“The Department of Education recognizes that schools must set high expectations and be held accountable to meet them regardless of federal legislation,” said Nicholas Donohue, Commissioner of the New Hampshire Department of Education. “New Hampshire has a history of promoting high standards for all students. Whether or not a school is designated as in need of improvement, all children need high quality instruction.”

The following schools have been preliminarily identified as Schools in Need of Improvement:

The list of schools in need of improvement in mathematics or English/language arts is preliminary. Schools and districts have 30 days to verify the accuracy of their data and appeal on technical and validity issues. A final designation will be made at the end of the 30 days.

“There are great variations between the schools that are identified as in need of improvement,” added Donohue. “Some may have missed making Adequate Yearly Progress in a single subgroup.” (Subgroups include: all students; American Indian/Alaskan Native; Asian/Pacific Islander; Hispanic; Black; White; Limited English Proficient; Special Education and Free/Reduced Lunch).

“The implications of becoming a school in need of improvement are diverse, and are dependent upon various factors, including whether or not a school is a Title 1 school that receives federal support,” said Lorraine Patusky, Office of Accountability. “Actions that may be required include choice, supplemental services and an improvement plan. Schools are held accountable for the areas in which they need to improve and then move forward in their efforts to improve student achievement at all levels.”

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) focuses in large part on the performance and participation of all students on the annual New Hampshire Educational Improvement and Assessment Program (NHEIAP). In addition, 95% of all students and all subgroups must participate in the statewide assessment program, and the school or district must meet the elementary or secondary “other indicator” in order to make AYP. (The “other indicator” for elementary/middle schools is attendance; the “other indicator” for high schools is graduation rate).

“The State of New Hampshire’s definition of AYP is unique to New Hampshire and based on our long history of developing student standards,” continued Patusky. “AYP is defined independently for each state.”

The Department has put in place statistical features - confidence intervals - to ensure that the data being used to designate schools as making or not making Adequate Yearly Progress is valid and reliable. With limited resources available, this allows the State to make sure that they are directing the resources where they are most needed.

“The focus is on giving districts the opportunity to improve on their own with assistance and resources made available to them through the Department of Education,” said Donohue. “The best place to improve schools is at the local level. Educational improvement and accountability are the goals we are continually striving for in every school and district throughout the state.”

The Department of Education this summer worked with schools that were potentially going to be schools in need of improvement to help them begin proactively working to develop research-based, effective strategies to improve learning for all students to be incorporated into a school improvement plan. The Department plans similar efforts in the future to try to help schools exceed the expectations embedded in our single state accountability framework.

We anticipate that a draft bill to reauthorize IDEA will be proposed to Congress this spring.  The Parent Information Center, through our website and other means, will provide regular updates on the reauthorization of IDEA, and how you can be involved in that process.  If you would like to be part of an e-mail alert network for the IDEA reauthorization, please e-mail us and we will add you to the list. 

Once the IDEA reauthorization is completed, New Hampshire will most likely have to amend its regulations to maintain compliance with any new requirements in IDEA.  It is important that your voice be heard during that process, as well.                                                    

Bonnie Dunham of the Parent Information Center had an opportunity to meet with New Hampshire Senator John Sununu at a reception hosted by the Technical Assistance Alliance for Parent Centers in January. Senator Sununu spoke about the importance of the Federal special education law, the Individuals with Disabilities Act, currently in the process of being reauthorized. He also conveyed his strong commitment to children with disabilities and their families.

PIC is looking for a few good board members!  The Board of Directors is currently recruiting new members to serve on PIC's board.  We are particularly interested in adding people to represent the following categories:

Parents of children with disabilities - we need parents of young children and children in elementary school/middle school; parents of children with sensory impairments, physical disabilities, and cognitive disabilities.

Parents of children without disabilities - we need parents who will bring the perspective of what today's parents need to make the difficult job of raising a child a little easier.         

Educators - special education personnel, regular educators, school administrators, related services personnel, early intervention staff, or other individuals who work with children with disabilities.

Minorities - individuals representing diverse or minority populations to help us to better understand the changing diversity of New Hampshire.

Community members - individuals with a background in working with nonprofit organizations or business.

It Takes a Team to Help All Students Succeed
National expert on family involvement in education brings her message to
Concord as part of the Best Schools Leadership Institute

The following information was provided by the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund (DREDF) which may be reached at preserveIDEA@dredf.org

The President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education’s report has been made available to members of the House and Senate Committees that are considering IDEA. Here is information from the executive summary.

1. Currently, process takes precedence over results and bureaucratic compliance over student achievement.
    
2. The current system uses an antiquated model that waits for a child to fail rather than using a model based on prevention and intervention.
    
3. Educators and policy-makers think about general education and special education as two
separate systems and tally the cost of special education as a separate program, not as additional services with resultant add-on expense.
 
4. When a child fails to make progress, parents have inadequate options and little recourse.
    
5. A culture of compliance has developed from the pressures of litigation.
    
6. Current identification methods lack validity, hence many students are misidentified, not identified, or not identified early enough.
    
7. Teachers need and want better preparation, support, and professional development.
    
8. Special education research needs enhanced rigor and long-term coordination.
    
9. The current system fails many children with disabilities; too few graduate from high school or transition to full employment or post-secondary opportunities, despite the transition service provisions in the current IDEA.

OVERALL: The central themes of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) must become the driving force behind IDEA reauthorization. This includes a focus on high academic standards, accountability, results, yearly progress reports, parental empowerment, teacher quality, scientifically rigorous research, and better identification and assessment methods.

1. Focus on results -- not on process. Raise expectations for student results instead of driving the system with process, litigation, regulation, and confrontation.
    
2. Embrace a model of prevention, not a model of failure. Move toward early identification and sift intervention with scientifically-based instruction and teaching methods.
    
3. Consider children with disabilities as general education children first. Share responsibility for students with disabilities. Do not treat special education as a separate cost system. Do not use funding arrangements to create incentives for special education identification or for isolating children with learning and behavior disabilities. Do not relegate students with disabilities to a separately funded program.

SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS

Accountability, Flexibility, and Parental Involvement:

1. Set high expectations. Use measures such as graduation rates, post-graduation outcomes, and parent satisfaction surveys.
    
2. Hold local educational agencies (LEAs) accountable for results. Require states to report annually on the success of each school and LEA in achieving IDEA goals. IDEA should provide for technical assistance for failing LEAs and should require states to take corrective actions, including state direction of IDEA funds for LEAs that do not make adequate yearly progress for three years in a row.
    
3. Increase parental empowerment and school choice. IDEA should allow state use of federal special education funds to enable students with disabilities to attend schools or to access services of their family's choosing, provided states measure and report outcomes for all students benefiting from IDEA funds.
    
4. Prevent disputes and improve dispute resolution. Develop processes to avoid conflict and
promote IEP agreements, such as using IEP facilitators. Require states to make mediation available whenever it is requested, not just when a hearing has been requested. Permit binding arbitration and train mediators, arbitrators, and hearing officers.

Special Education Finance:

1. Increase discretionary Part B federal funding and establish a definable threshold percent of excess costs. Continue the trend of increased federal funding for special education up to a specified threshold expressed as a percent of the estimated "excess cost" of special education borne by local education agencies.
    
2. Link future funding increases above the threshold percent to state plans to improve accountability for results. Cost accountability is fundamental to program accountability. Funding should be increased above the threshold percent only if the state has submitted a state improvement plan consistent with NCLB for implementing a new accountability system.
    
3. Target Funds for direct services. Ninety percent of Part B funds should flow through to LEAs. Remaining Part B funds should be prioritized consistent with a set of national priorities and retained at the state level.
    
4. Funding should be increased for Part C and Section 619.
    
5. Increase state and local flexibility. Year-end unexpended LEA federal funds and a fixed percent of Part B flow-through funds should be used to establish and maintain risk management pools to serve high-cost students such as those who have significant disabilities.
    
6. Focus on high-need children. Use safety net funding to address the impact of students with significant disabilities on state and local districts.

Federal Regulations and Monitoring, Paperwork Reduction and Increased Flexibility:

1. Replace federal monitoring practices with a focused approach. The USDOE should radically alter how it conducts technical assistance and monitoring to focus on results instead of process.
    
2. Reduce regulatory burden and increase flexibility. IDEA should provide a unified system of services from birth through 21, and the IEP should be simplified to focus on substantive outcomes. Federal regulatory requirements are burdensome and should be simplified. Up to 10 states shall be allowed to propose paperwork reduction strategies under IDEA to the Secretary of Education.
    
3. Utilize federal special education staff more effectively. The Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) has not met its obligations or appropriately implemented its responsibilities. Within 3 months of this report, the Secretary of Education should provide Congress with recommendations for how OSERS can better utilize its staff and resources to implement federal special education law.
    
4. Expedited results from expedited implementation. The new IDEA authorization should be implemented within 12 months, consistent with NCLB.

Assessment and Identification:

1. Identify and intervene early. Implement research-based early identification and intervention programs to identify academic and behavioral problems in young children.
    
2. Simplify the identification process. Make eligibility determination simpler and clarify the criteria used to determine the existence of a disability, particularly high-incidence disorder.
    
3. Incorporate response to intervention. Develop models based on response to intervention for progress monitoring.
    
4. Incorporate universal design in accountability tools. Include any accommodations and modifications for students with disabilities in designing new assessment tools.

Special Education Research and Dissemination of Information:

1. Change the current grant review process to create scientific rigor. Improve the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) so that more researchers participate in review processes. Create a culture of scientific rigor in OSEP.
    
2. Improve the coordination of special education research. Integrate the activities within the U.S. Department of Education's OSERS: the Rehabilitation Services Administration, the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, and OSEP.
    
3. Support long-term research priorities. Focus research on a narrower range of priorities to promote more reliable discoveries.
    
4. Improve the impact of research findings. Focus on proven, effective practices that can be implemented, scaled, and sustained nationwide.

Post-Secondary Results for Students with Disabilities and Effective Transition Services:

1. Simplify federal transition requirements in the IDEA. Provide clear steps for integrating school and non-school transition services.
    
2. Mandate federal interagency coordination of resources. Provide an Executive Order mandating existing agency coordination and pooling of existing funds.
    
3. Create a Rehabilitation Act Reauthorization Advisory Committee.
    
4. Support higher education faculty, administrators, and auxiliary service providers to more effectively provide and help students with disabilities to complete a high quality post-secondary education. Support and hold post-secondary institutions accountable for using evidence-based, best practice programs and practices.

Teacher and Administrator Preparation, Training and Retention:

1. Recruit and train highly qualified general and special education teachers. State licensures and endorsements should require specific training related to meeting the needs of students with disabilities and integrating parents into special education services.
    
2. Create research and data-driven systems for training teachers of special education.
    
3. Institute ongoing field experiences. Require teacher trainees to complete supervised practicum experiences in each year of their training, covering the full range of general education, special education, and inclusive settings and service delivery models.
    
4. Require rigorous training in reading. Include phonemic awareness, decoding, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension.
    
5. Require public reporting. Report the performance of general education and special education program graduates relative to educating students with disabilities.
    
6. Increase special education and related services faculty. Address the shortage of special education and related services doctorate holders who are qualified to train teachers.
    
7. Conduct research. Identify the critical factors in personnel preparation for improving the learning and achievement of students with disabilities.