Changes in IDEA 2004: Implications for School Psychology November 2005 © 2005 National Association of School Psychologists

Changes in IDEA 2004: Implications

for School Psychology

November 2005

© 2005 National Association of School Psychologists

IDEA 2004 TimelinesP.L. 108-446

• President Bush signs the bill on Dec. 3, 2004

• Law went into effect July 1, 2005• Draft IDEA Regulations published in the

Federal Register on June 21, 2005• 75-day public commentary period on draft

regulations through Sept. 6, 2005• NASP representatives provide comments

at public meetings in June and July 2005

IDEA 2004 TimelinesP.L. 108-446

• NASP submits written recommendations to OSERS on draft regulations on Sept. 2, 2005

• Jan. 2006 - OSERS estimated target completion date for final regulations

• State regulations to follow final federal regulations

• Local policies and procedures to be revised accordingly

• NASP will continue to provide members with IDEA information and resources

What’s in the New IDEA?• The law preserves the basic structure and

civil rights guarantees of IDEA, but also makes significant changes in certain provisions

• We will discuss changes to: evaluation timelines, transition to postsecondary, reevaluations, IEPs, early intervening services, disproportionality, discipline, personnel qualifications, LD identification, IDEA resources, and important advocacy information.

Evaluation Timelines

• Evaluations: must be completed and the eligibility determination made within 60 days from consent unless the state establishes a different timeline

• NASP asked the Department to clarify in regulations that the state’s timeline should be 60 school days.

Transition to Postsecondary

• Transition: planning and services must begin at age 16 (changed from age 14); reevaluation not required before leaving secondary school; new summary of performance provision

Exit Evaluations

Language was added in Section 614 (c) (5) (B), based on what is currently in existing federal regulations stating that a student does not need to be reevaluated before leaving secondary school due to graduation or exceeding age of eligibility.

Congressional IntentFinal Senate Committee Report on S.1248

Exit Evaluations:• The committee has heard that LEAs feel

compelled by current statutory language to conduct a reevaluation of a child with a disability when he or she either graduates from secondary school or ages out of IDEA eligibility. Both parents and schools have complained that a reevaluation seems unnecessary, time-consuming and costly. The committee agrees.

Congressional Intent on SOPsFinal Senate Committee Report on S.1248

• The bill also requires LEAs to provide a SOP. The committee intends for this summary to provide specific, meaningful, and understandable information to the student, the student’s family, and any agency, including postsecondary schools, which may provide services to the student.

• Furthermore, the committee does not expect LEAs to conduct any new assessments or evaluations in providing the summary; rather it should be based upon information the school has already gathered on the child.

Procedures for Reevaluations

An LEA must ensure that a reevaluation for eachchild with a disability is conducted in accordancewith Sections 614(b) and 614(c) if:• The LEA determines that the educational or

related services needs, including improved academic achievement and functional performance, of the child warrant a reevaluation; or

• The child’s parents or teacher requests a reevaluation.

Reevaluations: options to extend timelines

• However, a reevaluation shall occur not more frequently than once a year, unless the parent and the LEA agree otherwise; and at least once every three years, unless the parent and the LEA agree that a reevaluation is unnecessary. [614(a)(2)]

Congressional IntentFinal Senate Committee Report on S.1248

Reevaluations: In the interest of parents, children and school districts, the committee believes that requiring costly and time-consuming reevaluations when both parents and LEAs deem them to be unnecessary is counterproductive. To this end, the committee has amended Section 614 (a)(2) to state clearly that the LEA does not have to conduct a reevaluation of a child with a disability if both the parent and the LEA agree it is unnecessary.

Changes to IEPs

• Voluntary 3-year IEPs in 15 pilot states

• Elimination of short term objectives except for students with significant cognitive disabilities

• Objectives replaced with “measurable annual goals” that must align with state standards and the NCLB accountability system

Attendance at IEP Meetings

• Team members may be excused from an IEP meeting.

• Changes to IEPs can be made in certain circumstances without convening team.

Development of IEP

Consideration of special factors: The IEP Team must-

• In the case of a child whose behavior impedes his or her learning or the learning of others, consider the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports to address that behavior

• In the case of a child with limited English proficiency, consider the language needs of the child as those needs relate to the IEP.

Rationale for Disciplinary Provisions

Slide provided by George Bear, Ph.D.

• Right to FAPE versus Right to Safe and Orderly Schools

• Discipline provisions apply primarily in cases in which the child’s parents do not consent to a change in placement

• IDEA 2004 discipline provisions are clearly intended to provide school personnel with greater discretion.

Major Changes in Discipline Provisions

“Unique” circumstances may be considered.

School personnel may consider any uniquecircumstances on a case-by-case basiswhen deciding to order a change inplacement for a child with a disability whoviolates code of student conduct.

Unique Circumstances (cont.)Information provided by George Bear, Ph.D.

NASP recommendation for regulations:Consideration of unique circumstances on acase-by-case basis should apply when:• school personnel desire to extend the

length of placement in an IAES for more than 45 days or

• when school personnel decide not to enforce the code of conduct, e.g. suspending a child.

Discipline• New streamlined criteria for

manifestation determinations:– If conduct was caused by, or had a

direct and substantial relationship to, child’s disability, or

– If conduct was direct result of the LEA’s failure to implement the IEP

• Sec. 615(k)(1)(E)

Functional Behavioral Assessments

• IDEA 2004 retains the requirement for conducting FBAs under specific circumstances

• If a student’s conduct is determined to be a manifestation of his or her disability, the team must conduct an FBA and implement a behavioral intervention plan (or review previous ones).

Behavior Not a Manifestation of the

Disability (cont.)• The school may apply the relevant

disciplinary procedures to children with disabilities in the same manner and duration as would apply to all children, except the child shall: 1) Continue to receive educational services, so as to enable the child to participate in the general education curriculum, although in another setting, and to progress towards meeting IEP goals and

Behavior Not a Manifestation of the

Disability (cont.)2) Receive, as appropriate, a

functional behavioral assessment, and behavioral intervention services and modifications that are designed to address the behavior violation so that it does not recur.

Interim Alternative Educational Settings

• IDEA 2004 modifies language regarding the provision of services while in an IAES

• Students must be provided services that enable the child to participate in the general education curriculum and progress towards meeting IEP goals.

Discipline• School district may remove a student

to an interim alternative educational setting for up to 45 school days for weapons or drugs, regardless of manifestation determination

• Additional reasons for removal:– Has inflicted serious bodily injury

upon another person at school or at a school function

Stay Put Provisions

• The law eliminates the right of a student with a disability to “stay put” in the current educational placement pending appeal of a manifestation determination for any alleged violations of the school code that could result in removal for more than 10 days.

• IDEA ’97 only denied stay put in cases involving drugs, weapons or other dangerous behaviors.

Early Intervening Services

• Greater emphasis on use of early intervening services

• School districts will be able to use up to 15% of their federal funds for early intervening services

• May be used for professional development, academic and behavioral supports

Early Intervening Services• Educational evaluations, services, and

supports, including scientifically based literacy instruction.

• Behavioral evaluations (FBAs), and services and supports, including positive behavioral interventions and supports.

• Should be considered part of a problem-solving model

Early Intervening Services

• Professional development - for teachers and “other school staff” to enable them to deliver scientifically based academic and behavioral interventions, including scientifically based literacy instruction.

Early Intervening ServicesNASP’s recommendations:• Related services personnel, specifically,

school psychologists are ideally trained to develop academic and behavioral interventions which are directly linked to improved academic achievement.

• Utilizing current, well-qualified, school personnel can improve collaboration between general and special education staff and allow for improved coordination and implementation of NCLB and IDEA programs.

Disproportionality

• IDEA 2004 expands the provisions addressing disproportionate representation

• States and LEAs will still have to collect data on the race and ethnicity of students by the various disability categories and the restrictiveness of placements

Disproportionality (cont.)

• In addition, the incidence, duration, and type of disciplinary action, including suspensions and expulsions must now be reported

• LEAs with significant disproportionality will be required to reserve the maximum amount of funds (15%) for early intervening services

Personnel Standards

• No “highly qualified” language for related services providers, but:– Must meet state standards– Excludes emergency or temporary

waiver of certification

Personnel QualificationsSec. 612 (law) and Sec. 300.156 (regs)

The State education agency (SEA) establishes and maintains qualifications to ensure that school personnel are appropriately and adequately prepared and trained, and those personnel must have content knowledge and skills to serve children with disabilities.

Related Services Personnel and

ParaprofessionalsThe qualifications for related services

personnel and paraprofessionals are:• consistent with any State-approved or

State-recognized certification, licensing, registration, or other comparable requirements (e.g., the NCSP) that apply to the professional discipline in which those personnel are providing special education or related services.


Paraprofessionals (cont.)• ensure that related services personnel

who deliver services in their discipline have not had certification or licensure requirements waived on an emergency, temporary, or provisional basis. This means that states cannot issue a certificate to someone simply because a district is in need of a school psychologist. However…


Paraprofessionals (cont.)• it will allow paraprofessionals and

assistants who are appropriately trained and supervised, in accordance with State law, regulation, or written policy, in meeting the requirements of this part to be used to assist in the provision of special education and related services under this part to children with disabilities.

Identification of Learning Disabilities

Section 614 (b)(6)• New flexibility

• Law now gives LEA’s option to eliminate IQ-discrepancy requirements

• “In determining whether a child has a specific learning disability, an LEA shall not be required to take into consideration whether a child has a severe discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability.”

Identification of Learning Disabilities

Section 614 (b)(6)• In determining whether a child has

a specific LD, an LEA may use a process that determines if the child responds to scientific, research-based intervention as part of the evaluation procedures described in paragraphs 2 and 3 (of Section 614).

Evaluation ProceduresSec. 614 (b)(2)

Conduct of the Evaluation – the LEA shall

• use a variety of assessment tools and strategies…

• not use any single measure or assessment as the sole criterion…

• use technically sound instruments…

Evaluation ProceduresSec. 614 (b)(3)

Additional Requirements for Evaluations: assessments and other evaluation materials are--

• selected and administered so as not to be discriminatory on a racial or cultural basis,

• provided and administered in the language most likely to yield accurate information on what the child knows and can do academically, developmentally, and functionally, unless it is not feasible to so provide or administer;

Evaluation Procedures (cont.)Sec. 614 (b)(3)

Additional requirements cont.• assessments and other evaluation

materials are administered by trained and knowledgeable personnel…

• the child is assessed in all areas of suspected disability…

• assessment tools and strategies are provided that directly assist in determining the educational needs of the child

Evaluation Procedures (cont.)Sec. 614 (b) (5)

Special Rule for Eligibility – not a disability if the determinant factor is

• lack of appropriate instruction in reading or math;

• limited English proficiency• exclusionary factors (vision, hearing,

motor, mental retardation, emotional disturbance, cultural factors, or environmental or economic disadvantage)

Proposed LD Regulations300.307 to 300.310

• See the side-by-side comparing LD regulations from IDEA ’97 to draft IDEA 2004 regulations on the NASP IDEA Info webpage

• 300.307 Specific Learning Disabilities. (a) A State must adopt criteria for determining whether a child has a SLD as defined in 300.8 Child with a disability. (b) Consistency with State criteria. A public agency must use the State criteria adopted to determine SLD.

Proposed Regulations (cont.) 300.307 Specific Learning

DisabilitiesThe criteria adopted by the State: 1) May prohibit the use of a severe discrepancy

between intellectual ability and achievement2) May not require the use of a severe discrepancy

between intellectual ability and achievement3) Must permit the use of a process that

determines if the child responds to scientific, research-based intervention as part of the evaluation procedures

4) May permit the use of other alternative research-based procedures for determining SLD

LD Proposed Regulations (cont.)300.308 Group Members

• Team members has been replaced with the term “group members”

• The group is collectively qualified to1) conduct individual diagnostic assessments in speech and language, academic achievement, intellectual development, and social-emotional development;2) interpret assessment data, and apply critical analysis to that data


3) develop appropriate educational and transitional recommendations based on assessment data

4) deliver and monitor specially designed instruction and services to meet the needs of a child with a specific learning disability


• The group minimally includes the parent, a special education teacher, the general education teacher,

• Other professionals, if appropriate, such as a school psychologist, reading teacher, or educational therapist

LD Proposed Regulations (cont.)300.309 Determining the existence of SLD

A group may determine a child has a SLD if –1) The child does not achieve commensurate

with the child’s age in one or more of the following when provided with learning experiences appropriate for the child’s age: oral expression, listening comprehension, written expression, basic reading skill, reading fluency skills, reading comprehension, mathematics calculation, mathematics problem solving

LD Proposed Regulations (cont.) 300.309 Determining the existence of

SLD

2) (i) The child fails to achieve a rate of learning to make sufficient progress to meet State-approved results in one or more of the 8 areas when assessed with a response to scientific, research-based intervention process; or


SLD(ii) The child’s exhibits a pattern of strengths

and weaknesses in performance, achievement, or both, or a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in performance, achievement or both, relative to intellectual development, that is determined by the team to be relevant to the identification of a SLD, using appropriate assessments consistent with 300.304 and 300.305; and

3) not primarily result of the exclusionary factors


SLD(b) For a child suspected of having a SLD,

the group must consider, as part of the evaluation data that demonstrates 1) …the child was provided with appropriate high-quality, research-based instruction in regular education settings consistent with ESEA, including that the instruction was delivered by qualified personnel; and


SLD2) Data-based documentation of repeated

assessments of achievement at reasonable intervals, reflecting formal assessment of student progress during instruction, was provided to the child’s parents.(c) If the child has not made adequate progress after an appropriate period of time, … a referral for an evaluation to determine if the child needs special education and related services must be made.


SLD

(d) Once the child is referred for an evaluation to determine the need for special education and related services, the timelines … must be adhered to, unless extended by mutual written agreement of the child’s parents and the group of qualified professionals…

LD Proposed Regulations (cont.) 300.310 Observation

(a) At least one member …who is trained in observation, shall observe the child, and the learning environment, including the regular classroom setting, to document academic and behavior in the areas of difficulty.

LD Proposed Regulations (cont.) 300.311 Written Report

The written report must include a statement of 1) Whether the child has a SLD;

2) The basis for making the determination…3) The relevant behavior during the observation of the child and the relationship of that behavior to the child’s academic functioning;4) Any educational relevant medical findings;5) Whether the child does not achieve commensurate with the child’s age;

LD Proposed Regulations (cont.) 300.311 Written Report

6) Whether there are strengths and weaknesses in performance or achievement or both, or there are strengths and weaknesses in performance or achievement, or both, relative to intellectual development in one or more of the 8 areas…

7) The instructional strategies used and the student-centered data collected if a response to scientific, research-based intervention process was implemented

8) Each group member shall certify in writing whether the report reflects his or her conclusion…

The LD Roundtable 2004: A National Coalition Group

• A national forum of 14 leading organizations concerned with supporting and advocating for individuals with learning disabilities

• Organizations represent over 400,000 parents, special educators, related services personnel, administrators, and higher education institutions

LD Roundtable 2004Goals:• To build and expand upon the work

of 2001-2002 Roundtable which focused on statutory issues (Finding Common Ground Report)

• To develop a set of regulatory language recommendations designed to improve identification and eligibility

LD Roundtable Recommendations

• Many of the LD Roundtable’s recommendations were incorporated into the proposed regulations with a few key distinctions

• The LD Roundtable comments on the proposed LD regulations are posted on the NASP IDEA Information webpage.

IDEA Regulatory Process• OSERS requested comments and

recommendations on regulatory issues in Jan and Feb 2005; and again on the proposed regulations through Sept. 6th

• Series of public meetings held Jan & Feb 2005; and in June and July 2005

• NASP’s representatives provided comments at each public meeting

IDEA Regulatory Process (cont)

• NASP staff worked with various coalition groups to provide recommendations to OSERS: LD Roundtable, Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities, the Mental Health Liaison Group and the National Alliance of Pupil Services Organizations

• NASP meet with various OSERS staff to present recommendations

• NASP submitted its own recommendations for regulations in Feb. 2005 and on the proposed regulations in Sept. 2005

Next Steps• NASP will continue efforts to:

• work closely with allied organizations on key issues

• provide information on the release of State regulations

• keep members abreast of changes in policy and practice

• provide updated materials and training to assist practitioners, trainers, and other school staff in effectively implementing new regulations.

Advocacy StepsNASP makes it as easy as possible for

you!www.nasponline.org/advocacy

Advocacy Action Center• Advocate as a voting constituent• Advocate as a professional• Advocate as an interested party School Psychology Action Network

(SPAN)• Write, email, visit, invite• Stay informed – Legislative Updates and

Alerts

NASP’s Advocacy Resources

• Visit the Member Services section of the NASP website for strategies, resources, and tools such as adaptable powerpoint presentations

• Resources address: advocacy of school psychology role and practices; advocacy with key stakeholder groups; advocacy for the needs of children and their families; and advocacy to shape legislative outcomes

NASP’s Compilation of IDEA References and

Resources• See NASP’s IDEA Information webpage for

links to the law, proposed regulations, legislative updates, and extensive resources http://www.nasponline.org/advocacy/IDEAinformation.html

• IDEA 2004 Web Resources and Referenceshttp://www.nasponline.org/advocacy/ldreferencesnew.pdf

• RTI References and Weblinkshttp://www.nasponline.org/advocacy/rtireference.pdf

For More Information…

Mary Beth Klotz, PhD, NCSP

Director of IDEA Projects and

Technical AssistanceEmail:

[email protected]

Stacy Skalski, PhDDirector of Public PolicyEmail: sskalski

@naspweb.org

Documents

Changes in IDEA 2004: Implications for School Psychology November 2005 © 2005 National Association of School Psychologists