[Federal Register: November 27, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 227)]
[Notices]
[Page 68697-68706]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr27no06-143]
[[Page 68697]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Department of Education
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Special Education and Rehabilitative Services--Individuals with
Disabilities Education Improvement Act; Comment and Recommendations on
the Proposed Comprehensive Plan for Part D; Notice
[[Page 68698]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services--Proposed
Comprehensive Plan for National Activities under Subparts 2 and 3, Part
D of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, as amended by the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA)
AGENCY: Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice of request for comment and recommendations on the
Proposed Comprehensive Plan for IDEA Part D National Activities.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Secretary of Education (Secretary) solicits comments and
recommendations from the public prior to finalizing the comprehensive
plan for national activities authorized under subparts 2 and 3, part D
of IDEA (Comprehensive Plan or Plan). Pursuant to section 681(a) of
IDEA, the Secretary is responsible for developing and implementing the
Comprehensive Plan in order to enhance the provision of early
intervention services, educational services, related services, and
transitional services to children with disabilities under parts B and C
of IDEA.
DATES: In order to be assured of consideration as we develop the final
Comprehensive Plan, we must receive your comments on or before January
11, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Address all comments about the proposed Comprehensive Plan
to the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, U.S.
Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Potomac Center
Plaza, room 4102, Washington, DC 20202-2641.
If you prefer to send your comments through the Internet, use the
following address: comments@ed.gov.
You must use the term ``Comments on IDEA Part D National Activities
Comprehensive Plan'' in the subject line of your electronic message.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah Kuiken. Telephone: (202) 245-
7371.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may
call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an
alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer
diskette) on request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We invite you to submit comments regarding
any areas of the proposed Comprehensive Plan in which you believe
changes are needed, either to clarify a provision or to facilitate its
implementation. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect in
developing the final Comprehensive Plan, we urge you to identify
clearly the specific area of the Plan that each comment addresses and
to arrange your comments in the same order as the proposed Plan.
We encourage you to make your comments as specific as possible
regarding the nature and scope of the action necessary to provide the
clarifications you are seeking. Please specify how your your change
will clarify or help to improve the Comprehensive Plan.
Please also include the following with your comments and
recommendations: A description of the area of your involvement in
special education, regular education or early intervention, as well as
your role, if any, in that area (e.g., parent, teacher, student,
service provider, administrator, or researcher).
During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public
comments about the Comprehensive Plan at Potomac Center Plaza, 550 12th
Street, SW., Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m.,
Eastern time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal
holidays.
Assistance to Individuals With Disabilities in Reviewing the Comments
On request, we will supply an appropriate aid, such as a reader or
print magnifier, to an individual with a disability who needs
assistance to review the comments. If you want to schedule an
appointment for this type of aid, please contact the person listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Comprehensive Plan
The proposed Comprehensive Plan is published as an attachment to
this notice.
Electronic Access to This Document
You may review this document, as well as all other Department of
Education documents published in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe
Portable Document Format (PDF) on the Internet at the following site:
http://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister.
To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available
free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S.
Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in
the Washington, DC, area at (202) 512-1530.
Note: The official version of this document is the document
published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the
official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal
Regulations is available on GPO Access at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html
.
Dated: November 15, 2006.
John H. Hager,
Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
IDEA Part D National Activities Comprehensive Plan
Planning Requirements
The national activities authorized under subparts 2 and 3, part D
of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, as amended by the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA)
support States, school systems, and families in improving results for
infants, toddlers, and children with disabilities. These improvements
are achieved through a series of strategic investments in knowledge
production and development, knowledge transfer and utilization, and
knowledge implementation evaluation.
In section 681(a) of IDEA, Congress directed the Secretary to
develop and implement a comprehensive plan (Comprehensive Plan or Plan)
for the national activities authorized under subparts 2 and 3, part D
of IDEA (IDEA Part D National Activities) in order to enhance the
provision of early intervention services, educational services, related
services, and transitional services to children with disabilities under
parts B and C of IDEA. To the extent practicable, the Plan must be
coordinated with the plan developed pursuant to section 178(c) of the
Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002. The Plan will be used by the
Department of Education (Department) to ensure that the activities
funded under subparts 2 and 3, part D of IDEA (Subparts 2 and 3)
further the long-term program goals of Subparts 2 and 3 and benefit
children of all ages with the full range of disabilities. To the extent
possible, the Plan must include mechanisms to address early
intervention, educational, related service, and transitional needs
identified by State educational agencies (SEAs) in applications
submitted for State personnel development grants under subpart 1, part
D of IDEA as well as grants under Subparts 2 and 3.
As the principal Federal agency administering IDEA, the
Department's Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) has been
charged by the Secretary with coordinating the Plan's development and
implementation. A
[[Page 68699]]
summary of OSEP's comprehensive planning process follows.
Planning Process
Building on the implementation of earlier plans developed by the
Department in accordance with part D of IDEA and the Government
Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), OSEP designed the IDEA part
D Comprehensive Planning Process (Planning Process) to identify key
issues that must be addressed to meet the critical needs of infants,
toddlers, and children with disabilities and their families.
In 2005, OSEP solicited assistance from an outside contractor, The
Study Group Inc., to facilitate the Planning Process. The Study Group
began work with OSEP on the Planning Process by engaging the expertise
of a national workgroup comprised of individuals within and outside the
Department. The workgroup included 20 members who represented IDEA Part
D stakeholder groups and a broad range of expertise including: experts
in designing, implementing, and evaluating the types of national
activities called for in Subparts 2 and 3; experts knowledgeable about
the operation of SEAs, local educational agencies (LEAs), and IDEA Part
C lead agencies (LAs); and experts familiar with the needs and
priorities of teachers, parents, administrators, early intervention
personnel, related services personnel, and transition personnel. In
addition staff from both OSEP and the National Center for Special
Education Research participated in the process.
The workgroup convened in Washington, DC, on October 3-4, 2005, to
examine current and future efforts to improve results for children with
disabilities across seven cross-cutting program outcomes that had been
generated through prior IDEA and Department planning processes.
This proposed Comprehensive Plan was informed by the work of the
workgroup, the Department's internal long range planning process, and a
review of the following information sources:
State Annual Performance Reports (APRs) for parts B and C
of IDEA.
Personnel development activities conducted by States
through State Personnel Development Grants (subpart 1, part D of IDEA).
Transitional needs identified by SEAs in applications
submitted for State personnel development grants under subpart 1, part
D of IDEA as well as grants under Subparts 2 and 3.
Long-term program goals and performance measures developed
by OSEP for programs authorized under part D of IDEA.
Topics and issues identified during OSEP's prior part D
Comprehensive Planning Process in 2002.
GPRA indicators and targets.
State-reported data under section 618 of IDEA.
Studies and evaluations supported under IDEA on a wide
range of issues related to IDEA and its impact on States, districts,
schools, and children with disabilities and their families.
The Scope of the Plan: Programs Authorized Under Subparts 2 and 3
The purpose of the IDEA Part D National Activities is to improve
early intervention, educational, related service, and transitional
outcomes for children with disabilities. The Comprehensive Plan
addresses the range of national programs authorized under Subparts 2
and 3, such as teacher training and personnel development, technology
and media services, parent training and information, and technical
assistance and dissemination. The program areas authorized under
Subparts 2 and 3 are described in the following sections.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Section 665 of IDEA, a new provision in the law, authorizes
a program for Interim Alternative Educational Settings, Behavioral
Supports, and Systemic School Interventions. Planning for this
program, should Congress appropriate funds for it, is addressed
under planning for the program outcomes and areas described in this
Comprehensive Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personnel Development to Improve Services and Results for
Children with Disabilities. (IDEA, section 662) The personnel
development activities supported under section 662 of IDEA assist
States in meeting their responsibility to ensure the availability of
highly qualified personnel to serve infants, toddlers and children with
disabilities. Part D of IDEA authorizes support for pre-service and in-
service training targeting special educators, regular educators,
administrators, and related services personnel. Personnel Development
projects focus on supporting beginning special educators, training for
the education of children with low-incidence disabilities, and
leadership preparation.
Technical Assistance, Demonstration Projects,
Dissemination of Information, and Implementation of Scientifically
Based Research. (IDEA, section 663) Technical assistance, model
demonstrations, and dissemination are the primary vehicles under IDEA
for putting up-to-date, scientifically based information into the hands
of individuals and organizations serving children with disabilities.
IDEA Part D funds support national centers and projects designed to
improve services in such areas as: Addressing behavioral needs of
students with disabilities; improving the alignment and development of
valid and reliable assessments and alternate assessments; training
personnel on how to address diverse student learning and performance
characteristics; ensuring effective transitions between school and
post-school settings for students with disabilities; and applying
scientifically based research to the implementation of policy,
procedures, practices, and training.
Parent Training and Information Centers and Community
Parent Resource Centers. (IDEA, sections 671 through 673) Parent
Training and Information Centers and Community Parent Resource Centers
provide information, technical assistance, and training to families of
children with disabilities on child and parent rights under IDEA, the
nature and needs of a child's disability, and effective communication
with professionals serving children with disabilities.
Technology Development, Demonstration, and Utilization;
Media Services; and Instructional Materials. (IDEA, section 674) The
technology and media-related activities supported under section 674 of
IDEA promote the development, demonstration, and utilization of
technology along with research on using technology to improve learning
and provide access to the classroom for children with disabilities.
Media services include captioning and video description that are
appropriate for use in the classroom setting, for individuals who are
hearing impaired, blind, or print disabled. Also funded under this
authority is the National Instructional Materials Access Center
(NIMAC), a new national center required by IDEA. The purpose of the
NIMAC is to function as a national repository for National
Instructional Materials Accessibility Standard (NIMAS) files.
Studies and Evaluation. (IDEA, section 664) Part D of IDEA
authorizes a comprehensive program of national studies and evaluations
to provide information on a wide range of issues related to IDEA and
its impact on States, districts, schools, and children with
disabilities and their families. Section 664 of IDEA requires a
national assessment of special education to determine the effectiveness
of IDEA; to provide timely information to the President, Congress,
States, LEAs, and the public on how to implement IDEA more effectively;
and to provide the President and Congress information that
[[Page 68700]]
will be useful in developing legislation to achieve the purposes of
IDEA more effectively.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ IDEA delegates to the Director of the Institute of Education
Sciences (IES) responsibility to carry out most of section 664 of
IDEA (Studies and Evaluation), including two legally mandated
research activities, the ``Assessment of National Activities'', and
a ``Study on Ensuring Accountability for Students Who Are Held to
Alternate Assessment Standards.'' Other activities supported under
the Studies and Evaluations program include the National
Longitudinal Transition Study-2, and the Pre-Elementary Education
Longitudinal Study. This comprehensive plan includes those
activities delegated to IES under section 664 of IDEA, and
coordination between OSEP and IES is discussed in the following
sections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overview
This proposed Comprehensive Plan is designed to ensure that the
national activities funded under Subparts 2 and 3:
Support the provisions of IDEA and benefit children of all
ages with the full range of disabilities.
Align with and support the full and successful
implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) and the
Secretary's initiatives. For further information on the Secretary's
initiatives, please refer to: http://www.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/index.html
.
Address the Department requirements for long range program
planning and accountability by furthering the long-term program goals
of Subparts 2 and 3.
The proposed Plan is organized around seven program outcomes that
OSEP has identified as important for improving results for children
with disabilities. These program outcomes also: connect to OSEP's IDEA
program performance and accountability measures; relate to the needs of
children of all ages and with all types of disabilities and are
applicable to all programs authorized under Subparts 2 and 3; and
relate to topics and issues that OSEP has supported through IDEA Part D
National Activities in the past, but that require further investments.
The seven program outcomes are:
To the maximum extent appropriate, children with
disabilities will receive high quality educational and early
intervention services in natural settings with typically developing
peers.
Children with disabilities will be appropriately
identified and served in a timely manner.
Children with disabilities will demonstrate improved
literacy, including early language, communication and numeracy skills.
Children with disabilities will demonstrate improved
social and behavioral skills.
Students with disabilities will complete high school
prepared for independent living and postsecondary education and/or
competitive employment.
All service providers, including special education
teachers, paraprofessionals, related service personnel and early
intervention personnel, will be qualified and possess the knowledge and
skills to implement effective, research-based practices and
interventions.
Family capacity will be enhanced.
Program Outcomes
This section more fully describes each program outcome and the
Department's proposed investment plans for the next 5 to 10 years for
supporting, through the IDEA Part D National Activities, projects and
activities that are designed to achieve these outcomes. Decisions
regarding specific investments addressing these outcome areas will be
made on an annual basis in accordance with the guidance and priorities
of the Secretary. In addition, several outcome areas identified below
in the context of improving results for children with disabilities are
also addressed for all children under NCLB. Where appropriate, the
funding and implementation of specific activities and projects will be
coordinated with ongoing work in other offices throughout the
Department that are addressing similar substantive areas for all
students. Under each program outcome, we have included brief
descriptions of possible approaches to achieve these outcomes.
Outcome 1: To the Maximum Extent Appropriate, Children With
Disabilities Will Receive High Quality Educational and Early
Intervention Services in Natural Settings With Typically Developing
Peers
This outcome relates to two key requirements of IDEA-- (1) That
children with disabilities are provided a free appropriate public
education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment (LRE), and (2)
that infants and toddlers receiving early intervention services are
provided those services in ``natural environments'', which for very
young children could be a home or community setting. The LRE for a
child varies with each child's individual needs. Some children may make
progress in a regular classroom setting while others may need
alternatives to a regular classroom. High quality educational services
are critical to providing access to the general education curriculum
for children with disabilities such that they have opportunities
similar to their non-disabled peers to participate and demonstrate
progress in that curriculum. Also included in this outcome area is the
interaction between children with disabilities and their non-disabled
peers. The emphasis is not on placement but whether children are
spending their day in activities with nondisabled children.
The Department intends to support IDEA Part D National Activities
that address this outcome by supporting projects and activities that
are designed to:
Enhance the capacity of regular and special education to
provide differentiated instruction across all age, academic, and
functional levels of students. Differentiated instruction responds to
the diversity present in today's regular education classrooms. It
promotes a teacher's response to individual learner needs and is based
on a student's readiness, interests, and learning profile (Tomlinson,
2001). Differentiated instruction also motivates and engages students
in the general education curriculum.
Describe characteristics of successful interventions to
optimize children's access to the general education curriculum or
appropriate early childhood activities. Research that traces back more
than two decades indicates that instructional strategies, such as
presenting lessons in multiple formats and linking lessons to students'
prior knowledge, can promote students' access to new knowledge
(Gersten, Fuchs, Williams, and Baker, 2001; Deshler et al., 2001).
Similarly, the use of other scientifically based practices, such as
mnemonics and peer tutoring, has been shown to increase the amount of
time students with disabilities spend engaged and learning. In the
context of early childhood education, this outcome would focus on
practices such as early literacy, motor skills, and social emotional
development.
Assess the impact of participation in the general
education curriculum on student academic performance and social and
behavioral interactions. NCLB and IDEA work together to ensure that
schools, districts, and States are held accountable for improving the
achievement of all groups of students, including students with
disabilities, each year. It is important to gather and analyze data on
the ways in which we support participation of children with
disabilities in the general education curriculum and how the different
[[Page 68701]]
approaches support improved outcomes for students with disabilities.
Align student data collection, analysis, and reporting
systems to be consistent with State accountability systems. IDEA Part D
stakeholders are using validated innovations in assessment to collect
and analyze data on students with disabilities, such as curriculum-
based measurement (CBM), which uses the frequent collection of data to
help teachers make informed decisions about instruction. Aligning data
that is collected at the classroom level with data collected for State
accountability purposes will improve the quality of information that is
available to assess the progress of students with disabilities at the
individual, classroom, school, district and State levels.
Identify uses of technology to enhance and monitor student
participation in the general education curriculum or appropriate early
childhood practices. The use of specially designed CBM technology, for
example, has virtually eliminated the need for teachers to be involved
in the mechanical and technical aspects of CBM assessment (Fuchs,
Fuchs, McMaster, and Otalba 2003; Spicuzza et al., 2001). In addition,
the use of classroom instruction that employs computer-aided
instruction allows students to receive immediate feedback, and provides
multiple ways of interacting with content.
Outcome 2: Children With Disabilities Will Be Appropriately Identified
and Served in a Timely Manner
This outcome focuses on the child find provisions in IDEA for all
children across the age continuum, not only for very young children.
The intent of this outcome is to improve early and appropriate
identification of children with disabilities and the provision of
timely and effective services to those children. The impact of
inappropriate identification has resulted in disproportionate
representation by race and ethnicity in some disability categories, and
late and most likely under-identification of children in other
categories (Klingner et al., 2005; Donovan and Cross, 2002; Losen and
Reschly, 1998; Garcia and Ortiz, 1988).
The Department intends to support IDEA Part D National Activities
that address this outcome by supporting projects and activities that
are designed to:
Ensure a flexible early intervention system that promotes
timely referral, evaluation, identification, and service delivery from
birth through age 21. There is strong empirical evidence to suggest
that early and timely intervention for the kindergarten through grade 3
population, with continuous progress monitoring, will result in
improved learning outcomes for at-risk students, and may ultimately
reduce inappropriate referrals to, and enrollment in, special education
(Foorman et al., 1998; Speece and Case 2001; Torgesen et al., 2001;
Vaughn, Linan-Thompson, and Hickman, 2003; Vellutino, Scanlon, and
Lyon, 2000; Kozleski, Sobel, and Taylor, 2003). While emphasis has been
placed on identification of at-risk students at the elementary level,
the current identification, evaluation, and service delivery system
must respond to the needs of all learners from birth through age 21. In
particular, the system must provide flexibility to enter and exit
special education and collaborating agency services across disability
and age spectrums.
Disseminate evidence-based models of early identification
and early intervening programs, including programs based on ``Response
to Intervention'' (RTI). Both IDEA and NCLB support the use of multi-
tier systems of intervention options to provide high quality
instruction and intervention that match children's needs. Dissemination
of models of early intervention that are based on RTI, as well as other
evidence-based models of intervention, is important because such
dissemination will require researchers and technical assistance
providers to identify core principles of the interventions and policy
considerations, as well as the professional development needs across
all systems of education (e.g., SEA, LEA) and institutions of higher
education.
Enhance the ability of regular education, special
education, and early childhood programs to collect, analyze, and report
progress data for continuous, data-based decision-making. NCLB has
focused attention on the importance of tracking student academic
progress to assist in early identification of children with
disabilities, inform instructional practice, and to demonstrate student
progress. The delivery of technical assistance and dissemination of
information is needed to assist regular educators, special educators,
and early childhood personnel in differentiating the collection of and
the analysis of data to inform instruction and improve early
identification. Instructional and behavioral data need to be easily
accessible to field practitioners. In order for data-driven decision-
making to occur, data collection and reporting systems across agencies
need to be compatible and comprehensible to both users and receivers of
the information.
Implement personnel preparation programs for regular
education, special education, and early childhood personnel with an
emphasis on early intervention. Pre-service and in-service professional
development opportunities and programs that provide the philosophical
foundation for early interventions, including RTI and other evidence-
based systems of identification, evaluation, and service delivery, are
needed. Field practitioners, both veteran and novice, require
knowledge, skills, and technology to implement effective, research-
based practices and interventions.
Address issues of inappropriate disproportionate
representation of minority students in special education. While many
States have documented disproportionate representation of minorities in
special education, to date, there are few models or strategies that
have proven effective in reducing inappropriate identification
(Artiles, Rueda, Salazar, and Higareda, 2002; Donovan and Cross, 2002;
Klingner et al., 2005; Oswald, Coutinho, Best, and Singh, 1999).
Further exploration is needed to assist regular educators in
differentiating instruction for all learners based on student need.
Both regular and special educators need to become better skilled at
using culturally free identification practices and interventions for
students who are at-risk for school failure and, potentially, for being
identified as needing special education.
Outcome 3: Children With Disabilities Will Demonstrate Improved
Literacy, Including Early Language, Communication and Numeracy Skills
This outcome focuses on the development of literacy and numeracy
skills by children with disabilities across all age groups. In both
literacy and numeracy, the skill range should cover pre- and early
learning skills to more advanced skills. The goal for students with
disabilities, age 6 through 21, is to meet challenging standards as
determined by State assessments, using accommodations, as appropriate.
For young children, the goal is for functional outcomes to improve. The
use of technology, media and instructional materials will be considered
in each of the projects and activities described below.
The Department intends to support IDEA Part D National Activities
that address this outcome by supporting projects and activities that
are designed to:
[[Page 68702]]
Focus on improving middle and high school literacy. At
higher grade levels, literacy skills become increasingly important for
accessing the general education curriculum. Students with disabilities
who do not receive sufficient literacy instruction at younger ages risk
falling even further behind as they grow older, both in their literacy
skills and in their ability to master other academic content areas.
Accordingly, there is a need for evidence-based literacy instruction,
for students with disabilities, to be widely used across middle and
high school grades.
Improve the quality and usefulness of student performance
data measurement systems for students with disabilities. Student
performance data can help teachers, administrators, and parents
appropriately monitor a student's progress in developing literacy
skills. For example, these data can help pinpoint a student's strengths
and weaknesses. High quality performance measurement data systems also
can facilitate teachers' ability to modify instruction as needed to
meet the needs of students with disabilities.
Disseminate and implement promising practices that promote
literacy and numeracy across the school curriculum and across
environments (e.g., early childhood settings, home, and community).
Literacy and numeracy are important basic skills that affect the
ability of students to succeed in all content areas and all
environments. Whether a child is learning history, mathematics, or
other subjects, the child's literacy and numeracy are essential to
ensuring the child's success in the classroom, in early childhood
settings, at home, or in the community.
Encourage implementation of RTI as an instructional
practice in regular education environments. The most recent
reauthorization of IDEA allows the use of RTI strategies to identify
children with learning disabilities. The RTI model is based upon
evidence that many of the problems that lead to special education
referral (e.g., lack of progress in literacy development) can best be
addressed in regular education environments, prior to, and perhaps in
lieu of, a special education referral. The RTI approach is intended to
encourage practitioners to intervene early for all children who are
considered academically at-risk.
Outcome 4: Children With Disabilities Will Demonstrate Improved Social
and Behavioral Skills
Documentation of the nature of the relationship between improved
social and behavioral skills and improved academic outcomes is emerging
(Warren et al., 2004; Brooks, Todd, Tofflemoyer, and Horner, 2003). All
children require some level of social and behavioral support. While
most children will respond to a systematic school-wide model that
provides social and behavioral support, others will require more
intensive levels of support and intervention to achieve improved
educational outcomes.
The Department intends to support IDEA Part D National Activities
that address this outcome by supporting projects and activities that
are designed to:
Develop positive measures to assess social and emotional
growth and development. Positive behavioral interventions and supports
have contributed to improvements in student behavior (Sugai et al.,
2000). While existing measures have emphasized behavioral difficulties,
office discipline referral, suspensions, and expulsions, future
measures should include assessments of pro-social behaviors, including
students' social and emotional growth and development, social
inclusion, and self-determination.
Implement early identification and intervention systems to
promote positive social and emotional behaviors. Research, training,
technical assistance and technology projects and activities supported
under the IDEA Part D National Activities have demonstrated the
effectiveness of early intervention systems that promote school-wide
use of positive behavioral interventions and supports (Stormont, Lewis,
and Beckner, 2005). There is a need for continued work in these areas
in order to support further implementation of proven practices for
early intervention. In particular, there is a need to emphasize the
implementation of early identification systems that focus on children
ages birth through nine.
Design protocols to measure increased academic engagement
resulting from improved social and behavioral skills. Recent studies
are demonstrating a positive relationship between improved behavior and
improved academic achievement. Protocols must be designed to assess the
relationship between student behavior, academic relevance and rigor,
and increased academic engagement.
Increase the collaboration and interaction among schools,
families, and social service agencies in the design and implementation
of behavioral support systems. Parent training and information centers
funded under subpart 3 of part D of IDEA have facilitated the delivery
of information on behavioral supports to parents. In order to maximize
improved behavioral outcomes for children, additional work is needed
for the design and implementation of behavioral support systems that
benefit from effective collaboration and shared decision-making among
schools, families, and social service agencies.
Support enhanced school leadership in the design and
delivery of school-wide student behavioral support systems. School
leadership is a key factor in school-wide change and the effective
implementation of school-wide behavioral supports (OSEP Center on
Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports, University of Oregon,
2002). While nearly half of the States currently require elementary
principals to have knowledge in behavioral supports in order to be
certified, there is a need for projects that support leadership
development and provide school leaders with the necessary knowledge and
skills to design and deliver school-wide behavioral supports.
Outcome 5: Students With Disabilities Will Complete High School
Prepared for Independent Living and Postsecondary Education and/or
Competitive Employment
For some years, OSEP has attempted to ensure that secondary school
students with disabilities complete high school prepared for
independent living and postsecondary education and/or competitive
employment. OSEP has monitored this outcome by reviewing changes in the
graduation rate and the dropout rate of students with disabilities.
While trends for both of these indicators have demonstrated movement in
the right direction, there is a need for more work in this area (Lehr
et al., 2004; Thurlow, Sinclair, and Johnson, 2002; Wagner, Newman,
Cameto, and Levine, 2005).
The Department intends to support IDEA Part D National Activities
that address this outcome by supporting projects and activities that
are designed to:
Develop a broad range of performance measures to assess
student transition outcomes. The measures typically used to assess
outcomes for transition-aged students are graduation and dropout rates.
These data alone do not provide a complete picture of successful
transition outcomes. It is important to continue to identify and
collect longitudinal information that describes the status of
individuals with disabilities after they exit school. Expanded
performance measures include participation in postsecondary education,
employment, wages and benefits, and independent living status.
[[Page 68703]]
Support and disseminate model programs of evidence-based
success in meeting the needs of transition-aged students and their
families. The knowledge base about successful transition of students
with disabilities from secondary school to postsecondary environments
has grown considerably over the past two decades. Research confirms the
value of well-designed, well-coordinated transition activities
involving schools, students, families, and community and adult service
agencies while also documenting the constant need for further
improvement in transition services and supports (Lehr et al., 2004;
National Center on Secondary Education and Transition, 2005). Improved
transition services and student outcomes are dependent upon the
identification and dissemination of effective strategies, models, and
information that will assist parents and professionals in the
transition decision-making process.
Promote programs that include both academic achievement
skills attainment (graduation/school completion) and, as needed, the
skills necessary to participate in employment and community living.
With an emphasis on academic achievement and high stakes testing,
schools are finding it difficult to provide students with disabilities
with programs and services that support employment and career
development as well as other skills that enhance independence and
community living and participation (National Longitudinal Study, 1993;
Bremer, Kachgal, and Schoeller, 2003; Johnson, Thurlow, Cosio, and
Bremer, 2005; National Center on Secondary Education and Transition,
February, 2004). Programs that support academic and community and
employment skills are especially important for students with more
significant cognitive disabilities because these students typically
need formal training and skill development at the secondary level in
order to attain employment and live more independently.
Increase collaboration among stakeholder agencies for
long-term postsecondary success, including continuing education,
employment, independent living, and community participation. Research
on evidence-based practices confirms that effective transition planning
and services for students with disabilities exiting high school depend
on cooperative linkages between schools and other human service and
community agencies (Johnson et al., 2002; Crane and Mooney, 2005).
Successful interagency agreements for transition planning and services
require clear descriptions of the responsibilities of, and strategies
and methods used by, schools and other agencies that support transition
activities and promote success in postsecondary environments.
Promote early student and family involvement in transition
planning with an emphasis on self-determination. Too many students and
families report that a ``lack of information'' about postsecondary
opportunities, including continuing education and community and adult
services, restricts meaningful involvement in the transition planning
for post-school opportunities, as required by IDEA (National Center on
Secondary Education and Transition, January, 2004; Hasazi et al.,
2005). Providing students and families with vital information early in
the transition planning process supports informed decision-making and
promotes self-determination and self-advocacy.
Outcome 6: All Service Providers Including Special Education Teachers,
Paraprofessionals, Related Service Personnel and Early Intervention
Personnel Will Be Qualified, and Possess the Knowledge and Skills to
Implement Effective, Research-Based Practices and Interventions
This outcome is intended to focus on ensuring that the individuals
who are responsible for serving children with disabilities and
implementing IDEA are appropriately and adequately trained and have the
necessary content knowledge and skills. Under the highly qualified
requirements contained in IDEA, all special education teachers must be
fully certified as special education teachers. Additionally, special
education teachers who teach core academic subjects are required to
meet the requirements for highly qualified teachers under NCLB, except
as provided under IDEA. These requirements do not apply to IDEA Part C
providers. OSEP has a long history of supporting evidence-based
training programs for special education, early intervention, and
related service personnel. Historically, Federal investments in
training programs have been targeted in two key areas: (1) Addressing
critical, on-going shortages in the supply of qualified personnel; and
(2) addressing the need for high quality training programs that are
capable of training personnel who are knowledgeable and skilled in
evidence-based practices to improve results for children with
disabilities.
The Department intends to support IDEA Part D National Activities
that address this outcome by supporting projects and activities that
are designed to:
Develop and disseminate model programs that enhance the
knowledge and skills of special education, related service and early
intervention providers across disabilities and age, grade, and content
areas. Model strategies, such as programs involving nationally
disseminated evidence-based training modules and beginning teacher
mentor and induction models, have been linked to improvements in the
preparation of special education teachers. Institutions of higher
education responsible for preparing teachers need resources and
information on the best available evidence and strategies that are
linked to improved outcomes for children with disabilities. These types
of model programs and strategies would also be beneficial to regular
education training programs in assisting those teachers in meeting
their instructional responsibility for children with disabilities.
Identify the characteristics of quality pre-service
programs that prepare special and regular education teachers and early
childhood providers to best serve students with disabilities. Pre-
service programs must recognize that special and regular education
teachers and early childhood providers are responsible for the
instruction of individuals with diverse needs, backgrounds, and
learning styles. Continued improvement in the pre-service preparation
of teachers requires identification of program characteristics that
promote instructional and behavioral skills consistent with the
requirements for highly qualified teachers.
Investigate and validate alternative routes to teacher
certification. The increased demand for teachers, and particularly
special education teachers, has renewed interest in alternative
certification mechanisms. On-line instruction and other innovative
approaches are providing opportunities for students from non-
traditional backgrounds to seek teacher certification. While
alternative certification programs may be necessary to help States
address existing shortages in the supply of qualified personnel, it is
essential to establish and maintain rigorous outcome standards for the
graduates of these programs.
Develop an effective infrastructure that responds to the
changing needs of teachers and school leaders, including the provision
of technical assistance, innovative pre-service programs, and the use
of technology to address professional development needs. The
professional preparation and development of instructional and
leadership personnel serving students
[[Page 68704]]
with disabilities must be considered ongoing rather than terminal.
Continuing high quality, evidence-based technical assistance and
professional development programs and supports enable instructional and
leadership personnel to meet the changing needs of students and
families and to take full advantage of new technologies that may enable
them to serve students with disabilities more effectively.
Enhance recruitment and retention practices to ensure a
qualified work force. School districts list a shortage of qualified
applicants as the greatest barrier to obtaining qualified special
education teachers (Billingsley and McLeskey, 2004; Billingsley, 2004;
McLeskey, Tyler, and Flippin, 2004; Carlson et al., 2002). Effective
recruitment and retention practices are critical to securing and
maintaining a qualified workforce. More than one-third of special
education teachers are either undecided about how long they are likely
to remain in teaching, or do not plan to continue teaching in special
education until they retire (Carlson et al., 2002). Accordingly, more
work must be done to identify the factors that attract individuals to
the field of special education as well as the rewards and incentives
that will enable school districts to retain skilled teachers, related
service personnel, and school leaders.
Outcome 7: Family Capacity will be Enhanced
This outcome focuses on enhancing family capacity in areas such as:
Knowing their rights under IDEA and how to advocate for their children;
understanding their children's strengths, abilities, and special needs;
helping their children develop and learn; having access to support
systems; and having access to desired services, programs, and
activities in their communities.
The Department intends to support IDEA Part D National Activities
that address this outcome by supporting projects and activities that
are designed to:
Ensure that parents and families across the socio-economic
and cultural spectrum have access to and understand information that
will support their involvement in all decisions about their child.
Outreach is necessary to ensure that all families are aware of and have
access to usable and timely resources to inform and empower decision-
making about their child. Targeted outreach is needed to ensure the
inclusion of underserved families as defined in IDEA, including low
income parents, parents of limited English proficient children, and
parents with disabilities.
Assist parents and families in becoming better consumers
of supports and services. Families play a critical role in the
education of their children. Children benefit when their parents and
other family members are informed and actively engaged consumers of the
educational supports and services provided to children with
disabilities. With additional information and training, more parents
can more fully participate in the education of their children.
Enhance the capacity of underserved parents and families
to become decision-makers in their child's current and future
educational, home and community environments. There is a need to
enhance the capacity of underserved families to become active decision-
makers regarding their child's education. For example, underserved
families need support in readily accessing information about proven
practices relating to their child's education. These families also need
support in determining which evidence-based educational and early
intervention practices are most appropriate for their child.
Promote the development of school leadership that
emphasizes the creation and maintenance of positive school environments
that welcome and support diversity. School leadership is a key factor
in school-wide change. Leadership development should, therefore,
emphasize the creation of positive school environments that welcome
diversity.
Promote partnerships between parent organizations and
OSEP's Research-to-Practice initiatives. OSEP has facilitated
partnerships between parent organizations and projects supported under
part D of IDEA. Such partnerships should continue to be facilitated,
including by providing support for products and programs developed for
parents, enabling them to more fully participate in improving their
child's early intervention and educational experiences. Ongoing efforts
will ensure scientifically based practices and other resources are
timely and available to families in a usable format.
Comprehensive Plan Implementation
OSEP, as the principal Federal agency administering IDEA, will
implement the Comprehensive Plan by pursuing long-term research-to-
practice efforts for each program authorized under Subparts 2 and 3.
Funded projects and activities will take full advantage of the more
than 25 years of Federal support for research and innovation,
demonstrations, personnel preparation, technology and media, and
technical assistance and dissemination that has built an important
knowledge base for improving results for children with disabilities.
OSEP will capitalize and extend the accomplishments of the projects
it has supported in the past by supporting new projects that organize
and transfer knowledge to practice using one or a combination of the
programs authorized under part D of IDEA. Given resource limitations
and the current state of knowledge relevant to any investment
direction, OSEP will identify specific projects and activities that:
Take advantage of the Department's current activities
targeted toward specific outcomes.
Optimally combine activities authorized under several
types of IDEA Part D programs, including technical assistance,
dissemination, personnel preparation, technology and media, and parent
training and information.
Reflect the Department's internal planning efforts and
immediate needs of States and other IDEA stakeholders.
Leverage OSEP's ability to draw attention to the
substantive area addressed by the project or activity from other
Federal, State, local, and private agencies and organizations.
Have the greatest potential to contribute to improved
results for children with disabilities in the next decade.
Coordination With the National Center for Special Education Research
OSEP has coordinated during the planning and preparation of this
Plan and will continue to coordinate, as directed by section 681(a)(1)
of IDEA, the implementation of this Plan with the National Center for
Special Education Research (NCSER) in the Institute of Education
Sciences (IES).
In addition, with the award of a design contract, NCSER has
launched an independent assessment to ascertain what progress has been
made in the implementation of IDEA. This review will permit the NCSER
to take inventory of the national studies conducted previously, the
data sources, and the research questions addressed, and prepare an
informed set of research questions and proposed study designs for
further studies and evaluations authorized by section 664 of IDEA.
IES also will continue to support existing studies, including
child-based longitudinal research, and initiate new studies designed to
evaluate and support the implementation of IDEA. As such, IES will
continue to fund rigorous
[[Page 68705]]
evaluations of policy and practice under IDEA, including an examination
of the quality of States' monitoring practices, a study of States'
implementation of alternate assessments and their use and effectiveness
in appropriately measuring student progress, an impact evaluation of
the State Pilot Projects for Multi-Year IEPs and Paperwork Reduction
authorized under IDEA, and an evaluation of the IDEA Personnel
Development program.
Commitment to Quality Implementation
OSEP will continue to seek the opinions of consumers and research,
training, technology, and technical assistance experts on the
Department's progress in implementing the Comprehensive Plan. Also, as
part of its annual GPRA responsibilities, OSEP will evaluate the
quality of activities supported under the Comprehensive Plan. OSEP has
developed a set of long-range goals and annual objectives and
indicators that it will use to monitor and ensure quality
implementation of the Plan. These goals, objectives and indicators are
available can be viewed at: http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/index.html?src=pn
.
Next Steps
After OSEP completes its review of the comments received in
response to the notice in the Federal Register requesting comments and
recommendations on the proposed Comprehensive Plan, OSEP will finalize
the Comprehensive Plan and provide outreach to inform IDEA Part D
stakeholders about the final Plan.
References
Artiles, A.J., Rueda, R., Salazar, J. & Higareda, I. (2002). Within-
group diversity in minority disproportionate representation: English
language learners in urban school districts. Exceptional Children,
71, 283-300.
Billingsley, B.S. (2004). Special education teacher retention and
attrition: A critical analysis of the research literature. Journal
of Special Education, 38(1), 39-55.
Billingsley, B.S., & McLeskey, J. (2004). Critical issues in special
education teacher supply and demand: Overview. Journal of Special
Education, 38(1), 2-5.
Bremer, C.D., Kachgal, M., & Schoeller, K. (2003). Self-
determination: Supporting successful transition. (NCSET Research to
Practice Brief. Vol. 2 No. 1.) Minneapolis, MN: University of
Minnesota, National Center on Secondary Education and Transition.
Retrieved March 1, 2006, from http://www.ncset.org/publications/viewdesc.asp?id=962
.
Brooks, A., Todd, A.W., Tofflemoyer, S., & Horner, R.H. (2003). Use
of functional assessment and a self-management system to increase
academic engagement and work completion. Journal of Positive
Behavior Intervention, 5, 144-152.
Carlson, E., Brauen, M., Klein, S., Schroll, K., & Willig, S.
(2002). Study of personnel needs in special education (SPeNCE):
Recruiting and Retaining High Quality Teachers. Rockville, MD:
Westat.
Crane, K., & Mooney, M. (2005). Essential tools: Community resource
mapping. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center
on Secondary Education and Transition. Retrieved March 1, 2006, from
http://www.ncset.org/publications/essentialtools/mapping/default.asp
.
Deshler, D.D., Shumaker, J.B., Bulgren, J.A., Lenz, B.K., Carnine,
D., Grossen, B., & Jantzen, J.E. (2001). Teaching students with LD
how to master difficult content by anchoring it to what they know.
Teaching Exceptional Children, 33(4), 82-86.
Donovan, S., & Cross, C. (2002). Minority students in special and
gifted education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Foorman, B.R., Francis, D.J., Fletcher, J.M., Schatschneider, C., &
Mehta, P. (1998). The role of instruction in learning to read:
Preventing reading failure in at-risk children. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 90, 37-55.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., McMaster, K.N., & Al Otalba, S. (2003).
Identifying children at risk for reading failure: Curriculum-based
measurement and the dual-discrepancy approach. In H.L. Swanson, K.R.
Harris & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp.
431-449). New York.
Garcia, S.B., & Ortiz, A.A. (1988, June). Preventing inappropriate
referrals of language minority students to special education. FOCUS/
NCBE, 5, 1-17.
Gersten, R., Fuchs, L.S., Williams, J.P., & Baker, S. (2001).
Teaching reading comprehension strategies to students with learning
disabilities: A review of research. Review of Educational Research,
71(2), 279-320.
Hasazi, S., Johnson, D., Thurlow, M., Cobb, B., Trach, J., Stodden,
B., Leuchovius, D., Hart, D., Benz, M., DeStefano, L., & Grossi, T.
(2005). Transitions from home and school to roles and supports of
adulthood. In K.C. Lakin, & A. Turnbull (Eds.), National goals and
research for persons with intellectual and developmental
disabilities (pp. 65-92). Washington, DC: American Association on
Mental Retardation and The Arc of the United States.
Johnson, D.R., Stodden, R.A., Emanuel, E.J., Luecking, R. & Mack, M.
(2002). Current challenges facing secondary education and transition
services: What research tells us. Exceptional Children, 68(4), 519-
531.
Johnson, D.R., Thurlow, M., Cosio, A., & Bremer, C.D. (2005).
Diploma options for students with disabilities. Minneapolis, MN:
University of Minnesota, National Center on Secondary Education and
Transition. Retrieved March 1, 2006, from http://www.ncset.org/publications/viewdesc.asp?id=1928
.
Klingner, J.K., Artiles, A.J., Kozleski, E., Harry, B., Zion, S.,
Tate, W., Duran, G.Z., & Riley, D. (2005, September 8). Addressing
the disproportionate representation of culturally and linguistically
diverse students in special education through culturally responsive
educational systems. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(38).
Kozleski, E.B., Sobel, D., & Taylor, S. (2003). Addressing issues of
disproportionality: Embracing and building culturally responsive
practices. Multiple Voices for Diverse Exceptional Learners, 6, 73-
87.
Lehr, C.A., Johnson, D.R., Bremer, C.D., Cosio, A., & Thompson, M.
(2004). Essential tools: Increasing rates of school completion:
Moving from policy and research to practice. Minneapolis, MN:
University of Minnesota, National Center on Secondary Education and
Transition. Retrieved March 1, 2006 from http://www.ncset.org/publications/essentialtools/
dropout/default.asp.
Losen, D.J., & Reschly, D.L. (1998). Racial inequality in special
education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
McLeskey, J., Tyler, N.C., & Flippin, S.S. (2004). The supply of and
demand for special education teachers: A review of research
regarding the chronic shortage of special education teachers.
Journal of Special Education, 38(1), 5-21).
National Center on Secondary Education and Transition (January
2004). Current challenges facing the future of secondary education
and transition services for youth with disabilities in the United
States (NCSET Discussion Paper). Minneapolis, MN: University of
Minnesota. Retrieved March 1, 2006, from http://www.ncset.org/publications/discussionpaper/default.asp
.
National Center on Secondary Education and Transition (February
2004). Person-centered planning: a tool for transition (NCSET Parent
Brief). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota. Retrieved March 1,
2006, from http://www.ncset.org/publications/viewdesc.asp?id=1431.
National Center on Secondary Education and Transition (2005).
National standards for secondary education and transition for all
youth. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota. Retrieved March 1,
2006, from http://www.ncset.org/teleconferences/docs/NASETFramework.doc
.
The National Longitudinal Study (NLTS) (1993). The National
Longitudinal Study: A summary of findings. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs.
OSEP Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports,
University of Oregon (2002). School-wide Positive Behavior Support:
Implementer's Blueprint and Self-Assessment. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs.
Oswald, D.P., Coutinho, M.J., Best, A.M., & Singh, N.N. (1999).
Ethnic representation
[[Page 68706]]
in special education: The influence of school-related economic and
demographic variables. Journal of Special Education, 32, 194-206.
Speece, D.L., & Case, L.P. (2001). Classification in context: An
alternative approach to identifying early reading disability.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 735-749.
Spicuzza, R., Ysseldyke, J., Lemkuil, A., Koscioleck, S., Boys, C.,
& Teelucksingh, E. (2001). Effects of using a curriculum-based
monitoring system on the classroom instructional environment and
math achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 39(6), 521-542.
Stormont, M., Lewis, T.J., & Beckner, R. (2005). Positive behavioral
support systems: Applying key features in preschool settings.
Teaching Exceptional Children, 37(6), 42-49.
Sugai, G., Horner, R.H., Dunlap, G., Hieneman, M., Lewis, T.J.,
Nelson, C.M., Scott, T., Liaupsin, C., Sailor, W., Turnbull, A.P.,
Turnbull, H.R., III, Wickham, D., Reuf, M., & Wilcox, B. (2000).
Applying positive behavioral support and functional behavioral
assessment in schools. Journal of Positive Behavioral Interventions,
2, 131-143.
Thurlow, M.L., Sinclair, M.F., & Johnson, D.R. (2002). Students with
disabilities who drop out of school: Implications for policy and
practice (NCSET Issue Brief Vol. 1 No. 2). Minneapolis, MN:
University of Minnesota, National Center on Secondary Education and
Transition. Retrieved March 1, 2006, from http://www.ncset.org/publications/viewdesc.asp?id=425
.
Tomlinson, C.A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-
ability classrooms (2nd ed.) Alexandria, VA: Association of
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Torgesen, J.K., Alexander, A.W., Wagner, R.K., Rashotte, C.A.,
Voeller, K.K.S., & Conway, T. (2001). Intensive remedial instruction
for children with severe reading disabilities: Immediate and long-
term outcomes from two instructional approaches. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 34(1), 33-58, 78.
Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., & Hickman, P. (2003). Response to
instruction as a means of identifying students with reading/learning
disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69(4), 391-409.
Vellutino, F.R., Scanlon, D.M., & Lyon, G.R. (2000). Differentiating
between difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 223-238.
Wagner, M., Newman, L., Cameto, R., & Levine, P. (2005). Changes
over time in the early postschool outcomes of youth with
disabilities. A report of findings from the National Longitudinal
Transition Study (NLTS) and the National Longitudinal Transition
Study-2 (NLTS2). Menlo Park, CA: S RI International. Retrieved March
1, 2006, from http://www.nlts2.org/pdfs/str6_completereport.pdf.
Warren, J.S., Edmonsen, H.M., Griggs, P., Lassen, S.R., McCart, A.,
Turnbull, A.P., & Sailor, W. (2004). Urban applications of
schoolwide positive behavior support: Critical issues and lessons
learned. In Bambara, L., Dunlap, G. & Wchwartz, E. (Eds.), Positive
behavior support: Critical Articles on improving practice for
individuals with severe disabilities (pp. 376-387). Pro-Ed and TASH.
[FR Doc. 06-9404 Filed 11-24-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P