Updates from the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) NAFEPA - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Updates from the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP)

NAFEPA March 14, 20 16

Ruth Ryder Acting Director, OSEP Jennifer Finch Monitoring and State Improvement and Planning, OSEP

Overview

• NPRM on Significant Disproportionality (2/23/2016)
• ESSA
• Guidance Issued:
• FAPE and IEPs (11/2015)
• Dyslexia (10/2015)
• DOJ Testing Accommodations (9/2015)
• EL with Disabilities Q and A (7/2014 & 7/2015)
• Effective Communication (11/2014)
• RDA
• Leveraging IDEA Funds

Significant Disproportionality NPRM

• Released February 23rd; 75 day comment period
• Background
• IDEA 2004, GAO report, RFI
• State data
• Two main components
• Standard approach
• Comprehensive coordinated early intervening services

Every Student Succeeds Act

Negotiated Rulemaking

• Assessment and supplement not supplant provisions

will be negotiated

• Negotiation sessions will be held March 21‐23, April 6‐8

and optional session April 18‐19

• Negotiators announced on March 4
• Issue papers released to the public

Accountability for Children with Disabilities

• Holds students with disabilities to the same

challenging academic content standards

• Students with disabilities must be provided

appropriate accommodations to ensure that they can fully participate in assessments

• Results for students with disabilities must be reported

Alternate Assessments for Children with the Most Significant Cognitive Disabilities

• Places a state‐level 1% cap on the number of students with

the most significant cognitive disabilities who are assessed in a given subject on an alternate assessment aligned with alternate academic achievement standards

• States may not impose a cap at the district level
• Parents must be clearly informed as part of the IEP

process of the implications of their child taking an alternate assessment

Alternate Diplomas for Children with the Most Significant Cognitive Disabilities

• Students with the most significant cognitive disabilities who are

assessed using the alternate assessment aligned to alternate academic achievement standards and who receive a State defined alternate diploma that is

• standards‐based,
• aligned to the requirements for a regular diploma, and
• obtained within the time period for which the State ensures

the availability of a free appropriate public education,

• May count toward a school’s graduation cohort

Guidance Relevant to Students with Disabilities

FAPE and IEP DCL (11/2015)

• IEPs for children with disabilities must be aligned with State

academic content standards for the grade in which the child is enrolled

• Primary vehicle for providing FAPE is through an appropriately

developed IEP that is based on the individual needs of the child

• IDEA “general education curriculum” is the curriculum that is

based on the State’s academic content standards for the grade in which the child is enrolled

Dyslexia (10/15)

It’s OK to use the terms dyslexia, dysgraphia and dyscalculia in evaluations to determine eligibility and in IEPs

DOJ Testing Accommodations (9/15)

• Testing entities must
• Respond in a timely manner to requests for testing

accommodations

• May seek only reasonable documentation narrowly tailored to

the child’s disability and the need for the accommodation

• Proof of past testing accommodation (IEPs or 504 plans) in

similar test settings is generally sufficient to support a request for the same accommodation for a current standardized exam

ELs with Disabilities (7/14 & 7/15)

• ELs with disabilities must participate in annual ELP

assessments

• ELs with disabilities must be assessed against the same

ELP standards

• Regular ELP assessment
• ELP assessment with accommodations
• Alternate assessment aligned to ELP standards

Effective Communication (11/14)

• Title II of the ADA requires that a district take appropriate steps to

ensure that communication with “persons with disabilities” is as effective as persons without disabilities

• Under IDEA, FAPE must be individually designed to provide

meaningful educational benefit to the child with a disability

• The school district must ensure that obligations under both laws

are met

• Consider the nature, length, and complexity of the communication

involved, and the context in which the communication is taking place

Results‐Driven Accountability

RDA – Shifting the Balance

OSEP has revised its accountability system to shift the balance from a system focused primarily on compliance to

• ne that puts more emphasis on results.

What is the Vision for RDA?

All components of an accountability system will be aligned in a manner that best support States in improving results for infants, toddlers, children and youth with disabilities, and their families.

SSIP Activities by Phase

State‐Identified Measureable Result – Part B

• Graduation: 13 AK, DC, FL, GA, MN, MT, NC, ND, NJ, PA, RMI, VA, WV
• Reading/ELA: 34 AR, AS, AZ, CNMI, CO, CT, DE, FSM, GU, HI, IA, ID, IL,

IN, KS, LA, MI, MS, NE, NV, NM, NY, OH, OK, OR, Palau, SC, SD, TN, TX, VI, WA, WI, WY

• Math: 7 KY, MD, ME, PR, RI, UT, VT
• Reading and Math: 2 CA, MO
• Early Childhood Outcomes: 2 MA, NH
• Post‐school Outcomes: 2 AL, BIE

Differentiated Monitoring and Support: Comprehensive Plan for Monitoring and Support (CPMS) OSEP will develop a comprehensive plan, individualized for each State based on a risk assessment rubric that includes:

• Evaluation of the SSIP
• Review of SPP/APR indicators
• Review of State’s dispute resolution system
• Review of State’s fiscal policies, procedures and practices

Resources and Tools

You can find resources and tools from OSEP and from our TA centers on GRADS 360 https://osep.grads360.org/#program

Leveraging IDEA Funds

Calculating Local Education Agency Maintenance of Effort for the Schoolwide Program Schools

• Provide additional information on ways to leverage

funds to meet the needs of students with disabilities.

• Provide guidance on calculating local education

agency maintenance of effort (LEA MOE) in schoolwide program schools that are consolidating IDEA funds.

• Provide a possible methodology to conduct these

calculations.

Purpose

• Maximizes the impact of available funding
• Avoids duplication
• Promotes better planning of how available

funding sources can be used to improve results for all students, including students with disabilities

Why Leveraging Funds is Important

Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CEIS) is a set of coordinated services for students in kindergarten through grade 12 (with a particular emphasis on students in K‐3) who are not currently identified as needing special education or related services, but who need additional academic and behavioral support to succeed in a general education environment.

IDEA Section 613(f); 34 CFR § 300.226(a)

Coordinated Early Intervening Services

Blended Funding:

Financial assistance from individual funding streams to States, local governments, and

• ther pass‐through entities is

merged by all stakeholders into one award and each individual award loses its award‐specific identity

Blending vs Braiding Funds

Braided Funding:

Financial assistance from individual funding streams to States, local governments, and

• ther pass‐through entities is

coordinated by all stakeholders so each individual award maintains its award‐specific identity

An LEA has a multi tiered system of support (MTSS) where Federal program funds are used to serve each program’s subgroup of students. For example:

• 10% of the students participating in the MTSS are children with

disabilities and the LEA uses 10% of its IDEA funds to serve those children.

• 15% of the students participating in the MTSS are English

language learners and the LEA uses 15% of the Title III funds to serve those children.

Example of Braiding Funding

Example of Blending Funds

LEAs that consolidate Title I, IDEA and Title III funds for schoolwide programs (see 34 CFR § 300.206)

Schoolwide Programs

“… a comprehensive reform strategy designed to upgrade the entire educational program in a Title I school; its primary goal is to ensure that all students, particularly those who are low achieving, demonstrate proficient and advanced levels of achievement on State academic achievement standards.”

Designing Schoolwide Programs Non-Regulatory Guidance, pg. 2, March 2006, http: / / www2.ed.gov/ admins/ lead/ account/ swp.html

• May consolidate Federal funds (including IDEA Part B funds),

and State and local funds to support any activity of the schoolwide program without regard to which program contributed the specific funds used for a particular activity.

• A schoolwide program must identify in its schoolwide plan

which programs are included in its consolidation and the amount each program contributes to the consolidated schoolwide pool.

20 U.S.C. 6314

Schoolwide Programs

• Blending is permissible as long as students with disabilities, included

in such schoolwide programs:

– receive services in accordance with a properly developed IEP; and – are afforded all of the rights and services guaranteed to children with disabilities under the IDEA.

• How to calculate the amount of funds that may be used for this

purpose.

• These funds must be considered Federal Part B funds for the

purposes of calculating LEA MOE and excess cost under §300.202(a)(2) and (a)(3)

What we know about blending IDEA funds

Determining Level of Expenditures for MOE Calculation

SCHOOLWIDE PROGRAMS CONSOLIDATING IDEA FUNDS

1. Determine the percentage of funds provided to the pool. 2. Determine the actual expenditures incurred by the school for the education of CWD. 3. Determine expenditures from local funds 4. Determine the level of funds from State funds. 5. Determine expenditures from State and local funds.

Determining Level

• f Expenditures

In order to determine the actual level of State and local expenditures for the education of children with disabilities (CWD), if the school chooses to consolidate IDEA funds in the schoolwide pool one reasonable method would be to take the following steps:

Expenditure Chart

Reported Calculations Local: $400 State and Local: $800

• The LEA would add these totals in with the expenditures by

the rest of the schools and any LEA‐level expenditures.

• The LEA would retain the flexibility to demonstrate

compliance with the LEA MOE requirement using any of the four allowable methods

– local funds only, – State and local funds, – local funds only on a per capita basis (based on the total number of CWDs for the LEA), – State and local funds on a per capita basis.

What Happens Next?

Resources: Schoolwide Programs

U.S. Department of Education Guidance ESEA, Section 1114 Schoolwide Programs U.S. Department of Education Notice Authorizing Schoolwide Programs to Consolidate Federal Education Funds and Exempting Them From Complying with Statutory or Regulatory Provisions of Those Programs (July 2, 2004)

Additional Resources

Examples of Leveraging ESEA and IDEA Funds to Support Digital Learning (November 19, 2014) Maximizing Flexibility in the Use of Federal Grants (September 13, 2013)