To view the PDF please click on the document title.

January 1, 2009

This In-Brief Policy Analysis describes five states’ current special education unit structures, changes in their structures, triggers for changes and corollary changes. The states were chosen for interview because they either had already restructured or were in the midst of restructuring. These states were Delaware, Washington, DC, Maryland, New Hampshire and New York. The states vary in size, reason for restructure and how their special education unit restructured. (Click here to download Adobe Acrobat Reader for free.)

October 31, 2008

This policy forum proceedings document begins with an introduction to the unique challenges that administrators face as they support implementation of services for children with disabilities who are homeless. Findings from a virtual forum are presented in the areas of policy and practice issues and recommendations for change. Forum participants’ recommendations focus on developing policies and practices for:

• expediting enrollment and provision of services; and
• coordinating programs and services.

The numerous appendices contain additional reference, contact, process and policy information and sample forms. (Click here to download Adobe Acrobat Reader for free.)

October 31, 2008

This In-Brief Policy Analysis is based on a survey sent to all special education units of state education agencies and interviews with eight states. Findings are synthesized for types of supports provided, frequency of resolution meetings, factors that impact the use of resolution meetings, and states’ needs to support the implementation of resolution meetings. Conclusions are drawn based on the survey results. (Click here to download Adobe Acrobat Reader for free.)

October 31, 2008

This In-Brief Policy Analysis is based on a survey sent to all special education units of state education agencies. The survey requested information on states’ efforts to support local education agencies to address the provisions for parentally placed private school students with disabilities. Findings are synthesized for state policy and procedures, guidance and technical assistance, and special circumstances. Conclusions are drawn based on the survey results. Pertinent federal regulations, the survey instrument and state reference information are included in appendices. (Click here to download Adobe Acrobat Reader for free.)

September 2, 2008

This Policy Forum Proceedings document includes an introduction and regulatory background to the CEIS. It summarizes the presentations made by the U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education staff about the requirement for local education agencies to use CEIS funds, the significant disproportionality requirements, CEIS administrative issues and implementation issues. Throughout each of these presentations and during a subsequent large group discussion, several discussion points and suggestions were given by participants. These are outlined and the document concludes with observations. (Click here to download Adobe Acrobat Reader for free.)

September 1, 2008

This Brief Policy Analysis addresses fiscal responsibility in situations when students with disabilities are placed by a noneducational agency outside the boundaries of their district of residence. Data was collected through a survey of all state directors of special education. Findings address the extent of the problem, rules for determining financial responsibility, the resolution of disputes and other strategies to address this complex policy issue. Numerous examples and related state resources are given. (Click here to download Adobe Acrobat Reader for free.)

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.)