IMPROVED COORDINATION BETWEEN TITLE I AND IDEA

Recommendations from NASTID & NASDSE

June 2011

Direct Questions or Suggestions to:

Rich Long, Executive DirectorNational Association of State Title I Directors (NASTID)richlong@titlei.org

Bill East, Executive DirectorNational Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE)bill.east@nasdse.org

What is NASTID?

• Not-for-profit membership organization• Membership is made up of state education agency

officials responsible for administering Title I in their state

• The mission of the association is to: “To enable disadvantaged children and youth to meet or exceed high academic state standards, the National Title I Association builds the capacity of state and local educators for leadership, support and advocacy in the design and effective implementation of programs under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).”

What is NASDSE?

• Not-for-profit membership organization• Members are special education directors from

the 50 states and 11 federal jurisdictions• Mission is to assist state education agencies

provide improved educational outcomes for students with disabilities.

What is Title I?

• Part of ESEA that provides funds to school districts with high numbers of children living in poverty

• Provides needed supports to close the achievement gap between low-income children and their more affluent peers

• Provides services to approximately 17 million students with a $14 billion federal appropriation (FY 2010)

What is the IDEA?

• Entitlement program ensuring identification and services for students with disabilities

• Specially designed individualized instruction in the least restrictive environment

• Services for approximately 7 million students ages birth through 21 with a $12 billion appropriation

Why is Better Coordination Needed?

• Approximately 2.5 million students are served by Title I and IDEA

• Administrative requirements overlap and are often duplicative, contradictory or lack clarity

NASTID/NASDSE Collaboration

• IDEA Partnership at NASDSE convened a Community of Practice in 2008

• Presentations at NASDSE and Title I conferences

• Title I/IDEA Workgroup• Collaborative paper with recommendations

for improved coordination

What Areas Overlap?

Many areas of Title I and IDEA overlap, but this initiative will focus on:

1.accountability2.compliance/outcome requirements3.program requirements4.integrated instruction

1. ACCOUNTABILITY

Under Title I:• Move every child toward academic proficiency• Identify schools’ annual yearly progress• Implement appropriate

interventions/sanctions

1. ACCOUNTABILITY

Under IDEA:• Ensure that students receive a free,

appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment

• Ensure that rights of children and parents are protected

Accountability Areas of Focus

1. Assessment2. Adequate Yearly Progress3. Universal Design for Learning4. Graduation Rate5. Data Collection

Assessment

• Proposed Change:To impact instruction, ensure that assessment results are shared with teachers in a way that is both timely and useful.

• Issue:In some states, assessment results are returned too late for teachers to make adjustments in their teaching.

Adequate Yearly Progress

• Proposed Change:Encourage organizations to work together to determine how best to balance a focus on individual student growth (IDEA) with improvement from year to year within a single grade (ESEA).

• Issue:AYP does not measure individual student performance from year to year. Rather it compares how well a school is making progress towards reaching the goal of all students being proficient by school year 2013-14.

Universal Design for Learning (UDL)

• Proposed Change:Principles of UDL should infuse both instruction and assessments across all education programs.

• Issue:Students do not always have curriculum and assessment materials in a format that is accessible to them.

Graduation Rate

• Proposed Changes:Provide a common definition of graduation rate and a single data collection point. ESEA regulations should recognize that under IDEA, some students may need additional time.

• Issue:All students should have access to a quality education to help them graduate college and/or career ready. Some students need individualized instruction and time to complete their curriculum and transition services.

Data Collection (1)

• Proposed Change 1:Identify 5-10 required data points that are most critical (e.g., graduation rate, dropout rate, post-school outcomes) and focus on these for both Title I and IDEA. Include stakeholders in determining which data points are most critical to be reported at the federal level.

• Issue 1:The US-ED lacks a coherent approach to data collection. Under IDEA, similar data are collected at different times and some data are reported under EDFacts, while Annual Performance Report (APR) data under the State Performance Plan (SPP) are not. Under Title I, states report under a Consolidated State Performance Report (CSPR) submitted through EDFacts. The different reporting dates with different terms or different definitions for similar data points is most confusing.

Data Collection (2)

• Proposed Change 2:The Government Accountability Office (GAO) should conduct a study of the overall cost of education data collection for states.

• Issue 2:Data collection is burdensome for states. Many states report hiring multiple staff exclusively for meeting Title I and/or IDEA data collection. The exact cost is unclear.

Data Collection (3)

• Proposed Change 3:EDFacts should be the basic reporting system and should serve as the repository for all data (including Title I and IDEA) reported to the US-ED.

• Issue 3:Because data are collected in a piecemeal fashion by individual programs, the sharing of data across programs is a challenge.

Data Collection (4)

• Proposed Change 4:All data need to be current (i.e. less than 12 months old) and data collection systems should be constructed with the intent of reporting data in a timely way.

• Issue 4:Many policy decisions are based on outdated data. In IDEA, states are often cited for violations that have already been corrected.

Data Collection (5)

• Proposed Change 5:All data collected need to be linked to specific anticipated actions by the US-ED or specific requirements for state action in the statutes.

• Issue 5:Not all data collected are currently being used due to the immense volume. For example, under IDEA, Indicator 8 (Part B) is not used at the federal level except to monitor the response rate.

2. COMPLIANCE/OUTCOME REQUIREMENTS

1. Maintenance of Effort2. Supplement Not Supplant

Maintenance of Effort

• Proposed Change:The US-ED should provide guidance for schools serving students enrolled in both programs regarding how to comply with the two laws’ differing maintenance of effort requirements.

• Issue:Maintenance of effort is defined differently under the two laws, creating confusion at the local level about how to administer programs in compliance with two sets of requirements.

Supplement Not Supplant

• Proposed Change:The US-ED guidance on supplement not supplant should clarify the differences between each program’s requirements, and include recommendations on how states can support the use of Response to Intervention/Multi-tiered System of Support (RTI/MTSS) without violating the supplement not supplant requirements.

• Issue:The measurements of supplement not supplant are different for each program. In Title I, there are differences between school-wide programs and targeted assistance schools.

3. PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS

1. Working Across Programs2. Definitions3. Paraprofessionals

Working Across Programs

• Proposed Change:The US-ED should development recommendations for schools on how they can increase collaboration across programs.

• Issue:The complexity of Title I and IDEA requirements sometimes creates concern in schools and districts that collaboration across programs will result in being cited in a compliance review. This can reduce the likelihood of collaboration between the two programs.

Definitions

• Proposed Change:The US-ED should include in its materials, trainings and technical assistance an acknowledgement of the different definitions within the two laws, as well as guidance for reconciling the requirements of both.

• Issue:Differing definitions for the same or similar concepts create confusion at state and local levels. The lack of clarity makes it difficult for administrators to apply the laws effectively.

Paraprofessionals

• Proposed Change:Schools should include paraprofessionals in professional development activities that are the same or comparable to those received by teachers. More flexibility regarding Title I aides would allow for more flexibility in their use in school-wide programs.

• Issue:The integration of paraprofessionals into Title I or IDEA programs varies widely. Under Title I, parapros monitor instructional tasks and are required to either pass a proficiency test or have an associate degree. Under IDEA, parapros provide support in academics, health or behavior-related activities, but there are no specific requirements for paraprofessionals in the IDEA.

4. INTEGRATING INSTRUCTION (MTSS/RTI) (1)

• Proposed Change 1:Proposed changes: Schools and school districts should be allowed to use their comprehensive early intervening funds (i.e., up to 15 percent of their federal IDEA funds) to implement all tiers, including the basic tier, of a Response to Intervention/Multi-tiered System of Supports, whether they have elected voluntarily to develop such a system or have been ordered to redirect 15 percent of their federal funds by the state education agency.

• Issue 1:Schools using 15% of their IDEA funds for struggling learners are not able to use those funds for Tier I services in a RTI/MTSS model. It remains unclear what this means for schoolwide Title I programs.

4. INTEGRATING INSTRUCTION (2)

• Proposed Change 2:The US-ED should issue guidelines for states to develop a waiver procedure that would allow states to issue Title I schools an exception from supplement not supplant requirements if they can show that they are implementing with fidelity a robust RTI/MTSS model.

• Issue 2:If a state or district requires all schools to implement RTI/MTSS, Title I funds are at risk of supplanting rather than supplementing federal, state and local funds.

What Next? – Topics for Further Discussion

1. Flexibility2. Defining the Effective Teacher3. Formative Assessments and Progress

Monitoring

Where to go for more information

• National Title I Assocation – www.titlei.org• National Association of State Directors of

Special Education – www.nasdse.org