _TABLE 5.3 Monitoring Reports Issued During Fiscal Year 1995_ Montana (10/94) Arizona (2/95) Washington (3/95) New Hampshire (11/94) Connecticut (3/95) Wyoming (3/95) Utah (11/94) Delaware (3/95) Massachusetts (5/95) Minnesota (12/94) Hawaii (3/95) South Carolina (8/95) Wisconsin (12/94) Iowa (3/95) North Carolina (9/95) Arkansas (1/95) Michigan (3/95) Puerto Rico (9/95) Idaho (1/95) New Mexico (3/95) Virginia (9/95) SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Division of Assistance to the States. ___________________________________ As shown in table 5.4, the findings in the 21 final monitoring reports that OSEP issued during fiscal year 1995 concentrated in areas directly related to: * student access to instruction and vocational preparation (e.g., transition, placement in the least restrictive environment, and the provision of a free appropriate public education2); * procedural safeguards for children with disabilities and their parents; and * the State educational agency's exercise of its general supervision responsibility (e.g., monitoring, complaint management, responsibility for special education programs administered by other State agencies, and review of approval of local policies and procedures). ___________________________________ _TABLE 5.4 Summary of Findings in 21 Fiscal Year 1995 Monitoring Reports_ NUMBER OF REPORTS WITH FINDINGS OF NONCOMPLIANCE REGARDING INDICATED REQUIREMENTS ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 12 Student and representatives of other agencies invited to IEP meeting 4 If student doesn't attend meeting, agency takes steps to consider preferences/interests TRANSITION 12 Content of meeting notice 14 Statement of needed transition services 1 If agreed upon services not provided, meeting convened to identify alternative strategies ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 12 Removed from regular education only if education cannot be achieved satisfactorily in regular classes with supplementary aids and services 3 Placement determined at least annually LEAST 7 Placement decision based on IEP RESTRICTIVE 8 Continuum of alternative placements ENVIRONMENT 2 Student attends school would attend if nondisabled unless IEP requires other arrangement 12 Student participates with nondisabled students in extracurricular/nonacademic ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 14 Extended school year FREE 15 Services provided in conformity with IEP APPROPRIATE 2 Length of school day consistent with State standard PUBLIC 3 Initial evaluation meets State timelines EDUCATION 2 Services continue if suspended long-term or expelled ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 Agencies establish safeguards 6 Prior notice or proposed/refused actions provided to parents PROCEDURAL 7 Prior notice includes full explanation of procedural SAFEGUARDS safeguards 10 Prior notice includes other required content 11 Hearing and review timelines ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 17 Procedures to identify deficiencies MONITORING 14 Procedures to correct deficiencies ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 All complaints resolved COMPLAINTS 11 Complaints resolved within 60 days ----------------------------------------------------------------------- GENERAL 8 Programs administered by State agency other than SUPERVISION SEA meet SEA standards and Part B requirements ----------------------------------------------------------------------- LEA 9 Incomplete State procedures/guidance APPLICATIONS 10 SEA approval of applications although they do not meet Federal requirements ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 IEP developed/reviewed in meeting IEP 5 Agency representative participates in IEP meeting 12 IEP content ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 5 Students reevaluated at least once every 3 years EVALUATION 2 Written report for learning disabilities evaluation ----------------------------------------------------------------------- CHILD COUNT 3 SEA ensures accuracy of Part B child count ----------------------------------------------------------------------- PERSONNEL 1 Personnel meet highest requirements STANDARDS ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Division of Assistance to the States. ___________________________________ Earlier OSEP reports consisted largely of detailed and technical findings regarding the content of local educational agency applications, local educational policies and procedures, and explanations of procedural safeguards. OSEP now collects data and writes reports to stress findings and corrective actions that more closely affect student results. Thus, for example, data collection and reports include a strong focus on State and local policies, procedures, and practices relating to transition and placement in the least restrictive environment. The nature of OSEP's findings in areas such as placement in the least restrictive environment and monitoring have evolved over time. For example, while in the past placement findings often focused largely on the procedural issue of _when_ agencies made placement decisions, findings now focus on the range of placement options available to students with disabilities (including students with more severe disabilities) and the consideration of appropriate supplementary aids and services as part of any decision to remove a student from the regular education environment for any portion of the day. Further, while in the past OSEP focused its review of placement practices largely on students who were completely segregated from students without disabilities in institutions and other separate school settings, OSEP now focuses its reviews largely on placement practices for students who attend regular school buildings but who are removed from the regular education program for a portion of the school day. This change in the nature of placement-related findings reflects a decrease nationally in separate school placements. In the past, many OSEP reports included long lists of Part B requirements for which States had no method for determining compliance. As reflected in more recent reports, most States have now developed a method to examine compliance regarding all or nearly all requirements. Recent OSEP reports have focused more on the _effectiveness_ of States' procedures for identifying and correcting deficiencies. For example, a recent report showed that one State had a method to address all but five Part B requirements, and focused on the ineffectiveness of some of the State's monitoring procedures in identifying deficiencies relating to transition, placement in the least restrictive environment, and the provision of a free appropriate public education. The report further addressed problems that the State was experiencing in ensuring the correction of identified deficiencies. Prior to the 1994-95 school year, each OSEP monitoring report included a corrective action plan developed by OSEP with limited dialogue with the State. Often States implemented the required procedures with little verifiable impact on services and results for students with disabilities. OSEP found that to better ensure that corrective actions positively affect 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. OSEP found that although some States had completed all required corrective actions, many of the same deficiencies would be noted as part of the next OSEP review of the State. Accordingly, OSEP revised its corrective action procedures during the 1994-95 and 1995-96 school years to emphasize joint development of corrective action plans and to provide for "follow-up" visits. (See table 5.5 for a description of these revised corrective action procedures.) As noted in table 5.1, OSEP conducted three follow-up visits during the 1994-95 school year, and will conduct three follow-up visits during the 1995-96 school year to determine the extent to which the State has effectively implemented selected components of the agreed-upon corrective action plan, and to work with them to develop any further corrective actions and provide technical assistance needed to ensure full and effective correction. ___________________________________ _TABLE 5.5 Corrective Action Procedures_ PHASE ACTIONS TAKEN ===== ============= MONITORING VISIT Throughout on-site process, OSEP discusses preliminary findings and possible strategies for corrective action with the State educational agency. MONITORING REPORT Each monitoring report sets forth parameters for the development of a corrective action plan, specifying expected results of corrective action for each finding. The extent to which each 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). The cover letter to each report invites the State to meet with OSEP (in Washington or through a conference telephone conversation) to establish more specific steps and timelines for the corrective action plan. OSEP also invites a representative of the State's Special Education Advisory Panel to participate in the meeting or conference call, and encourages 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 also informs the State that the corrective action plan must be developed within 45 days of the State's receipt of the report, and that a if corrective action plan is not jointly developed within 45 days, OSEP will unilaterally develop a detailed corrective action plan for the State. DEVELOPMENT AND State develops preliminary proposals for APPROVAL OF corrective actions. CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN OSEP monitoring staff consult with other OSEP staff, as appropriate, who are knowledgeable about technical assistance resources, including systems change initiatives, research and dissemination projects, Regional Resource Centers and other technical assistance centers, etc. OSEP meets--in person or by teleconference--with the State educational agency, a representative of the State's Special Education Advisory Panel, and any additional resource people invited by the State educational agency. In the meeting, the participants discuss strategies, resources, and specific action steps for the development and implementation of a corrective action plan that will ensure compliance and support systemic reform resulting in improved student results. The participants work toward--and as much as possible reach--agreement on the specific results, steps, resources, documentation procedures and timelines for corrective action. Having determined that the State's proposal includes actions and timelines to ensure effective, timely, verifiable correction of all deficiencies, OSEP approves the State's corrective action plan. DOCUMENTATION OF The State educational agency submits, and OSEP CORRECTIVE ACTION approves, information to document the effective completion of all corrective actions. Having determined that the submitted information documents the effective completion of all corrective actions, OSEP approves the completed corrective actions. ON-SITE When determined appropriate, OSEP conducts an VERIFICATION OF on-site follow-up review to verify effective CORRECTIVE ACTION completion of one or more corrective actions. Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Division of Assistance to the States. ___________________________________ As noted above, OSEP has used technical assistance, research, and dissemination strategies in tandem with its accountability system to support State efforts to improve teaching, learning, and student results. One strong example is the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) Transition Initiative. Since 1984, 393 model demonstration projects have developed a wide range of service delivery models that have facilitated the transition of youths and adults with disabilities from secondary special education to a number of postsecondary environments, including higher education, employment, and community integration. In 1983, Congress mandated that the Department commission a national study of the transition experiences of youth with disabilities in secondary school and beyond. Under contract to OSEP, SRI International conducted the National Longitudinal Transition Study of Special Education Students (NLTS), which included more than 8,000 youth with disabilities. OSEP has also funded Transition Systems Change Grants in 34 States, and will be funding grants in additional States during fiscal year 1996. OSEP has used the results of the NLTS and information gained from other discretionary projects to focus its monitoring activities and technical assistance efforts, and to inform Federal, State, and local policy and instructional design decisions. Similarly, in 1986, OSERS proposed the Regular Education Initiative. OSEP recognized that building the capacity of schools to serve students in the least restrictive environment could be conceptualized as an issue of enforcement of the least restrictive environment provisions of IDEA and as an issue of implementing best practice, and has employed both monitoring and discretionary program activities. Since 1987, 26 States have received systems change awards from OSEP to encourage large-scale adoptions of effective educational practices across State systems, and to increase the movement of students with disabilities from segregated to integrated to inclusive school campuses. Also since 1987, OSEP has supported three 5-year Institutes to address inclusion issues. OSEP has also funded 3-year research and demonstration projects to examine the academic and social inclusion of students with severe disabilities in general education classes. As with the Transition Initiative, OSEP has used information gained from all of these discretionary projects to focus its monitoring activities and technical assistance efforts, and to inform Federal, State, and local policy and instructional design decisions. Summary and Implications OSEP recognizes that it is important to focus on both student results and compli ance, and uses a broad range of technical assistance, partnership, and accountab ility strategies to ensure compliance, especially with those requirements that relate most strongly to learning opportu nities and results for students with disabilities. OSEP tailors its technical a ssistance and monitoring activities in each State to the needs and strengths of that State, and OSEP's revised monitoring pr ocedures have resulted in monitoring reports and corrective actions that ensure compliance while supporting State reform efforts and improved teaching and learning. _______________________ 1 The National Longitudinal Transition Study identified several factors as strong predictors of postschool success in living independently, obtaining employment, and earning higher wages for youth with disabilities, including: high school completion, participation in regular education with appropriate supplementary aids and services, and access to secondary vocational education, including work experience. 2 OSEP also made findings regarding requirements related to evaluation of students with disabilities and the development of IEPs. Both sets of requirements and OSEP's findings relate directly to the provision of a free appropriate public education; evaluations serve as a critical source of information for making individualized determinations regarding the program and placement that each student needs, and Congress has mandated the development of an IEP as the mechanism for making such determinations. ---------- Summary and Implications OSEP recognizes that it is important to focus on both student results and compliance, and uses a broad range of technical assistance, partnership, and accountability strategies to ensure compliance, especially with those requirements that relate most strongly to learning opportunities and results for students with disabilities. OSEP tailors its technical assistance and monitoring activities in each State to the needs and strengths of that State, and OSEP's revised monitoring procedures have resulted in monitoring reports and corrective actions that ensure compliance while supporting State reform efforts and improved teaching and learning. ---------- Appendix B _______________________________________________________________________ Summaries of State Agency/Federal Evaluation Studies Program The State Agency/Federal Evaluation Studies (SAFES) program was established with the passage of the EHA (now IDEA) Amendments of 1983 (P.L. 98-199). Section 618(d) authorized the Secretary of Education to provide matching funds to State educational agencies (SEAs) to evaluate the impact and effectiveness of programs for students with disabilities. In authorizing this program, Congress intended to promote an evaluation effort that would be beneficial at the Federal, State, and local levels. Only minor changes have been made in the program over the years. The 1986 Amendments (P.L. 99-457) expanded eligibility under this program to other State agencies that administer early intervention programs for infants and toddlers with disabilities under Part H of the Act. The 1990 Amendments (P.L. 101-476) more clearly focused the intent of the studies to generate supporting data and information for program improvement. This Appendix contains summaries of four SAFES studies. Two of the summaries were feasibility studies, and two were evaluation studies. Appendix C contains abstracts of the SAFES studies that were funded in FY 1995. * A Feasibility Study of Outcomes Assessment for Kansas Students with Disabilities, Kansas State Board of Education, FY 1993. * Barriers and Resources Underlying Part H Implementation: A Utilization-Focused Evaluation Study, Michigan Department of Education, FY 1991. * Feasibility of Evaluation of the Oregon Comprehensive Plan for Supported Education, Oregon Department of Education, FY 1991. * Special Education Program Standards Study of Class Size and Combining Students with Various Disabilities, Virginia Department of Education, FY 1991. ---------- A Feasibility Study of Outcomes Assessment for Kansas Students with Disabilities Kansas State Board of Education, FY 1993 In recent years, the Kansas State Board of Education (KSBE) has initiated reforms in public education. In 1991, KSBE adopted the Quality Performance Accreditation (QPA) system to help carry out the reforms. To assess the effect of reforms, the Kansas Assessment Program (KAP) measures students' problem-solving and higher-order thinking skills. The KAP is an accountability measure of students' outcome performance. Although all students are supposed to participate in the KAP, students with disabilities may be excluded by local staff. Students with disabilities may be excluded if their instructional level, as opposed to grade level, does not match the grade level of the assessment, or if the student will not benefit from the content area assessment. The KSBE became concerned because local district data indicated that the vast majority of students with disabilities are placed in regular classrooms for well over half the school day, but are being withheld disproportionately from the KAP. The KSBE felt that school and district accountability measures based on students' educational outcomes could not be obtained without baseline data on these students' achievement. Because of this lack of data, and because the State's intention is to implement a single system of education for all students, KSBE conducted a feasibility study to determine what modifications in the KAP were needed to assure that students with disabilities participate and that the resulting data were used for related purposes. The three research questions are detailed below. 1. Does the State-mandated assessment system currently in place to measure world-class standards for general education students have the potential to produce information that is valid (appropriate, meaningful, and useful) for meeting the programmatic needs of students with disabilities? 2. If found valid for specific purposes, what system policy and procedure modifications are necessary, if any, to maximize the validity (appropriateness, meaningfulness, and usefulness) of the assessment information for these students and their program needs? 3. Are the test question response formats that rely on open-ended, performance assessment and multiple correct items valid methods to capture accountability data on populations for students with disabilities? Procedures The research questions were addressed through a literature review, focus group meetings, and a statewide survey. The presentation of the results of these activities is organized below into four parts: (1) the literature review, (2) the first focus group meeting, (3) the survey construction and sampling plan, and (4) the survey results and second focus group meeting and comments. This last part is discussed in a separate Findings section. _The literature review._ The review resulted in a packet of reading materials that was distributed to focus group members, who stated that the materials helped broaden their understanding of the issues confronted by KSBE and local districts. _First focus group meeting._ There were two regional focus groups, consisting of a total of 26 staff, two parents, and two Board of Education members from the eastern and western regions of the State. The purpose of the focus groups was to obtain reactions of local school district stakeholders regarding the use of the KAP with students with disabilities. Based on the results of those discussions, project staff designed a survey for practitioners across the State. Participants agreed on the following: (1) districts should be accountable for all students; (2) for some students with disabilities the KAP was inappropriate; and (3) education about the KAP as a policy and practice is needed beyond that given superintendents and district-level coordinators. _State survey._ The survey was designed to elicit brief answers to the most critical issues generated by the focus groups. Those issues were the purpose of the KAP, use of the KAP results, relevance of the KAP to students with disabilities, and decisions regarding which students with disabilities should participate. The survey used an open-ended format to elicit a variety of opinions regarding the issues. The survey was distributed by mail to 325 school superintendents, 100 directors of special education, and 1550 building level administrators. The building level administrators were asked to select a special education staff member (not necessarily a teacher) and a regular education teacher to complete the survey. No follow-up contact was made. Almost half the special education directors responded. Only 20 percent of the building administrators, and 30 percent of the superintendents, responded. While the response rate was less than optimal, the results are believed to represent accurately the prevailing knowledge and opinions regarding the KAP. Findings This section consists of the survey findings and comments made concerning them by focus group members during a second meeting. _Appropriateness of the State's curricular standards._ Thirty-five percent of the regular education teachers responding indicated they were sufficiently knowledgeable about the standards; 55 percent of the regular education administrators, and 37 percent of the special education staff, indicated they were knowledgeable. The focus groups felt the low percentages indicated that communication about the standards with local staff needed to be improved. Also, special education directors did not believe they routinely received the standards, and that special education staff did not reference the standards when considering students' IEP goals. The majority of the respondents did not feel the standards were appropriate for students with educable or trainable mental retardation, severe multiple disabilities, severe learning disabilities, severe behavior disorders, or severe impairments. Higher percentages of the respondents felt that the standards were appropriate for students with mild or moderate impairments or disabilities. The focus groups were impressed by the respondents' high level of agreement. _Assessing students with disabilities._ Forty-nine percent of the regular education teachers responding indicated that the decision to include students with disabilities in the KAP should be made by the classroom teacher and special education staff working with the student. Most of the regular education administrators and special education staff indicated that the decision should be left to the multidisciplinary or school team of special educators and include the parents. The consensus of the focus groups was that the decision should be made by a school-based, multidisciplinary team. Of eight guidelines accompanying the question, basing exclusion decisions on a student's achievement level, particularly reading skills, was selected most often. The focus groups, however, felt differently. Because a student may never have an instructional level corresponding to the test's intended level, some students might never be tested. The focus groups felt that students should be tested if they were in an age group that was intended to be tested. The focus groups believed that a different curricular standard should be set for students with severe disabilities. _Accommodations for testing students with disabilities._ Having the staff assist with the administration of the assessment or assist the student were commonly cited KAP accommodations. For particular disability categories, individual accommodations were used. One director of special education noted that providing assessments was often counter to the instructions accompanying most assessments, which emphasize that the test must be administered to each student exactly as described. Fifty-nine percent of the respondents felt that accommodations should be individualized according to the needs of the individual student. Thirty-five percent felt that the IEP team should decide. The focus groups suggested that a list of common accommodations should be available prior to the assessments and the accommodations should be individually determined. _Participation of students with disabilities._ The three most frequently cited reasons for the non-participation of students with disabilities in the KAP were: (1) students were below the testing level for their group; (2) the district's scores would be lowered; and (3) students' resistance to the testing. The focus groups felt staff would benefit from better information explaining the appropriateness of providing accommodations and that test scores were not included in district averages. Summary Information from the focus group participants and surveys suggested that the KAP is valid for the vast majority of students in special education, and they should be included in the assessment. The KAP may not be appropriate for students with severe disabilities, even if accommodations are provided. For these students, a different curricular standard or performance level may be more appropriate. As a result of the study, the KSBE special education and curriculum sections are working to integrate the State's curricular standards into the educational programs for students with disabilities. Also, special education teachers will be trained on how to integrate the standards. In addition, in Fall 1994, students with disabilities began to be assessed under different KAP guidelines than previously. Instead of taking the KAP at the instructional level unless specifically exempted in the IEP, students with disabilities may be treated as if they were regular education students and be tested at grade level. ---------- Barriers and Resources Underlying Part H Implementation: A Utilization-Focused Evaluation Study Michigan Department of Education, FY 1991 The Policy Context Part H of IDEA authorizes grants to States to develop statewide comprehensive, multidisciplinary, interagency, coordinated systems to provide early intervention services to infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families. Implementation of Part H presents a complex challenge to State human service delivery systems, requiring major shifts in the operation of human services, funding streams, agency relationship structures, and practitioner styles. Identification of obstacles impeding the success of this reform and development of strategies for their resolution can assist States in moving closer to their vision of a comprehensive interagency system of early intervention services. With this aim in mind, this study, carried out by the Michigan Department of Education in conjunction with the Merrill-Palmer Institute at Wayne State University, examined the barriers to full implementation of Part H in Michigan, identified resources that could be used in addressing these obstacles, and developed recommendations on alternative strategies that might be pursued to overcome these barriers. Study Design and Methods This 2-year study employed a multi-phase, multi-method stakeholder-based approach. Stakeholders, including representatives of State and local government, local service providers, and families, were involved in each of four phases of the study: survey development, survey dissemination and analysis, stakeholder work groups, and formulation of policy recommendations. During the first phase, a core stakeholder advisory group of 30 members assisted in the design of a survey instrument assessing perceptions of barriers to implementation and development of a sampling plan. Mail surveys were sent to a statewide sample of 700 service professionals and administrators and 100 parents of children with disabilities representing local interagency coordinating council (LICC) members, consumer parents, and key local agency personnel from the four public agencies involved in delivery of Part H services (Education--lead agency, Mental Health, Public Health, and Social Services). The response rate was 78 percent. During the second study phase, the core stakeholder group assisted project staff in interpreting the survey results and helped formulate the process for addressing priority problems. During the third study phase, core advisory group members participated in four stakeholder work groups formed to discuss the survey results and identify critical obstacles to Part H implementation. Fifty-eight stakeholders, including parents, service providers, and State and local administrators, were involved in these groups, which also generated ideas on resources that could be used to overcome barriers. The final study phase involved developing, revising, and supporting policy recommendations designed to resolve many of the identified barriers to Part H implementation. Findings Survey respondents perceived the greatest barriers in two (of six) major areas: program service delivery in local communities and interagency coordination functions. Half or more of the respondents across the range of agencies identified the following specific factors as impediments to implementation: 1) inadequate numbers of program staff; 2) insufficient funds to support needed services; 3) lack of readily available bilingual information; and 4) inadequate coordination of programs within each of the State agencies. Variations in the degree to which respondents perceived barriers or were unaware of aspects of services were often related to the respondent's agency, length of employment, primary role (service provider administrator, active LICC parent, or current consumer parent) and residence in a metropolitan or rural area. Service providers and administrators from the lead agency (Education) tended to perceive fewer barriers to Part H implementation and to give fewer "don't know" responses. The core advisory group categorized perceived barriers into four broad thematic areas: Family-Centered Services, System Coordination, Funding/Staffing, and Cultural Diversity. In addition to those described above, critical obstacles to implementation identified by the four stakeholder work groups were: failure to match family goals to the number and type of services provided; excessive paperwork burden on families receiving services from multiple agencies; insufficient funds for service coordination; lack of clear policy direction from State offices to local agencies, as well as differences across agencies in how Part H regulations are interpreted; and State level Part H policymakers' failure to give sufficient consideration to issues of cultural diversity. Policy Recommendations Stakeholders formulated three broad policy recommendations which, if carried out, would pave the way toward overcoming many of the barriers to Part H implementation identified from the surveys and work groups: 1. The Special Education rules should be changed to promote greater compatibility with Part H practices, operations, and eligibility criteria. 2. A transagency early intervention work structure should be formed at both the State and local levels that would focus on promoting family driven, culturally responsive policies and practices. 3. A statewide study group should be convened to develop a strategy for creating the legislative basis for a transagency Family Centered System of Early Intervention Care. This process might result in the development of an entirely new Transagency Family Centered Care Act, or in changing specific provisions of existing legislation that conflict with Part H philosophy and practice. ---------- Feasibility of Evaluation of the Oregon Comprehensive Plan for Supported Education Oregon Department of Education, FY 1991 The Oregon Comprehensive Program Plan for Supported Education requires that local educational agencies (LEAs) support the full integration of students with disabilities in general education. Currently, 30 LEAs participate in the Oregon Department of Education's (ODE) Supported Education Project. As part of the plan, the ODE is required to systematically evaluate the success of school integration efforts. This study addressed the feasibility of conducting a statewide evaluation that would enable the ODE to assess the effectiveness of State and local education reform policies and practices and their impact on the outcomes of special education restructuring. The feasibility study was conducted with the following goals. * Verify the conceptual framework, evaluation design, and measurement instruments. * Conduct a pilot test of the evaluation study to: + describe and analyze the effects of the Comprehensive Plan on LEA policy, service delivery systems, participant attitudes, and student outcomes; + identify barriers to supported education in each LEA and develop strategies to overcome these barriers; and + produce a report providing a complete description of the results of the pilot test. * Determine the feasibility of a statewide study of the Plan for Supported Education in three areas: + technical feasibility; + usefulness of information; and + financial and political feasibility. Along with conducting a literature review and developing the conceptual framework, feasibility project activities included a series of meetings of the project's Advisory Group (which includes the ODE Project Director, ODE Supported Education Specialists, Portland State University (PSU)Project Coordinator, and PSU Evaluation Specialists), to develop a set of specific evaluation questions for use in the pilot study. The following evaluation questions for the pilot study were agreed to by the Advisory Group: * What are the differences between LEA and ODE written policies and procedures for special education, as they relate to supported education? * Did ODE activities result in LEA supported education action? * What level of supported education is occurring in each LEA? * What perceived benefits/negative outcomes for students with and without disabilities result from supported education? * What are the perceived effects of integration/supported education on teachers' instructional style when working with students with and without IEPs? * What are the barriers to supported education and what strategies can be used to overcome the barriers? Two sites were selected for the pilot study--a high school in a large, suburban district, and an elementary school in a small, rural district. Six respondent groups were surveyed: all parents of students with IEPs; a random sample of 25 parents of students without IEPs; a random sample of 25 regular education teachers; all special education teachers; all related services/support staff; and all building administrators, as well as administrators of an intermediate education agency (Education Service District [ESD]) who were members of the LEA supported education team. In addition, ten randomly selected regular education teachers, two special education teachers, two related services staff, and one administrator were interviewed at each school site. Seventeen students with various disabilities were randomly selected and observed for one hour in a variety of classrooms at the high school site; 13 similarly selected students with disabilities were observed at the elementary site. The data were synthesized into descriptive reports on each site and a summary analysis was developed for both sites that provided the ODE an opportunity to see the overall progress of the LEAs. Barriers to change as well as strategies to overcome these barriers were summarized for both sites. Due to the size of the sample and the fact that this was a feasibility study, no statistical tests were conducted on this data. Overall, the ODE Advisory Group decided that the pilot study was successfully accomplished and a larger, statewide evaluation was politically and financially feasible. Major recommendations from the pilot study for the statewide evaluation included the following. * Maintain the current conceptual framework and evaluation questions. * Evaluate changes in the impact of the ODE Plan for Supported Education over time. * Add a survey of students with and without IEPs. * Use statistical analysis to test for differences between respondent groups. ---------- Special Education Program Standards Study of Class Size and Combining Students with Various Disabilities Virginia Department of Education, FY 1991 The Policy Context Virginia's Special Education Program Standards define the maximum caseloads special education teachers can carry and the conditions under which students with different disabilities can be instructed together. Virginia's special education delivery system is based on the categorical placement of students with disabilities who receive special education services for 50 percent or more of the day. As of 1992, when this study was initiated, special education class size and class mix standards in the State had not changed since the 1970s. Evidence of the need to evaluate these standards in light of changing practices included: 1) an increase in the number and types of waivers requested by local school divisions; 2) an increase in parent and advocate complaints about approved waivers; and 3) a consensus of key stakeholders that the standards might have become too rigid for determining appropriate programs for individual students. The Research Questions The study, conducted by The Virginia Department of Education (VDOE) in conjunction with researchers from the Virginia Polytechnic University and the University of Virginia, gathered information designed to enable the Superintendent of Schools and State Board of Education to determine those areas in which the special education standards are successful or need improvement. The project team examined two primary research questions: 1. What are the effects on student achievement of varying class sizes and mixing students with different disabilities? 2. How do the special education program standards inhibit or facilitate effective service delivery? Methods Investigators took a stakeholder-based approach to answering the research questions. Stakeholders were chosen to represent diverse constituencies with disparate views on the key issues and high stakes in the outcome of the program standards study. The composition of the stakeholder group was carefully balanced with the aim of promoting a common framework for understanding the issues involved in analyzing and developing policy. The larger stakeholder group of 73 members included local school board members; principals; directors of special education; general, vocational, and special education teachers; parents; students; and VDOE staff. This group provided input concerning all aspects of the study. Seventeen representatives of the larger group formed the stakeholder steering team, which was actively involved in designing the instruments, collecting data, and formulating recommendations. Study activities were carried out in three phases. During Phase I (Spring 1992), determinations were made about which issues warranted full-scale study and the best methods for collecting statewide data from multiple sources. This phase included a literature review on the effects of varying class size and class mix, and site visits to three school divisions to gather in-depth information through interviews, document reviews, observations, and surveys. During Phase II (Fall 1992-Spring 1993), broad-based, statewide information was collected, primarily through administration of mail surveys to: * all special education directors in the State (80 percent responded); * 1,000 randomly selected special education teachers of students with high incidence disabilities--educable mental retardation, emotional disabilities, and learning disabilities (85 percent responded); and * more than 3,000 other special educators serving students with low incidence, moderate and severe disabilities such as hearing and vision impairments, speech-language impairments, and preschoolers with disabilities (45 percent responded). Opinions on the program standards for students with disabilities were also solicited from persons attending statewide public hearings. Twenty-five attendees at three hearings provided public testimony. In addition, 255 written comments were received during the public comment period. During Phase III (Fall 1993-Spring 1994), recommended revisions to the program standards for students with disabilities were formulated. The recommendations were based on information gathered during Phases I and II, on studies of class size and funding policies in other States, and on prior studies of special education in Virginia. During this phase, the information was collected during monthly stakeholder steering team meetings; quarterly focus group meetings with the broader stakeholder groups; presentations to the Virginia Department of Education management and the Board of Education; and meetings on selected topics held with various advisory councils,faculty at institutions of higher education, and advocacy groups. Findings The major study findings are described below. * Many administrators, as well as some teachers and parents, perceive the program standards as too rigid for determining appropriate programs for individual students. * On the whole, students achieve at lower levels in larger classes, while other areas (social and affective indicators, as well as teaching methods) are unaffected by class size. * Teachers and administrators agreed on some aspects of class size standards and disagreed on others. Both groups consistently recommended smaller resource classes. However, teachers judged size standards for most self-contained and departmentalized classes as high, while administrators regarded most as manageable. * Neither student achievement nor social and affective indicators (e.g., motivation, self-concept, work habits, etc.) appear to be discernibly affected when students with educable mental retardation, emotional disturbances, and learning disabilities are instructed together. Teachers in mixed classrooms used significantly fewer methods of instruction, as well as more large group instruction, than those in classrooms where students with only one type of disability were taught. * Unlike special education directors, teachers in all categories oppose the practice of mixing students with educable mental retardation, emotional disturbances, and learning disabilities. * In general, class size and class mix standards for students with low incidence disabilities are seen as less problematic than those for students with emotional disturbances, educable mental retardation, and learning disabilities. However, there are a few exceptions, most notably caseload sizes for early childhood special education and speech-language impairment. Another of the study's significant accomplishments, as documented by an external process evaluation by the Evaluation Center of the University of Virginia, was its successful implementation of a complex, participatory stakeholder-based design, that incorporated stakeholder input into the study process and formulation of findings. Recommendations The study resulted in nine recommendations that have been or will be used to develop new statewide standards for students with disabilities in Virginia. The major recommendations to the State Board of Education are described below. * The caseload for students with educable mental retardation and speech or language impairments should be reduced. On the strength of this recommendation, the State Board of Education requested additional funds in their 1994 budget to support the State's share of costs for reducing class sizes for students with educable mental retardation and speech or language impairments. Study personnel further recommended that this budget request be approved by the General Assembly for implementation in the 1994-1995 school year. * Current teacher caseloads should be preserved when students with disabilities are integrated in general education settings. * New standards should not require that students with disabilities be grouped exclusively by disability category. Placement should be decided by a student's individualized education program (IEP) committee based on appraisal of each student's needs. * New standards should permit exceptions to be made to State regulations for innovative programs that are locally planned with stakeholder and local school board involvement, provided such programs do not override students'IEPs or violate Federal regulations. Additional recommendations call for conducting further studies in several areas, including investigating the impact of inclusion. ---------- Appendix C _______________________________________________________________________ Abstracts of State Agency/Federal Evaluation Studies Program The State Agency/Federal Evaluation Studies Program is described at the beginning of Appendix B. This section contains abstracts of the three SAFES studies that were funded in FY 1995. All three of the studies were feasibility studies. * Alabama Department of Education "In-School/Post-School Tracking System for Secondary Students with Disabilities" * Colorado Department of Education "Feasibility of Using the Social Tasks Inventory (STI) as a Measure of Student Outcomes for Integration into the State Compliance Monitoring Process" * Rhode Island Department of Education "School Support System" ---------- Alabama Department of Education "In-School/Post-School Tracking System for Secondary Students with Disabilities" _Project Co-Directors:_ Bill East and Mabrey Whetsone _Cost:_ Federal Share = $49,969 Agency Share = $42,497 _________________________________________________________________ Total = $92,466 _Project Period:_ October 1, 1995 - September 30, 1996 _Abstract:_ The Alabama Department of Education will conduct a study to evaluate the feasibility of implementing a statewide student tracking system for Alabama's secondary students and young adults with disabilities. Since the early 1980s, the assessment of postsecondary outcomes for students with disabilities has been a growing national issue. A 1989 report by the National Council on Disability stated that rather than only examining the processes and procedures for assuring access to a public education, serious attention should be directed to assessing the nature and quality of the students' postsecondary outcomes. In other words, the issue not only is transition services themselves and whether or not the students receive them as needed, but also their effectiveness in terms of the students' outcome performance. In order to assess outcome performance, student tracking systems that provide data on those outcomes are needed. The Alabama Transition Task Force found that the need for a student tracking system continues to be critical in the State. The major goals of this study are to test the feasibility of developing a student tracking system that would: improve the transition planning process and related service programs at the local level; serve as an accountability index for the State department regarding the performance (in-school and post-school) of its youth and young adults with disabilities; and create bridges between the data collection systems currently being utilized by a variety of agencies. The project objectives are described below. * To assemble a Project Task Force that will serve as a decision making body for steering and guiding this feasibility project, as well as translating its outcomes into a set of recommendations for policy formulation concerning the statewide adoption and implementation of the student tracking system. * To revise, pilot test, and adapt two data collection instruments for student tracking from school to work and community. * To field test the post-school questionnaire, and the in-school questionnaire. * To pilot test the implementation of the student tracking system. * To evaluate the feasibility of the data gathering systems, and the utility of the information reporting systems for decision making and program improvement at the local level. The feasibility study will collect information on students with disabilities who are 17 years of age, and on postsecondary students with disabilities who exited during the 1994-95 school year. The sample will be drawn from high schools in Lee and Jefferson counties. Alabama's _Post-School Indicators Follow-Up Questionnaire_ will be administered to a sample of postsecondary students with disabilities who exited school during the 1994-95 school year. A parallel form of the instrument will also be developed and administered to a sample of secondary students with disabilities who are 17 years of age. Teachers will be trained to administer the questionnaires. The findings of this study will enable the Alabama SEA to determine the usefulness of the student tracking system for the purposes of transition planning at the local level, and as an accountability index for the State department regarding the performances of its youth and young adults with disabilities. The findings will also enable the Task Force to make policy recommendations regarding the statewide adoption of the tracking system. ---------- Colorado Department of Education "Feasibility of Using the Social Tasks Inventory (STI) as a Measure of Student Outcomes for Integration into the State Compliance Monitoring Process" _Project Director:_ Sue Bechard _Cost:_ Federal Share = $49,784 Agency Share = $34,373 _________________________________________________________________ Total = $84,157 _Project Period:_ October 1, 1995 - September 30, 1996 _Abstract:_ The Colorado Department of Education will conduct a one-year study to determine if it is feasible to develop a system for collecting student outcome data that can be integrated into the current state compliance monitoring process. Historically, special education effectiveness has been provided by monitoring compliance with State and Federal statutes. While this approach has provided a wealth of information on the identification and planning process for students, it has provided little information on student results. Thus, little is known about the effects of special education services. In addition, at a time when there is a need for more information on student outcomes, resources are declining at both the State and Federal level, resulting in fewer people to collect and analyze data. Therefore, techniques and tools to collect needed information must be efficient and effective. One way to accomplish this is to design a system that allows the State agency to coordinate compliance monitoring with the collection of student outcome data. Such a system would also enable individual districts to monitor program effectiveness and make decisions about staff development, resource allocation, and new program development. The study will attempt to answer three evaluation questions: 1) Is it feasible to use the Social Tasks Inventory (STI) instrument as a measure of student outcomes?; 2) Is it feasible to integrate STI data into the State education agency's (SEA's) monitoring system?; and 3) What is the utility of integrating STI data into the SEA's monitoring system for the purposes of program evaluation and program improvement? The study will have the four objectives described below. * Identify student outcome data needed to assess the impact and effectiveness of special education programs for students with serious emotional disturbance at the middle school level. * Identify currently available student outcome data and procedures for data collection. * Identify and pilot test data collection instruments and procedures for additional student outcome data. * Design and pilot test a system to collect student outcome data concurrently with State compliance monitoring activities so data can be stored, retrieved, aggregated, and analyzed. A literature search will be performed to identify a variety of outcomes. The outcome variables will be further defined by grouping them into long- and short-term outcome categories and sorting the outcomes into a matrix. The matrix will be presented to focus groups, who will identify the outcomes they deem most useful. Three homogeneous groups will be convened, comprised of special education administrators, service providers, and consumers of special programs and services. After the focus groups have been conducted, the core research team will conduct a search of instruments presently available to measure the outcomes the groups select. In addition, the likely sources of outcome data and the procedures for collection will be identified. Also, student outcome data on functional life competencies will likely be needed, and the available measurement tools to assess these competencies will be adapted for use in this study. One outcome of the project will be the testing of a comprehensive data system that could enable the SEA to measure program effectiveness by combining data on student outcomes with monitoring and compliance information. Other possible outcomes of the project are that it can: integrate a number of seemingly disparate initiatives into a coherent whole; provide data to assist the SEA in policy decisions and in determining needs for staff development, resource allocation, and new programming development; and contribute knowledge about measuring outcomes for students with serious emotional disturbance that will contribute to OSEP's National Agenda. ---------- Rhode Island Department of Education "School Support System" _Project Director:_ Anne DeFanti _Cost:_ Federal Share = $49,920 Agency Share = $35,000 _________________________________________________________________ Total = $84,920 _Project Period:_ October 1, 1995 - September 30, 1996 _Abstract:_ The Rhode Island Department of Education will conduct a one-year study to determine the feasibility of implementing an enhanced system of State education agency (SEA) monitoring of local education agency (LEA) compliance with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The goal of the system is to assess the effectiveness of special education and, ultimately, improved services to and enhanced performance of students with disabilities. Stakeholders are increasingly interested in examining the effectiveness of those services. However, most evaluation efforts have focused on LEA compliance with Federal and State regulations and statutes. Although those types of evaluations do provide useful information, they do not provide useful data about the effectiveness of services or the extent to which students benefit. The purpose of this project is to determine the feasibility of implementing a "School Support System" that continues to examine compliance with regulatory requirements, but also evaluates the effectiveness of special education programs and services and identifies the need for, and provides, technical assistance and support. The system is designed to evaluate special education services in a broader school context, particularly in light of reform and restructuring initiatives. It emphasizes collaboration among special and general educators and encourages a partnership between the SEA and LEA to improve services to students with disabilities. A "Critical Issues Committee" composed of representatives from the SEA, LEAs, and State Special Education Advisory Committee proposed the system after a year's consideration. The project's major goals are: 1. To assess the feasibility of evaluating the effectiveness of special education programs and services as part of the School Support System; and 2. To assess the feasibility of incorporating technical assistance and support into the School Support System. The study sample will consist of eight LEAs. The sample will be representative of the diversity of the State's population and LEAs. One of the LEAs will be urban, five suburban, and two rural districts. LEAs will be selected in each category that are involved in some level of school restructuring or educational reform initiatives. The SEA currently conducts monitoring visits to six LEAs each year. Thus, one measure of the feasibility of implementing a revised monitoring system will be the ability to maintain at least the prior level of monitoring activity. There will be two levels of instrumentation. The first level will be a transition from existing survey, questionnaires, and recording instruments that are presently used in monitoring activities to a set of newly designed survey instruments. The second level of instrumentation will be designed to evaluate the extent to which the revised monitoring process is successful in accomplishing its goals and objectives. The development of those instruments will be accomplished in the initial stages of the project. If the proposed School Support System proves to be feasible, it will provide a contribution to current knowledge and practice by establishing a new standard for monitoring and evaluation. The emphasis would shift to meeting the intent of IDEA while maintaining regulatory compliance. The new system would provide the opportunity to more carefully assess the effects of special education, and provide opportunities to improve services to students with disabilities. If the project demonstrates that it is feasible to incorporate a mechanism to assess needs and provide technical assistance and support, it may encourage greater participation and support from practitioners. ---------- Appendix D _______________________________________________________________________ Profiles of the Program Agenda This appendix contains the OSEP program agendas for the: (1) Technology, Educational Media, and Materials Program; (2) Special Studies Program; (3) Program for Children and Youth with Serious Emotional Disturbance; (4) National Personnel Agenda; and (5) Program for Children with Severe Disabilities. For each agenda, community members from the respective fields were asked define a mission statement, current program goals, and future goals. ---------- Technology, Educational Media, and Materials Program Division of Innovation and Development Office of Special Education Programs I. _Context for the Agenda Process_ To set forth an agenda for the Technology, Educational Media, and Materials Program, community members were asked to identify the _advances_ needed for improving the quality, use, and access of technology, educational media, and materials to achieve better results for children and youth with disabilities. II._Components of the Agenda_ _Program Mission_ To improve results for individuals with disabilities by advancing the creation, evaluation, and use of tools that enable students with disabilities for life-long learning, inclusion, and productivity. _Targets for the Program_ _Enable the Learner_. The Program will foster the creation of state-of-the-art instructional environments, both in and out of school. Technology, educational media, and materials will be used to enable students with disabilities to access knowledge, develop skills and problem-solving strategies, and to engage in educational experiences necessary for them to participate fully and successfully in our society. _Promote Effective Policy_. The Program will promote supportive policy making at all levels in government, schools, and business. Such policies should ensure accessibility, availability, effective application, and consistent use of appropriate technology, media, and materials. The policies will recognize that these tools are essential to achieving better lifelong results for individuals with disabilities. _Improve Use Through Professional Development_. The Program will encourage investigation of approaches and strategies for training and supporting teachers, administrators, parents, and related service personnel on the uses of instructional and assistive technologies. This broad group of consumers needs to know what is available and how it can best be used for individuals with disabilities. Acting on such knowledge, they can increase productive use of instructional time; prepare students with disabilities for employment and citizenship; and promote their intellectual, ethical, cultural, and physical growth. _Create Innovative Tools_. The program will encourage and support development of varied and integrated technologies, media, and materials which open up and expand the lives of those with disabilities. This can be accomplished by individuals, corporations, or agencies dedicated to improving the educational, social, occupational, and cultural opportunities for all students. Their work should enable individuals with disabilities to achieve the results expected of all students--independence, self-determination, and a quality of life that is productive and personally satisfying. ---------- Special Studies Program Division of Innovation and Development Office of Special Education Programs I. _Context for Agenda Process_ To set forth an agenda for the Special Studies Program, community members were asked to identify the _information needed_ to support broad systemic change for achieving better results for students with disabilities. II. _Components of the Agenda_ _Program Mission_ To contribute to the creation of a comprehensive educational and support system in which there is a collective responsibility for providing inclusive programs and individually determined services as a means of meeting unique and diverse needs and ensuring successful results for all children. _Program Information Needs_ _Management and Regulatory Flexibility_. In order to stimulate the integration and participation of children with disabilities in a full variety of regular education settings, promote continuity of services, serve a wider range of children at risk of educational failure, and realize better results for all children, management and regulatory flexibility are needed. _Accountability for Results_. To enable the tracking of student progress and the generating of feedback for ongoing system improvement, we need to instill into educational systems accountability for the results of each child's schooling and for use of a comprehensive, community based, family oriented system of education and support. _Community Supported Schools_. To meet the complex and varied needs of students and their families, we need community supported schools that will become the focal point for family participation in activities and services that foster the development of all children. _School Oriented Personnel Development Environment and Strategies_. To expand the capacity of schools to respond to the diversity of student characteristics and learning requirements, we need to reconfigure the relationships and responsibilities of staff and create an environment of continued professional development capable of improving the learning of all children. _Interagency Collaboration_. Families need to be able to enter a comprehensive system of services at any point rather than separately access programs and services from several agencies. In order to reduce gaps in services and realize the full use of existing resources, we need to expand system capacity through interagency collaboration. _Technological Capacity_. In order to meet the challenge of remaining current related to an expanding professional knowledge base, developing professional networks, tracking tasks and performance, and increasing responsiveness to informational requests, we need to develop strategies that utilize the existing and emerging technological capacity to obtain, store, analyze and generate knowledge bases. ---------- Program for Children and Youth with Serious Emotional Disturbance Division of Innovation and Development Office of Special Education Programs I. _Context for the Agenda Process_ In 1990, Congress authorized a new program for children and youth with serious emotional disturbance (SED) under Part C (Section 627) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). IDEA also mandated a participatory planning process, involving multiple stakeholders in the development of program goals, objectives, strategies, and priorities for all programs administered by the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), including the new program for children and youth with serious emotional disturbance. Since 1990, OSEP's Division of Innovation and Development (DID) has sponsored numerous meetings and discussions, including teleconferences and focus groups, to implement this planning process and to develop, evaluate, and disseminate a national agenda for achieving better results for children and youth with serious emotional disturbance. II. _Components of the National Agenda_ _Mission and Vision_ The Mission is: _Achieving better results for students with serious emotional disturbance. The Vision is: A reorientation and national preparedness to foster the emotional development and adjustment of children and youth with or at risk of developing serious emotional disturbance, as the critical foundation for realizing their potential at school, work, and in the community._ _Program Targets_ 1. _Expand Positive Learning Opportunities and Results_. To foster the provision of engaging, useful and positive learning opportunities. These opportunities should be result-driven and should acknowledge as well as respond to the experiences and needs of children and youth with serious emotional disturbance. 2. _Strengthen School and Community Capacity_. To foster initiatives that strengthen the capacity of schools and communities to serve students with serious emotional disturbance in the least restrictive environments appropriate. 3. _Identify and Address Diverse Needs_. To encourage culturally and linguistically appropriate exchanges and collaborations among families, professionals, students, and communities. These collaborations should foster positive results for all students and result in the identification and provision of services that are responsive to issues of race, culture, gender, and social and economic status. 4. _Collaborate with Families_. To foster collaborations that fully include family members on the team of service providers that implements family focused services to improve educational results. Services should be open, helpful, culturally competent, accessible to families, and school- as well as community-based. 5. _Promote Appropriate Assessment_. To promote practices ensuring that assessment is integral to the identification, design, and delivery of services for children and youth with serious emotional disturbance. These practices should be culturally appropriate, ethical, and functional. 6. _Provide Ongoing Skill Development and Support_. To foster the enhancement of knowledge, understanding, and sensitivity among all who work with children and youth with and at risk of developing serious emotional disturbance. Support and development should be ongoing and aim at strengthening the capacity of families, teachers, service providers, and other stakeholders to collaborate, persevere, and improve results for children and youth with serious emotional disturbance. 7. _Create Comprehensive and Collaborative Systems_. To promote systems change resulting in the development of coherent services built around the individual needs of children and youth with and at risk of developing serious emotional disturbance. These services should be family-centered, community-based, and appropriately funded. ---------- National Personnel Agenda Division of Personnel Development Office of Special Education Programs I. _Context for the Agenda_ To set forth an agenda for the Personnel Preparation Program, community members were asked to _identify the needs, goals and objectives_ for achieving a pool of qualified, diverse, and flexible personnel for serving children and youth with disabilities. II. _Components of the Agenda_ _Program Targets_ _Recruitment and Retention_. To make sure that the special education and related professions recruit and retain enough people of sufficient quality and diversity to meet the needs of children with disabilities, and of their families. _Professional Preparation_. To guide a profession in which each succeeding generation of professionals has been rigorously and appropriately prepared, and is committed to the highest quality of special education and other services for children with disabilities for their families. _Professional Development_. To foster efforts of continuing professional development that respond to both emerging needs and new knowledge, and to make appropriate professional development opportunities available to all who need them. _Leadership_. To mobilize a system of resources and incentives, and the diverse, versatile leaders needed to prepare and support those who are directly involved in educating children with disabilities and their families. _Objectives to Achieve Goals_ The objectives set forth the actions for leading to the achievement of one or more of the program goals. Because of the mutual reinforcement of goals and objectives in this agenda, the objectives are not necessarily tied directly to a single, individual target. Many of them apply across the program targets. _Recruitment and Retention_ Expand and maintain a valid, comprehensive body of knowledge on effective recruitment and retention strategies. Create outreach and information services that will encourage persons with ability and commitment to explore and prepare for careers in special education, related services, and early intervention. In particular, these information services should give attention to culturally and linguistically diverse persons, and individuals with disabilities. Identify and implement incentives for qualified persons to enter and persist in careers in special education, related services, and early intervention. Identify and implement strategies to recruit and retain qualified personnel in a wide range of difficult-to-fill positions. _Professional Development and Continuing Preparation_ Expand and maintain a comprehensive knowledge base that describes the personnel needs of the profession, guides the tasks of preparing the next generation of leaders and direct service providers, and shapes continuing professional development. Increase the capabilities of professional preparation programs and systems to prepare personnel and provide for continuing professional development beyond initial preparation. Assure that the content of programs of professional preparation and continuing professional development is responsive to both the merging knowledge base of the field and its anticipated needs, especially the needs of changing and diverse populations. Design and deliver innovative, rigorous professional preparation and continuing professional development programs. Provide incentives for continuing professional development and effective practice. Prepare all school personnel to provide appropriate services to students with disabilities. Develop consortia to plan and offer programs of professional preparation and continuing professional development. _Standards for Professional Preparation and Certification_ Adopt rigorous national standards for awarding professional credentials. Develop credential levels that promote career ladders and professional growth. Adopt national accreditation standards for programs of personnel preparation that encourage flexibility in design. _Strengthening the Link between Knowledge and Practice_ Generate new knowledge that contributes to advance in practice and appropriately serves the distinct needs of diverse populations. Translate new knowledge into effective applications and apply new knowledge and technologies in advancing professional practice. Ensure that advances in practice are responsive to existing and newly identified populations and that they incorporate innovative service delivery models. Ensure that educators and related professionals have the knowledge and skills necessary for effective coordination and collaboration at the classroom level. ---------- Program for Children with Severe Disabilities Division of Educational Services Office of Special Education Programs I. _Context for the Agenda Process_ To set forth an agenda for the Program for Children with Severe Disabilities, program staff solicited input from the community members to refine the _vision and conceptualization of an integrated lifestyle_ for individuals with severe disabilities. II. _Components of the Agenda_ _Mission_ The mission for the Program is to improve results for individuals with severe disabilities as measured by an integrated lifestyle. In order for the Program for Children with Severe Disabilities to achieve this mission, an operational definition of an integrated lifestyle was formed by program staff. Community members who serve children with severe disabilities were asked to further refine the definition. The operational definition of an integrated lifestyle includes aspects and indicators. _Targets_ Seven _aspects_ define an integrated lifestyle. These aspects are: education; employment; social relationships; self-determination; recreation and leisure; neighborhood and community; and home. While the aspects serve to bind the concepts of an integrated lifestyle, _indicators_ operationalize the definition. See table D.1 for the aspects and indicators of an integrated lifestyle for children with severe disabilities. ___________________________________ _TABLE D.1 Framework for the Program for Children with Severe Disabilities_ Program Targets Aspect Description Indicators of an Integrated Lifestyle Education Individualized functional curricula and experiences with students without disabilities. * Home school placement * Inclusion in regular age appropriate classes and activities * Functional curriculum * Community referenced training * Individuals and their families integral members of the IEP planning process Employment Employment, with the necessary supports, in regular job settings. * Individual receives transition services and has employment experiences prior to graduation * Individual engages in real work in real workplace settings * Individual receives support in the work environment * Natural proportions of individuals with and without disabilities are employed at the work site * Individual receives wages and benefits appropriate to skills and qualifications * Individual communicates with peers in the work environment * Individual has transportation to and from work Social Relationships Social networks and friendships throughout the individual's life. * Individuals has friends in the community * Individual is included in after school and out of school activities with peers * Individual has informal support network of family and friends * Individual has long term, intimate relationships * Individual has support in developing social relationships Self-determination Making choices that affect all aspects of lifestyle. * Individual has opportunities to make real lifestyle choices * Individual preferences are valued and acted on in lifestyle decisions * Individual is involved in all aspects of lifestyle planning * Individual is supported during decision-making processes * Individual has ability to affect lifestyle changes Recreation and Leisure Access to and membership in clubs, groups, hobbies, and cultural pursuits in the community. * Individual has choices about recreation and leisure activities * Individual participates in leisure and recreation activities in the community * Individual is a contributing member of clubs and groups of their choice in the community Neighborhood and Community Access to and inclusion in community activities and services. * Individual uses neighborhood and community services on a regular basis * Individual participates in neighborhood recreation and leisure activities * Individual Education Plans include use of neighborhood and community services Home Appropriate living alternatives and family involvement at each stage of the life cycle. * Participates in the selection of a place to live * Individual selected a place to live among a range of options * Individual selects roommates (if roommates were desired) * Necessary supports were individually determined * Individual is pleased with living arrangements * Family is pleased with living arrangements * Transition planning efforts address where a person will live * Choices and desires at home are valued and respected * Individual makes decisions about all aspects of home routines (decorating, meal times, vacations) ---------- Appendix E _______________________________________________________________________ Activities of the Regional Resource Centers The Regional Resource and Federal Center Program assists State educational agencies (SEAs) in building their capacity to improve services for infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities. The role of the six Regional Resource Centers (RRCs) is to provide advice and technical assistance to administrators and educators in SEAs, local educational agencies, and other appropriate public agencies. Information related to the activities conducted by the RRCs is included on an annual basis. * The Regional Resource and Federal Center Program * Technical Assistance Activities ---------- The Regional Resource and Federal Center Program The Regional Resource and Federal Centers (RRFC) Program is authorized under Part C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The Program funds a network of six regional resource centers (RRCs) and a Federal Center (FRC). It is currently funded at $7.2 million. The Program's mission is to assist State educational agencies (SEAs) in improving programs for infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities and their families, especially programs related to IDEA. The RRCs help SEAs improve special education and related services by training SEA staff and by providing technical assistance in the area of program development. State staff, local agency personnel, and families help clarify State needs and plan RRC services. Technical assistance strategies include individual consultation, training, information dissemination, model development and replication, product development, linkage between States and other resources, and apprising them of successful practices from other States. The RRCs and the Federal Resource Center collaborate to address needs common to States and regions, using multistate technical assistance strategies to ensure efficient and effective use of limited resources. Working with other technical assistance projects in the field, each RRC maintains current information on the States it serves, and on various important topics in the field of special education. Through its RRC, each State has ready access to a wide range of information on research, policies, procedures, and practices concerning programs for infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities and their families. The FRC operates under a set of Federal mandates described in 34 CFR, Part 305.11, as described below. "The Federal Center shall: (a) Provide a national perspective for establishing technical assistance activities within and across regions by identifying and synthesizing emerging issues and trends and establishing a panel to interpret this information; (b) Assist in linking and coordinating the Regional Resource Centers with each other and with other technical assistance providers, including health-related entities as well as organizations representing persons with disabilities, professional organizations, and parent projects; (c) Provide information to, and training for, agencies, institutions, and organizations regarding techniques and approaches for submitting applications for grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements; (d) Give priority to providing technical assistance concerning the education of children with disabilities from minority backgrounds and exchanging information with and, if appropriate, cooperating with other centers addressing the needs of these children; and (e) Provide technical assistance to State educational agencies, through Regional Resource Centers, for the training of hearing officers." ---------- Technical Assistance Activities Examples of technical assistance given by each of the RRCs to States or regions are described below. Following the examples is a list of the RRCs, contact information, and the States and jurisdictions served by each RRC. Northeast Regional Resource Center: Statewide Assessment Planning with the Rhode Island SEA In the fall of 1993, the Office of Outcomes and Assessment of the Rhode Island SEA was beginning to develop a draft revision of its Statewide Assessment Plan. At that time, the State's Special Education Unit was not part of the draft revision process. However, as the SEA was moving ahead with common core curriculum development, revising the statewide assessment system, and generally promoting a climate of change and access, the Special Education Unit personnel felt they could find a way to participate. NERRC's earliest assistance to the Special Education Unit consisted of providing an "Outcomes-Based Accountability Desk Reference." The Reference is an array of materials that Special Education Unit personnel could use to keep abreast of the latest practices and attitudes regarding large-scale assessments. NERRC also began discussions with Special Education Unit representatives regarding both assessment system characteristics and potential ways that Unit representatives might be able to participate in assessment planning and development. The SEA developed a draft of a Rhode Island Statewide Assessment Program (RISAP). Eventually, the Special Education Unit was able to position itself to take initiative within the SEA and arrange the first-ever collaborative meeting with colleagues from Special Services (Special Education), Curriculum (General Education), and Outcomes and Accountability (General Education) in June 1994. NERRC's role at this meeting was to help develop an agenda, provide information about assessment philosophies, frameworks, and development modes, and facilitate the discussion. The goals for the meeting were to develop common language concerning assessment and accountability; to review the progress made to date; to begin to form a shared vision of the Rhode Island Student Learning Goals and the statewide assessment system; and to define and clarify the roles and responsibilities of special and general education personnel in a potential collaborative effort. In the weeks after the meeting, the Special Education Unit quietly promoted collaboration between general and special education personnel concerning the revision of the statewide assessment system. Basic philosophies became more apparent, and conversations began to be based on new assumptions about accountability and responsibility for all students. Eventually NERRC convened a working conference, at which external consultants worked directly with SEA personnel to design their statewide assessment system revision proposal. The working conference became a collaborative effort involving SEA representatives from several divisions, the consultant team, and NERRC. After this conference, the SEA further revised RISAP, drafted policies and guidelines, and developed a field test of the new assessment system for fourth graders in health and mathematics. The SEA piloted the field test in the spring of 1995 embracing a "no exemptions" approach: all children are expected to participate in the assessments in one manner or another. A letter from the director of the Rhode Island SEA Office of Outcomes and Assessment states that NERRC "helped us to think about it more systemically,"..."challenged our commitment to the `all kids' agenda,...and put us in contact with other States who...are also struggling mightily with this issue." The letter further states that the SEA "returned to the drawing board, did some research and...opened up the policy to apply to any child who will perform better with an accommodation of some kind" and that the "inclusive and performance-based approach of the field test have already begun to influence planning at the district level." Mid-South Regional Resource Center: Interstate Visually Impaired Distance Training The jurisdictions in Mid-South RRC (MSRRC) (District of Columbia, Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia) have been concerned for a number of years about special education personnel shortages. Of particular concern were personnel who could serve children who had low incidence disabilities--in particular, those who had visual impairments. In May 1994 the MSRRC convened a multistate work group to examine this problem. The work group members decided the logical solution to addressing the shortages was to explore development of a regional approach to providing additional special training to special education teachers. An interstate distance education training approach was to be used. Through use of satellite transmission and downlink site technology, master's degree training, and eventually add-on certification, were to be provided. After the work group meeting, MSRRC developed a position paper for the use of the multistate work group of comprehensive system of personnel development (CPSD) coordinators and other SEA contacts. The paper contained information concerning the existing needs, rationale, and support for developing a regional approach to low incidence distance training. The paper was intended to communicate the regional need and to create awareness of and commitment to pursuing a regional approach. The paper was disseminated within the nine States to SEAs, LEAs, State school and institution of higher education (IHE) staff. The paper reached the superintendent of the Governor Morehead School in North Carolina (which is that State's school for students with visual impairments). The superintendent, a long-time supporter of regional approaches to personnel training, promptly provided the paper to several State legislators. In July 1995 the North Carolina legislature passed legislation containing language from the original position paper, directing the Board of Governors of the University of North Carolina to establish an interstate consortium to develop and implement a regional visually impaired distance training program that will offer a master's degree, as well as add-on certification. With this support, the MSRRC regional work group received the impetus necessary to move forward. CSPD coordinators formed in-State stakeholder teams and are exploring recommendations and concerns regarding training program content, delivery, licensure, and certification. The formation of in-State teams has resulted in new relationships within States. These relationships, formed among State school for the blind superintendents, State certification office staff, State visually impaired content staff, Part B CSPD coordinators, higher education teacher training faculty, distance education experts, and others have resulted in ongoing communication about unique needs that can be addressed through shared commitment. The MSRRC has served and continues to fulfill a unique role as facilitator for the Region 2 States' work group, individual State teams, and the North Carolina program developers. The long-term result of this activity will be the creation of a regional training program, developed and managed by a consortia of IHE teacher training programs, SEAs, State offices of certification, and State schools for the blind. The effort will produce personnel with credentials that are valid in each of the participating States. Currently, it is estimated that a shortage of 92 teachers of the visually impaired exists in Region 2 States. This shortage is expected to decrease as the interstate distance training program is implemented, thus improving the availability and quality of instruction to students with visual impairments. As far as the MSRRC staff has been able to determine, this is the only interstate low incidence distance training program currently in development in the United States. The South Atlantic Regional Resource Center--Systems Change: Promoting and Enhancing Family Involvement and Community Partnerships It takes a whole community to raise a child--or as they say in New Mexico "Para educan al niño se necesita todo el pueblo." Research clearly demonstrates that family and community involvement in the educational process results in the improvement of children's performance in school. The South Atlantic Regional Resource Center (SARRC) assisted a task force of representative stakeholders from New Mexico in a statewide planning process that resulted in the development of a long-range action plan and process for achieving family-school-community partnerships called the New Mexico Connection: Family-School-Community Partnerships. Crucial to the success of the action plan and integral to the process was the commitment to involve stakeholders who were representative of the cultural diversity of New Mexico as true partners in planning and decision making. While this project began as a special education family involvement initiative, it evolved to become a community partnerships initiative to assist schools, families, and communities meet the needs of all children. As a result of SARRC's services, systems changes have included incorporating the principles of family involvement in educational programs and converting from monitoring of local special education by State special education staff to using a broad team of educators providing assistance to local districts as they develop long-range action plans for student success. The incorporation of community partnerships concepts has resulted in a New Mexico State Department of Education accreditation procedure for local school district improvement, and in school districts involving the local community as they develop long range action plans for student success. The SEA accreditation team is composed of State personnel from various divisions including instruction, vocational education, Federal programs, special education, and accreditation, as well as of representatives of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented. While accreditation evaluates compliance with State and Federal laws and regulations, the accreditation focus is now on technical assistance rather than on regulation. As part of the accreditation process, each district involves the community to develop a long-range action plan for the success of all students. The New Mexico Connection has fostered systems change and has resulted in family-school-community partnerships, which are essential to effective schools and to challenging all students to reach their potential. The participants in the initial State-level planning process represented families and service providers from throughout the State, as well as the cultural and linguistic diversity of New Mexico. Replication of this model for representative planning and decision making is now underway at the local and community level. The Great Lakes Area Regional Resource Center: Systems Affecting Systems Change for Infants, Toddlers, and Young Children, their Families and Communities in Pennsylvania Pennsylvania's Family Focused Early Intervention System (FFEIS) is recognized as one of this country's model early intervention training and technical assistance systems. Funded under Pennsylvania's Early Intervention Services System Act (Act 212), FFEIS is an interagency venture under the Pennsylvania Departments of Education, Health, and Public Welfare. The goal of FFEIS is the implementation, throughout the State, of comprehensive early intervention services based on three principles: (1) family-centered early intervention, (2) inclusion, and (3) best practices in early intervention. The Great Lakes Area Regional Resource Center (GLARRC) has been closely involved in the design, interagency collaboration, stakeholder involvement, implementation, evaluation, and continual renewal of FFEIS since its inception. In 1991, GLARRC provided consultation and facilitation services to the key representatives of the Departments of Education, Health, and Public Welfare who were involved in the original planning of FFEIS. In early 1992, GLARRC invited FFEIS leaders to Ohio State University to examine the Early Intervention Training Project, an EEPCD project that served as a model for the design of FFEIS. GLARRC designed a needs assessment module for the Pennsylvania system and recommended consultants to develop other training modules. GLARRC encouraged the project director to appoint an evaluation coordinator to whom GLARRC has provided ongoing consultation in the design of an evaluation system and instruments. During 1993-94, GLARRC helped FFEIS develop its services in relation to the State and local Interagency Coordinating Councils (ICCs). Technical assistance included consultation, information dissemination, and facilitation of a local ICC conference. The conference included a goal-setting session for representatives from local ICCs that focused on ways to improve functioning of the local councils. At the beginning of the 1994-95 and 1995-96 academic years, GLARRC facilitated refocusing sessions in which stakeholders (i.e., family members; local, intermediate and State education and welfare members; State and local ICC members; and others) validated their mission and guiding principles and developed action plans to direct FFEIS activities. Also, GLARRC provided facilitation services on a regular basis as FFEIS interacted with the Statewide Support Initiative of Pennsylvania, the broader technical assistance system of the Department of Education. GLARRC also provided facilitation services to the Cross Department Training Committee, which was overseeing the adoption of the FFEIS model by six agencies across the State to assure family centeredness, inclusion, and best practices in early intervention are standards for early intervention in Pennsylvania. It is through this type of ongoing and intensive involvement with a system that the GLARRC positively affects systems change. Results have been reported in Pennsylvania for the following three legislative findings for early intervention in Act 212. Highlighting the relationship of FFEIS to these successes, a recent evaluation of all parent participants, all past and current local ICC chairpersons, and a random sample of professional participants (4,086 surveys mailed with a return rate of 51 percent) revealed that FFEIS: 1. Increased opportunity for the development of infants, toddlers, and eligible young children who have disabilities in order to minimize their potential for developmental delay. + Eighty-six percent of the parents and professionals thought that participation in FFEIS activities helped improve their knowledge and implementation of best practices in early intervention. + Of the professionals, 82 percent rated their participation in FFEIS's activities as being helpful in assisting their organization to implement best practices in early intervention. 2. Reduced the number of individuals with disabilities being placed in institutions and enhanced their potential for independent living in society. + Seventy-four percent of the families surveyed rated FFEIS activities as helpful in increasing their family's access to community events, activities, and resources. Twenty-three percent of that group rated participation in FFEIS as extremely helpful. + Of the parents and professionals surveyed, 70 percent thought that their participation in FFEIS activities helped their communities develop and increase opportunities for inclusion. 3. Assisted the families of infants and toddlers with disabilities to meet their children's special needs. + Eighty-eight percent of the parents thought that their participation in FFEIS activities increased their ability to meet the developmental needs of their child. Of that group, 34 percent thought FFEIS was extremely helpful. + Both parents and professionals rated FFEIS activities as helpful in gaining information in specific areas (88 percent), increasing access to information (83 percent), and in understanding the early intervention system (82 percent). + Eighty-two percent of parents and professionals thought that participation in FFEIS activities helped them increase their collaboration with families and professionals. Seventy-three percent thought that participation in FFEIS activities helped their community increase opportunities for parent/professional collaboration. Act 212 also provides for the establishment and maintenance of local ICCs. One of the primary goals of FFEIS is to assist in the formation of the local ICCs and in the coordination of local training efforts through the local ICCs. Results of the evaluation survey concerning the effectiveness of FFEIS activities in assisting local ICCs are described below. * Eighty-eight percent of the local ICC survey participants rated FFEIS activities as helpful in organizing and establishing the local ICCs. Thirty-six percent of that group rated FFEIS activities as extremely helpful. FFEIS activities, such as setting meeting formats and agendas, were rated as helpful by 80 percent of the local ICC chairpersons. * As the local ICCs were forming, one of their first activities was to develop mission statements and set goals for the group. Local ICC chairpersons rated FFEIS activities as helpful in both developing (91 percent) and in implementing (89 percent) mission statements and goals. * Ninety-two percent of the local ICC chairpersons surveyed rated FFEIS activities as helpful in increasing their access to information concerning the activities of the State departments and the State ICC. Of that group, 35 percent rated FFEIS activities as extremely helpful. Eighty-nine percent rated FFEIS activities as helpful in increasing local ICC access to statewide resources. * Eighty-seven percent of the local ICCs rated FFEIS activities as helpful in improving collaboration among community agencies in providing services to young children with special needs and their families. Mountain Plains Regional Resource Center -- Technical Assistance Impact: The Relationship Between Section 504 and Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and special education regulations were both implemented in the 1970s and early 1980s. Today over 5.5 million students are being served in special education; by comparison, very few are being served under Section 504. A great deal of confusion still exists regarding similarities and differences between Section 504 and IDEA. Some students served through IDEA might be more appropriately served under Section 504. Since 1992, the Mountain Plains Regional Resource Center (MPRRC) has provided technical assistance regarding Section 504 to the following: * Bureau of Indian Affairs * Montana * Utah * Colorado * South Dakota * North Dakota * Kansas Guidelines regarding the similarities and differences between Section 504 and IDEA were developed for each of these States and the BIA. More than 30 comprehensive workshops were conducted to educate school personnel and parent groups about Section 504 and IDEA. 1. School districts from the States where training took place have now assigned at least 400 Section 504 Coordinators to ensure compliance with the law. 2. These school districts are implementing Section 504 procedural requirements. 3. An increased number of students with disabilities are being placed by Section 504 Committees and are receiving the necessary instructional accommodations to help them benefit from their education. 4. University teacher preparation programs in each State sent representatives to the Section 504 workshops and are now using the materials developed by the MPRRC to educate new teachers regarding Section 504. 5. Materials and training provided in the workshops addressed discrimination and individuals with disabilities. Educators and administrators should now be more sensitive to this issue. 6. Because more students are now being served under Section 504, it is expected that there will be a decrease in referrals for services under IDEA. Western Regional Resource Center: Technical Assistance Provided to the Pacific Basin Western Regional Resource Center (WRRC) technical assistance in the Pacific often affects the lives of administrators, teachers, and children with disabilities and their families more directly and immediately than similar assistance rendered at the State level. The small sizes of the Pacific islands, and the nature of their governance structures, facilitate more immediate results from introducing innovative practices and advancing staff skills. Although these Pacific communities particularly for those most in need, traditionally have taken a different approach toward education, programs that address the needs of all children and youth have been implemented in recent years. WRRCs work in the Pacific is characterized by intensive SEA staff training, hands-on assistance to teachers and at the classroom level, and increasing connections between special and general education that benefit all students. Recent WRRC activities to enhance the capacity of States and territories to serve children and youth with disabilities (changes in policies, programs or personnel) are described below. _Changes in Leadership Skills_ _Activities:_ In the Republic of Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), and American Samoa, WRRC has worked toward increasing the capacity of consulting staff to work with teachers. WRRC staff worked with SEA specialists to plan and deliver training, taking care to model good training techniques while focusing on content. WRRC support enabled cadres of district administrators and specialists from the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) to observe programs and consult with staff in selected Hawaii schools. Increased responsibility and autonomy has been given to SEA staff, resulting in an expansion in a repertoire of skills and abilities and a reduction in the need for outside experts. _Outcomes:_ Because of increased local ongoing support to teachers, the school staff has increased capacity to meet a broader array of learning needs in the regular classroom. In American Samoa, demonstration programs in model classrooms and buildings have encouraged other programs to increase access and modify classroom practices. In the Republic of Palau the consulting teachers have gradually assumed more responsibility for designing and conducting inservice training for both general and special education personnel. In the RMI, several local building programs have been redesigned so both general and special educators successfully support students with diverse learning needs in the regular classroom. The staff from these schools serve as a resource network for other schools adopting similar inclusion practices. _Changes in Staff Skills Directly Affecting Students_ _Activity:_ Two teachers from American Samoa, six from the FSM and Micronesia, and one from the Republic of Palau were supported by their home jurisdiction to travel to Oregon or Arizona for 3 to 4 months to learn teaching and training in an immersion setting. The teachers learned Braille, sign language, curriculum modification, assistive technology, and participated in academic, home, and job skill training. _Outcomes:_ * The Palau teacher consults with new teachers from outer islands and villages who teach students with visual impairments about teaching materials and techniques. One of her former students has gone on to high school and shares her own knowledge and experience with the high school staff who teach her. * The Kosrae (FSM) teacher returned home and taught family and community members sign language. In this traditional storytelling culture, sign language is thought to be beautifully expressive, making communication that much easier for students who are deaf. * A teacher from Pohnpei (FSM) learned to work with students with multiple disabilities during his practicum in Oregon. This additional experience has enabled him to convince families to allow the most severely disabled students in Pohnpei to come to school--because now there is someone who can teach them. * A student with visual impairments in American Samoa is now fully included in kindergarten. The teacher, who spent time at the Oregon School for the Blind, consults with the student's kindergarten teacher and teaches the student Braille skills. _Activities:_ A team of regular and special educators was designated for training by each of the governments of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), Guam, and the Republic of Palau. A consultant worked with these teams, training them in "Skills for School Success," a commercial program intended to ensure the successful inclusion of students with disabilities at the high school level. Initial training focused on the training process itself, using a single module. Subsequent training expanded the teams' skill base through additional modules. _Outcomes:_ In Palau, the "Skills for School Success" program was expanded to include the entire high school. Demonstration of the program skills at private and public elementary schools has led to requests from these schools for local training. Follow-up training is anticipated in summer 1996. In Guam, several schools have adopted the "Skills for School Success" program schoolwide. Follow-up training is planned for summer 1996. In the CNMI, the teams have adopted building strategies for student success, one of which is a component on student organizational and study skills that was developed collaboratively. _Changes in State Policies/Procedures_ _Activities:_ In the CNMI, an extensive needs assessment and status review of staff capacity yielded a report with a series of recommendations for the CNMI Board. The report identified the circumstances for staff hiring and retention that are unique to the CNMI, and included recommendations designed to reduce the effort and cost of depending heavily on off-island recruits while systematically increasing the capacity of local personnel and maintaining current staff levels. _Outcomes:_ The CNMI Board used the study recommendations and additional information on current practices in other jurisdictions and States to locally determine and establish: * basic competencies and certification standards for related services aides, educational interpreters and special education teachers; and * course offerings for a BA in special education. _Activity:_ The annual Pacific Basin Interagency Leadership Conference hosts interdisciplinary community teams of professionals from each of the Pacific jurisdictions. Each team represents the fields of education, health, social, and community services such as parent groups and the Head Start program. The teams convene to share information on common issues and effective practices, to assess the progress of their own island communities in interagency collaboration, and to plan ongoing interagency activities, all to support improved community programs and services to children and youth with disabilities and their families. _Outcomes:_ An indication of the importance, ownership, and impact of this annual activity is the increasing leadership of the jurisdictions accompanied by a commensurate reduction in the direct involvement of technical assistance agency staffs. This year all planning, development, and a major portion of the conference expenses are being assumed by the Pacific jurisdictions. _TABLE E.1 Regional Resource Centers (RRC) and Federal Resource Center (FRC) Programs_ States Served ======================================================================= Region 1: H028A30002 --------------------- _Edith Beatty_ Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, _Northeast RRC (NERRC)_ New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Trinity College Rhode Island, Vermont Colchester Avenue Burlington, VT 05401 Telephone: (802) 658-5036 FAX: (802) 658-7435 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Region 2: H028A30008 --------------------- _Kenneth Olsen, Director_ Delaware, District of Columbia, _Midsouth RRC (MSRRC)_ Kentucky, Maryland, North Carolina, University of Kentucky South Carolina, Tennessee, 126 Mineral Industries Building Virginia, West Virginia Lexington, KY 40506-0051 Telephone: (606) 257-4921 FAX: (606) 258-1901 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Region 3: H028A30005 --------------------- _Timothy Kelly, Director_ Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, _South Atlantic RRC (SARRC)_ Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida Atlantic University New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas, 1236 North University Drive Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands Plantation, FL 33322 Telephone: (305) 473-6106-6611 FAX: (305) 424-4309 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Region 4: H028A30004 --------------------- _Larry Magliocca, Director_ Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, _Great Lakes Area RRC (GLARRC)_ Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, The Ohio State University Wisconsin 700 Ackerman Road, Suite 440 Columbus, OH 43202 Telephone: (614) 447-0844 FAX: (614) 447-9043 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Region 5: H028A30009 --------------------- _John Copenhaven, Director_ Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, _Mountain Plains RRC (MPRRC)_ Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Utah State University South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming, Bureau 1780 North Research Parkway of Indian Affairs Suite 112 Logan, UT 84321 Telephone: (801) 752-0238 FAX: (801) 753-9750 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Region 6: H028A30003 --------------------- _Richard Zeller, Director_ Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, _Western RRC (WRRC)_ Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, University of Oregon American Samoa, Guam, the College of Education Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Eugene, OR 97403 Islands, the Federated States of Telephone: (503) 346-5641 Micronesia, the Republic of the FAX: (503) 346-5639 Marshall Islands and the Republic of Palau ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Federal Resource Center: HS93033001 ------------------------------------ _Carl Valdivieso, Director_ _Federal Resource Center_ Academy for Educational Development 1975 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 800 Washington, D.C. 20009-1202 Telephone: (202) 884-8204 FAX: (202) 884-8443 ---------- Appendix F _______________________________________________________________________ Activities and Results of the State Transition Grants A 5-year cooperative agreement was awarded to the National Transition Network to evaluate and document the approaches and outcomes of the State educational agency/vocational rehabilitation grants. The purpose of the cooperative agreement is to develop, implement, and improve systems that provide transitions services for youth with disabilities. This Appendix contains information about the activities developed in selected States to improve transition services. Overview of the National Transition Network (NTN) Historical Background In 1983, the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) identified the transition from school to work as one of the major Federal priorities of special education programs across the nation. The decision to develop this Federal school-to-work transition initiative was prompted by numerous studies and reports conducted during the early 1980s, which unilaterally found high levels of unemployment, economic instability and dependence, and social isolation among young adults with disabilities. Since 1983, significant research and demonstration activities have ensued for the explicit purpose of improving the transition of youth with disabilities from school to work, postsecondary education, and community living. Throughout the 1980s, school-to-work transition services for youth with disabilities expanded, principally emphasizing: (1) State and local efforts to improve the high school curriculum to address students' development of functional skills for work and community living; (2) opportunities for students to learn in "real-world" contexts, i.e., work sites and other community-based settings; (3) increased student and family participation in the development of transition plans focused on a range of postschool outcomes in the areas of employment, postsecondary education, and community living; and (4) concerted efforts to increase the level and intensity of interagency cooperation among educators, employers, and community-service agencies in addressing the transition needs of secondary students with disabilities. In 1991 OSERS, as authorized under Section 626(e) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990, initiated a special grants program making available Federal funds to support a series of 5-year State systems change projects on transition. By the fall of 1993, a total of 30 States (12 States in 1991, 12 in 1992, and 6 States in 1993) entered into cooperative agreements with OSERS to undertake systems change projects. In 1994 no new States were funded. However, in 1995 an additional four States were funded. Specific goals of these systems change grants are described below. * To increase the availability, access, and quality of transition assistance for youth with disabilities. * To improve the ability of professionals, parents, and advocates to work with youth with disabilities in ways that promote the understanding of and the capability to successfully make the transition from student to adult. * To improve working relationships among those who are, or should be, involved in the delivery of transition services, in order to identify and achieve consensus on the general nature and specific application of transition services to meet the needs of youth with disabilities. * To create an incentive for accessing and using the existing, or developing, expertise and resources of programs, projects, and activities related to transition. In 1992, OSERS finalized a cooperative agreement with the University of Minnesota to establish the National Transition Network. The Network was established for the purpose of providing technical assistance and evaluation services to States implementing these statewide systems change projects on transition. More specifically, the role of the National Transition Network is to strengthen the capacity of individual States to effectively improve school-to-work transition policies, programs, and practices by providing technical assistance and consultation in essential areas of State project implementation. Further, the Network operates to generate and disseminate policy-relevant information for the purpose of improving State and local policy and program structures and achieve higher levels of intergovernmental cooperation to benefit individuals with disabilities and their families as they make the transition from school to work and community living. Description of the NTN and its Tasks The Institute on Community Integration at the University of Minnesota serves as the headquarters of the National Transition Network. Drs. David R. Johnson and Robert H. Bruininks are Co-Principal Investigators, with Dr. Johnson serving as the Project Director. Drs. Johnson, Barbara Guy (Associate Project Director), and Teri Wallace are primary liaisons between six Network collaborators, individual State project directors, and OSERS. The six Network collaborators are universities and nationally-based parent and consumer organizations that assist in the Network's technical assistance and evaluation activities. They include: * _University of Vermont_, Center for Technical Assistance in Transition and Supported Employment - Dr. Susan Hasazi; * _University of Illinois_, Urbana-Champaign, Department of Educational Psychology - Dr. Lizanne DeStefano; * _Colorado State University_, School of Occupational and Educational Studies - Dr. Brian Cobb; * _University of Arkansas_, Arkansas Research & Training Center in Vocational Rehabilitation - Dr. Kay Schriner; * _Technical Assistance for Parent Programs (TAPP) of Boston, Massachusetts_ - Janet Vohs; and * _PACER Center of Minneapolis, Minnesota_ (Parent Advocacy Coalition for Educational Rights) - Marge Goldberg. State-Level Technical Assistance The National Transition Network establishes with each State grantee an annual technical assistance plan detailing strategies and activities to improve the availability, access, and quality of State-level transition policies, programs, and practices for youth with disabilities. Technical assistance plans are based on each State's assessment of current transition-related policies, administrative practices, interagency approaches, and service delivery strategies. Each State's technical assistance plan identifies relevant audiences to receive technical assistance, their specific needs, conditions for providing the technical assistance, and the resources required. The network uses a variety of technical assistance strategies, including an annual on-site visit by network staff, teleconferencing, and information dissemination via written correspondence, telephone, and electronic mail. In addition, the network promotes the sharing of information and ideas between States through regional meetings, an annual project directors meeting, and exchange of information. Another important aspect of the network's technical assistance activities is the establishment of collaborative working relationships with OSEP's Regional Resource Centers and other organizations (i.e., RTCs, UAPs, Transition Institute of Illinois, and State and national parent and consumer organizations). Through these collaborative relationships, the Network helps to maximize opportunities for individual States to have ready access to, and use of, the best possible resources and information on transition. Responsibilities for establishing technical assistance plans with individual State projects is shared among primary collaborators. Listed below are the member universities and key contact persons of the National Transition Network that assume direct responsibility for initiating and planning technical assistance with individual States. The list identifies the States to be served by each university collaborator. * _University of Minnesota_ (Drs. David R. Johnson and Barbara Guy, Teri Wallace) - _States served:_ Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Michigan, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin. * _University of Vermont_ (Dr. Susan Hasazi) - _States served:_ Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and New York. * _University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign_ (Dr. Lizanne DeStefano) - _States served:_ Connecticut, Kentucky, New Hampshire, and Vermont. * _Colorado State University_ (Dr. Brian Cobb) - _States served:_ California, Indiana, Kansas, and Utah. * _University of Arkansas_ (Dr. Kay Schriner) - States served: North Carolina, New Mexico, Virginia, and West Virginia. Evaluation Services The National Transition Network works cooperatively with each State to evaluate the outcomes and impact of efforts to improve transition policies and programs resulting from the activities of State systems projects. This includes providing assistance to States in the design of meaningful project evaluation methods and procedures, reviewing current procedures for determining State-level transition needs and activities, assisting States in evaluating and documenting the extent to which Federal and State laws create disincentives to cooperation and coordination, and helping States evaluate the impact of the requirement to include a statement of needed transition services in students' Individualized Educational Programs (IEPs). The Network will, based on the nature and comprehensiveness of individual State evaluation activities, compile reports and make recommendations on the manner in which the program under Section 626(e) of the IDEA can be improved. Related Support Activities In addition to these technical assistance and evaluation activities, the National Transition Network engages in several related support functions intended to assist States in the successful implementation of their cooperative projects. Related support activities are described below. * _Assisting OSERS in analyzing and disseminating relevant information_ on changes in Federal policies and laws affecting the transition of youth with disabilities from school to work and community living. * _Conducting an annual project director's meeting _in Washington, D.C., for the purpose of promoting communications and effective networking among State project staff. * _Organizing and conducting an annual working conference_ in Washington, D.C., to present evaluation results and encourage the exchange of information among policy makers and representatives from key Federal agencies and organizations. * _Widely disseminating information_ that Federal and State policy makers and professionals, consumers, and families can use in the planning and implementation of strategies to improve transition services. * _Making available advanced graduate training_ in the areas of evaluation and technical assistance. A special emphasis on graduate training is placed on recruitment of minority students and persons with disabilities. Up to three individuals are provided graduate assistantships annually. State Systems Change Projects on Transition Summary of Project Activities Improve Knowledge and Skills Thirty-four States have received funding to develop, implement, and improve systems to provide transition services for youth with disabilities from age 14 through the age they exit school. Funding for the first 12 States began October 1, 1991 (Arkansas, California, Colorado, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, Texas, Utah, and Vermont). Connecticut, Hawaii, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia were funded in 1992. Six States (Florida, Indiana, Michigan, New Jersey, Ohio, and Wisconsin) were funded in 1993, no States were funded in 1994, and an additional four were funded in 1995 (Maryland, Montana, South Dakota, and Tennessee). The results of a content analysis of activities across all 34 currently funded projects is listed below. Further evaluation data will be available at the completion of the projects. A complete listing of States and their key contacts follows the list of activities. Improve Knowledge and Skills * Conduct assessments of transition needs, training needs, barriers to success, and employers' knowledge of transition. * Design/deliver training to State agency staff, providers, employers, advocates, transition teams, and others. * Deliver technical assistance to agency staff, service providers, LEA staff, employers, advocates, and transition teams. * Organize/participate in interagency conferences aimed at State agency staff, providers, LEA staff, and families/youth. * Provide training for families/youth in transition planning. * Establish/expand family and youth involvement in transition planning through provision of training in: + Self empowerment/determination/advocacy; + Consumer case management; + Personal futures planning; and + Peer supports/natural supports. * Encourage family involvement in support groups and advocacy organizations. * Conduct public forums/community meetings on transition issues and transition policy; obtain consumer input regarding methods for publicizing transition best-practice strategies. * Develop/update resource directories of providers, best-practice sites, examples of successful collaboration; develop clearinghouse for information/referral/dissemination. * Infuse transition-related training into college/university level undergraduate and graduate level courses. * Increase families' knowledge of transition by publicizing information about project activities and available resources. * Increase involvement of minority families through targeted mailings, outreach activities, training modules modified for cultural diversity. Improve Working Relationships * Clarify/develop interagency agreements regarding agencies' roles and responsibilities; establish formal and informal relationships with key organizations, committees, post-secondary institutions, and legislators. * Establish focus groups, transition teams, governing boards, and advocacy committees; ensure broad representation and cultural diversity. * Disperse project staff across State agency offices; encourage dialogue with State-level staff, providers, and employers; pair staff from various agencies as project co-directors. * Assist in local interagency planning and collaboration; ensure equal involvement of participating agencies, promote information sharing and use of fiscal and personnel resources. * Ensure linkages between project activities and existing State/Federal transition projects; collaborate with education and adult service agencies on transition planning issues. Promote Systems Change * Review and analyze State and Federal transition policy; identify and enact needed legislation to change policy. * Establish consensus at local levels regarding transition planning procedures (e.g., transition team responsibilities, single planning documents, reciprocal assessment, use of transition case managers, work training programs). * Identify critical issues, duplication of services, service gaps, and barriers to access; develop/recommend policy and procedure changes to address problem areas. * Support State task force activities, demonstration projects, and transition team activities; assist in identification of strategies for pooling resources and expanding preservice transition-related training. * Provide various incentives to stakeholders to increase sense of ownership and support of projects' efforts. * Establish one agency as point of entry into transition planning. * Establish multiple sites throughout State for coordination of transition planning. Demonstrations/Innovations * Conduct/support development of statewide surveys of transition needs. * Participate in development of State/local systems for collection of follow-along/follow-up data. * Assist in development/utilization of State agency databases for use in transition planning. * Conduct follow-up studies/outcome evaluations. * Conduct cost-benefit analyses for students who participated in transition planning. * Conduct surveys/collect data to assess impact/effectiveness of project activities, policy change, and procedural change. * Assist local school districts/agencies/communities to develop model programs; provide stipends and/or on-site training and technical assistance for implementation. * Develop guidelines for provision of rehabilitation counseling as a related service; pilot test feasibility of providing rehabilitation counseling during transition planning process. * Develop videotapes dealing with transition planning. * Develop transition-focused core components and content for secondary school curricula. ___________________________________ State Systems Change Projects on Transition State Primary Contact Listing Last Name First Name Address/Telephone/FAX ========= ========== ===================== Clements Virginia Division of Special Education #4 State Capitol Mall, Room 105C Little Rock, AR 72203 (501) 682-4297 (501) 682-4313, FAX Dougan Patricia CA Department of Education/Special Education Division Transition Services and Work Ability 515 L Street, Room 270/Downtown Plaza Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 327-4214 (916) 445-4643 (916) 327-3516, FAX Reichle Judy California School to Work Interagency Transition Partnership 717 K Street, Suite 400 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 443-8693 (916) 443-3289, FAX McAlonan Susan Colorado Department of Education Colorado Systems Change Transition Project 201 East Colfax Avenue Denver, CO 80203 (303) 866-6715 (303) 830-0793, FAX Thomson Sandy Rocky Mountain RTI 1391 N Speer Boulevard Suite 350 Denver, CO 80204 (303) 534-1027 (303) 534-1075, FAX Palma-Halliday Karen Connecticut State Department of Education Division of Educational Support Services 25 Industrial Park Road Middletown, CT 06457 (203) 638-4242 (203) 638-4231, FAX Chandler Shirley Florida Blueprint for School to Community Transition 114J Stone Building FSU - Center for Policy Studies in Education Tallahassee, FL 32306 (904) 644-1307 (904) 644-5122, FAX Van Geldern Lu Hawaii Department of Education Special Education Section 3430 Leahi Avenue Honolulu, HI 96815 (808) 733-4839 (808) 733-4841, FAX Ginavan Roberta Iowa Department of Education Division of Vocational Rehabilitation Services 510 East 12th Street Des Moines, IA 50319-0146 (515) 281-4144 (515) 281-4150, FAX Ames Terry Indiana Transition Initiative 902 W. New York Street Indianapolis, IN 46202-5155 (317) 274-6701 (317) 274-6864, FAX Sweeney Pat Kansas Transition Systems Change Project 120 SE 10th Avenue Topeka, KS 66612-1185 (913) 296-6054 (913) 296-7933, FAX Fleming Barney Kentucky Systems Transition Project IHDI-University of Kentucky 102 Mineral Industries Building Lexington, KY 40506-0051 (606) 257-4408 (606) 323-1901, FAX Harrison Ron Human Development Institute 110 Mineral Industries Building University of Kentucky Lexington, KY 40506-0051 (800) 288-0961 (606) 333-1901, FAX Mullins Jeanna Human Development Institute 110 Mineral Industries Building University of Kentucky - IHDI Lexington, KY 40506-0051 (800) 288-0961 (606) 333-1901, FAX Lindahl Marie Massachusetts Department of Education 350 Main Street Malden, MA 02148-5023 (617) 388-3300 (617) 388-3394, FAX Glantz Larry Univ. of South Maine Transition Project Muskie Institute 145 Newbury Street Portland, ME 04101 (207) 874-6538 (207) 874-6529 Winans Amy MI School to Work/Transition Initiative Victor Center, 1st Floor 201 N. Washington Square Lansing, MI 48913 (517) 373-9388 (517) 373-8179, FAX Thompson Sandy Minnesota Department of Education 828 Capitol Square Building 550 Cedar Street St. Paul, MN 55101 (612) 296-2965 (612) 297-7368, FAX Lee Freda North Carolina Department of Public Instruction Division of Exceptional Children's Services 301 North Wilmington, Education Building Raleigh, NC 27601-2825 (919) 715-2003 (919) 715-1569, FAX Fischer Valerie ND Transition Project Minot State University 500 University Avenue West Mino, ND 58707-0208 (701) 857-3167 (701) 839-6933, FAX Schliesser Barbara Nebraska Department of Education PO Box 94987 Lincoln, NE 68509 (402) 471-4324 (402) 471-2701, FAX Shepard Jack Vocational Rehabilitation Services Suite 470, Landmark Center 2727 West Second Hastings, NE 68901 (402) 462-4478 (402) 462-5889, FAX Nisbet Jan University of New Hampshire Institute of Disabilities 312 Morrill Hall Durham, NH 03821 (603) 862-4320 (603) 862-1034, FAX Haugh Bob NJ Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs CN - 500 Trenton, NJ 08625-0500 (609) 292-4462 (609) 292-5558, FAX Winnegar Andy New Mexico State Department of Education Division of Vocational Rehabilitation 435 St. Michaels Drive, Building D Santa Fe, NM 87505 (800) 866-2253 (505) 827-3746, FAX Davis Kelly Division of Vocational Rehabilitation 435 St. Michael's Drive, Building D Santa Fe, NM 87505 (800) 866-2253 (505) 827-3523 (505) 827-3746, FAX Colley Debra New York State Education Department Technical Assistance and Support Services One Commerce Plaza, Room 1613 Albany, NY 12234 (518) 473-4381 (518) 473-6073, FAX Gloeckler Lawrence New York STSYD Program c/o NYS VESID One Commerce Plaza - Room 1613 Albany, NY 12234 (518) 474-3060 (518) 473-6073, FAX Dennis Lawrence Department of Special Education 933 High Street Worthington, OH 43085 (614) 466-2650 (614) 752-1622, FAX Flannery Brigid Oregon Department of Education Public Service Building 255 Capitol Street, N.E. Salem, OR 97310-0203 (503) 378-3598 (503) 346-5818, FAX Walls Linda Texas Collaborative Transition Project Texas Education Agency 1701 N. Congress Avenue Austin, TX 78701 (512) 463-9414 (512) 475-3575, FAX Suter Donna STUDY Project 350 East 500 South, Suite 202 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 (801) 533-6264 (801) 533-6279, FAX de Fur Sharon Virginia Department of Education Office of Special Education Services PO Box 2120 Richmond, VA 23216 (804) 225-2702 (804) 371-8796, FAX Sugarman William University of Vermont Center for Transition & Employment 499B Waterman Building Burlington, VT 05401 (802) 656-2936 (802) 656-1357, FAX Edgar Eugene Center for Change in Transition Services Experimental Education Unit WJ-10 University of Washington Seattle, WA 98195 (206) 543-4011 (206) 543-8480, FAX Elliot Sue ARC of Washington 1703 State Avenue, NE Olympia, WA 98505 (206) 685-9665 (206) 543-8480, FAX Rich Jim State of Washington Superintendent of Public Instruction Old Capitol Building, FG-11 PO Box 4720 Olympia, WA 98504-7200 (206) 753-6733 (206) 586-0247, FAX Kellogg Ann DPI/BEC 4th Floor 125 South Webster Street PO Box 7841 Madison, WI 53707-7841 (608) 267-3748 (608) 267-1052, FAX Lee Ghaski West Virginia Department of Education Special Education and Program Assurances 1900 E Kanawha Boulevard, Room B304 Charleston, WV 25311 (304) 558-2696 (304) 558-0048, FAX ---------- Appendix G _______________________________________________________________________ Methodology Used to Project Personnel Needs Over a Five-Year Period In response to the changes mandated in the 1990 Amendments to IDEA (P.L. 101-476) a task force was convened to identify the best method to collect data and to review models that could project the number of special education teachers and aides needed to serve students with disabilities ages 3-21. This Appendix contains the methodology used to project the number of personnel needed. ___________________________________ The method used to project special education personnel is taken from work completed by Jim Wilson (1991). This methodology was selected because it is a simple model that required data on few new variables to be collected by States, yet is expected to yield accurate projections at the State level. The projection model adopted by OSEP to project personnel demand is: _H = (E / S) - R_ where H = the number of teachers (or related services personnel) needed to be hired, E = the enrollment of students for the current year, S = the student teacher (or related services personnel) ratio for the previous year, and R = the number of teachers (or related services personnel) retained from the previous year. The purpose of the model is to enable States and OSEP to predict the number of new teachers that will be needed to be hired to fill vacant positions and those not fully certified. These new hires may come from the new university graduates, from the pool of teachers who have temporarily left the school systems, or from regular education teachers who become certified for special education. The model uses three basic data elements to project the number of these individuals: student enrollment, retained personnel, and student/personnel ratio. Five-year projections of the number of students enrolled, the student/teacher ratio, and the number of teachers retained each year have been entered into the model. These projections are based on historical data for each of these elements. The 1993-94 school year was the first year that data were collected on the number of personnel retained from the previous year. This category represents a subset of the total number of personnel employed. In 1993-94, States reported that 270,027 (87 percent) of the employed, fully certified teachers were retained from the previous year. Additionally, States reported that 13,169 (62.5 percent) of the teachers not fully certified were retained from the previous year. States found it difficult to provide the number of retained teachers during this first year of data collection. The majority of States initially reported, for at least one category of personnel, greater numbers of retained than employed personnel. Corrected data were later provided by those States. Projections using the number of personnel retained will have to be delayed until a second year of data have been received. _References_ Wilson, J. (1991, March). _Projection of Personnel Needs._ Presentation at the Fifth Annual Conference on the Management of Federal/State Data Systems. ---------- End of Document