Increasing Regulatory Flexibility of Special Education Programs: Problems and Promising Strategies

Abstract

This study investigated the perceptions of federal, state, and local program administrators related to increasing regulatory flexibility. Open-ended interviews were conducted with 58 individuals representing 8 states, 11 local school districts, the U.S. Department of Education, and selected national organizations. Individuals were asked to respond to a number of questions regarding how their state or local district is attempting to increase flexibility in implementing the Indiviual with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Title I of the Improving America's Schools Act (IASA), and bilingual education and to identify barriers to increasing the consolidation of resources across these programs. Strategies for consolidating programs and services were also identified. Interviewees generally perceived a number of benefits in consolidation, including more efficient use of resources, enhanced collaboration, and more inclusive education. They also identified a number of policy and organizational barriers including fear of audits, lack of leadership, and lack of personnel training or support. Challenges included the dilution of services, lack of targeting, and loss of special protections to special populations.

Paved with Good Intentions: The Federal Role in the Oversight and Enforcement of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the No Child Left behind Act (NCLB)

“…Neither bottom-up nor top-down oversight and enforcement in special education can address organizational barriers to the law's implementation in general education (Skirtic, 1991). Special and general education have long existed as separate entities (McLaughlin & Verstegen, 1998;Milofsky, 1974). IDEA attempts to break down these barriers by promoting the placement of students with disabilities in the least restrictive environment, beginning with the general education classroom, and providing them with access to the general education curriculum.…”

A Longitudinal Analysis of Shifting Policy Landscapes in Special and General Education Reform

“…In contrast, reforms associated with special education have focused on a variety of approaches designed to help students gain access to the general education environment. Related initiatives include efforts to increase collaboration and consultation among general and special educators (Gutkin, Henning-Stout, & Piersal, 1988;Pugach & Johnson, 1989), promote the use of curriculum modifications and accommodations for students with disabilities in general education classrooms (Roach & Caruso, 1997;Wang, 1989), utilize special education funds in more flexible and creative ways (McLaughlin & Verstegen, 1998;Parrish, 1996;Parrish & Verstegen, 1994), and implement a variety of models related to the use of prereferral interventions and teacher assistance teams in order to support students at risk of academic failure and reduce inappropriate referrals to special education (Bahr, Fuchs, Fuchs, Fernstrom, & Stecker, 1993;Carter & Sugai, 1989;Chalfant & Pysh, 1989;Graden, 1989;Safran & Safran, 1996).…”

Across-Program Collaboration to Support Students with and without Disabilities in a General Education Classroom

“…Implementation of the UPS model schoolwide would require a redesign of staff roles and responsibilities, budgetary increases to reallocate funds to support across-program collaboration, and the establishment of regularly scheduled team planning meetings to develop, evaluate, and revise the unified plans of support. However, one promising funding source is provided by recent changes in federal education policy that increase flexibility in coordinating 1997 Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Amendments with Title I Schoolwide Programs and other categorical programs such as bilingual education (Mattson & Beckstrom, 1999;McLaughlin, 1995;McLaughlin & Verstegen, 1998;Verstegen, 1995). Inclusion advocates have been suggesting for many years that special education services and resources be delivered in a more flexible, consolidated manner (Sailor, 1991;Sailor, Gee, & Karasoff, 1993;Snell, 1991;Stainback & Stainback, 1985).…”

“…There are, however, substantial challenges to the development of coordinated services between Title I, bilingual education, and IDEA. Some barriers were identified by McLaughlin & Verstegen (1998) and include (a) regulations governing fiscal accountability, (b) lack of understanding of what is, and what is not, required by the law, and (c) lack of a cohesive state and federal policy framework. In addition, state accounting systems often do not allow co-mingling of funds (Mattson & Beckstrom, 1999).…”