Overview of Special Education in California

Overview of Special Education in California MAC TAylor • l e g i s l A T i v e A n A l y s T • JAnUAry 3, 2013 An LAO RepORt 2 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov An LAO RepORt COntEntS Executive Summary ..................................................................................................5 Introduction ..............................................................................................................7 What Is Special Education? ......................................................................................7 Who Receives Special Education Services? ............................................................8 What Special Education Services Do Students Receive? .....................................11 Where Are Special Education Services Provided? ................................................11 How Is Special Education Organized in California? .............................................12 How Is Special Education Funded in California? ..................................................14 What Are the State Special Schools? .....................................................................18 How Are Special Education Laws Monitored and Enforced? ...............................19 How Do California’s Students With Disabilities Perform Academically? ...........20 Conclusion ...............................................................................................................24 Glossary of Common terms Related to Special Education ..................................25 www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 3 An LAO RepORt 4 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov An LAO RepORt ExECutIvE SuMMARy Special education is the “catch-all” term that encompasses the specialized services that schools provide for disabled students. This report provides a comprehensive review of special education— conveying information on applicable laws, affected students, services, funding, and student outcomes. Public Schools Must Provide Special Support for Disabled Students. Federal law requires schools to provide “specially defined instruction, and related services, at no cost to parents, to meet the unique needs of a child with a disability.” The law requires schools to provide disabled students with these special supports from age 3 until age 22, or until they graduate from high school, whichever happens first. These services are in addition to what a nondisabled student receives. About One in Ten California Students Receives Special Education Services. About 686,000 students with disabilities (SWDs) receive special education services in California, comprising about 10 percent of the state’s public school enrollment. Specific learning disabilities—including dyslexia— are the most common diagnoses requiring special education services (affecting about 4 percent of all K-12 students), followed by speech and language impairments. While the overall prevalence of students with autism and chronic health problems still is relatively rare (each affecting 1 percent or less of all public school students), the number of students diagnosed with these disabilities has increased notably over the past decade. Special Education Services Vary Based on Individual Student Needs. Federal law only requires schools to provide special education services to students with diagnosed disabilities that interfere with their educational attainment. To determine a student’s need and eligibility for special education, schools must conduct a formal evaluation process. If schools determine that general education programs cannot adequately meet a disabled student’s needs, they develop Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) to define the additional services the school will provide. Each student’s IEP differs based on his or her particular disability and needs. Specialized academic instruction is the most common service that schools provide. This category includes any kind of specific practice that adapts the content, methodology, or delivery of instruction to help SWDs access the general curriculum. Other commonly provided services include speech and language assistance and various types of therapies for physical and psychological needs that may be impeding a SWD’s educational attainment. Although federal law encourages schools to educate disabled students in mainstream settings, most (about three-quarters) of special education services are delivered in settings other than regular classrooms. In General, the State Uses a Regional Structure to Organize Special Education. Because economies of scale often improve both programmatic outcomes and cost-effectiveness, special education funding and some services are administered regionally by 127 Special Education Local Plan Areas (SELPAs) rather than by the approximately 1,000 school districts in the state. Most SELPAs are collaborative consortia of nearby districts, county offices of education (COEs), and charter schools, although some large districts have formed their own independent SELPAs, and three SELPAs consist of only charter schools. www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 5 An LAO RepORt The Excess Costs Associated With Providing Special Education Services Are Supported by Federal, State, and Local Funds. Schools receive billions of dollars to provide a basic educational program—including teachers, instructional materials, academic support, and enrichment activities—for all students, including SWDs. The average annual costs of educating a SWD, however, are more than double those of a mainstream student—approximately $22,300 compared to $9,600. (It is important to note that most SWDs require less severe, less costly services, whereas some students require intensive interventions that cost notably more than $22,300 per year.) Schools receive categorical funds to cover a portion of these additional, or “excess costs,” associated with addressing students’ disabilities. Because federal and state special education funds typically are not sufficient to cover the costs of all IEP-required services, however, schools spend from their local unrestricted general funds to make up the difference. In 2010-11, special education expenditures totaled $8.6 billion. State special education categorical funds covered the largest share of these costs (43 percent), combined with spending from local general purpose funds (39 percent) and federal special education funds (18 percent). Over the past several years, a combination of increasing special education costs and relatively flat state and federal special education funding has resulted in local budgets covering an increasing share of these costs. Special Education Funds Allocated to SELPAs Based on Overall Student Population, Not Number of Disabled Students. California relies primarily on a “census-based” funding methodology that allocates special education funds to SELPAs based on the total number of students attending, regardless of students’ disability status. This funding model implicitly assumes that SWDs—and associated special education costs—are relatively equally distributed among the general student population and across the state. The amount of per-pupil funding each SELPA receives varies based on historical factors. In 2011-12, the weighted statewide average per-pupil rate was $645 per student (including both state and federal funds). After receiving its allocation, each SELPA develops a local plan for how to allocate funds to the school districts and charter schools in its region based on how it has chosen to organize special education services for SWDs. Mixed Academic Outcomes for Disabled Students. Some performance indicators suggest SWDs generally are performing well, whereas other indicators are less encouraging. For example, performance on standardized tests (including those specifically designed for SWDs) has improved over the past several years, but a majority of SWDs still fail to meet state and federal achievement expectations. As SWDs near the end of their time receiving speicial education services, data show that about 60 percent of SWDs graduate on time with a high school diploma and about two-thirds of SWDs are engaged productively after high school (with about half enrolled in an institute of higher education and 15 percent competitively employed within one year after high school). 6 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov An LAO RepORt IntRODuCtIOn Special education is the catch-all term that significant areas of K-12 expenditures, supported by encompasses the specialized services that schools a combination of the single largest state categorical provide for disabled students. Policymakers allocation, one of the biggest federal education might have several reasons for seeking a deeper grants, and a substantial portion of local school understanding of the state’s approach to delivering budgets. special education. First, a notable share—roughly This report is intended to provide the 10 percent—of California’s K-12 students Legislature and public with an overview of the receive special education services. As such, the state’s approach to educating disabled students. effectiveness of these services relates directly to It provides a “primer-style” review—conveying the academic outcomes of almost 700,000 of the information on special education laws, affected state’s children. Second, special education is one of students, services, and funding. We also describe the most complicated and regulated areas of K-12 the academic outcomes of the students who receive education, with multiple sets of federal and state these special services. Additionally, the end of the laws governing how schools must provide services. report includes a glossary defining some common Finally, special education is among the most terms related to special education. WHAt IS SPECIAL EDuCAtIOn? Public Schools Must Provide Special Support happens first. (The IDEA also guarantees some for Disabled Students. Since 1975, federal law early intervention services for infants and toddlers has required public schools to make special with developmental disabilities, but the state’s efforts to educate disabled students. Revised and Regional Centers, not schools, typically are tasked reauthorized as the Individuals with Disabilities with providing these services.) Education Act (IDEA) in 2004, federal special Both Federal and State Laws Govern Special education law requires local educational agencies Education. Most special education requirements (LEAs) to provide “specially defined instruction, are contained in federal law, although the state and related services, at no cost to parents, to meet Legislature also has passed some additional laws the unique needs of a child with a disability.” governing how California schools must serve (Throughout this report, we use the term “special disabled students. Generally, state special education education” to refer to both special instruction laws make relatively minor additions to the more and related services, such as speech or behavioral substantial federal requirements. For example, therapy.) These services are in addition to what a whereas the federal entitlement for services ends nondisabled student receives. The IDEA requires on a student’s 22nd birthday, California law extends schools to provide these special supports to services for 22-year-old students through the end of children with disabilities from age 3 until age 22, that school term. or until they graduate from high school, whichever www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 7 An LAO RepORt WHO RECEIvES SPECIAL EDuCAtIOn SERvICES? Not all disabled children need special interferes with the student’s education. Federal law education services. Below, we discuss the process only requires schools to provide special education for identifying which students require special services to students who meet both of these education services and the types of disabilities that criteria. commonly affect these students. Students’ IEPs Define Their Special Education Services. Once an evaluator recommends that How Do Schools Decide Which Students special education services would be appropriate, Require Special Education Services? a team of stakeholders come together to prepare Schools First Must Try to Meet Students’ an IEP—an individualized written statement Needs Within the General Education Program. defining the services the LEA will provide for the A student cannot qualify to receive special student. Federal and state laws outline the IEP education services until after the school has tried process, including setting timelines for completing to meet his or her needs within the parameters and reviewing the plan (at least annually, but of the general education program. Educators more frequently if a student’s needs change); typically attempt a series of informal strategies specifying what the plan should include (described to address struggling students’ needs before in Figure 1); and designating required IEP team employing the formal special education process. participants. An IEP team typically includes the Two such approaches include Student Study student’s parents, a school administrator, a special Teams (SSTs) and Response to Intervention education teacher or service provider, the student’s (RtI). The SST—a group that usually includes the general education teacher, the evaluator who student’s school-site administrator, teacher, and determined the student’s eligibility for services, parent—typically discusses the student’s progress and—when appropriate—the student. The IEP and identifies in-class strategies for the classroom becomes a legal document requiring the LEA teacher to try. The RtI is an instructional approach to provide the services described for the SWD. designed to identify struggling students and (Throughout the remainder of this report, we use provide interventions explicitly targeted to meet the term SWD to refer to disabled students who their needs. have formally qualified to receive special education Schools Evaluate Whether Student Has services.) Disability That Requires Special Education Section 504 Plans Describe Noninstructional Services. If LEAs determine that general Accommodations. Some SWDs who need other education programs cannot adequately meet special accommodations to fully participate in a student’s needs, they next refer the student school activities may have a Section 504 Plan for a professional evaluation to see if he or she in addition to, or instead of, an IEP. Section qualifies to receive special education. Once the 504 Plans, which also are federal entitlements for LEA makes the referral and the parent consents, eligible students, typically cover noninstructional the law requires that the evaluation be conducted modifications like wheelchair ramps, blood sugar within 60 days. The evaluator assesses whether the monitoring, or tape recorders for taking notes. student has a disability and whether that disability 8 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov An LAO RepORt Figure 1 Required Components of Individualized Education Programs 9 Current Status. The child’s present level of academic achievement and functional performance. 9 Goals. Measurable annual goals for the child’s academic and functional performance. 9 Progress Measures. How progress towards meeting annual goals will be measured. 9 Services to Be Provided. Special education and related services to be provided, such as supplementary services and/or program modifications for the child. Details must include the projected beginning date, frequency, location, and duration of the services to be provided. 9 Inclusion in Mainstream Setting. The extent to which the child will/will not participate with nondisabled children in the regular class. 9 Assessment Plan. Accommodations necessary for child to participate in state and district assessments or alternate assessments necessary to measure the child’s academic achievement and functional performance. 9 Additional Considerations. As appropriate: employment or career goals, alternative course of study for grade promotion and high school graduation, plan for transitioning to general education or postsecondary activities, specialized equipment or transportation needs, goals for learning English, and/ or extended school-year services. Students Attending Private Schools Also Are Learning Disabilities Are Identified Most Entitled to Special Education Services. Students Frequently. As shown in the figure, 41 percent with disabilities attending private schools also of the state’s SWDs and over 4 percent of all have the right to access publicly funded special K-12 students are identified as having specific education services. Those services, however, learning disabilities. These are disorders affecting frequently are provided in the public school setting one or more of the basic processes involved in and may be less extensive than what would be understanding/using language or performing available if the student opted to enroll in public mathematical calculations. (Dyslexia is one school full time. commonly identified learning disability.) The next largest category—speech or language What types of Disabilities Affect Students? impairments—affects almost one-quarter of Federal Law Has 13 Disability Classifications. SWDs. Autism affects 10 percent of SWDs. Rarer To be eligible for special education services under disability categories include students who are federal law, students must have a primary disability blind, deaf, or have traumatic brain injuries. that falls into one of the 13 categories listed in Students with these less common disabilities often Figure 2 (see next page). The figure shows that require more intensive and expensive special about 686,000 SWDs ages 3 to 22 receive special education services. education services in California. About 618,000 are Prevalence of Some Disabilities Has Changed in grades K-12, comprising about 10 percent of the Over Past Decade. Figure 3 (see next page) displays state’s overall K-12 public school enrollment. the number of California students identified in various disability categories over the past ten years. www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 9 An LAO RepORt The figure shows that Figure 2 while the prevalence of About 10 Percent of California Students Have Disabilities Affecting Their Education many disabilities has stayed relatively constant, 2011-12 the number of students Number of Percent of Percent of Total K-12 Disability SWDsa SWDs Population identified with specific Specific learning disabilityb 278,698 41% 4.4% learning disabilities Speech or language impairment 164,600 24 2.1 has dropped by almost Autism 71,825 10 1.0 20 percent. In contrast, Other health impairmentc 61,843 9 0.9 while the overall prevalence Mental retardation 43,303 6 0.5 Emotional disturbance 25,984 4 0.4 of autism and other Orthopedic impairment 14,261 2 0.2 health impairments still is Hard of hearing 9,991 1 0.1 relatively rare, the number Multiple disability 5,643 1 0.1 Visual impairment 4,327 1 0.1 Graphoif cst uSdiegntns dOiafgfnosed Deaf 3,946 1 0.1 with these disabilities Traumatic brain injury 1,771 —d —e Secretary Deaf and blind 160 —d —e has increased notably Analyst Totals 686,352 100% 9.9% over the past decade—by MPA a Reflects students with disabilities (SWDs) ages 3 to 22 receiving special education services. 241 percent and 120 percent, b Includes disorders resulting in difficulties with listening, thinking, speaking, reading, writing, spelling, or doing mathematicaDl eputy calculations. respectively. While c Includes having chronic or acute health problems (such as a heart condition, asthma, epilepsy, or diabetes) that adversely affect California’s identification educational performance. d Less than 0.5 percent. rates vary somewhat from e Less than 0.05 percent. other states, these general Figure 3 trends also are visible Prevalence of Some Disabilities across the nation. Experts Has Changed Over Past Decade believe these changes are partially related to Students With: evolving diagnoses and Specific Learning Disability 400,000 Speech or Language Impairment instructional practices. For All Other example, some children 350,000 Autism Other Health Impairmenta who might previously 300,000 have been classified with 250,000 learning disabilities now are receiving early and 200,000 intensive instructional 150,000 interventions and avoiding special education 100,000 designations. Some of 50,000 the trends—such as the dramatic growth in 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 autism—remain more a Includes chronic or acute health problems that adversely affect educational performance. difficult to explain. 10 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov ARTWORK # 110501 Prevalence of Some Disabilities Have Changed Over Past Decade Graphic Sign Off Secretary An LAO RepORt Analyst Director WHAt SPECIAL EDuCAtIOn SERvICES Deputy DO StuDEntS RECEIvE? Services for SWDs Figure 4 Vary Based on Individual Most Common Special Education Services Student Needs. Figure 4 Provided to Students With Disabilities displays the most frequently provided special education services. Individual Therapy As shown, specialized Behavior Treatment Services academic instruction is Vocational Assessment the most common service. This category includes any Adapted Physical Education kind of specific practice Career Awareness that adapts the content, College Awareness methodology, or delivery Occupational Therapy of instruction to help SWDs access the general Speech and Language Therapy curriculum. Examples Specialized Academic Instruction include one-to-one 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 tutoring, specialized Number of Students Receiving Servicesa instruction in a separate a Some students may receive more than one type of service. classroom, or modified assignments. Other special education services typically ends. As such, commonly provided services include speech and beginning when students are age 16, LEAs are language assistance, career and college awareness required to develop specific services in IEPs to help activities, and various types of therapies for SWDs prepare for the transition to postsecondary physiAcaRl TanWd OpsRycKho #lo1g1ic0a5l 0ne1e dMs othsatt Cmoaym bme on Speaccitaivl iEtiedsu. Tcraantisoitnio nSael rsevrivciecess tPyrpoicvailldye indc ltuod eS tudents with Disabilities impeding a SWD’s educational attainment. vocational and career readiness activities, college Older SWDs Receive Services to Help counseling, and training in independent living Transition to Adulthood. One of the IDEA’s skills. The state provides some funding specifically goals is to prepare SWDs for success in life after targeted for these types of activities, including the high school, when the federal entitlement to “WorkAbility” program and specialized Regional Occupational Center/Program services. WHERE ARE SPECIAL EDuCAtIOn SERvICES PROvIDED? Federal Law Encourages LEAs to Educate settings only when the nature or severity of their SWDs in Mainstream Settings. Federal law disabilities is such that the regular educational requires that SWDs be educated in separate environment is not practical, even with the use of www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 11 An LAO RepORt supplementary aids and services. Educating SWDs one-quarter of its special education services are alongside their nondisabled peers often is referred delivered in the regular classroom. By comparison, to as “inclusion” or “mainstreaming.” Based on about half of specialized services are delivered at this principle of the “least restrictive environment” SWDs’ regular schools but in separate classrooms. (LRE), around half of California’s SWDs spend at These latter services consist of part-day “pull- least 80 percent of their time in regular classrooms. outs” from or supplements to regular classroom This rate is somewhat lower, however, than most instruction (for students with less severe needs) other states. On average, about 60 percent of SWDs as well as “special day” classes (for students who across the country spend at least 80 percent of need more intensive accommodations). Students their instructional time in regular classrooms. in special day classes typically spend most or all Accordingly, California’s annual federal of their days in a specially designed instructional performance review for special education has set a setting. The remaining one-quarter of special goal of increasing inclusion rates even further—to education services are provided at locations other at least three-quarters of SWDs being in the regular than the regular school. For students with very classroom for 80 percent of the day. severe disabilities, services sometimes are offered Most SWDs Receive Specialized Services at district-operated disability centers, specially in Settings Other Than the Regular Classroom. certified nonpublic schools, or residential facilities. Rather than focusing on student time, a somewhat Other typical off-site locations include therapists’ different but related metric focuses on the extent offices. Teachers and service providers who work to which special education services are delivered with SWDs must hold—or be supervised by in the regular classroom. One reason California someone who holds—special credentials from the fails to meet federal LRE targets is that only about California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. HOW IS SPECIAL EDuCAtIOn ORGAnIzED In CALIFORnIA? In General, State Uses Regional Structure law requires that every school district, COE, and to Organize Special Education. Providing charter school belong to a SELPA. individualized services for SWDs—particularly for SELPAs Organized in One of Four Ways. As students with severe or low-incidence disabilities— shown in Figure 5, LEAs have arranged themselves can be costly and difficult for individual LEAs, into four distinct types of SELPA configurations. especially small LEAs with limited fiscal and Most (81) are consortia of nearby districts, COEs, staffing resources. Because economies of scale and charter schools. In these consortia, one often improve both programmatic outcomes and entity—often the COE—is designated to receive cost-effectiveness, special education funding funding, facilitate coordination, and meet state and and some services typically are administered federal data reporting requirements. In contrast to regionally rather than by individual school districts the consortia model, 42 school districts, including or charter schools. The state distributes special many of the state’s largest, have opted to form their education funding to 127 SELPAs, rather than to own independent SELPAs. (A LEA must provide the approximately 1,000 LEAs in the state. State one-year notice if it plans to leave one SELPA and 12 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov An LAO RepORt join another, and it must receive approval from established charter-only SELPAs in Los Angeles the state in order to establish a new SELPA.) Three and Sonoma counties. SELPAs—run out of COEs in El Dorado, Los Consortia SELPAs Frequently Offer Some Angeles, and Sonoma counties—consist exclusively Regionalized Services. While single-district of charter schools. Finally, one SELPA consists SELPAs typically serve all of their SWDs directly, solely of court schools in Los Angeles County. The consortia SELPAs often pool resources to offer state’s SELPAs vary notably in size. In 2011-12, the some regionalized special education services on state’s largest SELPA (Los Angeles Unified) served behalf of member LEAs. For example, consortia almost 82,300 SWDs, while the smallest (Sierra SELPAs frequently organize professional County SELPA) served 44 SWDs. development for teachers, preschool programs, and An Increasing Number of Charter Schools services for students with low-incidence disabilities Participate in Charter-Only SELPAs. Charter at the regional level. Even if members of consortia schools can choose to organize special education SELPAs decide to provide some special education services in three different ways: as a school of its services on a regional basis, federal law still holds authorizing school district, as an independent each LEA ultimately responsible for ensuring LEA member of a consortia SELPA, or as a SWDs are served appropriately. LEA member of one of the three charter-only Charter-Only SELPAs’ Service Model Graphic Sign Off SELPAs. Charter schools that opt for LEA Typically Differs From Regional Consortia Secretary status—either within a consortia SELPA or as a SELPAs. Because charter-only SELPAs can include Analyst member of a charter-only SELPA—assume legal charter schools from across the state, their service Director responsibility for ensuring their SWDs receive model typically differs from those of traditional Deputy the special services to which they are entitled consortia SELPAs, which contain members from under federal law. Charter schools increasingly the same geographic region. Specifically, individual are opting for the third option. The El Dorado members of charter-only SELPAs typically run County charter-only SELPA grew from 23 charter their own special education services, by either school members in 2008-09 to 138 charter school hiring or contracting with qualified staff. Some members in 2011-12. These schools are located charter schools do seek economies of scale by across the state, not just Figure 5 in El Dorado Types of SELPA Arrangements County. The California Department of Education (CDE) also is anticipating increased Consortia Only Charter Schools Single District Only Court Schools membership 81 3 42 1 in the two more newly SELPA = Special Education Local Plan Area. www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 13 ARTWORK #110501 An LAO RepORt forming special education service collaboratives the COEs that administer charter-only SELPAs outside of the traditional SELPA structure, either typically do not organize such collaborative with other charter schools or nearby school arrangements. districts. Unlike with traditional SELPAs, however, HOW IS SPECIAL EDuCAtIOn FunDED In CALIFORnIA? Special education is among the most significant categorical funds to provide such services. That is, areas of K-12 expenditures. Below, we discuss the federal and state special education funds are not sources that fund special education, how much intended to support the full costs of educating a special education services cost to provide, how the SWD—just the excess costs resulting from the need state distributes funds to SELPAs, and how SELPAs to address his or her disabilities. (See the nearby distribute funds to LEAs. box for a discussion of this and another common misconception regarding local special education Which Funding Sources expenditures.) Because federal and state special Support Special Education? education funds typically are not sufficient to cover Services Supported by Federal, State, and the costs of all IEP-required services, local LEAs Local Funds. Special education services are spend from their local unrestricted general funds to subsidized by a combination of three funding make up the difference. sources—federal, state, and local. Federal IDEA Average Costs of Educating SWDs More Than and state funds each are provided through discrete Double Those of Mainstream Students. Figure 6 special education categorical grants. The state grant illustrates the concept of excess costs. The figure (which is comprised of both state General Fund shows that in 2010-11, LEAs spent an average of and local property tax revenues) counts towards roughly $9,600 in total funds per nondisabled the Proposition 98 school funding requirement. student and more than twice as much, about The “local contribution” represents spending from $22,300, per SWD. The additional $12,700 to LEAs’ unrestricted general funds. provide special IEP-required services for SWDs was supported by an average of about $2,300 in How Much Do Special Education Services Cost? federal funds, about $5,400 in state funds, and Dedicated Special Education Funds Intended about $5,000 local funds. While $12,700 was the to Support the Excess Costs of Educating SWDs. approximate statewide average excess cost for an Local educational agencies are allocated billions SWD, it is important to note that most SWDs of dollars to provide an educational program— require less severe, less costly services, whereas including teachers, instructional materials, some students require intensive interventions that academic support, and enrichment activities—for cost notably more than $12,700 a year. all students, including SWDs. To the degree their Excess Costs of Educating SWDs Have Slowly disabilities cause SWDs to require additional Increased Over Past Several Years. Figure 7 services beyond what mainstream students receive, (see next page) displays total special education LEAs use federal IDEA and state special education expenditures from federal, state, and local funds 14 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov Graphic Sign Off Secretary Analyst MPA Deputy An LAO RepORt between 2004-05 and Figure 6 2010-11, adjusted for Special Education Funds Support the “Excess Costs” inflation. (While these Of Educating Students With Disabilities data are self-reported by Statewide Average Spending Per Pupil, 2010-11 LEAs and may contain some inconsistencies, $25,000 they represent the best available proxy for 20,000 Local General calculating the excess Purpose costs associated with Excess Costs 15,000 State Special educating SWDs.) In Education 2010-11, total special education expenditures 10,000 Federal IDEAa were covered by $3.7 billion in state Total Total 5,000 Base Support Base Support funds (including local property tax revenues), $3.4 billion in local Nondisabled Students Students With Disabilities general purpose funds, a Includes American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding. and $1.6 billion in federal IDEA = Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. funds. As illustrated in the figure, inflation- 2 percent annually over the period, growing by a ARTWORK # 110501 Special Education Funds (SEF) Support the "Excess Costs" of Educating Students with Disabilities adjusted expenditures increased by an average of total of about 9 percent. The increases likely are Misconceptions About “Encroachment” Some local educational agencies (LEAs) complain that local contributions for special education “encroach” upon their general education programs, sometimes implying that any local dollar spent towards educating a student with disabilities (SWD) imposes unfair expenditure requirements on their general purpose budgets. This argument, however, is a mischaracterization of both federal and state laws. Federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and state special education categorical funds never were intended to cover the full costs of educating a SWD—instead the bulk of the “regular” education costs are intended to be covered using local revenue limit and categorical funding, just as for nondisabled students. Moreover, federal IDEA and state special education categorical funds never were intended to fully cover the excess costs of educating a SWD—the special education funding model always has been predicated on a three-way cost-sharing model, including local sources. Despite this basic design of the funding model, LEAs sometimes express frustration that their local share of special education costs is too high. This frustration tends to increase as their local share of special education costs increases, as this leaves them with fewer resources to serve other students. www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 15 An LAO RepORt due to a variety of factors, including the increasing even if costs have remained flat in 2011-12 and prevalence of students with severe disabilities like 2012-13 (years for which data are not yet available), autism who require more intensive and expensive the local share of costs likely has grown since LEAs services. Notably, adjusted expenditures dropped have had to backfill for the expiration of short-term slightly—by 3 percent—between 2009-10 and federal ARRA funds. 2010-11. The figure also shows that the federal Federal Share Has Never Reached Intended government provided additional short-term funds Contribution Level. As shown in Figure 8, federal for special education through the American IDEA funds typically cover less than 20 percent Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) in of overall special education expenditures. This 2009-10 and 2010-11. is notably lower than the amount the federal Local Budgets Have Covered an Increasing government originally committed to provide in Share of Special Education Costs. Figure 8 support of special education services. The IDEA compares the proportion of special education expresses intent tGo arpapprohpircia Ste ifgunnd Oingff for each expenditures covered by local, state, and federal SWD up to 40 percent of the national average Secretary funds in 2004-05 and in 2010-11. As shown in the expenditure level per K-12 pupil, which would Analyst figure, the share of overall costs funded through equate to roughly 40 percent of California’s overall MPA local contributions grew from 32 percent to special education expenditures. The federal budget, Deputy 39 percent, while the shares covered by state and however, has never come close to providing states ongoing federal funds each declined. This is due with this amount. We estimate that California to the combination of increasing overall costs and would receive roughly $2 billion more annually if relatively flat state and federal funding. Moreover, the federal government were to “fully fund” the intended level articulated Figure 7 in the IDEA. Special Education Expenditures Have Slowly Increased How Are Funds (In Billions, Inflation-Adjusted 2010-11 Dollars) Distributed to SELPAs? Local General Purpose Two Distribution State Special Educationa $10 Federal IDEA ARRA Models Exist. Across the 9 Federal IDEA Ongoing nation, states generally 8 use one of two approaches 7 to distribute special 6 education funding to the 5 local level. Some use a “cost-based” model, with 4 funding allocations driven 3 by how many SWDs are 2 served or the magnitude 1 of special education costs 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 incurred. In contrast, a Includes local property tax revenues. other states rely primarily IDEA = Individuals with Disabilities Education Act; ARRA = American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. on a census-based funding 16 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov ARTWORK # 110501 Special Education Expenditures Covered by Three Funding Sources An LAO RepORt methodology that is not linked to particular total average daily attendance (ADA), with the SWDs. Under this model, the state allocates special remainder distributed based on specific students education funds based on the total number of and circumstances. In general, data support the students enrolled, regardless of students’ disability incidence assumptions underlying the census- status. This funding model implicitly assumes based approach—that is, most SELPAs do report that SWDs—and associated special education serving proportionally similar numbers and types costs—are relatively equally distributed among the of SWDs. (Charter-only SELPAs, however, tend general student population and across the state. to serve proportionally fewer SWDs than most While the majority of federal special education traditional consortia or single-district SELPAs.) funds are distributed using a census-based model, While SELPAs receive AB 602 funds based on the IDEA formula does allocate a small portion overall ADA counts, they use them to support the (typically around 10 percent) of funds based on IEP-driven excess costs of educating SWDs. Graphic Sign Off counts of economically disadvantaged students, on The AB 602 Formula Blends State and Federal the assumption that this group contains a greater Funds to Provide Each SELPA a Unique Per-Pupil Secretary proportion of SWDs. Rate. Each SELPA has a unique per-pupil special Analyst California Now Uses Census-Based Model. education funding rate consisting of both state and Director Beginning in 1998-99, California switched from federal funds. These “AB 602 rates” vary across Deputy a cost-based to census-based allocation model, SELPAs from about $500 per ADA to about $1,100 which is commonly referred to as the “AB 602” per ADA, based primarily on what the SELPA formula after the authorizing legislation. Since that received before the AB 602 legislation was adopted. change, more than three-quarters of state special (In prior years the state invested some funding education funds are allocated based on a SELPA’s to equalize AB 602 rates, but large discrepancies Figure 8 Local Budgets Have Covered an Increasing Share of Special Education Costs 2004-05 2010-11 a State Special Education 32% Federal IDEA (ongoing) 39% 51% Federal (ARRA) 43% Local General Purpose 17% 13% 5% a Includes local property tax revenue. IDEA = Individuals with Disabilities Education Act; ARRA = American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 17 ARTWORK #110501 Local Budgets Have Covered an Increasing Share of Special Education Costs An LAO RepORt remain.) In 2011-12, the weighted statewide average How Are Funds Distributed to LEAs? AB 602 rate was $645 per ADA, with charter-only Consortia SELPAS Determine How to Allocate SELPAs having the lowest rates in the state. The Funding Amongst LEA Members. Each SELPA exact mix of federal and state funds making up develops a local plan for how to allocate funds in each SELPA’s AB 602 rate varies based on a number its region, based on how it has chosen to organize of factors, however IDEA funds average about services. This process is relatively straightforward $180 per ADA, with state funds making up the in the 42 single-district SELPAs, as they receive difference. funding directly from the state and offer or contract State and Federal Funds Also Support for services on their own. The two-thirds of SELPAs a Number of Discrete Special Education that contain multiple LEAs work internally to Subprograms. The AB 602 base allocation—which decide how best to divvy up funding for all the in 2012-13 includes about $2.9 billion in state funds SWDs in their region. These allocation plans differ and $1 billion in IDEA monies—is the largest notably across SELPAs based on local preferences source of funding SELPAs receive for special and the service plans they have adopted. In most education. The SELPAs, however, also receive cases, consortia members opt to reserve some almost $1 billion in additional state and federal funding at the SELPA level to operate some shared, special education funds targeted for more specific regionalized services, then distribute the remainder purposes. The largest of these special education to LEA members to serve their own SWDs locally. “categorical” programs allocates over $400 million In a slightly different approach, some consortia for SELPAs to provide educationally necessary SELPAs choose to allocate essentially all funding mental health services to SWDs. Other separately to member LEAs, then fund any regionalized funded initiatives include services for infants and services on a “fee for service” basis for those LEAs preschoolers with disabilities, vocational education who choose to participate. (Because charter-only programs for SWDs, and staff development. Some SELPAs do not usually offer regionalized services, SELPAs also receive supplemental funding if they they tend to distribute the bulk of AB 602 funds have sparse population density or if they are located directly to member charter schools.) The SELPAs near licensed children’s institutions (based on the are not required to use the state’s census-based assumption that these “group homes” will have AB 602 formula to distribute funding to member higher rates of SWDs). In addition to SELPA-level LEAs. Rather, internal SELPA allocation plans can grants, state and federal funds support state-level be based on ADA, specific student populations (for special education activities, including compliance example, counts or characteristics of SWDs), or any monitoring and technical assistance. other local priority or consideration. WHAt ARE tHE StAtE SPECIAL SCHOOLS? State Uses Different Model to Serve Some or COE. The state, however, also operates three Deaf and Blind Students. Like students with specialized residential schools for deaf and blind other disabilities, most hearing and visually students. The California Schools for the Deaf in impaired students attend and receive special Riverside and Fremont each serve around 400 education services from their local school district students ages 3 to 22, totaling about 6 percent 18 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov An LAO RepORt of the state’s deaf and hard of hearing students. local districts. In contrast to the SELPA funding The California School for the Blind in Fremont model, these schools are funded through a direct serves around 70 students, or about 2 percent of state appropriation—not linked to the school’s the state’s visually impaired students. Parents and enrollment—at a rate that far exceeds the amount IEP teams determine whether to send children SELPAs receive to serve comparable students. to these schools in lieu of being served by their HOW ARE SPECIAL EDuCAtIOn LAWS MOnItORED AnD EnFORCED? Two Statutory Processes Help Ensure to ensure their child receives an appropriate Compliance With Special Education Laws. education, they can file a formal complaint with While the IDEA was established to ensure all the OAH to revise the IEP. Federal and state laws SWDs receive the special support they need to detail the dispute resolution process, typically benefit from their education, the best approach beginning with dual-party resolution sessions, to meeting those goals for an individual SWD progressing to formal mediation sessions with an can be complicated, subjective, and contentious. OAH facilitator, and ultimately—if necessary—to Anticipating difficulties and disagreements, due process hearings with an OAH administrative federal and state laws specify two detailed law judge. Although the number of formal cases processes for enforcing compliance with the filed with OAH represents less than one percent IDEA—one process to ensure LEAs include of all SWDs, the dispute resolution process can appropriate content and services in students’ IEPs be costly and contentious for both families and and another process to ensure LEAs appropriately LEAs. Both parties therefore have incentives to implement IDEA processes and IEP-required avoid lengthy and litigious disagreements. Of the services. Disputes regarding the former are roughly 3,100 dispute cases filed with OAH in handled by the state’s Office of Administrative 2011-12, only 3 percent ultimately were decided Hearings (OAH), whereas the latter is monitored through a due process hearing and legal ruling. and enforced by CDE. (The following paragraphs The rest were resolved through mediation, settled describe each process in more detail.) The federal before the hearing, or withdrawn. The state also government funds Family Empowerment Centers provides small funding grants to some SELPAs and Parent Training Institutes to educate and to pursue alternative dispute resolution strategies assist parents of SWDs in supporting their and try to settle disagreements outside of the children and navigating the legal and logistical OAH process. facets of the special education system. The CDE Monitors LEA Compliance With Federal Law Provides Parents the Right to IDEA Requirements. The CDE is tasked with Dispute Which Special Education Services Their investigating and resolving allegations that a LEA Child Is Entitled to Receive. Sometimes parents is failing to comply with federal or state special and LEAs disagree over the contents of a student’s education laws. Parents, students, or teachers IEP. If parents fail to convince the IEP team that might file individual complaints, or CDE might different or additional services are necessary identify problems while conducting LEA reviews www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 19 An LAO RepORt and audits. Commonly cited complaints include for services or holding IEP meetings). The CDE LEAs failing to provide IEP-required services or tries to correct findings of noncompliance failing to meet statutorily required timelines (such by implementing corrective action plans and as timelines for evaluating students’ eligibility increasing monitoring. HOW DO CALIFORnIA’S StuDEntS WItH DISAbILItIES PERFORM ACADEMICALLy? In addition to monitoring how well LEAs meet in 2011-12 the AYP target was for 78 percent of required special education procedures, federal and students to display proficiency. (In California, state laws also hold LEAs accountable for SWDs’ students meet federal proficiency requirements if academic performance. Below, we provide outcome they score at the “proficient” or “advanced” levels data on how SWDs perform on state assessments on the state’s STAR assessments.) The LEAs and and how prepared older SWDs are to transition to schools that fail to meet expectations for multiple adult life. years face increased monitoring and sanctions. In contrast to the federal system that sets the same How Do SWDs Perform on State Assessments? annual proficiency requirement for all schools and Federal and State Accountability Systems LEAs, the state’s accountability system—known as Based on Standardized Assessments. The federal the Academic Performance Index (API)—requires and state governments each have established individual schools to display annual improvements systems to hold schools accountable for student in student performance relative to their prior-year achievement. While the two systems are somewhat performance. different, both require schools to measure Three Options for SWDs to Participate the academic performance of all students in in State’s Assessment System. Because grades 2 through 11—regardless of disability academic outcomes understandably may vary status—using standardized assessments based depending upon the nature and severity of a on state content standards. (California uses the student’s disability, both the federal and state Standardized Testing and Reporting, or STAR, accountability systems allow some SWDs to assessments.) Additionally, each accountability meet performance expectations using modified system establishes performance expectations or alternate assessments. As shown in Figure 9, both for overall school performance and for the California has developed three different sets of performance of specific student groups within the STAR tests for SWDs to meet federal and state school, including SWDs. (The federal system also testing requirements—the California Standards sets expectations for overall student performance Tests (CSTs), the California Modified Assessment and SWD performance at the LEA level.) The (CMA), and the California Alternate Performance federal system sets Adequate Yearly Progress Assessment (CAPA). Which assessment an (AYP) benchmarks whereby progressively higher individual SWD takes depends on the severity of proportions of students must reach “academic his or her disability and the decision of the IEP proficiency” each year until 2014, at which point team. The selected assessment must be clearly all students are to display proficiency. For example, defined in the student’s IEP. The figure shows 20 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov An LAO RepORt that in 2011-12 almost half of special education content standards as the CSTs, questions are students in grades 2 through 11 took the CSTs, presented in a more accessible fashion, including although in many cases with IEP-specified fewer questions and fewer possible answers, accommodations or modifications. (Such simplified language, more pictures, and larger accommodations might include assistive devices, type. To qualify to take the CMA in lieu of such as audio recorders or calculators, or having the CSTs, the IEP team must determine that an extended period of time to complete the test.) students’ cognitive disabilities preclude them Slightly more than 40 percent of special education from accurately demonstrating their knowledge students, or about 4 percent of all students in and achieving proficiency on the CSTs, even with grades 2 through 11, took the CMA. Only about testing modifications. The state first administered 10 percent of SWDs—those with the most severe CMA tests with proficiency level standards for cognitive disabilities—took the CAPA. grades 3 through 5 in 2008-09, introducing The CMA Is a Unique Option for the State’s tests for additional grades in subsequent years. SWDs. California is one of only 15 states to Correspondingly, an increasing number of SWDs have developed a special assessment for SWDs have taken the CMA in lieu of the CSTs in recent with moderate disabilities—the CMA. (Federal years. (Specifically, 20 percent of SWDs in grades law requires states to develop an alternative 2 through 11 took the CMA in 2008-09, compared assessment such as the CAPA for students with the to 42 percent in 2011-12.) most severe disabilities, but leaves it up to states Federal Accountability System Seeks to Limit whether to develop another alternative for SWDs.) Over-Reliance on Alternative Assessments. In While the CMA covers the same grade-level an effort to ensure SWDs are held to the same Figure 9 Three Options for Assessing Students With Disabilities’ (SWDs’) Proficiency in Meeting California Content Standards 2011-12 Number of Percent of SWDs Total SWDs Test Description Testeda (Grades 2-11) California Assess students’ proficiency in California content standards for grades 2 236,000 47% Standards Tests through 11. Taken annually by majority of students. Some SWDs allowed some (CSTs) test-taking accommodations or modifications. California Covers same content standards as the CSTs but designed to be more 210,000 42 Modified accessible for SWDs (for example: fewer questions, simpler language, more Assessment pictures). Taken by students whose disabilities preclude them from achieving (CMA) grade-level proficiency on the CSTs, even with accommodations. California Alternate Presents a series of tasks designed to display proficiency on those portions of 48,400 10 Performance content standards accessible to students with severe cognitive disabilities. The Assessment K-12 standards are grouped into five grade-span levels, and the Individualized Education Program team decides which level is most appropriate for each student to take. Taken by students whose disabilities prevent them from participating in either the CSTs or CMA. Totals 494,400 99%b a Displays counts for English Language Arts exams. b As with nondisabled students, a small percentage of SWDs do not take assessments, due primarily to absences or disenrollments. www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 21 An LAO RepORt high standards as mainstream students, the of fourth-grade SWDs and nondisabled students federal government attempts to discourage states that met federally required proficiency targets from having exceptionally high proportions of in English Language Arts over the past several SWDs take alternative assessments. While federal years. (The figure excludes results from the CAPA, law does not cap how many SWDs may take as they are not based on grade-level specific the alternative assessments, the percentage of standards and therefore are not comparable.) As proficient scores LEAs can count towards meeting shown, both groups have displayed improvements federal AYP benchmarks is limited to 2 percent in recent years. Improvements for SWDs in of all students for the CMA and 1 percent for the recent years may be partially due to increasing CAPA. (If greater numbers of students take the proportions of students taking the CMA in lieu of tests and score at the proficient level, their scores the CSTs. A majority of SWDs, however, still fail are counted as not proficient.) In contrast to the to meet federal performance standards with either federal system, the state’s accountability system test. In 2011-12, oGnrlya 4p9h piecrc Senitg onf SOWfDf s who does not limit the share of students who may took the CSTs scored at the proficient or advanced Secretary take the CMA or CAPA and have their associated levels. This compares to 68 percent of nondisabled Analyst scores count towards meeting annual API students. Moreover, only 39 percent of the Director requirements. students who took the CMA—which is specially Deputy Performance Has Improved, but Majority tailored for SWDs—met proficiency targets. of SWDs Score Below Proficient Level on State Many Schools and Districts Struggle to Assessments. Figure 10 displays the percentage Meet Performance Targets for SWDs. As might be expected given the Figure 10 performance levels Percent of Students Scoring Proficient or Advanced displayed in Figure 10, On Fourth Grade English Language Arts Assessments a majority of LEAs are failing to meet federal 80% proficiency requirements CST: Nondisabled Students for their SWDs. In 70 CST: Students With Disabilities 2011-12, only 11 percent California Modified Assessment 60 of LEAs met federal AYP benchmarks (that 50 78 percent of students 40 score proficient or advanced in both 30 English Language Arts and Mathematics) for 20 their disabled student 10 groups. This compares to 29 percent of LEAs 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 that met this AYP CST = California Standards Test. 22 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov ARTWORK #110501 Percent of Students Scoring Proficient or Advanced On Fourth Grade English Language Arts Assessment An LAO RepORt benchmark for their overall student population. exam as 10th graders, compared to 87 percent of Schools perform somewhat better on the state’s nondisabled students. For the class of 2012, only accountability system, but SWD gains still lag. 56 percent of SWDs had passed the CAHSEE by In 2011-12, 52 percent of schools met state API the end of 12th grade, compared to 95 percent of growth targets for their SWDs, compared to nondisabled students. Because of such low passage 67 percent that met the targets for their overall rates (and an associated lawsuit), state law was student populations. As described in the nearby changed in 2009-10 to allow certain SWDs to box, however, these statistics exclude about half of receive diplomas without passing the CAHSEE. the state’s LEAs (for AYP) and almost 90 percent Specifically, students’ IEPs or Section 504 Plans of schools (for AYP and API), as their populations can explicitly exempt them from the requirement of SWDs are deemed too small to report as to pass CAHSEE if they meet all other local discrete groups for accountability calculations. graduation requirements. The state currently is investigating alternative measures for SWDs to What Happens to SWDs After High School? demonstrate the same content knowledge as the Even With Exemption From Exit Exam CAHSEE, but no new requirements have yet been Requirement, Many SWDs Struggle to adopted. Even with the CAHSEE exemption, Complete High School. To meet federal testing Figure 11 (see next page) shows that only requirements, all students—including SWDs— 59 percent of SWDs graduate on time and almost must take the California High School Exit Exam one-fifth drop out of school. (CAHSEE) in 10th grade. State law also requires Data Suggest More Than Half of SWDs that most students pass the CAHSEE in order to Successfully Transition to College or Career graduate from high school. However, in 2011-12 Activities. As discussed earlier, the IDEA only about 40 percent of SWDs passed the exit requires that LEAs offer plans and services to Size thresholds Mean Majority of Districts and Schools not Held Accountable for Disabled Student Group Performance Because a majority of the state’s local educational agencies (LEAs) and schools serve smaller populations of students, many of them are not subject to federal and state accountability requirements and performance benchmarks for students with disabilities (SWDs). Specifically, to be held accountable for SWD group performance under both the federal and state systems, LEAs and schools must have valid test scores from either (1) at least 50 SWDs who make up at least 15 percent of the total number of valid scores or (2) at least 100 SWDs. If a school or LEA does not meet these thresholds, state law deems its SWD population too small to be numerically significant for federal Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and state Academic Performance Index (API) calculations. In 2011-12, 521 of the state’s 1,016 LEAs (51 percent) did not have numerically significant groups of SWDs for AYP calculations. Even more notably, 8,759 schools out of 9,905 schools (88 percent) did not meet the threshold for calculating AYP or API targets for their SWDs. Thus, just over half of the state’s LEAs and almost nine out of ten schools did not face achievement targets, monitoring, or sanctions related to how their SWDs performed. www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 23 An LAO RepORt help prepare SWDs for Figure 11 life after high school. Students With Disabilities (SWDs) While comprehensive Struggle to Complete High School information on these Cohort Data for Class of 2010-11 efforts is somewhat All limited, data suggest Students SWDs many SWDs are Graduate high school in four years 76% 59% successfully transitioning Drop out before completing high school 14 18 to postsecondary Remain enrolled past expected graduation date 9 19 Receive GED or certificate of completiona 1 4 education and careers Totals 100% 100% (some even without a a Certificates of completion are offered to SWDs who have not met the requirements to receive a high high school diploma). school diploma, but have completed prescribed alternative courses of study or met the goals of their Individualized Education Programs. Students with certificates of completion do not qualify for admission Specifically, CDE to postsecondary educational institutions. GED = General Educational Development—the high school equivalency test. estimates that about half of SWDs enroll in an SWDs are competitively employed within one year institute of higher education after high school. The of leaving high school. CDE estimates an additional roughly 15 percent of COnCLuSIOn Developing a more thorough understanding models, funding formulas, and outcomes. In of how California’s disabled students are served is almost all of these areas, special education is the first step towards improving their educational characterized by the complex interplay of policies outcomes. In this report, we provide a high-level and practices at the federal, state, and local levels. review of special education laws, services, delivery 24 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov An LAO RepORt GLOSSARy OF COMMOn tERMS RELAtED tO SPECIAL EDuCAtIOn Term Acronym Description Assembly Bill 602 AB 602 California legislation passed in 1997 that implemented a “census-based” special education funding model funding model. The formula allocates funding based on total K-12 student counts rather than on the number of students identified to receive special education services. Behavioral BIP A written document developed for students with serious behavior problems that significantly Intervention interfere with implementing IEP goals. The BIP becomes part of the IEP. Plan California CAPA State assessment designed for students with severe cognitive disabilities that preclude them Alternate from taking the California Standards Tests (CSTs) or California Modified Assessment. Performance Assessment California CMA State assessment designed for students whose disabilities preclude them from achieving grade- Modified level proficiency on the CSTs, even with accommodations. Assessment Child Find Federal requirement that school districts identify, locate, and assess all children in need of special education services, regardless of school setting or disability. Also referred to as “search and serve.” Due process Due process requirements specific to special education outline the right of parents to participate in—and challenge—their children’s special education assessments, identifications, and placements. These requirements specify processes for handling disputes, including resolution sessions, mediation sessions, and hearings. Encroachment Colloquial term referring to expenditures local school districts make from their general funds to serve SWDs. Excess costs The difference between the average expenditures for a SWD and those for a general education student. Extraordinary ECPs Two allocations of supplemental state funding available to: (1) SELPAs that incur Cost Pools disproportionately high costs for students whose IEPs require placement in nonpublic schools and (2) exceptionally small SELPAs that incur high costs for students whose IEPs require placements based on educationally related mental health needs. Free and FAPE Federal requirement that eligible students have the right to special education and related Appropriate services at no cost to the parent. Education Individualized IEP A written statement describing the education program, including special services or Education accommodations, that a SWD shall receive. Pursuant to federal law, the IEP is a legal Program document entitling the student to receive the services and accommodations it describes. Individualized IEP team Group typically consisting of a student’s parents, school administrator, special education Education teacher or service provider, general education teacher, the evaluator who assessed the Program team student’s eligibility for services, and—when appropriate—the student. Convened to develop, review, and revise an IEP. (Continued) www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 25 An LAO RepORt Term Acronym Description Individual Family IFSP Similar to an IEP but describes early intervention services for infants or toddlers with disabilities Service Plan and their families. Individuals with IDEA Federal law governing how states and public agencies must provide services to children with Disabilities disabilities. Part B requires special education and related services for children ages 3 to 22. Education Act Part C requires early intervention services for children ages birth to 2 and their families. Least restrictive LRE Federal requirement that, to the maximum extent appropriate, SWDs should be educated environment alongside nondisabled children. Incorporating SWDs into regular classrooms also is referred to as “inclusion” and “mainstreaming.” Licensed LCI Residential facilities licensed by the state to serve six or more youth. Residents typically include children’s foster youth (dependents of the state), wards of the court, and/or youth with serious emotional institution disturbances. Because children living in LCIs frequently require special education and related (group home) services, SELPAs that contain LCIs within their region receive additional funding. Low-incidence LID Less commonly occurring disabilities such as hearing impairments, vision impairments, and disability severe orthopedic impairments. Nonpublic school NPS/NPA Private schools and other entities that are certified by the state to provide services to SWDs. or nonpublic agency Office of OAH State agency designated to provide mediation and hearing services in special education due Administrative process cases. Hearings Referral Formal request to identify and assess a child’s possible special education needs. A referral may be made by a parent, teacher, medical personnel, or anyone with specific knowledge of the child. Triggers federally required timelines for conducting assessments and holding IEP meetings. Related services Developmental, corrective, and other supportive services as required to assist SWDs in benefiting from special education. Services can include (but are not limited to): speech- language pathology and audiology services, psychological services, physical and occupational therapy, and counseling. Response to RtI Tiered process of instruction designed to identify struggling students early—before referrals to Intervention special education—and provide targeted instructional interventions. Section 504 Plan Individualized plans detailing accommodations necessary to meet the special needs of disabled students. Unlike IEPs, which govern the provision of specialized educational services, Section 504 plans (required under the federal Rehabilitation Act, not IDEA) typically concern noninstructional accommodations. Special education Specially designed instruction to meet the unique needs of a SWD. Special Education SELPA Collaborative of one or more school districts, county offices of education, and/or charter schools Local Plan Area that coordinate to provide special education services for SWDs in their service area. Special day class SDC Special classes that serve pupils with severe disabilities whose more intensive educational needs cannot be met in regular classrooms. Typically located on a regular school campus. (Continued) 26 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov An LAO RepORt Term Acronym Description Specific learning SLD Disorder affecting one or more of the basic processes involved in understanding/using language disability or performing mathematical calculations. Most common disability diagnosis for students receiving special education services. Dyslexia is one commonly identified SLD. State Special SSS Three state-run residential schools for deaf and blind students: the California Schools for the Schools Deaf in Riverside and Fremont, and the California School for the Blind in Fremont. Students with SWDs Term used to refer to disabled students who have formally qualified to receive special education disabilities services covered under the IDEA. Student Success SST A team of educators convened at the request of a classroom teacher, parent, or counselor, Team or Student that designs in-class interventions to meet the needs of a particular student prior to a special Study Team education referral or development of an IEP. Transition Federal requirement that IEPs for SWDs ages 16 and older include a coordinated set of services services to improve the transition from secondary education to postsecondary education, work programs, and/or independent living. WorkAbility State vocational education program that provides grants to about 300 middle and high schools Program to offer pre-employment skills training, employment placement, work-site training, and follow- up services for SWDs. www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 27 An LAO RepORt LAO Publications This report was prepared by Rachel Ehlers and reviewed by Jennifer Kuhn. The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) is a nonpartisan office that provides fiscal and policy information and advice to the Legislature. To request publications call (916) 445-4656. This report and others, as well as an e-mail subscription service, are available on the LAO’s website at www.lao.ca.gov. The LAO is located at 925 L Street, Suite 1000, Sacramento, CA 95814. 28 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov