United states deparment of education office of special education and rehabilitative services

B. SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVED RESULTS

The OSEP Validation Collection Phase took place in October l998. Although many of the provisions of IDEA 97 were effective on June 4, 1997, some of the new requirements became effective for IEPs developed on or after July 1, 1998. OSEP did not review any IEPs that were developed, reviewed, or revised after July 1, l998. The following observations by OSEP staff are presented to the NDE to work with districts throughout the state to ensure that monitoring and technical assistance activities conducted by the State address the following two new requirements of IDEA 97, namely participation in state and district-wide assessments and free appropriate public education for students whose behavior impedes learning. OSEP did not, therefore, make any findings of noncompliance regarding the new IEP requirements, but makes the following suggestions to assist NDE in ensuring future compliance.

1. State and District-wide Assessments

§612(a)(17)(A)); 614(d)(1)(A)(v)(I) and (II) of the Act

The State must demonstrate that children with disabilities are included in general State and district-wide assessment programs, with appropriate accommodations and modifications in the administration of the assessment, if necessary. As appropriate, the State or local education agency must develop guidelines for the participation of children with disabilities who cannot participate in State and district-wide assessment programs. The IEP must include a statement of any individual modifications in the administration of State or district-wide assessments of student achievement, if needed, for a child with a disability to participate in the assessment. If the IEP team determines that the child will not participate in a State or district-wide assessment (or part of an assessment), the IEP must contain a statement of why that assessment is not appropriate for the child and how the child will be assessed.
The State does not have a statewide assessment program and does not require local districts to conduct district-wide assessments. As noted above, the IEPs reviewed by OSEP were developed after June 4, l997 and before July 1, 1998. Throughout all five districts, OSEP found inconsistent practice and rationale for the inclusion of students with moderate mental retardation in district-wide assessment programs. Although IEPs indicated that students would not be included in district-wide assessments, the students’ IEPs did not specify why the assessment was not appropriate. Nor did the IEPs specify an alternate assessment.

2. 
   Free Appropriate Public Education for Students Whose Behavior Impedes Learning §614(d)(3)(B) of the Act
   

Provision of appropriate behavioral supports may contribute to a student’s ability to remain in and succeed in the regular education classroom. If the IEP team determines that a student with a disability needs a particular device or service (including an intervention, accommodation, or other program modification), the IEP team includes a statement to that effect in the child’s IEP.

In the case of a child whose behavior impedes his or her learning or that of others, school systems must consider, if appropriate, strategies, including positive behavioral interventions and supports to address that behavior. OSEP learned through interviews with teachers in two districts the needs of students with more intensive behavioral needs are not being addressed.

In one district the lack of school-based expertise and the limited availability of technical assistance providers resulted in students not being able to access the regular education classroom programs. For example, one of the students in this district was required to wait several months for a behavioral intervention plan to be developed.

OSEP suggests that NDE develop strategies and training to ensure that expertise is readily available to each school district to develop behavior intervention plans in a timely manner so that students will receive free appropriate public education.

VIII. PART B: SECONDARY TRANSITION

The National Longitudinal Transition Study of Special Education Students reports that the rate of competitive employment for youth with disabilities out of school three to five years was 57 percent, compared to an employment rate of 69 percent for youth in the general population. The Study identified several factors that were associated with post-school success in obtaining competitive employment and earning higher wages for youth with disabilities. These included completing high school, spending more time in regular education, and taking occupationally oriented vocational education courses in secondary school. The Study has shown that post-school success is associated with youth who had a transition plan in high school that specified an outcome, such as employment, as a goal.

The 1998 results of a research study conducted by DeStefano, Hasazi and Furney on the implementation of the transition requirements of IDEA at the State and local levels from 1991 through 1999 concluded that in order to encourage the development and implementation of effective practices and policies related to transition, State and local districts might consider the following: link transition initiatives to related structuring initiatives; expand participation of parents and students in policy development, governance, transition planning and evaluation; support the development of substantive approaches to interagency collaboration; include research and evaluation activities at all levels of implementation in order to inform planning, policy and program improvement; expand secondary/transition options for specific populations of students, particularly those labeled with emotional and behavioral disabilities; and expand postsecondary options for students with disabilities. Results of not meeting IDEA 97 requirements for transition may include: students are not actively involved in transition planning; students do not receive appropriate transition services; parents are uninformed about their student’s individual transition needs and postsecondary outcomes; and transition plans do not reflect a coordinated set of activities within an outcome-oriented process which promote movement from school to post-school activities.
Validation Planning and Data Collection
Based on NDE’s self study and public input during validation planning, the Steering Committee requested that OSEP investigate the following issues related to the inconsistencies in transition planning: (1) Lack of training for parents and professionals; (2) Disparity of transition services between rural and urban settings; and (3) Transition programs and opportunities impacted or limited by available resources.

A focus question asked during the public input meetings was: “ Do students with disabilities ages 14 and older, receive instruction and coordinated services that facilitate successful transition from school to work and from school to postsecondary activities?” Responses included that transition services were not always available to students ages 14 and older. During the Validation Data Collection phase, OSEP reviewed student records and interviewed

building administrators, teachers, parents, rehabilitation counselors, transition coordinators, and district directors of special education. Public input during the Validation Planning phase and results of OSEP data collection and analysis identified the following strengths and areas of noncompliance.

A. AREAS OF STRENGTH

Transition Project

The NDE Transition Project conducted a 1998 Transition Survey of students and parents to assess the status of students with disabilities following high school exit and to determine their perceptions of high school experiences, including the provision of transition services, employment, postsecondary education, access to adult service agencies and government benefits. Nebraska will use the results of the survey to ensure an on-going assessment of, and response to, the transition experiences and adult living status of individuals.

Transition Advisory Committee
The State of Nebraska established a State transition advisory committee. The committee is comprised of parents, teachers, administrators, employers and representatives from other agencies including the Department of Labor, Department of Health, Social Security and the Department of Social Services. The committee coordinates the efforts of these organizations in providing transition services to students with disabilities, gathers materials, sets priorities and assists public agencies in developing linkages and cooperative agreements in communities.
Rehabilitation Counselors
The OSEP-funded Transition Systems Change Grant provided funds to employ rehabilitation counselors at 18 sites throughout the State for the purpose of providing direct consultative services to individual students, and training and consultation with teachers and other service providers in public agencies. Part B funds are used to continue these positions after the grant terminated.
Interagency Collaboration
Interagency agreements have been developed to promote quality transition programs for youth with disabilities. NDE and the Office of Vocational Rehabilitation jointly fund the position of Vocational Rehabilitation Transition Coordinator. Juvenile justice transition services are provided to incarcerated youth through a jointly funded initiative of the Office of Vocational Rehabilitation and Office of Juvenile Justice. Approximately 100 students in an Omaha juvenile justice facility are provided job coaching, mentoring and GED programs. The State of Nebraska also funds the Job Coordinator Training Program for school-based job coaches.

B. AREAS OF NONCOMPLIANCE

Lack of Notice of Transition to Students
34 CFR §300.345(b)(2) requires that if a purpose of an IEP meeting is the consideration of transition services for a student, the notice must indicate this purpose, indicate that the agency will invite the student, and identify any other agency that will be invited to send a representative.
34 CFR §300.344(c) requires that, if a purpose of the meeting is the consideration of transition services for a student, the public agency shall invite: the student; and a representative of any other agency that is likely to be responsible for providing or paying for transition services. If the student does not attend, the public agency shall take other steps to ensure that the student’s preferences and interests are considered; and if an agency invited to send a representative to a meeting does not do so, the public agency shall take other steps to obtain the participation of the other agency in the planning of any transition services.

In two of the five school districts visited, even though transition planning was discussed in the meeting, meeting notices failed to indicate that one of the purposes of the meeting was for the consideration of transition services for the individual student.

IX. PART B: GENERAL SUPERVISION

IDEA assigns responsibility to State education agencies for ensuring that its requirements are met and that all educational programs for children with disabilities, including all such programs administered by any other State or local agency, are under the general supervision of the individuals in the State who are responsible for educational programs for children with disabilities and that these programs meet the educational standards of the State educational agency. State support and involvement at the local level are critical to the successful implementation of the provisions of IDEA. To carry out their responsibilities, States provide dispute resolution mechanisms (mediation, complaint resolution and due process), monitor the implementation of State and Federal statutes and regulations, establish standards for personnel development and certification as well as educational programs, and provide technical assistance and training across the State. Effective general supervision promotes positive student outcomes by promoting appropriate educational services to children with disabilities, ensuring the successful and timely correction of identified deficiencies, and providing personnel who work with children with disabilities the knowledge, skills and abilities necessary to carry out their assigned responsibilities.

If a State uses Part B funds that it receives under section 611 of the Act to provide early intervention services to infants and toddlers under the age of three, the State must comply with both Part C and Part B requirements in providing those services. In regard to those services, the State’s lead agency(ies) for Part C must ensure compliance with the requirements of Part C, and the State educational agency must ensure compliance with the requirements of Part B.
Validation Planning and Data Collection
During the Validation Planing process, public input sessions were held. Participants at the sessions were asked: “Does the State exercise effective general supervision of the implementation of IDEA?” Respondents identified lack of training for professional and paraprofessional staff in certain areas of the State, and availability of related services personnel.
During the Validation Data Collection process, OSEP collected information from the review of State and local policies and procedures, including monitoring, State complaint and due process information, personnel certification data, and conducted interviews with State and local special education personnel, teachers, parents, and related services personnel. OSEP identified the following suggestion for improved results.

SUGGESTION FOR IMPROVED RESULTS

1. Comprehensive System of Personnel Development (CSPD) Training for Paraprofessionals and Professionals
A. Training for Paraprofessionals
Each State is required by IDEA 97 to develop and implement a comprehensive system of personnel development, including the analysis of State and local needs for professional development, and a description of the strategies the State will use to address identified needs. School systems across Nebraska utilize paraprofessionals and educational assistants as a resource to support students and teachers in regular and special education classrooms. Administrators and teachers stated school systems have not recruited and retained an adequate number of paraprofessionals who are prepared to meet challenges of students with disabilities in the regular and special education classroom.
Across the five districts visited by OSEP, special and general education staff identified the following barriers to meeting requirements for an adequate supply of qualified personnel: (1) limited formal training opportunities for paraprofessionals to gain the necessary skills to meet the challenging and complex needs of students with disabilities; and (2) a highly competitive job market with low salary levels for paraprofessionals. Although the NDE sponsors one annual training program for paraprofessionals, administrators and educators in each of the five school districts recognized the need for more extensive and more frequent training for paraprofessional educators.

B. Training for Professionals
The State’s comprehensive system of personnel development must include a description of how the state prepares general education personnel with the content knowledge and collaborative skills needed to meet the needs of children with disabilities (34CFR§300.381). Because IDEA 97 requirements underscore the importance of students with disabilities access to the general curriculum and their placement in the regular education classroom, it is critical that regular education teachers participate in the IEP process to ensure accommodations and modifications are delivered under §614(d)(3)(c) of the Act.
Special education staff in four districts reported that training for regular education staff concerning the special education process is provided informally when the regular education teachers attend IEP meetings. Interviews in these four districts revealed teachers are aware of the concept of inclusion, but do not understand how to implement the specific learning strategies or provide required accommodations in the regular education classroom for students with disabilities. They further reported that the regular education teacher has not been adequately trained to maximize the skills of the special education paraprofessionals in the regular classroom. Additionally, special education staff reported little or no training for regular education teachers to allow them to effectively understand their role and participation in the IEP process.
The staff suggested that training should be offered to provide a general orientation about students with disabilities and to heighten awareness of specific individual student needs. Although OSEP did not find evidence of noncompliance in the public agencies visited, OSEP agrees that it is critical that the State continue to collect comprehensive data regarding personnel needs with respect to paraprofessionals and regular education teachers to develop a formalized training program to ensure an adequate supply of knowledgeable, appropriately trained personnel to support students with disabilities in regular education classrooms.