| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
A good resource of member district thoughts on the State Board of Education proposed revisions for the Special Education Code. In keeping with GSCS focus on school funding, the GSCS question to the state is this: Will the State provide support for the additional cost drivers inherent in the code? Some surveys indicate the proposed code provisions will result in a 30% cost increase to current special education programs.
GSCS question: Will the State provide funding support inherent in proposed New Special Education Code?
Some notable district issues:
1
*******************************************************
2
|
H |
Financial Impact Analysis of
Proposed Special Education Code Changes
(Effective July 1, 2005)
Presented to the
December 19, 2005
A detailed review of the code has been conducted by Director of Special Education Celeste Curley, Special Education Supervisor (Grades 6-12) Isabelle Richards and Special Education Supervisor (Grades K-5) David Tate. The following is a list of the most economically costly changes for
Item 1
Consent shall be obtained . . . 6. Whenever a member of the IEP team is excused from participating in a meeting pursuant to subsection (K) below 6A: 14-2.3(a)
We now have the necessary participants attend the meeting but only for a portion of the time. If given the option parents would prefer to have staff at the meeting for the entire time. Requiring parents to put in writing permission to have a meeting without all participants will keep staff from classrooms and student services as well as increase substitute costs.
$10,500
Item 2
Time lines for CST reports and responses 6A:14-2.3(h) 1
(CST)Have an apportioned amount of time for case management responsibilities specified by the district board of education 6A:14-3.2
(Regarding transfer students) . . . the district shall conduct all necessary assessments and within 30 days of the date the student is enrolls in the district, develop and implement a new IEP for the student. 6A:14-4.1(g) 2
Time lines for CST evaluations, documentation, responses to requests, and have been shortened. If BOE is required to specify time for case management as well there will be a need to increase CST staff. With three additional staff members the department could meet the proposed requirements and keep the same level of parental service and instructional support.
$195,000
Item 3
Related services including but not limited to . . . . recreation . . . medical services . . 6A:14-3.9 (a)
The listing of recreation and medical services as related services are new in the code and will raise many possibilities such as nursing care, maintenance of cochlear implants, summer camps and after school social activities that we will have to provide or spend time and money in litigation.
$220,000
Item 4
Programs for preschool students with autism shall operate for a minimum of 25 hours per week, unless a student’s IEP provides otherwise. 6A:14-4.1 (d) 1
This would require a full day pre-school or a substantial home program. Home programs are a significant administrative and fiscal undertaking and have proven to be most difficult to administer in the student’s home.
Although the code does not actually require 25 hours, our parents would question any IEP that suggested less than 25 hours as this code is written.
$215,000
Item 5
When a student with a disability receives instruction for a particular subject area in either a single subject resource program or a special class program, the student shall receive an equivalent amount of instructional time as provided general education students for each subject area. 6A:14-4.1(l)
This has been a long term concern that would require a minimum of three teachers and depending on scheduling be as many as 5 teachers as well as additional space.
$495,000
Item 6
(Must discuss with parent) In-class resource programs 6A:14-4.3 (a) 8
Documentation of such a discussion will follow and will create a demand for more collaborative classrooms. The collative model is the most expensive teaching model the District offers. TBD
Item 7
(Regarding extended school year) . . . (need) shall be documented with data collection subsequent to breaks in the provision of educational services in accordance with the district board of education calendar. 6A:14-4.3(c)
This will require District wide pre-and post testing (teacher made) before and after school breaks as well as at the end and beginning of year. There is an associated cost with test administration as well as CST time to analyze results. It is difficult to predict if our actual ESY numbers would go up in elementary school. However, middle and high school numbers are a complete unknown as ESY is a minimal service at these levels.
$504,000.
Item 8
(Regarding paraprofessionals in in-class resource room) The District Board of education shall provide the teacher aide and the appropriate general or special education teaching staff time for consultation on a regular basis, which shall be set forth in policies adopted by the district board of education 6A: 14-4.5(d)
There are fiscal and contractual considerations. Currently each principal handles collaborative planning time on a situational basis.
$111,200
Item 9
Supplementary instruction in (a) above shall be provided individually or in groups according to the numbers for single subject pull-out resource program. 6A:14-4.6(b)
This provision would limit our supplementary instruction periods to 6. At the high school classes currently range 6 to 9 students.
$792,400
Item 10
The age span in an approved single subject pull-out resource program shall not exceed three years. 6A: 14-4.6 (k)
The reduction from 4 years to 3 years will have the biggest impact on the high school program as students of mixed ages attend subject area classes as needed. County office can give a waiver for this; however, it is not an automatic waiver.
$210,00
Item 11
The maximum number of students with disabilities that shall receive an in-class resource program shall be eight (8) at the preschool or elementary level, and ten (10) at the secondary level, except that the total number of students with disabilities receiving in-class resource program shall not exceed 50 percent of the total class enrollment. (no waivers will be allowed) 6A:14-4.6 (n)
Phased classes at the high school as well as resource room will have to be converted into collaboratives.
$260,000
Item 12
Learning and or language disabilities class the instructional size is (numbers reduced to) 8; with an aide 9-12(students) 6A:14-4.7(e)
Our language learning classes will be capped and limit our capacity for tuition students.
$60,000
Total Estimated Cost: $2,753,100
********************************************************************************************
3 Districts note issue of requirement to reduce ‘permitted student age range from 4 years apart [now the current practice] to three years apart’ in self-contained classes.
E.g., The new code reduced the permitted student age range from four years apart (current) to three years apart in a self contained class. Middle
school houses a Language/Learning Disabled Class of five students. This
school houses grades five through eight (four grades). Under the new
code, will have to hire a new teacher for one student (either the fifth
or the eighth grader) who will now be outside the range. The others
will be in a class of four. Or, another alternative, will have to send one out of
district and pay tuition. In addition, this is a setting which also includes
instructional aides for the class of five.
********************************************************************************************
4 Suggested
January 17, 2006
State Board of Education Members
New Jersey Department of Education
100 River View Plaza
Dear Members of the State Board of Education,
The New Jersey State Board of Education will soon adopt a new Special Education Code, N.J.A.C. 6A:14, which will guide the process of special education in our state. The Department of Education is commended for their efforts in seeking to add flexibility and create efficiencies in the provision of special education programming. There are a number of proposed code revisions that I would like to address which I believe have the greatest impact upon children, families and school districts.
Timelines for holding meetings, making decisions, and completing evaluations are critical components of our process which fosters accountability and clear expectations for all parties. Any reduction in time allocated for districts to complete processes such as the provision of written notice, reevaluations or determinations regarding independent evaluations potentially serve to create undue difficulties for school districts. Throughout the code proposal many of the timelines have been changed from fifteen (15) days to ten (10) days. This reduction in time could cause serious difficulties in district compliance. The proposed code language will require reevaluations to be completed within forty-five (45) days. Reevaluations often consist of evaluations by specialists contracted by the school district. School districts are at the mercy of outside professionals with regard to scheduling appointments and receiving written reports. This proposed timeline reduction is not in the best interest of students, parents or districts. It is suggested that the current language regarding reevaluation timelines remain.
Language regarding independent evaluations is addressed in the code proposal on a few levels. The proposal provides language which allows a district the opportunity to conduct its own evaluation prior to providing an independent evaluation. This is certainly a positive step as the sole purpose of an independent evaluation should be to facilitate the resolution of a disagreement between the parents and district regarding the evaluative measures and interpretation of an evaluation. Independent evaluation requests require a thorough review of all data which requires sufficient time. Retaining current language which allows for twenty (20) days for all responses is recommended. Additionally, the code proposal requires that independent evaluations be conducted within forty-five (45) calendar days. Independent evaluations often involve specialty areas where evaluators are not readily available. Once again, school districts are at the mercy of outside professionals with regard to scheduling appointments and receiving written reports. Therefore, it is suggested that the current timelines remain in effect.
The IEP process is designed to be a collaborative exchange between the parent and district. Discussions at these meetings should be open and allow for the development of a mutually agreed upon document that best addresses the child’s needs. The code proposal requires that an IEP be provided to the parent at the conclusion of the IEP development meeting. This proposed requirement would severely hinder the collaborative process. Many districts do not have the technological ability to produce a document quickly at the conclusion of the meeting and even when a draft has been provided, the revisions and additions could be significant. It is strongly recommended that the current code language remain in effect with written notice provided within fifteen (15) days as this would allow for the use of an IEP as written notice without forcing a sometimes unmanageable and unproductive conclusion to the most valuable of collaborations.
Class size is critically important in both general and special education programs. The proposal to reduce the class size in special education self contained programs should serve to enhance the educational experience for children with special needs. However, it is suggested that the board consider modifying class size reduction numbers and phase implementation of such a reduction over time. Class size reduction will potentially create the need for additional teaching staff which must be budgeted.
Decreasing age range restrictions from four (4) years to three (3) reduces flexibility and may create unnecessary hardships for many districts. On the secondary level, with specific course requirements for graduation, this change could necessitate the need to create a special education section for a single student, certainly not a practical or beneficial scenario for the student or the district. Districts are also experiencing space constraints within their buildings. Reducing the age range will increase the need for additional classroom space and require the hiring of additional personnel. The age range change may result in an increased burden to local taxpayers due to these additional financial costs to districts in staffing and facilities. This unnecessary requirement for additional and more restrictive programs and sections does not seem warranted or practical. It is suggested that the current age range remain in effect since student needs continue to be successfully addressed within the current four year age range.
The proposal to amend IEPs without convening a meeting should serve to create flexibility in servicing children with disabilities. This type of flexibility will allow for increased efficiency and more time for personnel to provide direct services to children while ensuring that parental involvement through written consent is maintained.
However, much of this intended flexibility is reduced by the inclusion of added language requiring written consent to exclude personnel whose area is not being discussed and or those members of the IEP team who will not remain for the entire meeting. This provision will add to the already cumbersome paperwork and hinder the delivery of direct services to students. The current code provides for the ability of a case manager to discuss all areas in which they are comfortable and familiar. This allows personnel to spend more time with children and less at meetings. Often parents feel overwhelmed by the number of district personnel at a meeting; this provision would exacerbate this situation. Therefore, it is suggested that existing code language be maintained.
The inclusion of preschool criteria for eligibility is a welcomed addition to the proposed code. However, the statement that a preschool evaluation should include “what accommodations and modifications may be required to participate in the classroom and activities” should be removed. This statement would be better included in the program section rather than evaluation as it assumes eligibility.
The proposed code contains language regarding case management and consultation that could prove unnecessarily prescriptive. The proposal requires that that the frequency and duration of consultation be stated in a student’s IEP. Consultation requirements fluctuate throughout the year depending upon student needs. The inclusion of a specific frequency and duration would limit both the individual time needed as well as the direct services to other children. It is suggested that current language be retained regarding consultation and allowing this to occur on an “as needed” basis.
Requiring a district to specify an apportioned amount of time for case management would limit both the district and the case manager’s ability to perform their duties. Case management duties and the time to complete them vary throughout the day, week, month, and year. Requiring a district to arbitrarily choose an amount of time for case management would serve to limit services to students. Retaining current language, which is silent in this area, is suggested.
Teachers of special class programs functioning as case managers should be removed from the proposed code. Case management requires knowledge of district programs as well as an objectivity that may be difficult to achieve by the classroom teacher. In addition, case management responsibilities would reduce the teacher’s ability to provide direct services to students. Case management should remain with child study team members.
The new IDEA allows for a district to challenge the sufficiency of a due process request. This has the potential to decrease unnecessary legal hearings and facilitate collaborative efforts between parents and districts. The fewer AOL hearings devoted to these matters the lower the cost to both parents and districts and the more time allowed for child welfare issues. The committee is urged to utilize this clause.
In summary, the proposed Special Education Code will foster continued strides in the way we provide educational programs to children with special needs. Thank you for taking the time to consider my comments and suggestions as you move forward with this meaningful process.
Sincerely yours,
Superintendent of Schools
And from a Somerset County Director of Student Services .....
1-18-05 to the New Jersey State Board of Education:
...I have pondered for quite some time how to convey this message regarding the proposed amendments to New Jersey Administrative Code 6A:14 governing Special Education. I go back to the primary intent of IDEA 2004 in its determination to focus resources on teaching and learning, with an accompanying requirement to reduce paperwork, and to reduce administrative requirements that do not assist in improving educational results for students with disabilities. This becomes the three-part lens by which I ask you, to reexamine each proposed change to 6A:14. As you review each proposed change I urge you to ask: if they do not infuse flexibility, if they do not reduce administrative requirements and paperwork, if they do not focus our energies, our efforts, our time, our resources on improving educational results for students with disabilities, then it does not meet the intent of the reauthorization of IDEA 2004. If not, then what student centered reason can there be to over regulate.
I will provide you with written examples such as shorter timelines, more written notice; additional paperwork not connected to instruction where I do not believe the proposed changes meet any one of these three lenses and therefore need to be eliminated.
First, I will also ask you to step back and take a closer look at the status of the profession of Special Education here in
I won’t take up my limited time to speak to the shortage of dollars that we are all experiencing. From a school district’s perspective there is but one box of money that we access to educate all of our students, operate our facilities, and provide extra & co-curricular programs. Over-regulation and items such as reductions in class size or age span grouping will continue to drive up our Special Education costs. With multiple years of flat funding from the state you will ultimately create an unintended tug-of-war for dollars between “Regular Education and Special Education”.
All of us have tremendous passion for our own children. That passion should be encouraged. But if that passion becomes a fight over a limited amount of dollars to support each individual’s “sacred cow” program, class, sport or elective, it is my guess that it will not be an inclusive, supportive discussion about all children.
What will we do when a significant percentage of the district dollars goes to fund our services and programs while Regular Education programs are cut back, removed, or reduced to “pay to play” as a result of providing under funded, over-regulated, mandated programs, I’m concerned about the potential for this conflict and the student casualties that may result.
When I meet with our young, talented Special Education staff members who are doing some absolutely remarkable things with their students, I am optimistic and enthusiastic. I stand in awe of their many talents, skills and commitment. They have come into our profession to nurture children, to educate students, to reach out to those who are in need of something special in order to achieve in our educational setting.
I can assure you that they have not come into this profession with a passion for paperwork. They have not come into the profession with any desire to be engaged in conflict or an adversarial relationship with parents. They did not come into our craft to testify or to be cross examined in an administrative law hearing. On a national level, the decreasing longevity of individuals who become teachers of students with disabilities is alarming. The average length of their professional career is now less than five years. Young Special Education teachers burn out and leave our craft at an alarming rate. In their exit interviews they cite excessive paperwork, unmanageable timelines, over regulation, contentious relationships with a small number of parents, lack of support, absence of focus on instruction. Now ask yourselves, will our revised code assist our New Jersey Special Educators to feel any differently?
This aforementioned data and other information drove the IDEA to refocus on teaching and learning, to reduce paperwork and administrative requirements. If we do not adhere to those goals, if you do not make certain that our New Jersey Administrative Code is philosophically consistent with the spirit of IDEA 2004 then we will have not learned from history and we will be doomed to repeat the past.
I urge you to take out that three-part lens to slowly, systematically, analytically, review each and every recommendation for change that you have in front of you. If it does not infuse flexibility, if it does not reduce paperwork and/or administrative requirements, if it does not focus on improving educational results for students with disabilities, then you must recognize that it has deviated, however well intentioned from the intent of the reauthorization of IDEA 2004.
If you stay the current course of 6A:14 we will spend more on staff, paperwork, litigation, mediation, complaint investigation. If you can see your way clear to provide flexibility and some degree of professional freedom I believe we will produce better student outcomes. That would truly be priceless!
The testimony that I present to you today is in response to careful analysis of the proposed revisions to the New Jersey Administrative Code 6A:14 governing education for students with disabilities in the state of
I approached this task using a three-part lens to read through the proposed changes in regulations. They are, one, did it infuse flexibility? Two, did it reduce administrative requirements? Three, did it focus resources in teaching and learning?
6A:14-1.2 Formation of a parent advisory group in each school district
Although we have had a parent group here in Bridgewater-Raritan for a number of years and I had one in the ten years that I served as the Director in
6A:14-2.3
This section requests that notice of meetings set forth the role or function of each member scheduled to attend. Using the three-part lens of the goals of the Department, I do not see where this meets any of those three parts. It may prove to be cumbersome, and as we know with potential for staff absences could create unnecessary burdens with regard to the execution of required meetings.
Secondly, this section addresses the need for informed written consent to excuse an IEP team member. I want to take this opportunity to applaud the department for allowing this to become part of the Code which should make for a much more efficient and effective execution of meetings, where both parties agree that certain IEP team members can be excused with parental consent. However, I wonder once again whether requiring additional paperwork to make this happen will add labor to the process and does it meet your second goal of reducing administrative requirements?
Third and finally in this section, there is the opportunity for parents to revoke consent. Your proposed code does not speak to the effective date for that to happen. Will that be effective at the point of receipt? Will it be effective the date of it being written? Further clarification will be needed in this area in order for effective implementation of practice.
6A:14-3.2
The opportunity for teachers of the Special Class Program to serve as Case Manager for students with disabilities does not seem from my administrative perspective to be a particularly good idea. It does not keep their role clean, in fact, it compromises their position as a teacher of those students in terms of dealing efficiently and effectively with parents. Their knowledge of law and code is not effective enough from my perspective as an Executive Director of Student Services to enable them to serve in that capacity. And further, I believe that it goes against the grain of having a Multi-Disciplinary team.
6A:14-3.4
This section speaks to being able to extend the time line for completion of evaluation by mutual agreement between the parent and the school district. I applaud the department for recognizing that there are extenuating? and circumstances where this is required. However, to me, the limitation of making it germane only to transfer students once again reflects the absence of the ability to infuse flexibility into the process. There are and can be a number of reasons why students may be physically or mentally unavailable for assessments including psychiatric hospitalizations, as well as physical health and maladies. I would urge the Department of Education to leave this potential for extension solely by mutual agreement between the parent and the school district, and not feel compelled to over-regulate the times at which this may happen. Simply, once again, the opportunity for mutual agreement should be sufficient for appropriate execution of these extensions.
6A:14-3.5
In terms of trying to redefine the definition of Multiply Disabled, I believe that the regulations move programming into the realm of the classification, which is the essence of putting the cart in front of the horse. As you are all well aware, the process of determining eligibility for Special Education begins with assessing whether a student meets one of certain categories for eligibility and subsequent to that, reviewing the adverse educational impact as well as their need for Special Education. By moving programming into that decision making process, it precludes the process from taking its logical, required course and moving through in the appropriate sequential manner. Certainly the intent of trying to reduce the number of students who meet the definition of Multiply Disabled is understood. I suggest that you create a revision here that does not incorporate programming into the categorical definition.
6A:14-3.7
Regarding goals two and three, reducing administrative requirements and focusing resources on teaching and learning, this subsection fails in both categories by requiring districts to maintain additional documentation that teachers or providers have been informed of their specific responsibilities relating to implementing the IEP is the creation of additional administrative requirements and paperwork. It also precludes recognition that in this day and age of computer and technological access, districts such as ours staff are able to gain immediate access to IEP documents based on the computer programs that we utilize for their development. Certainly, there is an expectation that all staff will be provided access to IEPs, but this codified requirement creates additional administrative paperwork and is burdensome to the process. I urge you to review this with your goals in mind and remove this requirement. Professional staff are just that, and the implied implication of 6A:14-3.7 is that they are anything but that, and therefore must be treated in some manner that spells out their specific responsibilities.
6A:14-3.8
I am hard pressed to find where the reduction of the timeline to 45 days for a reevaluation from the date of the request meets any of the three goals that you had set force. It does not infuse any flexibility, it adds administrative requirements, and it does not focus resources in teaching and learning. Certainly, when annual reviews are rolling forward simply to their anniversary date, that is one matter, but from the point of request, 45 days is burdensome and is unnecessary. From my perspective as an administrator of special education programming I urge you to return it to its original and appropriate timeline consistent with that for initial evaluations.
6A:14-4.1
In this section, the Department of Education has said, “consistent with the Department’s Autism standards, programs for preschool students with Autism must receive services for a minimum of 25 hours per week.” I question why you would see fit to codify a program requirement based on a disability type, number one. Number two, there are no Autism standards from the Department of Education. If they are referring to their Autism program quality indicators, I point you to the introduction of that aforementioned document wherein the sixth paragraph down it says, “Educators and parents can use this document as a guide.” Once again further down at the bottom of the page it references, “the guidelines.” I have seen nothing in the operation of this school district that shows me that these are now standards from which we must operate and I believe that it is indeed not effective or appropriate educational practice to codify this by disability type. There are students with a number of significant types of disabilities who may require more than the 10 hours of programming prescribed for pre-school students eligible for Pre-school Disabled. Although all of us would recognize the provision of a minimum of 28.5 hours as typically appropriate practice for students on the Autistic spectrum disorder, it is just that, it is a spectrum disorder and therefore there are students of a variety of levels. Not all students with Autism will be appropriately educated with 25 hours, and with others 25 hours may be much more than what they require. I believe that the Department of Education has taken a most dangerous step by codifying program based on a disability type. It flies against the grain of individualized educational programming and I would urge you to remove this from 6A:14.
6A:14-4.5
This section speaks to permitting aids to provide supplementary supports to students pursuant to their IEPs and then proceeds to detail a list of those types of services. Again I would suggest that you have failed to meet your goals of infusing flexibility or reducing administrative requirements by providing this list. I believe that teacher assistants can play a valuable role in supplementally supporting students with IEPs in both special classes (resource centers) and regular education, but why develop a restrictive list of their tasks? How does this provide us with flexibility? There are a number of different areas where teacher assistants are able to support students, and again, by creating a definitive list you removed the opportunity for individualization in the execution of these duties. This is once again an example of over-regulation and most unnecessary.
6A:14-4.6
This section has lowered the age-span grouping for single subject pullout for resource programs from four years to three years. Although in the vast majority of cases there is rarely a time that resource programming extends the four year age-span, I am left to wonder why the Department of Education has seen fit to reduce what has been a standard for a number of years, and continues to be a standard in special class programming. Again, if your goal was to infuse flexibility and reduce administrative requirements, you have failed in this area.
Secondly in 4.6, you had seen fit to increase the in-class resource programming to eight at the pre-school and elementary levels and ten at the secondary level, for which I applaud you, however, in what can only be described once again as an example of over-regulation, you have seen fit to require that the number of students receiving an in-class resource program should not exceed 50% of the total class enrollment. Although on an intellectual level, I don’t know that any of this would disagree with this as a goal, to codify it as such places us in a most unusual situation particularly at the secondary level, where in high schools there is indeed level programming and students along with their IEP teams and guidance counselors make selections. How do you propose that I resolve the following situation here in
And last but not least, the final item in 4.6 provides the flexibility for single subject pullout resource programs can be increased with the addition of an instructional assistant. Once again, in-class programs are not able to enjoy that benefit. I would ask you to look at this very carefully as number one, it is a financial disincentive to include kids in the least restrictive environment and number two, as a result is not in any way supportive of educating students with disabilities in the least restrictive educational environment. I would suggest that there be some allowance created so that there is comparability between the ability to increase single subject pullout programs as well as in-class comparable to what should be allowed for in-class programming so that there is no financial disincentive to pull kids out to receive their special education
************************************************************************
6 Excerpts from NJASA advisory re code:
The proposed Code can be found at: http://www.nj.gov/njded/code/proposed/ Comments about the proposed code can be sent to the Departmentthrough its website or directly to: comments6A14@doe.state.nj.us . The pre-proposal regulations will be published in the New Jersey Register on December 19, 2005, and the 30-day comment period will follow. The regulations will be at the formal proposal level on March 1,2006, and public testimony will be taken on March 15, 2006; however, at that juncture it is likely on technical amendments will be entertained. Some of the changes include, but are not limited to: · Mandated reductions in class size for self-contained SLD and
mild cognitively impaired students from 16 to 12;· Special class teachers as case managers;
· Districts must maintain documentation to show teachers/providers have
been informed of their responsibilities in the IEP; · Requiring frequency and duration of consultation time to be
indicated in the IEP; and· IEP must be given at the IEP meeting.
