LAO Report: CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS FACE RISING SPECIAL ED COSTS

7/30/2019 LAO Report: CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS FACE RISING SPECIAL ED COSTS

1/28

Oeriew o SpecialEdcaio i Calioria

MAC TAy lor l e g i s l A T i v e A n A l y s T JA nUA ry 3, 2013


2/28

A n L A O R e p O R t

2 LegislativeAnalystsOfcewww.lao.ca.gov


3/28

COntEntS

Eecie Smmar ..................................................................................................5

Irodcio ..............................................................................................................7

Wha Is Special Edcaio? ......................................................................................7

Who Receies Special Edcaio Serices? ............................................................8

Wha Special Edcaio Serices Do Sdes Receie? .....................................11

Where Are Special Edcaio Serices Proided? ................................................11

How Is Special Edcaio Orgaied i Calioria? .............................................12

How Is Special Edcaio Fded i Calioria? ..................................................14

Wha Are he Sae Special Schools? .....................................................................18

How Are Special Edcaio Laws Moiored ad Eorced? ...............................19

How Do Caliorias Sdes Wih Disailiies Perorm Academicall? ...........20

Coclsio ...............................................................................................................24

Glossar o Commo terms Relaed o Special Edcaio ..................................25


www.lao.ca.govLegislativeAnalystsOfce 3


4/28




5/28

ExECutIvE SuMMARySpecial education is the catch-all term that encompasses the specialized services that schools

provide or disabled students. Tis report provides a comprehensive review o special education

conveying inormation on applicable laws, aected students, services, unding, and student

outcomes.

Public Schools Must Provide Special Support or Disabled Students. Federal law requires

schools to provide specially dened instruction, and related services, at no cost to parents, to meet

the unique needs o a child with a disability. Te law requires schools to provide disabled students

with these special supports rom age 3 until age 22, or until they graduate rom high school,

whichever happens rst. Tese services are in addition to what a nondisabled student receives.

About One in en Caliornia Students Receives Special Education Services. About 686,000

students with disabilities (SWDs) receive special education services in Caliornia, comprising about

10 percent o the states public school enrollment. Specic learning disabilitiesincluding dyslexia

are the most common diagnoses requiring special education services (aecting about 4 percent oall K-12 students), ollowed by speech and language impairments. While the overall prevalence o

students with autism and chronic health problems still is relatively rare (each aecting 1 percent

or less o all public school students), the number o students diagnosed with these disabilities has

increased notably over the past decade.

Special Education Services Vary Based on Individual Student Needs. Federal law only

requires schools to provide special education services to students with diagnosed disabilities that

interere with their educational attainment. o determine a students need and eligibility or special

education, schools must conduct a ormal evaluation process. I schools determine that general

education programs cannot adequately meet a disabled students needs, they develop Individualized

Education Programs (IEPs) to dene the additional services the school will provide. Each students

IEP diers based on his or her particular disability and needs. Specialized academic instruction is

the most common service that schools provide. Tis category includes any kind o specic practice

that adapts the content, methodology, or delivery o instruction to help SWDs access the general

curriculum. Other commonly provided services include speech and language assistance and various

types o therapies or physical and psychological needs that may be impeding a SWDs educational

attainment. Although ederal law encourages schools to educate disabled students in mainstream

settings, most (about three-quarters) o special education services are delivered in settings other

than regular classrooms.

In General, the State Uses a Regional Structure to Organize Special Education. Becauseeconomies o scale oen improve both programmatic outcomes and cost-eectiveness, special

education unding and some services are administered regionally by 127 Special Education Local

Plan Areas (SELPAs) rather than by the approximately 1,000 school districts in the state. Most

SELPAs are collaborative consortia o nearby districts, county oces o education (COEs), and

charter schools, although some large districts have ormed their own independent SELPAs, and

three SELPAs consist o only charter schools.




6/28

Te Excess Costs Associated With Providing Special Education Services Are Supported by

Federal, State, and Local Funds. Schools receive billions o dollars to provide a basic educational

programincluding teachers, instructional materials, academic support, and enrichment

activitiesor allstudents, including SWDs. Te average annual costs o educating a SWD, however,

are more than double those o a mainstream studentapproximately $22,300 compared to $9,600.(It is important to note that most SWDs require less severe, less costly services, whereas some

students require intensive interventions that cost notably more than $22,300 per year.) Schools

receive categorical unds to cover a portion o these additional, or excess costs, associated with

addressing students disabilities. Because ederal and state special education unds typically are not

sucient to cover the costs o all IEP-required services, however, schools spend rom their local

unrestricted general unds to make up the dierence. In 2010-11, special education expenditures

totaled $8.6 billion. State special education categorical unds covered the largest share o these costs

(43 percent), combined with spending rom local general purpose unds (39 percent) and ederal

special education unds (18 percent). Over the past several years, a combination o increasing special

education costs and relatively fat state and ederal special education unding has resulted in local

budgets covering an increasing share o these costs.

Special Education Funds Allocated to SELPAs Based on Overall Student Population,

Not Number o Disabled Students. Caliornia relies primarily on a census-based unding

methodology that allocates special education unds to SELPAs based on the totalnumber o students

attending, regardless o students disability status. Tis unding model implicitly assumes that

SWDsand associated special education costsare relatively equally distributed among the general

student population and across the state. Te amount o per-pupil unding each SELPA receives

varies based on historical actors. In 2011-12, the weighted statewide average per-pupil rate was

$645 per student (including both state and ederal unds). Aer receiving its allocation, each SELPAdevelops a local plan or how to allocate unds to the school districts and charter schools in its

region based on how it has chosen to organize special education services or SWDs.

Mixed Academic Outcomes or Disabled Students. Some perormance indicators suggest

SWDs generally are perorming well, whereas other indicators are less encouraging. For example,

perormance on standardized tests (including those specically designed or SWDs) has improved

over the past several years, but a majority o SWDs still ail to meet state and ederal achievement

expectations. As SWDs near the end o their time receiving speicial education services, data show

that about 60 percent o SWDs graduate on time with a high school diploma and about two-thirds o

SWDs are engaged productively aer high school (with about hal enrolled in an institute o higher

education and 15 percent competitively employed within one year aer high school).




7/28

IntRODuCtIOn

signicant areas o K-12 expenditures, supported by

a combination o the single largest state categorical

allocation, one o the biggest ederal education

grants, and a substantial portion o local school

budgets.

Tis report is intended to provide the

Legislature and public with an overview o the

states approach to educating disabled students.

It provides a primer-style reviewconveying

inormation on special education laws, aected

students, services, and unding. We also describe

the academic outcomes o the students who receive

these special services. Additionally, the end o thereport includes a glossary dening some common

terms related to special education.

Special education is the catch-all term that

encompasses the specialized services that schools

provide or disabled students. Policymakers

might have several reasons or seeking a deeper

understanding o the states approach to delivering

special education. First, a notable shareroughly

10 percento Caliornias K-12 students

receive special education services. As such, the

eectiveness o these services relates directly to

the academic outcomes o almost 700,000 o the

states children. Second, special education is one o

the most complicated and regulated areas o K-12

education, with multiple sets o ederal and statelaws governing how schools must provide services.

Finally, special education is among the most

WHAt IS SPECIAL EDuCAtIOn?

Public Schools Must Provide Special Support

or Disabled Students. Since 1975, ederal law

has required public schools to make special

eorts to educate disabled students. Revised andreauthorized as the Individuals with Disabilities

Education Act (IDEA) in 2004, ederal special

education law requires local educational agencies

(LEAs) to provide specially dened instruction,

and related services, at no cost to parents, to meet

the unique needs o a child with a disability.

(Troughout this report, we use the term special

education to reer to both special instruction

and related services, such as speech or behavioral

therapy.) Tese services are in addition to what a

nondisabled student receives. Te IDEA requires

schools to provide these special supports to

children with disabilities rom age 3 until age 22,

or until they graduate rom high school, whichever

happens rst. (Te IDEA also guarantees some

early intervention services or inants and toddlers

with developmental disabilities, but the states

Regional Centers, not schools, typically are taskedwith providing these services.)

Both Federal and State Laws Govern Special

Education. Most special education requirements

are contained in ederal law, although the state

Legislature also has passed some additional laws

governing how Caliornia schools must serve

disabled students. Generally, state special education

laws make relatively minor additions to the more

substantial ederal requirements. For example,

whereas the ederal entitlement or services ends

on a students 22nd birthday, Caliornia law extends

services or 22-year-old students through the end o

that school term.




8/28

WHO RECEIvES SPECIAL EDuCAtIOn SERvICES?

intereres with the students education. Federal law

only requires schools to provide special education

services to students who meet both o these

criteria.

Students IEPs Dene Teir Special Education

Services. Once an evaluator recommends that

special education services would be appropriate,

a team o stakeholders come together to prepare

an IEPan individualized written statement

dening the services the LEA will provide or the

student. Federal and state laws outline the IEP

process, including setting timelines or completing

and reviewing the plan (at least annually, butmore requently i a students needs change);

speciying what the plan should include (described

in Figure 1); and designating required IEP team

participants. An IEP team typically includes the

students parents, a school administrator, a special

education teacher or service provider, the students

general education teacher, the evaluator who

determined the students eligibility or services,

andwhen appropriatethe student. Te IEP

becomes a legal document requiring the LEA

to provide the services described or the SWD.

(Troughout the remainder o this report, we use

the term SWD to reer to disabled students who

have ormally qualied to receive special education

services.)

Section 504 Plans Describe Noninstructional

Accommodations. Some SWDs who need other

special accommodations to ully participate in

school activities may have a Section 504 Planin addition to, or instead o, an IEP. Section

504 Plans, which also are ederal entitlements or

eligible students, typically cover noninstructional

modications like wheelchair ramps, blood sugar

monitoring, or tape recorders or taking notes.

Not all disabled children need special

education services. Below, we discuss the process

or identiying which students require special

education services and the types o disabilities that

commonly aect these students.

How Do Schools Decide Which Sdes

Reqire Special Edcaio Serices?

Schools First Must ry to Meet Students

Needs Within the General Education Program.

A student cannot qualiy to receive special

education services until aer the school has tried

to meet his or her needs within the parameterso the general education program. Educators

typically attempt a series o inormal strategies

to address struggling students needs beore

employing the ormal special education process.

wo such approaches include Student Study

eams (SSs) and Response to Intervention

(RtI). Te SSa group that usually includes the

students school-site administrator, teacher, and

parenttypical ly discusses the students progress

and identies in-class strategies or the classroom

teacher to try. Te RtI is an instruct ional approach

designed to identiy struggling students and

provide interventions explicitly targeted to meet

their needs.

Schools Evaluate Whether Student Has

Disability Tat Requires Special Education

Services. I LEAs determine that general

education programs cannot adequately meet

a students needs, they next reer the studentor a proessional evaluation to see i he or she

qualies to receive special education. Once the

LEA makes the reerral and the parent consents,

the law requires that the evaluation be conducted

within 60 days. Te evaluator assesses whether the

student has a disability and whether that disability




9/28

Students Attending Private Schools Also Are

Entitled to Special Education Services. Students

with disabilities attending private schools also

have the right to access publicly unded special

education services. Tose services, however,

requently are provided in the public school setting

and may be less extensive than what would be

available i the student opted to enroll in public

school ull time.

Wha tpes o Disailiies Afec Sdes?

Federal Law Has 13 Disability Classications.

o be eligible or special education services under

ederal law, students must have a primary disabilitythat alls into one o the 13 categories listed in

Figure 2 (see next page). Te gure shows that

about 686,000 SWDs ages 3 to 22 receive special

education services in Caliornia. About 618,000 are

in grades K-12, comprising about 10 percent o the

states overall K-12 public school enrollment.

Learning Disabilities Are Identied Most

Frequently. As shown in the gure, 41 percent

o the states SWDs and over 4 percent o all

K-12 students are identied as having specic

learning disabilities. Tese are disorders aecting

one or more o the basic processes involved in

understanding/using language or perorming

mathematical calculations. (Dyslexia is one

commonly identied learning disability.) Te

next largest categoryspeech or language

impairmentsaects almost one-quarter o

SWDs. Autism aects 10 percent o SWDs. Rarer

disability categories include students who are

blind, dea, or have traumatic brain injuries.Students with these less common disabilities oen

require more intensive and expensive special

education services.

Prevalence o Some Disabilities Has Changed

Over Past Decade. Figure 3 (see next page) displays

the number o Caliornia students identied in

various disability categories over the past ten years.

Figure 1

Required Components of Individualized Education Programs

9 Current Status. The childs present level o academic achievement and unctional perormance.

9 Goals. Measurable annual goals or the childs academic and unctional perormance.

9 Progress Measures. How progress towards meeting annual goals will be measured.9 Services to Be Provided. Special education and related services to be provided, such assupplementary services and/or program modifcations or the child. Details must include the projected

beginning date, requency, location, and duration o the services to be provided.

9 Inclusion in Mainstream Setting. The extent to which the child will/will not participate with nondisabledchildren in the regular class.

9 Assessment Plan. Accommodations necessary or child to participate in state and district assessmentsor alternate assessments necessary to measure the childs academic achievement and unctionalperormance.

9 Additional Considerations. As appropriate: employment or career goals, alternative course ostudy or grade promotion and high school graduation, plan or transitioning to general education or

postsecondary activities, specialized equipment or transportation needs, goals or learning English, and/

or extended school-year services.




10/28

Figure 2

About 10 Percent o Caliornia Students HaveDisabilities Aecting Their Education

2011-12

Disability

Number o

SWDsaPercent o

SWDs

Percent o Total K-12

Population

Specic learning disabilityb 278,698 41% 4.4%

Speech or language impairment 164,600 24 2.1

Autism 71,825 10 1.0

Other health impairmentc 61,843 9 0.9

Mental retardation 43,303 6 0.5

Emotional disturbance 25,984 4 0.4

Orthopedic impairment 14,261 2 0.2

Hard o hearing 9,991 1 0.1

Multiple disability 5,643 1 0.1

Visual impairment 4,327 1 0.1

Dea 3,946 1 0.1

Traumatic brain injury 1,771 d e

Dea and blind 160 d e

Totals 686,352 100% 9.9%a Refects students with disabilities (SWDs) ages 3 to 22 receiving special education services.b Includes disorders resulting in diculties with listening, thinking, speaking, reading, writing, spelling, or doing mathematical

calculations.c Includes having chronic or acute health problems (such as a heart condition, asthma, epilepsy, or diabetes) that adversely aect

educational perormance.d Less than 0.5 percent.

e Less than 0.05 percent.

Figure 3

Prevalence of Some Disabilities

Has Changed Over Past Decade

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12

All Other

Other Health ImpairmentaAutism

Speech or Language Impairment

Specific Learning Disability

Students With:

a Includes chronic or acute health problems that adversely affect educational performance.

Te gure shows that

while the prevalence o

many disabilities has

stayed relatively constant,

the number o students

identied with speciclearning disabilities

has dropped by almost

20 percent. In contrast,

while the overall prevalence

o autism and other

health impairments still is

relatively rare, the number

o students diagnosed

with these disabilities

has increased notably

over the past decadeby

241 percent and 120 percent,

respectively. While

Caliornias identication

rates vary somewhat rom

other states, these general

trends also are visible

across the nation. Experts

believe these changesare partially related to

evolving diagnoses and

instructional practices. For

example, some children

who might previously

have been classied with

learning disabilities now

are receiving early and

intensive instructional

interventions and

avoiding special education

designations. Some o

the trendssuch as

the dramatic growth in

autismremain more

dicult to explain.




11/28

WHAt SPECIAL EDuCAtIOn SERvICES

DO StuDEntS RECEIvE?

100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000

Specialized Academic Instruction

Speech and Language Therapy

Occupational Therapy

College Awareness

Career Awareness

Adapted Physical Education

Vocational Assessment

Behavior Treatment Services

Individual Therapy

Most Common Special Education Services

Provided to Students With Disabilities

Figure 4

Number of Students Receiving Servicesa

a Some students may receive more than one type of service.

Services or SWDs

Vary Based on IndividualStudent Needs. Figure 4

displays the most

requently provided

special education services.

As shown, specialized

academic instruction is

the most common service.

Tis category includes any

kind o specic practice

that adapts the content,

methodology, or delivery

o instruction to help

SWDs access the general

curriculum. Examples

include one-to-one

tutoring, specialized

instruction in a separate

classroom, or modied

assignments. Othercommonly provided services include speech and

language assistance, career and college awareness

activities, and various types o therapies or

physical and psychological needs that may be

impeding a SWDs educational attainment.

Older SWDs Receive Services to Help

ransition to Adulthood. One o the IDEAs

goals is to prepare SWDs or success in lie aer

high school, when the ederal entitlement to

special education services typically ends. As such,beginning when students are age 16, LEAs are

required to develop specic services in IEPs to help

SWDs prepare or the transition to postsecondary

activities. ransitional services typically include

vocational and career readiness activities, college

counseling, and training in independent living

skills. Te state provides some unding specically

targeted or these types o activities, including the

WorkAbility program and specialized Regional

Occupational Center/Program services.

WHERE ARE SPECIAL EDuCAtIOn SERvICES PROvIDED?

Federal Law Encourages LEAs to Educate

SWDs in Mainstream Settings. Federal law

requires that SWDs be educated in separate

settings only when the nature or severity o their

disabilities is such that the regular educational

environment is not practical, even with the use o




12/28

supplementary aids and services. Educating SWDs

alongside their nondisabled peers oen is reerred

to as inclusion or mainstreaming. Based on

this principle o the least restrictive environment

(LRE), around hal o Caliornias SWDs spend at

least 80 percent o their time in regular classrooms.Tis rate is somewhat lower, however, than most

other states. On average, about 60 percent o SWDs

across the country spend at least 80 percent o

their instructional time in regular classrooms.

Accordingly, Caliornias annual ederal

perormance review or special education has set a

goal o increasing inclusion rates even urtherto

at least three-quarters o SWDs being in the regular

classroom or 80 percent o the day.

Most SWDs Receive Specialized Services

in Settings Other Tan the Regular Classroom.

Rather than ocusing on student time, a somewhat

dierent but related metric ocuses on the extent

to which special education services are delivered

in the regular classroom. One reason Caliornia

ails to meet ederal LRE targets is that only about

one-quarter o its special education services are

delivered in the regular classroom. By comparison,

about hal o specialized services are delivered at

SWDs regular schools but in separate classrooms.

Tese latter services consist o part-day pull-

outs rom or supplements to regular classroominstruction (or students with less severe needs)

as well as special day classes (or students who

need more intensive accommodations). Students

in special day classes typically spend most or all

o their days in a specially designed instructional

setting. Te remaining one-quarter o special

education services are provided at locations other

than the regular school. For students with very

severe disabilities, services sometimes are oered

at district-operated disability centers, specially

certied nonpublic schools, or residential acilities.

Other typical o-site locations include therapists

oces. eachers and service providers who work

with SWDs must holdor be supervised by

someone who holdsspecial credentials rom the

Caliornia Commission on eacher Credentialing.

HOW IS SPECIAL EDuCAtIOnORGAnIzED In CALIFORnIA?

In General, State Uses Regional Structure

to Organize Special Education. Providing

individualized services or SWDsparticularly or

students with severe or low-incidence disabilities

can be costly and dicult or individual LEAs,

especially small LEAs with limited scal and

stang resources. Because economies o scale

oen improve both programmatic outcomes and

cost-eectiveness, special education unding

and some services typically are administered

regionally rather than by individual school districts

or charter schools. Te state distributes special

education unding to 127 SELPAs, rather than to

the approximately 1,000 LEAs in the state. State

law requires that every school district, COE, and

charter school belong to a SELPA.

SELPAs Organized in One o Four Ways. As

shown in Figure 5, LEAs have arranged themselves

into our distinct types o SELPA congurations.

Most (81) are consortia o nearby districts, COEs,

and charter schools. In these consortia, one

entityoen the COEis designated to receive

unding, acilitate coordination, and meet state and

ederal data reporting requirements. In contrast to

the consortia model, 42 school districts, including

many o the states largest, have opted to orm their

own independent SELPAs. (A LEA must provide

one-year notice i it plans to leave one SELPA and




13/28

join another, and it must receive approval rom

the state in order to establish a new SELPA.) Tree

SELPAsrun out o COEs in El Dorado, Los

Angeles, and Sonoma countiesconsist exclusively

o charter schools. Finally, one SELPA consists

solely o court schools in Los Angeles County. Testates SELPAs vary notably in size. In 2011-12, the

states largest SELPA (Los Angeles Unied) served

almost 82,300 SWDs, while the smallest (Sierra

County SELPA) served 44 SWDs.

An Increasing Number o Charter Schools

Participate in Charter-Only SELPAs. Charter

schools can choose to organize special education

services in three dierent ways: as a school o its

authorizing school district, as an independent

LEA member o a consortia SELPA, or as a

LEA member o one o the three charter-only

SELPAs. Charter schools that opt or LEA

statuseither within a consortia SELPA or as a

member o a charter-only SELPAassume legal

responsibility or ensuring their SWDs receive

the special services to which they are entitled

under ederal law. Charter schools increasingly

are opting or the third option. Te El Dorado

County charter-only SELPA grew rom 23 charterschool members in 2008-09 to 138 charter school

members in 2011-12. Tese schools are located

across the

state, not just

in El Dorado

County. Te

Caliornia

Department

o Education

(CDE) also is

anticipating

increased

membership

in the two

more newly

established charter-only SELPAs in Los Angeles

and Sonoma counties.

Consortia SELPAs Frequently Ofer Some

Regionalized Services. While single-district

SELPAs typically serve all o their SWDs directly,

consortia SELPAs oen pool resources to oersome regionalized special education services on

behal o member LEAs. For example, consortia

SELPAs requently organize proessional

development or teachers, preschool programs, and

services or students with low-incidence disabilities

at the regional level. Even i members o consortia

SELPAs decide to provide some special education

services on a regional basis, ederal law still holds

each LEA ultimately responsible or ensuring

SWDs are served appropriately.

Charter-Only SELPAs Service Model

ypically Difers From Regional Consortia

SELPAs. Because charter-only SELPAs can include

charter schools rom across the state, their service

model typically diers rom those o traditional

consortia SELPAs, which contain members rom

the same geographic region. Specically, individual

members o charter-only SELPAs typically run

their own special education services, by eitherhiring or contracting with qualied sta. Some

charter schools do seek economies o scale by

Types of SELPA Arrangements

Figure 5

SELPA = Special Education Local Plan Area.

Consortia Only Charter Schools Single District Only Court Schools

81 3 42 1




14/28

orming special education service collaboratives

outside o the traditional SELPA structure, either

with other charter schools or nearby school

districts. Unlike with traditional SELPAs, however,

the COEs that administer charter-only SELPAs

typically do not organize such collaborative

arrangements.

HOW IS SPECIAL EDuCAtIOnFunDED In CALIFORnIA?

Special education is among the most signicant

areas o K-12 expenditures. Below, we discuss the

sources that und special education, how much

special education services cost to provide, how the

state distributes unds to SELPAs, and how SELPAs

distribute unds to LEAs.

Which Fdig Sorces

Sppor Special Edcaio?

Services Supported by Federal, State, and

Local Funds. Special education services are

subsidized by a combination o three unding

sourcesederal, state, and local. Federal IDEA

and state unds each are provided through discrete

special education categorical grants. Te state grant

(which is comprised o both state General Fund

and local property tax revenues) counts towards

the Proposition 98 school unding requirement.

Te local contribution represents spending rom

LEAs unrestricted general unds.

How Mch Do Special Edcaio Serices Cos?

Dedicated Special Education Funds Intended

to Support the Excess Costs o Educating SWDs.

Local educational agencies are allocated billions

o dollars to provide an educational programincluding teachers, instructional materials,

academic support, and enrichment activitiesor

allstudents, including SWDs. o the degree their

disabilities cause SWDs to require additional

services beyond what mainstream students receive,

LEAs use ederal IDEA and state special education

categorical unds to provide such services. Tat is,

ederal and state special education unds are not

intended to support theullcosts o educating a

SWDjust the excess costs resulting rom the need

to address his or her disabilities. (See the nearby

box or a discussion o this and another common

misconception regarding local special educationexpenditures.) Because ederal and state special

education unds typically are not sucient to cover

the costs o all IEP-required services, local LEAs

spend rom their local unrestricted general unds to

make up the dierence.

Average Costs o Educating SWDs More Tan

Double Tose o Mainstream Students. Figure 6

illustrates the concept o excess costs. Te gure

shows that in 2010-11, LEAs spent an average o

roughly $9,600 in total unds per nondisabled

student and more than twice as much, about

$22,300, per SWD. Te additional $12,700 to

provide special IEP-required services or SWDs

was supported by an average o about $2,300 in

ederal unds, about $5,400 in state unds, and

about $5,000 local unds. While $12,700 was the

approximate statewide average excess cost or an

SWD, it is important to note that most SWDs

require less severe, less costly services, whereassome students require intensive interventions that

cost notably more than $12,700 a year.

Excess Costs o Educating SWDs Have Slowly

Increased Over Past Several Years. Figure 7

(see next page) displays total special education

expenditures rom ederal, state, and local unds




15/28

between 2004-05 and

2010-11, adjusted or

infation. (While these

data are sel-reported by

LEAs and may contain

some inconsistencies,they represent the best

available proxy or

calculating the excess

costs associated with

educating SWDs.) In

2010-11, total special

education expenditures

were covered by

$3.7 billion in state

unds (including local

property tax revenues),

$3.4 billion in local

general purpose unds,

and $1.6 billion in ederal

unds. As illustrated

in the gure, infation-

adjusted expenditures increased by an average o

2 percent annually over the period, growing by a

total o about 9 percent. Te increases likely are

Figure 6

Special Education Funds Support the Excess CostsOf Educating Students With Disabilities

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

$25,000

Nondisabled Students

Statewide Average Spending Per Pupil, 2010-11

Students With Disabilities

aIncludes American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding.IDEA = Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

Federal IDEAa

State SpecialEducation

Local GeneralPurpose

Excess Costs

TotalBase Support

TotalBase Support

Miscocepios Ao Ecroachme

Some local educational agencies (LEAs) complain that local contributions or special education

encroach upon their general education programs, sometimes implying that anylocal dollar spent

towards educating a student with disabilities (SWD) imposes unair expenditure requirements on

their general purpose budgets. Tis argument, however, is a mischaracterization o both ederal and

state laws. Federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and state special education

categorical unds never were intended to cover theullcosts o educating a SWDinstead the bulk

o the regular education costs are intended to be covered using local revenue limit and categorical

unding, just as or nondisabled students. Moreover, ederal IDEA and state special education

categorical unds never were intended toullycover the excess costs o educating a SWDthe

special education unding model always has been predicated on a three-way cost-sharing model,

including local sources. Despite this basic design o the unding model, LEAs sometimes express

rustration that their local share o special education costs is too high. Tis rustration tends to

increase as their local share o special education costs increases, as this leaves them with ewer

resources to serve other students.




16/28

due to a variety o actors, including the increasing

prevalence o students with severe disabilities like

autism who require more intensive and expensive

services. Notably, adjusted expenditures dropped

slightlyby 3 percentbetween 2009-10 and

2010-11. Te gure also shows that the ederalgovernment provided additional short-term unds

or special education through the American

Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) in

2009-10 and 2010-11.

Local Budgets Have Covered an Increasing

Share o Special Education Costs. Figure 8

compares the proportion o special education

expenditures covered by local, state, and ederal

unds in 2004-05 and in 2010-11. As shown in the

gure, the share o overall costs unded through

local contributions grew rom 32 percent to

39 percent, while the shares covered by state and

ongoing ederal unds each declined. Tis is due

to the combination o increasing overall costs and

relatively fat state and ederal unding. Moreover,

even i costs have remained fat in 2011-12 and

2012-13 (years or which data are not yet available),

the local share o costs likely has grown since LEAs

have had to backll or the expiration o short-term

ederal ARRA unds.

Federal Share Has Never Reached IntendedContribution Level. As shown in Figure 8, ederal

IDEA unds typically cover less than 20 percent

o overall special education expenditures. Tis

is notably lower than the amount the ederal

government originally committed to provide in

support o special education services. Te IDEA

expresses intent to appropriate unding or each

SWD up to 40 percent o the national average

expenditure level per K-12 pupil, which would

equate to roughly 40 percent o Caliornias overall

special education expenditures. Te ederal budget,

however, has never come close to providing states

with this amount. We estimate that Caliornia

would receive roughly $2 billion more annually i

the ederal government were to ully und the

intended level articulated

in the IDEA.

How Are FdsDisried o SELPAs?

wo Distribution

Models Exist. Across the

nation, states generally

use one o two approaches

to distribute special

education unding to the

local level. Some use a

cost-based model, with

unding allocations driven

by how many SWDs are

served or the magnitude

o special education costs

incurred. In contrast,

other states rely primarily

on a census-based unding

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

$10

04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11

Figure 7

Special Education Expenditures Have Slowly Increased

IDEA = Individuals with Disabilities Education Act; ARRA = American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

a Includes local property tax revenues.

(In Billions, Inflation-Adjusted 2010-11 Dollars)

Local General Purpose

State Special Educationa

Federal IDEA ARRA

Federal IDEA Ongoing




17/28

methodology that is not linked to particular

SWDs. Under this model, the state allocates special

education unds based on the totalnumber o

students enrolled, regardless o students disability

status. Tis unding model implicitly assumes

that SWDsand associated special educationcostsare relatively equally distributed among the

general student population and across the state.

While the majority o ederal special education

unds are distributed using a census-based model,

the IDEA ormula does allocate a small portion

(typically around 10 percent) o unds based on

counts o economically disadvantaged students, on

the assumption that this group contains a greater

proportion o SWDs.

Caliornia Now Uses Census-Based Model.

Beginning in 1998-99, Caliornia switched rom

a cost-based to census-based allocation model,

which is commonly reerred to as the AB 602

ormula aer the authorizing legislation. Since that

change, more than three-quarters o state special

education unds are allocated based on a SELPAs

total average daily attendance (ADA), with the

remainder distributed based on specic students

and circumstances. In general, data support the

incidence assumptions underlying the census-

based approachthat is, most SELPAs do report

serving proportionally similar numbers and typeso SWDs. (Charter-only SELPAs, however, tend

to serve proportionally ewer SWDs than most

traditional consortia or single-district SELPAs.)

While SELPAs receive AB 602 unds based on

overall ADA counts, they use them to support the

IEP-driven excess costs o educating SWDs.

Te AB 602 Formula Blends State and Federal

Funds to Provide Each SELPA a Unique Per-Pupil

Rate. Each SELPA has a unique per-pupil special

education unding rate consisting o both state and

ederal unds. Tese AB 602 rates vary across

SELPAs rom about $500 per ADA to about $1,100

per ADA, based primarily on what the SELPA

received beore the AB 602 legislation was adopted.

(In prior years the state invested some unding

to equalize AB 602 rates, but large discrepancies

Local Budgets Have Covered an Increasing Share ofSpecial Education Costs

Figure 8

17%

51%

32%

2004-05

Federal (ARRA)

State Special Educationa

Local General Purpose

13%

43%

39%

2010-11

Federal IDEA (ongoing)

5%

a Includes local property tax revenue.

IDEA = Individuals with Disabilities Education Act; ARRA = American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.




18/28

remain.) In 2011-12, the weighted statewide average

AB 602 rate was $645 per ADA, with charter-only

SELPAs having the lowest rates in the state. Te

exact mix o ederal and state unds making up

each SELPAs AB 602 rate varies based on a number

o actors, however IDEA unds average about$180 per ADA, with state unds making up the

dierence.

State and Federal Funds Also Support

a Number o Discrete Special Education

Subprograms. Te AB 602 base allocationwhich

in 2012-13 includes about $2.9 billion in state unds

and $1 billion in IDEA moniesis the largest

source o unding SELPAs receive or special

education. Te SELPAs, however, also receive

almost $1 billion in additional state and ederal

special education unds targeted or more specic

purposes. Te largest o these special education

categorical programs allocates over $400 million

or SELPAs to provide educationally necessary

mental health services to SWDs. Other separately

unded initiatives include services or inants and

preschoolers with disabilities, vocational education

programs or SWDs, and sta development. Some

SELPAs also receive supplemental unding i theyhave sparse population density or i they are located

near licensed childrens institutions (based on the

assumption that these group homes will have

higher rates o SWDs). In addition to SELPA-level

grants, state and ederal unds support state-level

special education activities, including compliance

monitoring and technical assistance.

How Are Fds Disried o LEAs?

Consortia SELPAS Determine How to Allocate

Funding Amongst LEA Members. Each SELPA

develops a local plan or how to allocate unds in

its region, based on how it has chosen to organize

services. Tis process is relatively straightorward

in the 42 single-district SELPAs, as they receive

unding directly rom the state and oer or contract

or services on their own. Te two-thirds o SELPAs

that contain multiple LEAs work internally to

decide how best to divvy up unding or all the

SWDs in their region. Tese allocation plans dier

notably across SELPAs based on local preerences

and the service plans they have adopted. In most

cases, consortia members opt to reserve someunding at the SELPA level to operate some shared,

regionalized services, then distribute the remainder

to LEA members to serve their own SWDs locally.

In a slightly dierent approach, some consortia

SELPAs choose to allocate essentially all unding

to member LEAs, then und any regionalized

services on a ee or service basis or those LEAs

who choose to participate. (Because charter-only

SELPAs do not usually oer regionalized services,

they tend to distribute the bulk o AB 602 unds

directly to member charter schools.) Te SELPAs

are not required to use the states census-based

AB 602 ormula to distribute unding to member

LEAs. Rather, internal SELPA allocation plans can

be based on ADA, specic student populations (or

example, counts or characteristics o SWDs), or any

other local priority or consideration.

WHAt ARE tHE StAtE SPECIAL SCHOOLS?State Uses Diferent Model to Serve Some

Dea and Blind Students. Like students with

other disabilities, most hearing and visually

impaired students attend and receive special

education services rom their local school district

or COE. Te state, however, also operates three

specialized residential schools or dea and blind

students. Te Caliornia Schools or the Dea in

Riverside and Fremont each serve around 400

students ages 3 to 22, totaling about 6 percent




19/28

local districts. In contrast to the SELPA unding

model, these schools are unded through a direct

state appropriationnot linked to the school s

enrollmentat a rate that ar exceeds the amount

SELPAs receive to serve comparable students.

HOW ARE SPECIAL EDuCAtIOn LAWS

MOnItORED AnD EnFORCED?

wo Statutory Processes Help Ensure

Compliance With Special Education Laws.

While the IDEA was established to ensure all

SWDs receive the special support they need tobenet rom their education, the best approach

to meeting those goals or an individual SWD

can be complicated, subjective, and contentious.

Anticipating diculties and disagreements,

ederal and state laws speciy two detailed

processes or enorcing compliance with the

IDEAone process to ensure LEAs include

appropriate contentand services in students IEPs

and another process to ensure LEAs appropriately

implementIDEA processes and IEP-requiredservices. Disputes regarding the ormer are

handled by the states Oce o Administrative

Hearings (OAH), whereas the latter is monitored

and enorced by CDE. (Te ollowing paragraphs

describe each process in more detail.) Te ederal

government unds Family Empowerment Centers

and Parent raining Institutes to educate and

assist parents o SWDs in supporting their

children and navigating the legal and logistical

acets o the special education system.

Federal Law Provides Parents the Right to

Dispute Which Special Education Services Teir

Child Is Entitled to Receive. Sometimes parents

and LEAs disagree over the contents o a students

IEP. I parents ail to convince the IEP team that

dierent or additional services are necessary

to ensure their child receives an appropriate

education, they can le a ormal complaint with

the OAH to revise the IEP. Federal and state laws

detail the dispute resolution process, typicallybeginning with dual-party resolution sessions,

progressing to ormal mediation sessions with an

OAH acilitator, and ultimatelyi necessaryto

due process hearings with an OAH administrative

law judge. Although the number o ormal cases

led with OAH represents less than one percent

o all SWDs, the dispute resolution process can

be costly and contentious or both amilies and

LEAs. Both parties thereore have incentives to

avoid lengthy and litigious disagreements. O the

roughly 3,100 dispute cases led with OAH in

2011-12, only 3 percent ultimately were decided

through a due process hearing and legal ruling.

Te rest were resolved through mediation, settled

beore the hearing, or withdrawn. Te state also

provides small unding grants to some SELPAs

to pursue alternative dispute resolution strategies

and try to settle disagreements outside o the

OAH process.

Te CDE Monitors LEA Compliance With

IDEA Requirements. Te CDE is tasked with

investigating and resolving allegations that a LEA

is ailing to comply with ederal or state special

education laws. Parents, students, or teachers

might le individual complaints, or CDE might

identiy problems while conducting LEA reviews

o the states dea and hard o hearing students.

Te Caliornia School or the Blind in Fremont

serves around 70 students, or about 2 percent o

the states visually impaired students. Parents and

IEP teams determine whether to send children

to these schools in lieu o being served by their




20/28

and audits. Commonly cited complaints include

LEAs ailing to provide IEP-required services or

ailing to meet statutorily required timelines (such

as timelines or evaluating students eligibility

or services or holding IEP meetings). Te CDE

tries to correct ndings o noncompliance

by implementing corrective action plans and

increasing monitoring.

HOW DO CALIFORnIAS StuDEntS WItH

DISAbILItIES PERFORM ACADEMICALLy?

In addition to monitoring how well LEAs meet

required special educationprocedures, ederal and

state laws also hold LEAs accountable or SWDs

academicperormance. Below, we provide outcome

data on how SWDs perorm on state assessments

and how prepared older SWDs are to transition toadult lie.

How Do SWDs Perorm o Sae Assessmes?

Federal and State Accountability Systems

Based on Standardized Assessments. Te ederal

and state governments each have established

systems to hold schools accountable or student

achievement. While the two systems are somewhat

dierent, both require schools to measure

the academic perormance o all students in

grades 2 through 11regardless o disability

statususing standardized assessments based

on state content standards. (Caliornia uses the

Standardized esting and Reporting, or SAR,

assessments.) Additionally, each accountability

system establishes perormance expectations

both or overall school perormance and or the

perormance o specic student groups within the

school, including SWDs. (Te ederal system alsosets expectations or overall student perormance

and SWD perormance at the LEA level.) Te

ederal system sets Annual Yearly Progress

(AYP) benchmarks whereby progressively higher

proportions o students must reach academic

prociency each year until 2014, at which point

allstudents are to display prociency. For example,

in 2011-12 the AYP target was or 78 percent o

students to display prociency. (In Caliornia,

students meet ederal prociency requirements i

they score at the procient or advanced levels

on the states SAR assessments.) Te LEAs and

schools that ail to meet expectations or multipleyears ace increased monitoring and sanctions. In

contrast to the ederal system that sets the same

annual prociency requirement or all schools and

LEAs, the states accountability systemknown as

the Academic Perormance Index (API)requires

individual schools to display annual improvements

in student perormance relative to their prior-year

perormance.

Tree Options or SWDs to Participate

in States Assessment System. Because

academic outcomes understandably may vary

depending upon the nature and severity o a

students disability, both the ederal and state

accountability systems al low some SWDs to

meet perormance expectations using modied

or alternate assessments. As shown in Figure 9,

Caliornia has developed three dierent sets o

SAR tests or SWDs to meet ederal and state

testing requirementsthe Caliornia Standardsests (CSs), the Caliornia Modied Assessment

(CMA), and the Caliornia Alternate Perormance

Assessment (CAPA). Which assessment an

individual SWD takes depends on the severity o

his or her disability and the decision o the IEP

team. Te selected assessment must be clearly

dened in the students IEP. Te gure shows




21/28

that in 2011-12 almost hal o special education

students in grades 2 through 11 took the CSs,

although in many cases with IEP-specied

accommodations or modications. (Such

accommodations might include assistive devices,

such as audio recorders or calculators, or havingan extended period o t ime to complete the test.)

Slightly more than 40 percent o special education

students, or about 4 percent o all students in

grades 2 through 11, took the CMA. Only about

10 percent o SWDsthose with the most severe

cognitive disabilitiestook the CAPA.

Te CMA Is a Unique Option or the States

SWDs. Caliornia is one o only 15 states to

have developed a special assessment or SWDs

with moderate disabilitiesthe CMA. (Federal

law requires states to develop an alternative

assessment such as the CAPA or students with the

most severe disabilities, but leaves it up to states

whether to develop another a lternative or SWDs.)

While the CMA covers the same grade-level

content standards as the CSs, questions are

presented in a more accessible ashion, including

ewer questions and ewer possible answers,

simplied language, more pictures, and larger

type. o qualiy to take the CMA in lieu o

the CSs, the IEP team must determine thatstudents cognitive disabilitiespreclude them

rom accurately demonstrating their knowledge

and achieving prociency on the CSs, even with

testing modications. Te state rst administered

CMA tests with prociency level standards or

grades 3 through 5 in 2008-09, introducing

tests or additional grades in subsequent years.

Correspondingly, an increasing number o SWDs

have taken the CMA in lieu o the CSs in recent

years. (Specically, 20 percent o SWDs in grades

2 through 11 took the CMA in 2008-09, compared

to 42 percent in 2011-12.)

Federal Accountability System Seeks to Limit

Over-Reliance on Alternative Assessments. In

an eort to ensure SWDs are held to the same

Figure 9

Three Options or Assessing Students With Disabilities (SWDs)

Profciency in Meeting Caliornia Content Standards

2011-12

Test Description

Number oSWDs

Testeda

Percent oTotal SWDs

(Grades 2-11)

CaliorniaStandards Tests

(CSTs)

Assess students prociency in Caliornia content standards or grades 2

through 11. Taken annually by majority o students. Some SWDs allowed sometest-taking accommodations or modications.

236,000 47%

Caliornia

Modifed

Assessment

(CMA)

Covers same content standards as the CSTs but designed to be moreaccessible or SWDs (or example: ewer questions, simpler language, more

pictures). Taken by students whose disabilities preclude them rom achieving

grade-level prociency on the CSTs, even with accommodations.

210,000 42

Caliornia AlternatePerormance

Assessment

Presents a series o tasks designed to display prociency on those portions ocontent standards accessible to students with severe cognitive disabilities. The

K-12 standards are grouped into ve grade-span levels, and the Individualized

Education Program team decides which level is most appropriate or eachstudent to take. Taken by students whose disabilities prevent them rom

participating in either the CSTs or CMA.

48,400 10

Totals 494,400 99%b

a Displays counts or English Language Arts exams.b As with nondisabled students, a small percentage o SWDs do not take assessments, due primarily to absences or disenrollments.




22/28

high standards as mainstream students, the

ederal government attempts to discourage states

rom having exceptionally high proportions o

SWDs take alternative assessments. While ederal

law does not cap how many SWDs maytake

the alternative assessments, the percentage oprofcient scores LEAs can count towards meeting

ederal AYP benchmarks is limited to 2 percent

o all students or the CMA and 1 percent or the

CAPA. (I greater numbers o students take the

tests and score at the procient level, their scores

are counted as not procient.) In contrast to the

ederal system, the states accountability system

does not limit the share o students who may

take the CMA or CAPA and have their associated

scores count towards meeting annual API

requirements.

Perormance Has Improved, but Majority

o SWDs Score Below Procient Level on State

Assessments. Figure 10 displays the percentage

o ourth-grade SWDs and nondisabled students

that met ederally required prociency targets

in English Language Arts over the past several

years. (Te gure excludes results rom the CAPA,

as they are not based on grade-level specic

standards and thereore are not comparable.) Asshown, both groups have displayed improvements

in recent years. Improvements or SWDs in

recent years may be partially due to increasing

proportions o students taking the CMA in lieu o

the CSs. A majority o SWDs, however, still ail

to meet ederal perormance standards with either

test. In 2011-12, only 49 percent o SWDs who

took the CSs scored at the procient or advanced

levels. Tis compares to 68 percent o nondisabled

students. Moreover, only 39 percent o the

students who took the CMAwhich is specially

tailored or SWDsmet prociency targets.

Many Schools and Districts Struggle to

Meet Perormance argets or SWDs. As might

be expected given the

perormance levels

displayed in Figure 10,

a majority o LEAs are

ailing to meet ederalprociency requirements

or their SWDs. In

2011-12, only 11 percent

o LEAs met ederal

AYP benchmarks (that

78 percent o students

score procient or

advanced in both

English Language Arts

and Mathematics) or

their disabled student

groups. Tis compares

to 29 percent o LEAs

that met this AYP

Percent of Students Scoring Proficient or AdvancedOn Fourth Grade English Language Arts Assessments

Figure 10

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80%

02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12

CST: Nondisabled Students

CST: Students With Disabilities

California Modified Assessment

CST = California Standards Test.




23/28

benchmark or their overal l student population.

Schools perorm somewhat better on the states

accountability system, but SWD gains still lag.

In 2011-12, 52 percent o schools met state API

growth targets or their SWDs, compared to

67 percent that met the targets or their overallstudent populations. As described in the nearby

box, however, these statistics exclude about hal o

the states LEAs (or AYP) and almost 90 percent

o schools (or AYP and API), as their populations

o SWDs are deemed too small to report as

discrete groups or accountability calculations.

Wha Happes o SWDs Aer High School?

Even With Exemption From Exit Exam

Requirement, Many SWDs Struggle to

Complete High School. o meet ederal testing

requirements, all studentsincluding SWDs

must take the Caliornia High School Exit Exam

(CAHSEE) in 10th grade. State law also requires

that most students pass the CAHSEE in order to

graduate rom high school. However, in 2011-12

only about 40 percent o SWDs passed the ex it

exam as 10th graders, compared to 87 percent o

nondisabled students. For the class o 2012, only

56 percent o SWDs had passed the CAHSEE by

the end o 12th grade, compared to 95 percent o

nondisabled students. Because o such low passage

rates (and an associated lawsuit), state law waschanged in 2009-10 to allow certain SWDs to

receive diplomas without passing the CAHSEE.

Specical ly, students IEPs or Section 504 Plans

can explicitly exempt them rom the requirement

to pass CAHSEE i they meet all other local

graduation requirements. Te state currently is

investigating alternative measures or SWDs to

demonstrate the same content knowledge as the

CAHSEE, but no new requirements have yet been

adopted. Even with the CAHSEE exemption,

Figure 11 (see next page) shows that only

59 percent o SWDs graduate on time and almost

one-h drop out o school.

Data Suggest More Tan Hal o SWDs

Successully ransition to College or Career

Activities. As discussed earlier, the IDEA

requires that LEAs oer plans and services to

Sie thresholds Mea Majori o Disrics ad Schools

no Held Accoale or Disaled Sde Grop Perormace

Because a majority o the states local educational agencies (LEAs) and schools serve smaller

populations o students, many o them are not subject to ederal and state accountability

requirements and perormance benchmarks or students with disabilities (SWDs). Specically, to

be held accountable or SWD group perormance under both the ederal and state systems, LEAs

and schools must have valid test scores rom either (1) at least 50 SWDs who make up at least

15 percent o the total number o valid scores or(2) at least 100 SWDs. I a school or LEA does not

meet these thresholds, state law deems its SWD population too small to be numerically signicant

or ederal Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) and state Academic Perormance Index (API) calculations.In 2011-12, 521 o the states 1,016 LEAs (51 percent) did not have numerically signicant groups o

SWDs or AYP calculations. Even more notably, 8,759 schools out o 9,905 schools (88 percent) did

not meet the threshold or calculating AYP or API targets or their SWDs. Tus, just over hal o

the states LEAs and almost nine out o ten schools did not ace achievement targets, monitoring, or

sanctions related to how their SWDs perormed.




24/28

help prepare SWDs or

lie aer high school.

While comprehensive

inormation on these

eorts is somewhat

limited, data suggestmany SWDs are

successully transitioning

to postsecondary

education and careers

(some even without a

high school diploma).

Specically, CDE

estimates that about hal

o SWDs enroll in an

institute o higher education aer high school. Te

CDE estimates an additional roughly 15 percent o

Figure 11

Students With Disabilities (SWDs)Struggle to Complete High School

Cohort Data for Class of 2010-11

All

Students SWDs

Graduate high school in our years 76% 59%

Drop out beore completing high school 14 18

Remain enrolled past expected graduation date 9 19

Receive GED or certifcate o completiona 1 4

Totals 100% 100%a Certifcates o completion are oered to SWDs who have not met the requirements to receive a high

school diploma, but have completed prescribed alternative courses o study or met the goals o theirIndividualized Education Programs. Students with certifcates o completion do not qualiy or admissionto postsecondary educational institutions.

GED = General Educational Developmentthe high school equivalency test.

SWDs are competitively employed within one yearo leaving high school.

COnCLuSIOnDeveloping a more thorough understanding

o how Caliornias disabled students are served is

the rst step towards improving their educational

outcomes. In this report, we provide a high-level

review o special education laws, services, delivery

models, unding ormulas, and outcomes. In

almost all o these areas, special education is

characterized by the complex interplay o policies

and practices at the ederal, state, and local levels.




25/28

GLOSSARy OF COMMOn tERMS

RELAtED tO SPECIAL EDuCAtIOn

Term Acronym Description

Assembly Bill 602unding model

AB 602 Caliornia legislation passed in 1997 that implemented a census-based special educationunding model. The ormula allocates unding based on total K-12 student counts rather thanon the number o students identied to receive special education services.

Behavioral

Intervention

Plan

BIP A written document developed or students with serious behavior problems that signicantlyinterere with implementing IEP goals. The BIP becomes part o the IEP.

CaliorniaAlternate

Perormance

Assessment

CAPA State assessment designed or students with severe cognitive disabilities that preclude them

rom taking the Caliornia Standards Tests (CSTs) or Caliornia Modied Assessment.

Caliornia

ModifedAssessment

CMA State assessment designed or students whose disabilities preclude them rom achieving grade-

level prociency on the CSTs, even with accommodations.

Child Find Federal requirement that school districts identiy, locate, and assess all children in need o

special education services, regardless o school setting or disability. Also reerred to as

search and serve.

Due process Due process requirements specic to special education outline the right o parents to participate

inand challengetheir childrens special education assessments, identications, andplacements. These requirements speciy processes or handling disputes, including resolution

sessions, mediation sessions, and hearings.

Encroachment Colloquial term reerring to expenditures local school districts make rom their general unds to

serve SWDs.

Excess costs The dierence between the average expenditures or a SWD and those or a general education

student.

ExtraordinaryCost Pools

ECPs Two allocations o supplemental state unding available to: (1) SELPAs that incur

disproportionately high costs or students whose IEPs require placement in nonpublic schoolsand (2) exceptionally small SELPAs that incur high costs or students whose IEPs require

placements based on educationally related mental health needs.

Free andAppropriate

Education

FAPE Federal requirement that eligible students have the right to special education and related

services at no cost to the parent.

Individualized

EducationProgram

IEP A written statement describing the education program, including special services or

accommodations, that a SWD shall receive. Pursuant to ederal law, the IEP is a legaldocument entitling the student to receive the services and accommodations it describes.

IndividualizedEducation

Program team

IEP team Group typically consisting o a students parents, school administrator, special education

teacher or service provider, general education teacher, the evaluator who assessed thestudents eligibility or services, andwhen appropriatethe student. Convened to develop,

review, and revise an IEP.

(Continued)




26/28


Individual FamilyService Plan

IFSP Similar to an IEP but describes early intervention services or inants or toddlers with disabilities

and their amilies.

Individuals withDisabilities

Education Act

IDEA Federal law governing how states and public agencies must provide services to children with

disabilities. Part B requires special education and related services or children ages 3 to 22.

Part C requires early intervention services or children ages birth to 2 and their amilies.

Least restrictive

environmentLRE Federal requirement that, to the maximum extent appropriate, SWDs should be educated

alongside nondisabled children. Incorporating SWDs into regular classrooms also is reerred

to as inclusion and mainstreaming.

Licensedchildrens

institution

(group home)

LCI Residential acilities licensed by the state to serve six or more youth. Residents typically include

oster youth (dependents o the state), wards o the court, and/or youth with serious emotionaldisturbances. Because children living in LCIs requently require special education and related

services, SELPAs that contain LCIs within their region receive additional unding.

Low-incidence

disability

LID Less commonly occurring disabilities such as hearing impairments, vision impairments, and

severe orthopedic impairments.

Nonpublic schoolor nonpublicagency

NPS/NPA Private schools and other entities that are certied by the state to provide services to SWDs.

Ofce o

Administrative

Hearings

OAH State agency designated to provide mediation and hearing services in special education dueprocess cases.

Reerral Formal request to identiy and assess a childs possible special education needs. A reerral

may be made by a parent, teacher, medical personnel, or anyone with specic knowledge o

the child. Triggers ederally required timelines or conducting assessments and holding IEPmeetings.

Related services Developmental, corrective, and other supportive services as required to assist SWDs in

beneting rom special education. Services can include (but are not limited to): speech-language pathology and audiology services, psychological services, physical andoccupational therapy, and counseling.

Response to

InterventionRtI Tiered process o instruction designed to identiy struggling students earlybeore reerrals to

special educationand provide targeted instructional interventions.

Section 504 Plan Individualized plans detailing accommodations necessary to meet the special needs o disabledstudents. Unlike IEPs, which govern the provision o specialized educational services,

Section 504 plans (required under the ederal Rehabilitation Act, not IDEA) typically concernnoninstructional accommodations.

Special education Specially designed instruction to meet the unique needs o a SWD.

Special EducationLocal Plan Area SELPA Collaborative o one or more school districts, county oces o education, and/or charter schoolsthat coordinate to provide special education services or SWDs in their service area.

Special day class SDC Special classes that serve pupils with severe disabilities whose more intensive educational

needs cannot be met in regular classrooms. Typically located on a regular school campus.

(Continued)




27/28


Specifc learning

disability

SLD Disorder aecting one or more o the basic processes involved in understanding/using language

or perorming mathematical calculations. Most common disability diagnosis or students

receiving special education services. Dyslexia is one commonly identied SLD.

State Special

Schools

SSS Three state-run residential schools or dea and blind students: the Caliornia Schools or the

Dea in Riverside and Fremont, and the Caliornia School or the Blind in Fremont.

Students withdisabilities

SWDs Term used to reer to disabled students who have ormally qualied to receive special educationservices covered under the IDEA.

Student SuccessTeam or Student

Study Team

SST A team o educators convened at the request o a classroom teacher, parent, or counselor,that designs in-class interventions to meet the needs o a particular student prior to a special

education reerral or development o an IEP.

Transitionservices

Federal requirement that IEPs or SWDs ages 16 and older include a coordinated set o servicesto improve the transition rom secondary education to postsecondary education, work

programs, and/or independent living.

WorkAbility

Program

State vocational education program that provides grants to about 300 middle and high schools

to oer pre-employment skills training, employment placement, work-site training, and ollow-up services or SWDs.




28/28

LAO Publications

This repo rt was prepared by Rachel Ehlers and reviewed by Jennier Kuhn. The Legislative Analysts Ofce (LAO) is a

nonpartisan ofce that provides fscal and policy inormation and advice to the Legislature.

To request publications call (916) 445-4656. This repo rt and others, as well as an e-mail subscription service,

are available on the LAOs website at www.lao.ca.gov. The LAO is located at 925 L Street, Suite 1000,

Sacramento, CA 95814.


Documents

LAO Report: CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS FACE RISING SPECIAL ED COSTS