Improving Education for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students in California

Improving Education for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students in California MAC TAYLOR • L E G I S L A T I V E A N A L Y S T • SEPTEMBER 21, 2016 AN LAO REPORT 2 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov AN LAO REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Most Students Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing (DHH) Experience Language Delays. California currently serves about 14,000 DHH students a year. Because DHH students cannot respond to spoken language as easily as their hearing peers, they often lag behind in developing important language, social, and cognitive skills. These developmental delays lead to academic challenges, with DHH students as a group performing far behind other student groups on statewide assessments of reading/writing and math. A Variety of DHH Educational Programs Exist, but Some Students Have More Options Than Others. Several types of DHH educational programs operate in California, with programs varying by classroom setting and instructional approach. Regarding setting, some programs serve DHH students in mainstream classrooms, whereas others serve them in special classrooms consisting either solely of other DHH students or broader groups of students with disabilities. Regarding instructional approach, some DHH programs provide instruction in spoken language, others provide instruction using sign language, and still others use a combination of spoken and sign language. No single programmatic approach works best for all students. Students in some districts, typically large urban districts, tend to have access to more DHH programmatic options than students in other districts. DHH options typically are most limited in small, rural districts. DHH Education Is Costly, but Programs With Many Students Cost Less Than Smaller Programs. The cost of DHH education ranges from about $20,000 to more than $100,000 per student per year. Even using the low end of this range, the state spends significantly more on DHH students than it does on most other student groups, including students with various other disabilities. While DHH educational costs vary for several reasons, programs with many DHH students generally cost less than smaller programs. Two State Special Schools (SSS) Serve a Small Number of DHH Students at High Cost. The SSS, which are located in Fremont and Riverside, use sign language to educate about 800 DHH students a year. About 60 percent live on campus as residential students, whereas the remaining 40 percent live nearby and commute to school each day. Even though the SSS are larger than most local DHH programs, they currently spend on average $92,000 per student annually, significantly more than most local DHH programs. Assessment California Could Address Many DHH Educational Issues by Fostering “Critical Mass.” Programs with a certain number of DHH students (between 3 and 20 students per grade) are said to have critical mass. DHH students in these programs are less likely to be socially isolated and thus more likely to develop important language and social skills. Programs with critical mass also are more likely to offer a variety of DHH instructional approaches, increasing the chances of finding the best fit for each student. Finally, programs with critical mass generally can offer the same services as smaller programs at a lower cost. www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 3 AN LAO REPORT Regional Programs Help Foster Critical Mass, but Currently Are Rare. Regional programs are more likely to have a critical mass than programs organized within individual districts or Special Education Local Planning Areas (SELPAs). This is because regional programs draw DHH students from multiple SELPAs and serve them on a few campuses. Despite the advantages of assembling critical mass, relatively few regional programs exist in California today. These programs tend to be more difficult to form because they require school administrators both within and across SELPAs to agree on DHH programmatic and fiscal decisions. The SSS Have Major Shortcomings. Though the SSS are intended to help foster critical mass by drawing together DHH students from sparsely populated areas of the state, the SSS serve mostly DHH students from urban areas. These are the students most likely to be able to access local programs with critical mass. Districts also currently pay far less to place DHH students at the SSS than they do to serve these students locally. This arrangement likely discourages some administrators from establishing their own regional programs. Finally, SSS funding is not linked to enrollment. Over time, inflation-adjusted SSS spending per student has increased significantly—the result of enrollment declines coupled with funding increases. Recommendations Encourage More Regional Programs to Foster Critical Mass. Though the state already fosters critical mass through SELPA arrangements, we believe the state could do more in this area— particularly given the low incidence of DHH students statewide. Specifically, we recommend the Legislature take three key actions to encourage more cross-SELPA regional programs. First, we recommend providing one-time grants to cover the cost of starting or expanding these programs. Second, we recommend simplifying the process for creating regional programs by allowing these programs to serve all interested students without first obtaining permission from their home districts. Third, we recommend authorizing regional programs to charge districts a reimbursement rate that covers the average cost of participating students. Based on our review of available cost data, we recommend initially setting a default rate of $35,000 per student. Help the SSS Refocus on Serving Students From Rural Areas. Because even regional programs are unable to foster critical mass in some rural areas, we recommend refocusing the SSS to serve students from sparsely populated areas. To this end, we recommend the Legislature adopt an enrollment-based funding formula for the SSS that explicitly encourages rural enrollment while also reducing funding disparities between SSS and local DHH programs gradually over time. We further recommend providing transitional support to the SSS. Change Reimbursement Rate SSS Charges Districts to Improve Student Placements. In tandem with the above recommendations, we recommend raising the amount districts pay to send students to the SSS initially to $35,000 (or the going rate for regional programs). Setting the rate at this level would lessen districts’ incentives to place students at the SSS solely for fiscal reasons. It also would encourage more districts to develop local DHH programs by minimizing the cost difference between placing students at the SSS and serving them directly. Finally, this change would result in state savings that could be redirected for the regional program grants mentioned above. 4 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov AN LAO REPORT INTRODUCTION California opened its first school for the deaf these students continue to lag far behind their in 1860, long before it established most other forms hearing peers on statewide assessments of reading of special education. Today, we estimate California and math. spends more than $400 million a year to educate In this report, we undertake a comprehensive approximately 14,000 students who are deaf or review of DHH education in California. We hard of hearing (DHH). On a per-student basis, begin by describing the state’s current approach California spends substantially more to educate to DHH education, then identify several major DHH students than other groups of children, shortcomings with this approach, and conclude including students with various other disabilities. by making recommendations to address the Despite California’s long experience with and shortcomings. relatively large expenditures on DHH students, BACKGROUND DHH education in California can be language as early as their hearing peers, they often characterized as having three main facets— develop early language and cognitive delays that students, programs, and financing. We discuss each hinder future academic progress. These delays tend of these below. to be more pronounced in DHH children born to hearing parents, as hearing parents tend to be less DHH S tuDentS familiar with modes of communications that help Few California Students Are DHH. DHH DHH children develop in their early years. About students comprise about 0.2 percent of all 90 percent of DHH children are born to hearing California students, and 1.9 percent of all parents. (As discussed in the box on page 6, parents California students in special education. Most typically discover their child is DHH through a DHH students are hard of hearing rather than newborn hearing screening. Hospitals then refer deaf. Whereas about 1 in every 500 California DHH children for early education services.) students is hard of hearing, 1 in every 2,000 Language Delays Can Contribute to DHH California students is deaf. Though more technical Students Becoming Socially Isolated. Given the definitions exist, students who are hard of hearing difficulty DHH students and their hearing peers generally require special amplification to hear have conversing with each other, DHH students normal speech, whereas students who are deaf in mostly hearing environments can be socially generally cannot hear normal speech even with isolated. One strategy to prevent social isolation amplification. is to ensure these students attend schools with a Most DHH Students Experience Language critical mass of DHH peers. Though educators Delays. Young children develop important do not agree on what exactly constitutes a critical cognitive skills by listening and responding to mass, some have suggested standards ranging from the language that surrounds them every day. As 3 to 20 DHH students per grade. DHH children cannot listen and respond to spoken www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 5 AN LAO REPORT Most Districts Do Not Have a Critical Mass of shows, DHH students perform relatively poorly on DHH Students. Even if each district concentrated statewide assessments, with fewer than 35 percent all of their DHH students on a single campus, most scoring at or above grade level on reading/writing districts still would not assemble a critical mass. Of and mathematics. Among DHH students, deaf California’s approximately 1,000 school districts, students perform worse than those who are hard we estimate only about 150 have at least 3 DHH of hearing, particularly on assessments of reading/ students per grade and only about 5 have at least 20 writing. DHH students also generally perform DHH students per grade. worse on statewide assessments than other groups As a Group, DHH Students Have Low Test of students, including students from low-income Scores. Though test scores for DHH students families, English learners, and other students with are not readily available, we obtained scores by disabilities. submitting a special request to the California Department of Education (CDE). As Figure 1 Early Screening and Services for DHH Children Newborn Screening Identifies Deaf or Hard of Hearing (DHH) Children. California requires hospitals and perinatal services to screen all newborns to identify those who are DHH. Since these requirements were introduced in 2000, compliance has improved to the point where the state now appears to identify nearly all DHH children as newborns. As shown in the figure below, the state now identifies between two and three DHH newborns for every 1,000 births, a number equal to the estimated national incidence of DHH newborns according to the Centers for Disease Control. All DHH Infants and Toddlers Are Eligible for Early Education. Since 1993, California has provided early education California Now Identifies Most DHH Children as Newborns to all DHH children from birth to three years old. DHH Referrals for Early Education Per 1,000 Births Typically, early education 3.0 specialists visit these children at home at least 2.5 Estimated Range of Frequency of DHH Newborns once a week to teach their parents how to foster 2.0 healthy development. 1.5 Recently, the Legislature passed a law establishing 1.0 new language development benchmarks for DHH 0.5 children in early education. 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 DHH = deaf or hard of hearing. 6 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov Graphic Sign Off Secretary Analyst MPA ARTWORK #160430 Deputy Template_LAOReport_mid.ait AN LAO REPORT Figure 1 DHH Students Generally Lag Behind Other Student Groups in Statewide Assessments Percent Proficienta 70% Reading/Writing 60 Math 50 40 30 20 10 Graphic Sign Off Secretary Deaf Hard of Hearing All Special English Learners Low Income All Students Education Analyst MPA a Reflects students scoring proficient or above on the California Standards Test or California Modified Assessment as a share of all test-taking students in each group. Spring 2013 results. Deputy DHH = deaf or hard of hearing. DHH e Ducational P rogramS we estimate that auditory instruction is the most common DHH instructional approach in California. California offers a variety of DHH educational programs, with each defined by a particular combination of instructional approach, classroom Figure 2 setting, and instructional provider. California DHH Students by Instructional Approach DHH Instructional Approaches LAO Estimates Auditory Programs Teach DHH Students to American Use Spoken English. Instructional approaches for Sign Language DHH students fall on a spectrum from the mostly auditory to the mostly visual. On the auditory end of this spectrum, DHH students receive instruction Auditory in spoken English. These students often use assistive Total Communication technology such as hearing aids, cochlear implants, and classroom amplification systems. Many of these students also need special lessons to learn DHH = deaf or hard of hearing. how to speak and read lips. As shown in Figure 2, www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 7 ARTWORK #160430 Template_LAOReport_sm.ait AN LAO REPORT American Sign Language (ASL) Is a Visual voices, whereas other students might require sign Alternative to Spoken English. Users of ASL language interpreters. Some students spend part communicate through a combination of hand of their day in a mainstream classroom and part shapes, gestures, and facial expressions. Rather of their day in “pull-out” services with special than a simple word-for-word translation of spoken educators. These pull-out services might include English, ASL is a distinct language with a grammar, speech therapy or one-on-one instruction with a syntax, and history of its own. DHH specialist. Total Communication Programs Combine Special Day Classes Integrate DHH Students Auditory and Visual Approaches. These With Special Education or DHH Peers. About programs use multiple forms of communication 55 percent of DHH students spend most of their simultaneously to engage DHH students. For time in special day classes. Some special day classes example, teachers might use some ASL to augment include students with many different kinds of instruction given mostly in spoken language or disability, whereas others serve only DHH students. use some spoken language to augment instruction Special day classes that serve only DHH students given mostly in ASL. typically specialize in one instructional approach. Choice of Best Instructional Approach Has DHH Educational Providers Long Been Controversial. Schools have used the auditory and visual approaches since at least the School Districts Serve Most DHH Students. early 1800s, and educators have long debated We estimate roughly three-fourths of DHH which approach works best for most students. students are served either by their home district ASL users believe sign language offers DHH or a neighboring district. DHH students in these students a sense of community and shared history programs generally are limited to whatever DHH they otherwise would lack. On the other hand, offerings their districts provide. Some districts auditory proponents believe their approach offers offer only one instructional approach (for example, DHH students a better chance to succeed in a auditory) whereas other districts, typically larger mostly hearing world. Disagreements over the districts, offer a mix of approaches (for example, best instructional approach often divide the DHH auditory and total communication). Because most community into two opposing camps. Both state districts lack a critical mass of DHH students, they and federal law now protect parents’ right to choose tend to place DHH students either in mainstream the instructional approach they believe to be best settings or in special day classes that serve students for their child. with other kinds of disability. Some Districts Run Small, Collaborative DHH Classroom Settings Programs for DHH Students in Their Vicinity. Mainstream Classes Integrate DHH Students Recognizing that small and mid-sized districts With Hearing Peers. About 45 percent of DHH likely do not have the means to fully serve all of students spend most of their time in mainstream their students with disabilities (including DHH classrooms surrounded by hearing classmates. students), the state requires these districts to Most DHH students require special supports to collaborate with their neighboring districts to be integrated into a mainstream environment. For form Special Education Local Planning Areas, example, some students might require hearing aids or SELPAs. In an effort to foster critical mass, and special microphones to amplify their teachers’ some SELPAs have established centralized DHH 8 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov AN LAO REPORT programs that serve students from all of their breadth of educational options, sometimes even member districts on one or two school sites. having multiple special day DHH options. Having Although the state does not systematically track more DHH-specific options gives families and SELPA-run DHH programs, we are aware of educators the greatest chance to place each DHH dozens of such programs, including ones in urban student in an educational setting that meets his areas (for example, the San Diego County Office or her individual needs. Despite these advantages, of Education runs this type of program) and rural we estimate regional programs serve only about areas (for example, the Shasta County Office of 5 percent of DHH students in California, with most Graphic Sign Off Education also runs this type of program). We of these students living in urban areas. Figure 3 estimate SELPA-run programs serve between illustrates how regional programs compare to Secretary 10 percent and 20 percent of DHH students in SELPA and district DHH programs. Analyst California. SELPAs with a critical mass of DHH Two State Special Schools (SSS) Serve a Small MPA students are more likely to provide multiple DHH Number of DHH Students. Long before the state ARTWORK #160430 Deputy educational options, including special day classes adopted its SELPA approach to special education Template_LAOReport_mid.ait that specialize in DHH education. collaboration, it opened and operated two state Some Districts Collaborate to Run Relatively schools for DHH students. These schools were Large Regional Programs. Because the incidence of designed to foster critical mass by enrolling DHH DHH students is so low, even Figure 3 many SELPAs are not large Illustration Comparing District, enough to foster a critical SELPA, and Regional DHH Programs mass of DHH students. We estimate about 25 percent Regional Program of SELPAs do not have 3 DHH students per grade, and about 95 percent do not have 20 DHH students Serves Students From Neighboring SELPAs per grade. To further foster critical mass, neighboring SELPA Program SELPAs sometimes work together to create regional DHH programs that serve all students from participating SELPAs on a few school sites. Serves Students From Neighboring Districts For example, the regional program in Orange County District Program concentrates DHH students from ten SELPAs onto two elementary schools, one Serves Students Within District middle school, and one high school. Regional programs SELPA = Special Education Local Planning Area and DHH = deaf or hard of hearing. typically offer the greatest www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 9 AN LAO REPORT students from across the state, especially DHH student will attend a special day class at a regional students from sparsely populated areas. Students program or a mainstream class with an interpreter. in these areas have few, if any, other opportunities Each member of the team must sign off on this to be in a DHH program with a critical mass of plan. DHH students. Today, a total of approximately 800 Formal Process Resolves Disputes Between students (or about 6 percent of all DHH students) Parents and Their Districts. Parents and districts attend these two SSS, one located in Fremont and sometimes disagree about what specific services one in Riverside. These state-run schools serve each child needs. For example, parents might want mostly deaf students in an ASL special day class their child to attend an ASL special day class even environment. About 60 percent of students at the though their district only offers mainstream classes SSS live on campus throughout the week but return with interpreters. If parents desire a particular home during weekends and school holidays. The program their district does not offer, they can remaining 40 percent of students live nearby and request a due process hearing with the state Office return home after school each day. (Throughout of Administrative Hearings. Administrative law this report, we use SSS to refer to the two California judges preside over these hearings and render Schools for the Deaf. The state also operates one decisions. When a decision warrants a certain school for the blind and three diagnostic centers for education program, a district must either establish students with various disabilities.) such a program or arrange for the student to be Nonpublic Schools (NPS) Serve a served by another provider. Small Number of DHH Students. A total of Students Can Transfer Between DHH approximately 250 DHH students (or about Programs Only With Permission From Their Home 2 percent of all DHH students) attend six NPS in Districts. Under current law, all students need the state. NPS are nonprofit organizations that permission from their home districts before they contract with school districts to educate students can transfer to another district. This includes DHH with disabilities in a special day class environment. students, who can only attend DHH programs Five NPS specialize in auditory instruction and one in neighboring districts with the permission of specializes in total communication. Today, NPS their home districts. Districts may withhold this operate in the Bay Area (Berkeley, Redwood City, permission for any reason (unless the district is and San Francisco), the Los Angeles area (Culver overruled in a due process hearing). For example, City and Los Angeles), and Sacramento. neighboring districts might disagree about whether DHH students should be taught in an auditory or Choosing a DHH Program an ASL program. The district favoring ASL can Program Placement Decided by Parents, refuse to let its students transfer into its neighbor’s Teachers, and Administrators. Federal law outlines auditory program, and vice versa. a process to determine what services to provide DHH F inancing each student in special education, including DHH students. Under this process, a team composed The cost of DHH educational programs in of the student’s parents, teachers, and school California varies notably. Though costs vary, the administrators draft an annual service plan. For same core set of funding sources—state, federal, example, a student’s plan might specify whether the and local—support these programs. 10 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov AN LAO REPORT DHH Costs programs generally can offer any combination of instructional approach and classroom setting at DHH Educational Costs Are Driven by Services, lower cost than district programs. This is because Class Size, Caseloads, and Salaries. Though the regional programs tend to have larger class sizes state does not systematically track DHH educational and caseloads. Because SELPA programs tend to costs, we collected expenditure data from various be somewhat smaller than regional programs but DHH programs. Using these data and making somewhat larger than district programs, their costs certain programmatic assumptions, we derived Graphic Sign Off tend to fall between regional and district ranges. cost ranges for eight types of DHH programs (see Figure 4). For each combination of instructional NPS Programs Cost About the Same as Secretary approach and classroom setting, we assumed SimilaAr RReTgiWonOalR PKro #gr1a6m0s4. 3D0istricts pay a Analyst reimbursement rate for NPS services. According to students receive a fixed bundle of DHH educational Template_LAOReport_mid.ait MPA their public rate schedules, NPS programs charge services. For example, we assumed students in Deputy between $25,000 and $35,000 per DHH student, an auditory mainstream program receive regular or approximately the cost of running an auditory visits from DHH teachers, speech therapists, and special day class in a regional program with an audiologists, whereas students in a visual mainstream equivalent bundle of services. program are served by educational interpreters. After Figure 4 controlling for these bundles DHH Educational Programs Range in Average Cost of services, we allowed costs to vary based on class size, LAO Estimates of Annual, Per-Student Costs caseloads for specialists (like audiologists and speech District Program Regional Program therapists), and salaries for Auditory teachers and specialists. Programs with relatively large Mainstream classes and caseloads are less costly than smaller programs, as larger programs spread the Special cost of each bundle of services Day Class across more students. The most expensive programs tend Visual to be those that provide ASL in mainstream classrooms, as educational interpreters Mainstream typically have high salaries and serve only one student at a Special time. Day Class Regional Programs Less Costly Than District 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 $100,000 Counterparts. As indicated DHH = deaf or hard of hearing. in Figure 4, regional www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 11 AN LAO REPORT SSS Are Costly but Less Expensive Than difference out of their general purpose dollars, Some Alternatives. In 2014-15, the SSS spent effectively reducing the funding available to serve approximately $75,000 per day student and non-DHH students. $103,000 per residential student (with an average Districts Reimburse Regional and NPS overall per-student cost of $92,000). The cost Programs for Full Cost of Service. Districts use the of serving students at the SSS exceeds that of funding streams noted above to cover the cost of many, but not all, DHH educational programs in enrolling their students in regional programs and California. In particular, some parts of the state NPS, both of which charge reimbursement rates. have a chronic shortage of educational interpreters, Regional programs negotiate reimbursement rates and schools in these regions must pay high rates to with each district they serve. The NPS are required to attract qualified interpreters. In these regions, the submit their reimbursement rate schedules to CDE, SSS might be the least expensive option for serving which posts these rates each year on its website. students who use ASL. Districts Reimburse SSS for Small Part of Cost, State Covers Bulk of Remaining Cost. DHH Educational Funding Each district pays a relatively small annual State, Federal, and Local Funds Support reimbursement rate of about $7,000 to the SSS. District Programs. Districts receive state general These rates are intended to cover roughly 10 percent purpose funding to serve all students, including of the per-student instructional cost at SSS. After DHH students. This funding covers the cost of accounting for both instructional and residential basic educational services, such as textbooks and costs, district reimbursements constitute less teacher salaries. On top of these funds, both the than 5 percent of the overall SSS budget. The state state and federal governments distribute additional provides almost all remaining SSS funding. The funding to cover the cost of special education amount of state SSS funding in any given year is services, such as auditory equipment or salaries based primarily on the prior-year SSS funding level for interpreters and other specialists. When DHH grown for certain state salary and benefit increases. program costs exceed combined state and federal (The SSS also receive a small amount of federal special education funding, schools make up the funding.) ASSESSMENT We have three main concerns with California’s mass of DHH students have several advantages existing approach to DHH education. As over smaller programs. First, DHH students in discussed below, we are concerned that the state these programs are less likely to be socially isolated. is missing some opportunities to foster critical Second, these programs are likely to offer a variety masses of DHH students, the SSS have significant of instructional approaches, allowing parents and programmatic and fiscal shortcomings, and data on educators more opportunity to discover which key DHH outcomes are not available. approach works best for each student. Finally, because their teachers and specialists are able to Missed Opportunities to Foster Critical Mass serve many DHH students simultaneously, these Critical Mass Produces Several Programmatic programs have lower per-student costs than smaller and Fiscal Benefits. Large programs with a critical DHH programs. 12 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov AN LAO REPORT State Already Makes Efforts to Foster Several Concerns With the SSS Critical Mass. The state already requires groups Despite Statutory Mission, the SSS Serve of small and mid-sized districts to collaborate on Relatively Few Students From Sparsely Populated special education issues through their SELPAs. Regions. State law requires the SSS to give priority These SELPAs sometimes draw DHH students admission to students from sparsely populated together across district lines to foster critical mass. regions. However, more than half of SSS students Moreover, the state encourages DHH students come from Riverside and Alameda counties, the living in sparsely populated areas to attend one of densely populated counties where the SSS are the state’s two residential DHH schools. In sum, located. Furthermore, of the remaining students the state already provides several opportunities for who attend the SSS, most come from adjoining DHH students to be drawn together into larger, counties with dense urban populations. We enriched, and more affordable DHH programs. estimate less than 15 percent of SSS students come Regional Programs Are Rare, Seemingly from sparsely populated areas of the state. Because Coordination Is Difficult. Despite existing Some Districts Are Reluctant to Refer Students state efforts to draw DHH students together, most to the SSS for Programmatic Reasons. Many districts and SELPAs still do not have critical administrators, including some in rural areas, have masses of DHH students. As a result, the only told us they are reluctant to refer students to the SSS practical option for achieving critical mass in due to specific programmatic concerns. The most many areas of the state is to establish regional common concerns raised are the SSS not providing programs. We are aware, however, of only a handful all special education services outlined in a student’s of regional DHH programs in California. Many individualized education plan and the SSS having administrators have told us regional programs unusually stringent student discipline practices. are rare because neighboring SELPAs (and the These concerns might explain why some districts districts they represent) often disagree on issues rarely or never refer students to the SSS, even though such as instructional approach and setting, location, it costs the districts significantly less to serve students finances, administration, and student transportation. at the SSS than in their own DHH programs. Low Reimbursement Rates at the SSS Might SSS Funding Is Not Linked to Changes in Discourage Regionalization. Though the SSS Enrollment. For all public schools other than the reimbursement rates originally were intended SSS, the state adjusts funding to reflect annual to encourage more districts to develop their changes in student enrollment. As the state does not own DHH programs, these rates currently are adjust SSS funding to reflect student enrollment, the far below the cost of serving a DHH student in SSS have no fiscal incentive either to increase their district, SELPA, or regional programs. As a result, enrollment or prevent enrollment declines. Over the districts and SELPAs concerned with ensuring last 50 years, enrollment at the SSS has declined by their students have access to a critical mass of more than 20 percent while overall funding for the DHH peers have a strong fiscal incentive to refer SSS has increased significantly. students to the SSS rather than work through all SSS Per-Student Costs Have Increased the organizational issues necessary to establish Significantly Over Time. As shown in Figure 5 regional programs. (see next page), inflation-adjusted, per-student expenditures at the SSS have increased by about 140 percent over the past 50 years. By comparison, www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 13 Graphic Sign Off Secretary ARTWORK #160430 Analyst Template_LAOReport_mid.ait MPA Deputy AN LAO REPORT Figure 5 Inflation-Adjusted Per-Student Expenditures at SSS Have Increased Significantly (2014-15 Dollars) $100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 Graphic Sign Off Secretary ARTWORK #160430 1964-65 1969-70 1974-75 1979-80 1984-85 1989-90 1994-95 1999-00 2004-05 2009-10 2014-15 Analyst Template_LAOReport_mid.ait MPA SSS = State Special Schools. Deputy we estimate inflation-adjusted, per-student students at the SSS score at or above grade level on expenditures for all other California schools reading/writing as compared to 18 percent of deaf increased by about 50 percent during the same student in other settings, and 15 percent of students period. High Per-Student Costs Not Justified by Figure 6 SSS Student Characteristics. Despite their high Students at the SSS Score Lower on Statewide Assessments Than Their DHH Peers per-student costs, the SSS do not appear to serve DHH students with unusually challenging needs. Percent Scoring at or Above Grade Level On Statewide Assessments, Spring 2013 Students at the SSS are only somewhat more likely than DHH students in other settings to 40% come from low-income families (68 percent at the 35 Reading/Writing SSS compared to 58 percent in other settings) or 30 Math have multiple disabilities (13 percent at the SSS 25 compared to 11 percent in other settings, excluding 20 speech and language impairments). 15 Despite Higher Per-Student Costs, Students at 10 the SSS Lag Behind on Statewide Assessments. As 5 Figure 6 shows, students at the SSS score lower on statewide tests than deaf students in other settings. SSS Other Deaf Students Students (Nearly all students at the SSS are deaf rather SSS = State Special Schools and DHH = deaf or hard of hearing. than hard of hearing.) In particular, 13 percent of 14 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov AN LAO REPORT at the SSS score at or above grade level on math as in special education as one group. The primary compared to 27 percent of deaf students in other rationale for not reporting special education settings. subgroup data appears to be protecting student privacy. Privacy issues, however, can be overcome Limited DHH Data, Weak Public Accountability by setting a minimum subgroup size (typically No Subgroup Data Means No Way to Assess 10 to 15 students) for reporting purposes. Without and Compare DHH Programs. To date, the state key DHH outcome data, parents and policymakers has not required districts to report test scores or currently cannot compare DHH programs or assess graduation rates for DHH students as a subgroup. the overall success of DHH education in the state. Instead, districts report outcomes for all students RECOMMENDATIONS Below, we recommend steps to improve and SELPAs to work together across SELPA lines to DHH education in California without increasing form or expand regional programs. We recommend state spending (see Figure 7). Specifically, we providing up to a total of $75 million for the grant recommend creating more opportunities for program, or $25 million per year. (This amount is critical mass by encouraging greater use of regional linked to certain SSS reimbursement rate changes programs, helping the SSS fulfill its core mission that we recommend in the next section—changes of serving students from rural areas, and making that free up about $25 million in state funds per DHH student data more readily available. The year.) To obtain grants, new or existing regional recommended changes to the SSS free up some programs would submit applications specifying the funding that we recommend repurposing for number of students they intend to serve and the regional DHH programs. specific expenses they intend to incur. Recipients could use grants for any reasonable associated Provide More Opportunities for Critical Mass cost, including DHH program coordination and Provide Incentive Grants to Start or Expand outreach, curriculum development, instructional Regional Programs. As noted above, regional materials, audiological equipment, hiring and programs offer the only practical option for Figure 7 creating a critical mass of Summary of Key Recommendations DHH students in some Foster More Opportunities for Critical Mass parts of the state. To help Provide grants to start or expand regional programs. foster these programs Allow DHH students to freely enroll in regional programs. in more areas of the Require districts to reimburse regional programs for each enrolled DHH student. Help the SSS Fulfill Their Core Mission state, we recommend Link SSS funding to enrollment. the Legislature fund a Increase reimbursement rates. new, three-year grant Provide transitional support. Provide Better Data program. The grants Report aggregate data on DHH student performance. would be intended to DHH = deaf or hard of hearing and SSS = State Special Schools. encourage more districts www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 15 AN LAO REPORT moving bonuses for new DHH staff, and facility or SELPAs would no longer need to negotiate a renovations or expansions. We recommend varying transfer agreement with each neighboring district, grant amounts based on DHH enrollment so that thereby greatly simplifying and streamlining their larger programs receive larger grants. Additionally, enrollment practices. This recommendation would we recommend grants be allocated broadly across also empower any DHH student living near a the state. As discussed in more detail in the nearby regional program to choose between that program box, we recommend that a temporary committee and his/her home district program. To ensure administer the incentive grant program. these students have practical access to any nearby Allow DHH Students to Freely Enroll in Any regional program, we recommend requiring that Regional Program. We recommend requiring regional programs provide transportation to DHH regional DHH programs to annually specify their students in their vicinity. enrollment capacity and enroll interested DHH Empower Regional Programs to Charge students up to that capacity, selecting students by a Reimbursement Rate, Set Default Rate. We lottery if enrollment demand exceeds capacity. recommend the Legislature authorize regional Likewise, we recommend allowing all DHH programs to charge districts a reimbursement students to attend any regional program without rate that covers the cost of the students they first receiving permission from their home districts. serve. Based on our review of the cost of running As a result of this recommendation, districts a regional program, we recommend initially Establish a Deaf or Hard of Hearing (DHH) Educational Committee Task Committee With Selecting Grant Recipients. We recommend the Legislature establish a committee to implement the new incentive grant program. We recommend the committee establish specific application procedures and select grant winners. At a minimum, we recommend the applications be required to outline a comprehensive vision for a new or expanded regional program. The committee could evaluate applicants using a basic set of criteria, including: the projected number of students served, the soundness of the proposed fiscal plan, the variety of instructional approaches offered, the proposed location and its centrality for DHH families, and geographic proximity to other regional DHH programs. Grant recipients would be granted state approval to operate regional programs moving forward. Set Committee Membership, Staffing, and Funding. We recommend the committee be large enough to represent the diversity of stakeholders in DHH education but small enough to conduct business in a timely manner. For example, the Legislature could create a seven-member committee, with one representative each from the State Special Schools, Nonpublic Schools, the State Board of Education, California’s Deaf Access Program, and higher education, as well as two local special education administrators. We recommend providing enough funding for the committee to hire two limited-term staffers and provide each committee member with a small stipend (for example, $15,000 per year) to compensate for his/her time and expense. We recommend establishing the committee for three years, consistent with the duration of the grant program, though we expect somewhat more work to occur in the first year of implementation compared to the next two years. 16 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov AN LAO REPORT setting a default rate at $35,000 per student. As satisfy three major policy objectives: (1) ensure the part of its incentive grant application, a regional SSS fulfill their mission of serving DHH students program could propose a reimbursement rate that from sparsely populated areas, (2) reduce funding was higher or lower than the default rate, though disparities between the SSS and local DHH the application would need to provide special programs, and (3) ensure a manageable transition justification for a higher rate. The DHH educational from current funding levels. In the box on the next committee would make the final determination page, we outline one possible funding model that on a program’s rates and CDE would post each satisfies each of these requirements. regional program’s annual rate publicly. We Increase SSS Reimbursement Rates. In recommend adjusting all approved reimbursement tandem with the shift to an enrollment-based rates annually to reflect the overall K-12 cost-of- funding formula, we recommend increasing the living adjustment and revisiting the issue after ten reimbursement rate the SSS charges each district years to ensure these rates still reflect relevant costs. such that these districts have a fiscally neutral choice between referring students to the SSS and Help the SSS Fulfill Their Core Mission establishing their own regional programs. We Help the SSS Focus on Students From Rural believe districts’ decisions to refer students to the Areas. If the recommendations we discuss above SSS should be based on each student’s educational result in new and expanded regional programs, needs, rather than favoring the SSS because of a more DHH students would benefit from programs large fiscal incentive. To this end, we recommend with critical mass. Regional programs, however, linking the reimbursement rate for the SSS to the might remain uncommon in some rural parts of default reimbursement rate for regional programs the state given that these programs would have to ($35,000 initially). cover large geographic distances with few DHH New Reimbursement Rates Would Create students. Moreover, regional programs that do State Savings, Recommend Using Mostly for form in rural areas might not have all the DHH Regional Programs. Higher reimbursement rates options provided by their urban counterparts. In would shift some of the cost of the SSS from the particular, because relatively few DHH students use state to districts. This would produce state savings ASL, regional programs in rural areas might lack without decreasing overall funding for the SSS. the students needed to operate an ASL special day Under our recommended reimbursement structure, class. For many DHH students in rural areas using we estimate direct state appropriations to the SSS ASL, the SSS therefore might be the only practical would decrease by approximately $25 million per option for being in a program with their peers. To year (assuming current enrollment), with district better serve these students, we recommend several reimbursements increasing the same amount. As changes to the SSS below. discussed above, we recommend repurposing the Link State Funding to Changes in Enrollment. bulk of the freed-up state funds to help start and First, we recommend the Legislature adopt a expand regional DHH programs. statutory budget formula to adjust state SSS Set Aside Some State Savings to Provide funding annually for changes in their enrollment, Transitional Support to the SSS. We recommend with the adjustments beginning in 2018-19. At a dedicating any state savings not designated for minimum, we recommend the new budget formula regional programs to short-term, transitional www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 17 AN LAO REPORT support to the SSS. The state could provide some help the SSS conduct outreach to rural SELPAs as transitional support if SSS enrollment declined well as examine and make recommendations for significantly during the transition to a new improving programmatic aspects of the SSS. funding formula and reimbursement system. This Over Long Run, State Savings Would Be transitional funding could be structured to phase Available for Other Purposes. Over the long run, out gradually over a period of three to five years, any state savings generated by the change in the SSS giving the SSS time to recruit new students and reimbursement rate structure would be available for adjust to any funding change. The state also could any special education priority, including additional award SSS a small amount of transitional funding support for DHH programs. ($60,000 per year for two years) upon state approval Publish Data on DHH Student Outcomes of a proposal to hire a limited-term consultant focused on strengthening SSS’s relationship with Report Data on DHH Student Performance. rural SELPAs. At a minimum, this consultant could We recommend the Legislature require CDE to Example of Enrollment-Based Funding Formula for the State Special Schools (SSS) Increase Funding When Enrollment Increases, Decrease Funding When Enrollment Declines. One way to meet the guiding policy objectives would be to set one funding rate for enrollment growth and another rate for enrollment declines. Under this approach, the state would fund new SSS enrollment at the average cost calculated for comparable deaf or hard of hearing (DHH) programs. Though the SSS have a larger DHH student body than any existing DHH regional program, regional programs come closest to the SSS in terms of services provided and cost structure. For these reasons, the state could link the per-student funding rate for new SSS enrollment to the state default rate for regional DHH programs (initially $35,000). To this amount, the state could add the average cost of providing housing and transportation for SSS residential students, which is currently about $28,000. For enrollment declines, the state could decrease SSS funding based on the prevailing SSS per-student cost (currently $75,000 per day student and $103,000 per residential student). This enrollment-based approach ensures that funding is linked with students, new state funding is provided at comparable rates for students receiving comparable services, and funding for the SSS changes gradually. (The state uses a similar approach to fund overall special education enrollment.) Measure Enrollment Using Three-Year Moving Averages. If the state were concerned about potentially large year-to-year changes in SSS enrollment under the new funding system, it could calculate SSS enrollment using a three-year moving average. This modification would provide SSS with an even more manageable transition to the new funding mechanism. State Could Modify Formula to Encourage Rural Enrollment. If the state were concerned that the SSS lacked adequate incentive to recruit students from sparsely populated areas, it could fund new rural enrollment at a higher rate than new urban enrollment. One option would be to fund urban enrollment at the statewide average rate ($35,000), with the rural rate somewhat higher. Even with this modification, the funding formula still would decrease the funding disparity between the SSS and regional programs gradually over time. 18 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov AN LAO REPORT report some student outcome data by disability county, SELPA, and state levels. (For example, if a category. Specifically, we recommend that test county has ten DHH students spread across several scores and graduation rates be reported for districts, the average test results for the group any group of ten or more students who share would be reported at the county level but not at the a disability. By restricting these reporting district or school level.) These data would enable requirements to groups of ten or more students, policymakers to better track the performance this recommendation would balance the demand of DHH students as a subgroup and determine for better information with the need to protect whether the legislative reforms outlined above, if student privacy. We recommend requiring enacted, resulted in improved outcomes. outcomes be reported at the school, district, CONCLUSION California’s DHH students have unique We believe the state could implement these needs that too often are not met by the state’s changes without additional overall spending. By existing educational system. We believe the repurposing some existing DHH funding, the recommendations outlined in this report would state could achieve better overall DHH outcomes, improve DHH education by encouraging more including better service and achievement for many regional programs and refocusing the SSS to DHH students in the state. serve students from sparsely populated regions. www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 19 AN LAO REPORT LAO Publications This report was prepared by Ryan Anderson 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. 20 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov