THE STATE
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT / THE UNIVERSITY
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK / ALBANY, NY 12234 |
TO: |
The
Honorable the Members of the Board of Regents |
FROM: |
Rebecca
Cort
|
COMMITTEE: |
EMSC-VESID |
TITLE OF
ITEM: |
Individuals
with Disabilities Education Improvement Act |
DATE OF
SUBMISSION: |
December
20, 2004 |
PROPOSED
HANDLING: |
Discussion |
RATIONALE FOR
ITEM: |
To
provide information on the key provisions of the Act and anticipated
implications |
STRATEGIC
GOAL: |
Goals
1-6 |
AUTHORIZATION(S): |
|
SUMMARY:
This report
provides a summary of the key changes to the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA) as reauthorized by the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Improvement Act of 2004 enacted on December 3, 2004.
Many of the
provisions of IDEA 2004 will require significant changes to New York State laws,
regulations, policies and guidance.
A number of provisions of IDEA 2004 are at the option of states. This will require us to make important
policy decisions that could significantly impact special education in New York
State. The attached chart
identifies selected key provisions, New York State’s current status and
anticipated implementation implications.
Attachment
The
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement
Act
The
President signed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act on
December 3, 2004, stating “ The Individuals with Disabilities Education
Improvement Act of 2004 will help children learn better by promoting
accountability for results, enhancing parent involvement, using proven practices
and materials, providing more flexibility, and reducing paperwork burdens for
teachers, states and local school districts.” In many key areas, the Act strengthens,
supports and aligns with our current State and local efforts to improve
education results for students with disabilities. This Act, which reauthorizes the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and amends other Acts,
includes landmark changes to:
Most of the
IDEA 2004 amendments in Parts A, B and C and subpart 1 of Part D become
effective on July 1, 2005. The
highly qualified teacher provisions and subparts 2, 3 and 4 of Part D became
effective upon enactment of the bill on December 3, 2004. Federal regulations to implement IDEA
must be completed within 12 months of enactment and New York State (NYS) must
align its own laws and regulations governing special education. A team of representatives from the
Office of Vocational and Educational Services for Individuals with Disabilities,
Office of Counsel and the Office of Elementary, Middle, Secondary and Continuing
Education are analyzing the changes needed to State law and regulation. Work began in December to notify the
public, Department and professional development network staff of the key
provisions of the Act.
The attached
chart identifies some of the major changes in IDEA 2004, related NYS provisions
and anticipated implementation implications for our State in the following
areas:
Attachment
Topic |
IDEA
Provisions |
NYS
Provisions |
Implementation Implications
|
Highly
Qualified Special Education Teachers
Highly
Qualified Special Education Teachers (continued)
|
· Special
education teachers teaching to alternate achievement standards for
students with significant cognitive disabilities must meet the
requirements of a highly qualified special education teacher at the
elementary level. In the case
of a special education teacher teaching above the elementary level, the
teacher must have subject matter knowledge appropriate to the level of
instruction being provided, as determined by the State, to effectively
teach those standards. · Special
education teachers, not new to the profession, teaching multiple subjects
can use the High Objective Uniform State Standard of Evaluation (HOUSSE)
provision of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act to demonstrate competence in
the core subjects. · New
special education teachers teaching multiple subjects who meet the highly
qualified standard in at least one core subject area (mathematics, English
language arts and science) have two years from the date of employment to
use the HOUSSE to show competence in other subjects.
· Clarifies
that the highly qualified provisions do not create a right of action on
behalf of an individual student or class. |
· Since
1995 NYS has been effectively using a consultative model between general
and special education teachers to ensure subject matter competency. This model will no longer be
allowable for public schools under IDEA 2004. |
· Special education,
especially bilingual special education, is already a shortage area. If the
“highly qualified” teacher requirements are interpreted by the United
States Department of Education to extend to special education teachers in
approved private schools, it could create even greater teacher
shortages.
|
Personnel
Qualifications
Personnel
Qualifications (continued) |
· Eliminates
previous requirement that standards for a teacher or related service
provider be based on highest requirement applicable to a specific
profession or discipline. · Eliminates
previous requirement for a Comprehensive System of Personnel Development
(CSPD) designed to ensure an adequate supply of qualified special
education, general education and related services personnel. The State
must now establish and maintain qualifications to ensure that personnel
necessary to carry out IDEA 2004 are appropriately and adequately trained,
including knowledge and skills to serve children with
disabilities. · The
State must develop a policy that includes a requirement that LEAs take
measurable steps to recruit, hire, train and retain highly qualified
personnel to provide special education and related
services. |
· There
are new NYS certificate titles for special education developmental ranges
(birth-grade 2, grades 1-6, grades 5-9 generalist or content specialist
and grades 7-12 content specialist), which became effective February
2004. · Current
NYS teacher certification and licensure requirements will meet the mandate
that the State has established and maintains qualifications to ensure that
personnel necessary to carry out IDEA 2004 are appropriately and
adequately trained, including knowledge and skills to serve children with
disabilities. |
· The
State will need to develop a policy or regulation requiring local
educational agency (LEA) personnel plans. |
Individualized
Education Programs (IEPs)
Individualized
Education Programs (IEPs) (continued) |
· Repeals
the requirement for benchmarks and short-term objectives on IEPs except
for students with significant cognitive disabilities taking the alternate
assessment. · Allows
exceptions to IEP team members’ attendance at meetings when parents and
schools agree. · Consolidates
all transition planning requirements to begin by age 16. Adds a requirement for a summary
of the academic and functional performance of the student upon termination
of eligibility (regular diploma or age 21). · Allows
states to submit proposals to allow parents and LEAs the opportunity for a
3-year IEP that coincides with a student’s natural transition
points. · Allows
a parent and LEA to agree not to convene an IEP meeting to make changes to
an IEP and instead to develop a written document to amend or modify an
IEP. |
· Short-term
objectives or benchmarks are required on IEPs of all students with
disabilities in NYS. · A
statement of transition service needs is indicated on the IEP at age 14
for courses of study and at age 15 post-school outcomes must be identified
related to the student’s needs, preferences and
interests. · Requires
CSE membership beyond the current or reauthorized IDEA
provisions. |
· A
policy decision is needed regarding retaining our current requirements for
transition planning at ages 14 and 15 or consolidation to one age (14, 15
or 16). · A
policy decision is needed to determine whether NYS will apply for the
three-year IEP option. · A
determination is needed as to whether the CSE membership and IEP
requirements in NYS law and regulation should mirror the mandate relief in
the IDEA 2004. |
Specific
Learning Disabilities |
· State
or LEAs may use a process that determines if a student responds to
scientific, research-based interventions (“response to intervention
model”) as part of the evaluation process to determine if a student has a
learning disability. · Repeals
the requirement that the LEA must consider whether a student has a severe
discrepancy between achievement and intellectual
ability. |
· Current
regulations require that a student who exhibits a discrepancy of 50
percent or more between expected and actual achievement must be deemed to
have a learning disability.
(In NYS, more than 47 percent of students with disabilities are
identified as having a learning disability.) |
· The
State will need to advise LEAS of their ability to opt for the “response
to intervention model.” · Procedures
and criteria for determining whether the student has responded to
scientific, research-based interventions will need to be developed.
· A
policy decision is needed as to whether NYS will retain reference to a
discrepancy model when determining if a student has a learning
disability. |
Funding
Funding
(continued)
|
· Authorizes
appropriations over a seven-year period to fully fund IDEA (40%) subject
to budget allocations. · Allows
state to reserve 10% for state-level activities (9% if the state does not
opt for LEA Risk Pool). · Gives
states the option of using 10 percent of their state-level funds to
establish and make disbursements to LEAs to address needs of high cost
students with disabilities and to support innovative cost sharing by LEAs
(LEA Risk Pool). · Allows
LEAs that are in compliance with IDEA 2004 to use up to 50 percent of
their annual increase for activities authorized under the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA). · Allows
LEAs to use 15 percent of their IDEA funds to provide services and
supports for non-disabled students having difficulty academically or
behaviorally (early intervening services). · Requires
that states ensure that interagency agreements are “current” prior to
expenditure of Part B funds. |
|
· NYS
has a current funding formula to support high cost students with
disabilities (public and private excess cost aid). A cost analysis will need to be
done to determine whether to opt for the IDEA LEA Risk
Pool. · All
interagency agreements may need to be updated. This will require a commitment
from other State agencies. |
Dispute
Resolution
Dispute
Resolution (continued)
|
· Adds
requirements and timelines to ensure parties are informed of (through
complaint notices and prior notices) and have opportunities to resolve
complaints (through IEP resolution sessions and mediation) prior to the
initiation of an impartial hearing. · Retains
the option of a two-tiered process for review of the decision of an
impartial hearing officer, with an appeal to the State educational agency
(SEA). · Establishes
a 90-day statute of limitation for a judicial review of an SEA decision on
appeal, unless State law provides otherwise. · Limits
the issues in an impartial hearing to those indicated in a complaint
notice, unless both parties otherwise agree. · Holds
attorneys liable for the cost of frivolous lawsuits. · Establishes
a two-year timeline for requesting a hearing. |
· In
NYS, impartial hearing officers are State trained and certified
independent individuals who are appointed by the LEA from a rotational
list. · NYS
regulations impose stringent timelines for the hearing process that exceed
federal requirements. · NYS
has a two-tiered hearing system, with appeals to the State Review Officer
(SRO). · New
York law currently uses a one-year statute of limitations for impartial
hearings and a 4-month statute of limitations for review of SRO
decisions. |
· Guidelines
for an IEP resolution session will need to be developed. · Timelines
for hearings need to be revisited in light of new procedures to ensure a
timely process for parents and LEAs. · Statute
of limitations to be applied in NYS needs to be
determined. |
Early
Intervention
|
· States
have the flexibility to develop a seamless system to serve children with
disabilities from ages birth to five by providing an option for parents to
continue their child in an early intervention (EI) program through age
five. This determination must
be jointly developed by the Part C and Part B lead
agencies. |
· A
child’s eligibility for continued receipt of EI services ends on the
child’s third birthday, unless the child has been referred to the
Committee on Preschool Special Education (CPSE) and determined to be
eligible for preschool special education programs and services. Public
Health Law establishes time periods when only 4410 eligible children can
continue to receive early intervention services if requested by the
parent(s). |
· The
Department of Health and the State Education Department will need to
jointly decide if this option will be available in NYS. · This
option impacts approved EI and private approved preschool 4410
providers. · IDEA
2004 provides no additional funding to support the
option. |
Paperwork
Reduction
|
· Allows
15 states to apply for waivers of statutory or regulatory requirements for
four years to reduce paperwork and non-instructional time burdens. The state would have to submit a
report regarding the effectiveness of the waiver. |
|
· NYS
will need to consult with its constituency to determine whether it should
apply and if so, determine what paperwork can be reduced or
eliminated. |
Discipline
of Students with Disabilities |
· Streamlines
the discipline requirements. · Adds
authority for school personnel to remove students with disabilities to
interim alternative educational settings when a student causes serious
bodily injury to another. |
· State
policies and procedures are consistent with IDEA 1997
requirements. |
· Changes
to State statute and regulations required. |
Federal
and State Monitoring |
· Focuses
federal and State monitoring on improving educational results and
functional outcomes and ensuring states meet program requirements, with
emphasis on those most closely relating to improving educational
results. · Establishes
monitoring priorities and enforcement actions. |
· VESID’s Quality Assurance Review process is
aligned with IDEA 2004 requirements for focused reviews. |
· May require changes to the State’s performance
plans and additional public data reporting and enforcement
actions. |
Children
Enrolled in Nonpublic Schools by their Parents |
· Assigns
responsibility for child find, consultation with private schools and
provision of equitable services to the school district where the nonpublic
school is located. |
· Under State statute, the district of residence
is responsible for child find and provision of IEP services. |
· Requires a statutory
change. · Will change responsibility for child find,
consultation with private school representatives and IEP implementation
from district of residence to district where the nonpublic school is
located.
|