Connecticut

The Center for Law and Education (CLE) has issued a memo challenging USDE’s IDEA guidance to the states, stating that the USDE guidance contradicts key IDEA requirements. CLE reminds us that the USDE lacks authority to weaken states’ responsibilities under IDEA.

The CLE memo is here:

http://www.ideamoneywatch.com/docs/CLE.MOE.IDEA.pdf

What happened?

IDEA requires states to determine annually whether local school districts are meeting IDEA requirements.  IDEA requires states to consider both  compliance indicators (procedural stuff, such as following time lines, etc.) AND performance indicators (substantive issues, such as drop-out rates, graduation rates, performance on statewide tests).

In contrast to what is in IDEA, the USDE’s informal guidance to states says that the inclusion of performance indicators in making IDEA determinations is merely optional.

CLE’s response:

. . . an agency’s interpretation is unlawful if it contravenes the plain language of the statute.  In  promulgating regulations and providing non-regulatory guidance that advise SEAs that they must consider compliance indicators, while they only may consider performance indicators in making  their determinations about whether LEAs are meeting the requirements of the IDEA, ED has  contravened the plain language of §616(f) of the Act, which expressly requires SEAs to  determine whether LEAs are meeting the requirements, “including the targets in the State’s performance plan.”

Does Connecticut’s IDEA determination process take into account performance indicators?

No.  Although the CSDE does look at compliance indicators, the CSDE  has stated that  “performance indicators are currently under consideration for making district determinations.”  This echoes the language in the current USDE guidance, which undermines the IDEA statute.

So what’s at stake?

Millions of special education dollars.  In some cases, millions of dollars in just one school district.

How is it possible that so many people are getting this wrong?

Perhaps because this has to do with “maintenance of effort” (MOE) in IDEA, which –when explained 100% precisely–involves unnecessarily convoluted and esoteric reasoning.  (It is not uncommon for explanations of MOE to trigger an overwhelming desire to watch grass grow, simply to relieve the boredom.)

Unfortunately, MOE is a critical concept ($$$$) in the world of IDEA stimulus spending, so for more information about MOE, see the below page:

http://ideamoneywatch.com/states/ct/?page_id=188

What part of IDEA tells us that performance indicators have to be met before a District can reduce its local MOE?

From Section 1416:

(f) State Enforcement. If a State educational agency determines that a local educational agency is not meeting the requirements of this part, including the targets in the State’s performance plan, the State educational agency shall prohibit the local educational agency from reducing the local educational agency’s maintenance of effort under Section 1413(a)(2)(C) of this title for any fiscal year.

The key phrase in the statute is “including the targets of the state performance plan,” which include not only compliance indicators but performance indicators.

CT’s state performance plan is here:

http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/PDF/DEPS/Special/State_Perf_Plan.pdf

E.g., one target from our state performance plan that almost no CT districts have met (yet):

Indicator 3: Participation and performance of children with disabilities on statewide assessments: . . .

And CT’s proficiency targets for students with disabilities for 2008-2009 (Indicator 3c) are:

CMT reading = 79.0%

CMT math = 82.0%

CAPT reading = 81.0%

CAPT math = 80.0%

So why don’t we just lower the targets?

Do not get me started. . .

OK, short response:  Rather than giving up on students with disabilities by lowering standards that research tells us are attainable, Districts need to instead provide students with accessible, proven methods of instruction–as demonstrated in published, peer-reviewed research–that are targeted to meet a student’s individual needs.  And that are provided by teachers who have received the intensive professional development they need to be able to implement the instruction “with fidelity.”

(And not incidentally, this is one of the main purposes of IDEA stimulus money.)

CLE concludes:

The language of the statute plainly requires that LEAs consider and meet all of the
targets contained in their State’s performance plan in order to be able to reduce their maintenance of effort.  Therefore, the ED’s informal guidance to the contrary is invalid and should not be followed by the States.

We look forward to the USDE’s response to CLE’s memo and hope this will include concrete steps to mitigate any negative financial impact this guidance has had on the education of students with disabilities.