To view the PDF please click on the document title.

July 30, 2008

This brief policy analysis begins with a background of the changes in federal requirements on specific learning disabilities (SLD) from 1975 to today. Findings from a survey to which 49 state directors of special education responded are described. Ten responding states are in various stages of revising their state regulations to respond to the federal changes with the other 39 having completed their regulation change process. All but three states’ regulations or possible regulations fall into one of the following options:

• Regulations require the use of response to scientific, research-based intervention and do not allow use of severe discrepancy in establishing eligibility for SLD. (8)
• Regulations allow the use of either response to scientific, research-based intervention or severe discrepancy in establishing eligibility for SLD. (28)
• Regulations allow response to scientific, research-based intervention, severe discrepancy or any other research-based alternative to be used in establishing eligibility for SLD. (10)
• Three states did not describe their possible regulations.

The document provides observations and conclusions as well as helpful references, an extract from IDEA regulations issued August 2006 and a copy of the survey used to collect data for the document. (Click here to download Adobe Acrobat Reader for free.)

June 30, 2008

This In Depth Policy Analysis begins with a working definition of UDL that incorporates the theoretical framework developed by CAST and the architectural concepts of universal design described by the Center for Universal Design. UDL is defined as the “proactive design of curricula (including learning goals, instructional methods and materials, and assessments) that are accessible and usable by all students with little or no need for additional accommodations and are compatible with available assistive technology.” Staff from six local educational agencies in five states were interviewed to gather information about UDL practices, successes and challenges. Findings are reported in the following areas:

• policies and practices;
• systemic issues;
• practical application
• supports and influences;
• benefits and challenges; and
• future directions and recommendations.

The document closes with conclusions and relevant appendices.(Click here to download Adobe Acrobat Reader for free.)

May 15, 2008

This Brief Policy Analysis is a synthesis of two reports developed for the website, Primers on Implementing Special Education in Charter Schools. A background on charter schools is given prior to the syntheses of the reports. The two reports each focus on a distinctive type of charter school: 1) schools designed for students with disabilities and 2) virtual charter schools. In the case of the charter schools for students with disabilities report, the author shares legal and policy contexts and typical issues. Regarding virtual charter schools, the report shares information on how special education is handled in this context. An observation section is provided following the report syntheses. (Click here to download Adobe Acrobat Reader for free.)

May 15, 2008

This In-Depth Policy Analysis is the result of findings based on a survey sent to all special education units of state education agencies. The survey requested information about the use of 10 alternative dispute resolution processes not specifically required under IDEA, the extent of their use, and other information. The 10 processes studied are:

• Conflict resolution skills training;
• Stakeholder management or oversight council;
• Parent-to-parent assistance;
• Dispute resolution case managers;
• Telephone intermediary;
• IEP facilitation;
• Third-party opinion or consultation processes;
• Early complaint resolution; and
• Resolution meeting facilitation.

Each of these processes is defined and findings are described under each process. Factors that impact the use of these processes are discussed and conclusions are drawn. (Click here to download Adobe Acrobat Reader for free.)

March 3, 2008

This In-Brief Policy Analysis reports findings gathered from a survey of state special education staff. Findings are reported in the areas such as: staffing and funding for AT services at the state and local levels; state guidance; and professional development. Most of the responding states provide guidance and support to local education agencies regarding the need for AT evaluation and addressing student-specific needs. All states provide at least general training about AT services and programs. Most states do not provide an AT certificate or degree program. Findings show much variability among states in the amount of staffing provided, the ways in which funds are spent for AT and the types of professional development provided. An appendix provides access to state websites for education-related AT programs and services. (Click here to download Adobe Acrobat Reader for free.)

March 2, 2008

This Brief Policy Analysis is based on a survey of all state education agencies (SEAs). Findings include information regarding the variation among states as they establish policy and staffing patterns for administering the summary of performance requirement in IDEA 2004. An SOP policy exists in 25 of the 40 responding SEAs. Staff with dedicated time to oversee the policy implementation are employed in 23 SEAs. Half of the SEAs report that overseeing this policy is a challenge. SEAS also show variability in who receives and when they receive the SOP. Most states also provide general technical assistance on the implementation of the SOP primarily for LEA staff. The survey protocol and individual state SOP websites are included as appendices. (Click here to download Adobe Acrobat Reader for free.)

March 1, 2008

This Policy Forum Proceedings briefly discusses the federal, state and local roles that affect graduation requirements for all students, including students with disabilities. The purpose of the policy forum was to express issues related to graduation requirements for students with disabilities and develop policy recommendations to address these issues at the local, state and federal levels. Background research and a summary of panel and participant discussion are provided. Issues raised and recommendations with actions steps are provided. (Click here to download Adobe Acrobat Reader for free.)