Improving Special Education Services for our Students:
What the New Administration Must Do on this 20th Anniversary of IDEA 2004
Dear Colleagues,
Introduction: Happy Anniversary IDEA 2004
Twenty years ago, on December 3, 2004, the last reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was signed by President George W. Bush. Originally passed in 1975 as the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (Public Law 94-142), it was amended in 1990 and renamed IDEA.
A Federal law, IDEA covers infants and toddlers with significant physical and developmental needs from birth to age 2 (Part C), and students with eligible disabilities from ages 3 through 21 (Part B—which has been extended to age 22 in some states based on recent court rulings).
These Students with Disabilities (SWD) are mandated to receive appropriate and meaningful educational services, supports, and interventions, along with transition services (starting between 14 and 16 years of age) to prepare them for post-graduation success.
Some key components of IDEA include:
- Individualized Education Plans, addressing students’ academic and related services (e.g., speech, counseling/therapy, physical therapy, occupational therapy) needs due to their disabilities
- Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) for these students according to their needs
- Education in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE)
- Appropriate and ongoing evaluations of the progress and emerging needs
- Parent and Teacher participation on IEP/Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) Teams
- Procedural Safeguards including Due Process when disagreements occur
While education and special education has significantly changed over the past 20 years—especially due to federal and Supreme Court decisions that have impacted the depth and breadth implementation of law, policy, and practice—IDEA has remained intact. . . with few calls for reauthorization.
A New Trump Administration: Déjà vu All Over Again?
Eight years ago, a month before President-Elect Trump took over for his first term as President. . . and as he selected a new Secretary of Education and, eventually, a new Director of the Office of Special Education Services (OSEP). . . I completed an analysis of the “state of special education” in our country, and made recommendations for the new OSEP Director.
Now, on the eve of the second Trump administration, I revisit this analysis. . . guided by my earlier 2016 suggestions.
From a policy perspective, I find little has changed. While, once again, some Supreme Court (and lower court) decisions have modified how IDEA is specifically interpreted, special education’s systems-level strengths and weaknesses largely remain.
From a procedures and practices perspective, however, the most effective services for students with disabilities continue to be hampered by the:
- Lack of adequate funding and how the available funding is distributed within districts and prioritized
- Lack of certified special education teachers, related services professionals (school psychologists, speech and language pathologists, occupational/physical therapists, and others (including paraprofessionals)
- Lack of well-trained, coached, and supervised professionals—as listed above
- Lack of understanding, coordination, and integration between general education and special education district-level leaders such that well-designed and coordinated curriculum, instruction, classroom/behavioral supports, and early intervention occur—to the greatest degree possible—in general education classrooms
- Lack of recognition and acceptance—by general education teachers—that they are co-responsible for helping to educate both general and special education students. . . especially when they have consultative support from colleagues who can provide the support needed for success
- Lack of sound and flexible data management systems that continuously and sensitively track students’ academic and behavioral status and progress in user-friendly ways so that their skill-related successes are apparent and can be extended, and their skill-related gaps can be analyzed and addressed
- Lack of effective data-based problem solving approaches that effectively identify the root causes of the gaps noted above, and link them to evidence-based, multi-tiered services, supports, and interventions
While these persistent issues individually impact specific student’s educational progress, they maintain equally-historical across-student negative outcomes like:
- The absence of a true multi-option LRE continuum of settings in many districts. . . such that SWDs end up in improper lesser or more restrictive settings, respectively, that truly do not match their needs
- The persistent presence of disproportionality both relative to the number of minority students (a) found eligible or not eligible for certain special education classifications, and/or (b) referred to the office or suspended for disciplinary offenses that are a manifestation of their disabilities
- The lack of training and availability of the wide range of Tier 2 and Tier 3 social, emotional, behavioral, and mental health interventions in schools nationwide that sometimes cause the disproportionality noted immediately above—and the implementation of needed services and supports
- The lack of school and community coordination such that more intensive mental health services and placements are not available for the students who need them—students, many of whom, are relegated to two-hour-per-week Homebound Services or are excluded from their districts entirely
- The lack of school and community coordination such that more meaningful and effective transition training and opportunities are not available to prepare SWDs for well-paying post-graduation vocational positions that allow them to live independently
With the incoming Trump administration, the selection of Linda McMahon (?!) as the new (once confirmed) U.S. Secretary of Education, we will see if and how our nation’s special education policies change.
In this context, below are our recommendations for the new Director of the U.S. Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) to address the issues and outcomes above, and to improve the services, supports, interventions, and outcomes for students with disabilities.
Why We Need a NEW OSEP Agenda
A new agenda and new perspectives are desperately needed for OSEP. . . to improve, integrate, and strengthen special education services, supports, and strategies in this country.
This is because the current agenda is flawed, is rooted in power and politics, and has lost a “students-first” focus.
Consider that:
- OSEP has been run largely by same senior staff. . . or senior-influenced staff. . . for too long;
- Many of OSEP’s systemic frameworks and processes (e.g., PBIS and MTSS) have never been field-tested or validated before being introduced and advocated in the field. . . (in fact, some OSEP grantees admit that they are literally “making it up as they go along”);
- Many of OSEP’s beliefs, ideas, and approaches have become singularly entrenched . . . and this entrenchment has created a “group-think” whereby OSEP rejects new or innovative approaches that do not “fit its mold”; and
- OSEP’s professional relationships (and grant awards)—across the country—with universities, national associations, “non-profit” Research & Development companies, and other “Thought Leaders” are similarly entrenched.
The poster child symbolizing OSEP’s entrenchment and group-think is the National PBIS Technical Assistance (TA) Center—first funded almost 30 years ago in the late 1990s.
In fact, OSEP’s own commissioned reports consistently show the Center’s:
- Glaring research-to-practice flaws and shortcomings;
- Lack of sustained school implementation and outcomes;
- Millions of taxpayer dollars that have not substantially changed our nation’s most pressing problems like school safety, student engagement, peer-on-peer bullying, disproportionality in discipline referrals for students of color and with disabilities, and ineffective Tier 2 and 3 interventions for students with social, emotional, and behavioral challenges;
- Favored status and singular advocacy of a framework that has no consistent implementation and no real empirical evidence of sustained impact. . .
. . . and yet, OSEP continues to widely recommend the PBIS framework without reservations, and it has refunded the same universities and professors with the Center five times every five years.
Now OSEP will vigorously deny all of the facts above. . . stating that federal law requires them to maintain objectivity and not favor specific frameworks or programs. But the proof is in the funding and its actions.
Indeed, the same universities, professors, and non-profits seem to disproportionately receive the largest and most influential competitive and non-competitive grants. Moreover, the same individuals are on each other’s OSEP-funded Technical Assistance (TA) Center Boards and Advisory Groups. And, the same individuals keep presenting at the same OSEP and OSEP-sponsored national conferences from year to year.
_ _ _ _ _
All of this has resulted in special education decisions that have lost their transparency and objectivity, special education discussions that are controlled and need to be “politically aligned” to OSEP, and special education training and practices that have lost their innovative and evidence-based edge.
And this will not change unless there is a new Agenda and a new OSEP Director who both understands the incestuous system that has existed for decades, and has the permission (and guts) to change it.
_ _ _ _ _
In addition. . .
Did you know that: The special education units within each state’s department of education (who receive federal special education funds that then are passed on to the districts in each state) are strongly “encouraged” to use (only) OSEP-funded (and “vetted”) TA Centers for needed technical assistance?
Did you know that: The National PBIS Technical Assistance Center received a no-bid contract from the U.S. Department of Education to provide the last ten years of presentations (read, commercials) for the required annual meetings of the Grantees of the School Climate Transformation Grants. . . and that the U.S. DoE subtly pressured (although they will deny it) Grantees to use that TA Center’s staff as the grant-funded “National Experts” required by the Grant?
Did you know that: Virtually all of the Presidentially-appointed OSEP Directors have been former state special education directors who are already entrenched in “the system”?
Did you know that: OSEP awards many of its largest grants to a small number of “non-profit” social science Research, Development, and Technical Assistance companies through the federal government’s “business opportunity” procurement website, and that these powerful companies are complicit in setting the nation’s special education agenda?
_ _ _ _ _
All of this (once again) has created, sustained, and institutionalized an OSEP agenda that began even before the IDEA was reauthorized in 2004.
And to support its agenda . . . as I have often written in my Blogs. . . OSEP has created a club of selected “members” . . . a club that those who critique OSEP—even with sound data and evidence—can’t get into.
What the NEXT OSEP Agenda Should Include
Given the discussion above, a new OSEP agenda is needed. Below is a recommended “Next Agenda”—starting with a “Statement of Philosophy and Purpose,” and proceeding through a series of actions that should occur during the new OSEP Director’s first 100 days in office.
Statement of Philosophy/Purpose
Within the bounds of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and IDEA, and set by the new Secretary of Education and other U.S. Department of Education officials, OSEP should naturally pursue an agenda that maximizes the academic and social, emotional, and behavioral progress, accomplishments, and proficiency of all students with disabilities.
Indeed, the ultimate goal is that all Students with Disabilities (SWD) graduate from high school with a general education diploma, and the skills needed to pursue higher education and/or a well-paying job of their choice—such that they are able to live full and independent lives.
But to accomplish this goal, OSEP needs to change its mission from being an organization focused largely on evaluating the IDEA compliance of every state department of education, to being an organization that supports every district and school across the country’s support of SWDs.
Functionally, this means that OSEP should/will provide more diverse and proven supports and technical assistance to the states and their districts and schools, while decreasing unneeded oversight and supervisory activities—thus, decreasing the burden on state Local Education Agencies (LEAs) need to document, defend, and rationalize their special education initiatives and activities.
In doing this, the hope (supported and encouraged by OSEP) is that states will increase their creativity and entrepreneurship such that more and different effective interventions for students with disabilities are developed, validated, and disseminated.
_ _ _ _ _
Specific Needed Directions and Actions
1. There is an immediate need for comprehensive discussions at the U.S. Department of Education level (after the Presidential inauguration, and once the transition to a new Secretary has been completed) focusing on how to integrate better ESEA and IDEA—especially at the District level—so that they are complementary, require general and special education administrative integration, and create a multi-tiered services and support continuum that is shared by general and special education.
OSEP’s requirement that every state have a general education/special education State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) is now 10 years old. It has been largely inconsequential, and any significant improvements in one state have not been transferred and replicated in others.
_ _ _ _ _
2. Districts do not know how to complete comprehensive Special Education Needs Assessments and Resource Analyses so that they can (a) identify, maintain, and extend their successes; (b) identify, isolate, and eliminate their failures; and (c) identify, analyze, and close their gaps.
OSEP needs to provide this leadership, providing proven templates and processes such that these actions can be completed. . . so that workable Action Plans to improve special education services at the LEA level can be developed, resourced, and implemented.
_ _ _ _ _
3. OSEP needs to commission a comprehensive, independent review of its State Performance Plan (SPP) and Annual Performance Report (APR) process—specifically to decrease the data collection burden on State Education Agencies (SEAs) and districts (LEAs), and to eliminate data collection requirements that go beyond the law.
_ _ _ _ _
4. A comprehensive audit and review of all competitive and statutory Part D funding grants (as well as all non-competitive OSEP-funded grants and grant programs) needs to be conducted to determine whether (a) grants are being (have been) selected through an open, honest, and objective review process, and in ways that are fully consistent with IDEA and federal law; and (b) the frameworks and workplans built into awarded grants are (have been) diverse and independent to the degree that they do not reflect a single-focused monopoly of (e.g., PBIS and MTSS) frameworks and research-to-practice approaches.
This review should include (a) the selection, supervision, and evaluation of the “independent reviewers” chosen by OSEP to panel competitive grants; and (b) how OSEP staff oversee the actual in-the-moment review process—including times when one reviewer scores a grant in a significantly discrepant way from the other two reviewers on the panel.
_ _ _ _ _
5. A comprehensive review of all OSEP staff, along with the organization of the Office, is needed. Many OSEP staff have served for extensive periods of time and, as such, there is a need to investigate (and address, as needed) whether their longevity has created a debilitating “group-think” within the Office such that creativity, objectivity, and innovation (on behalf of all students, as well as SWDs) has been compromised.
_ _ _ _ _
6. A comprehensive and independent review is needed of our nation’s special education recruitment, retention, professional development, and skill levels relative to all teachers, administrators, and related services personnel. This review should be completed by an experienced personnel management group—and not one of OSEP’s “go-to” social science research and technical assistance corporations (e.g., AIR, WestEd, MDRC) that OSEP awards millions of taxpayer dollars to per year.
This review should minimally analyze (a) the different roles and functions that these different educators should have in serving students with disabilities; (b) how they are being recruited and funded; (c) how they are being trained and maintained at the university and alternative certification levels; (d) what their initial and long-term efficacy and student-focused outcomes are; (e) what their coaching, supervision, professional development, and evaluation needs are across their careers; and... (f) how the system should be changed and improved.
_ _ _ _ _
7. Integrated into a number of the audits, needs assessments, and analyses above, a comprehensive review is needed to explore the health, mental health, and wellness factors and variables that impact the educational outcomes of all students—but, especially, those with disabilities.
_ _ _ _ _
8. Finally, in concert with #7 above, a comprehensive review of the Continuum of Care, Wraparound, and School-to-Work Transition programs for students with disabilities and/or significant mental or behavioral health concerns is needed—at the national and individual state levels. Regardless of the amount of time and effort being expended in coordinating and implementing these programs, they are not working for our students and young adults.
The Characteristics Needed by the Next OSEP Director
Given the discussion above, it is time to move away from a former or current State Special Education Director who has already been “socialized” by OSEP, its staff, and his or her state’s dependence on this federal office. This individual—while a political appointee approved by the Senate—will be unlikely to have the strength and political capital to make the essential and significant changes needed.
At one point, the OSEP Director was a special education advocate. While OSEP staff approached her in more “student-centered” ways, she did not have the understanding of the complex dynamics within the federal government, the U.S. Department of Education, or OSEP’s staff—who really “run” the Office—to establish dramatic and long-lasting cultural or policy-level changes.
No. . . our figurative recommendation for the next OSEP Director is someone who knows OSEP and federal law, is not beholden to OSEP and its history and staff, is not afraid of the web of existing OSEP-funded National Technical Assistance Centers and corporate/university grantees, and is able to take an objective, data-based look at OSEP’s strengths, weaknesses, gaps, and needs—all on behalf of SWDs.
A nationally-established School Psychologist or Special Education Lawyer comes to mind.
But whoever it is, the next OSEP Director should be chosen because s/he has the following characteristics:
- Is a Scientist-Practitioner. The next OSEP Director needs to understand the research and practice related to the psychology of learning and cognition, normal and abnormal development, social and emotional behavior, culture and ecology, curriculum and instruction, and group and organizational change.
S/he needs to have been a field-based practitioner—not just in one district or state, but in multiple districts and states.
_ _ _ _ _
- Has Large District Experience that Includes Interacting with a State Department of Education’s Special Education Office. The new OSEP Director should have high-level organizational experience with education and special education policy, practice, procedures, and programming. But, once again, s/he needs to understand how these functionally and practically affect districts, schools, staff, and classrooms.
Too many upper administrators (as above) have lost sight of how national policy actually affects classroom practice—and how our SWDs have received fewer and less effective services because of this loss of sensitivity.
The next OSEP Director should be a strong administrator. As above, OSEP’s staff have been largely running OSEP’s agenda and initiatives for decades. The new Director needs to have a broad, independent, and pragmatic perspective; and be able to change the climate, culture, organization, and staff/staffing patterns at OSEP.
_ _ _ _ _
- Understands Effective School and Schooling Practices. The new OSEP Director should understand the research and practice of effective school and schooling. . . recognizing that students with disabilities are not disabled; instead, they have specific areas of academic and social, emotional, and behavioral functioning that need attention so that they can be successful in these areas.
Indeed, students with disabilities are more like all other students than they are different. And so, rather than coming from a “disability—up” perspective, the new Director needs to come from an “ability-down” perspective.
This means that the new Director must understand all levels of curriculum and instruction, ability and disability, modification and accommodation, assessment and intervention, professional development and technical assistance, mentoring and supervision, administration and shared leadership, and strategic planning and organizational development.
Mixed in here are not just the educational practices that make schools work, but the business practices that help schools succeed.
The next OSEP Director should not come from the charter school sector, but must understand the charter school and private school worlds. The Director also should have experience with alternative and juvenile justice schools and programs, residential and day-schools specializing in specific student disability areas, and at the preschool through high school (and beyond) levels.
_ _ _ _ _
- Understands Strategic Planning, Scaling-Up, and the Process of Change. The new OSEP Director needs to understand, have experience with, and be able to apply his or her skills to the process of large-scale change. Thus, s/he needs to understand that there is an already-existing research base in strategic planning and organizational development, and the challenge is how to apply it to education. . . at different levels of complexity.
OSEP has spent the last decade advocating a process of scale-up and change that is untested, overly complex, and has resulted in significant numbers of “re-starts” and “re-do’s” at the state and district levels. It simply does not work. But, OSEP continues to throw “good money after bad results.”
The new OSEP Director needs to conduct the audits and evaluations recommended earlier in this Blog, create and implement the strategic plans needed, “pull the plug” from grants and frameworks that do not work, and make (special) education work in this country.
This will take guts, determination, fortitude, and the support of many colleagues. But it must be done. We have spent far too much time, money, talent, and resources on approaches that do not work. . . and that many practitioners and local/state level professionals are afraid to publicly admit (especially to OSEP) do not work.
_ _ _ _ _
It is time to change. . . to an OSEP Director who knows how to facilitate systemic change. . . and can accomplish this monumental job.
Summary
This Blog uses the 20th anniversary of the signing of the last reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA 2004), and the eve of the second Trump administration to reflect again—as I did eight years ago prior to the first Trump administration—on the state of special education in our country.
While some Supreme Court decisions have modified how IDEA is specifically interpreted, special education’s systems-level strengths and weaknesses largely remain.
In this Blog, we identified:
- The procedures and practices that continue to hamper effective services for students with disabilities (SWD);
- The persistent negative past and present outcomes that result;
- Why OSEP’s current agenda is flawed, is rooted in power and politics, and has lost a “students-first” focus;
- Why, therefore, a new agenda and new perspectives are desperately needed to improve, integrate, and strengthen special education services, supports, and strategies in this country;
- What, specifically, OSEP’s new agenda should include; and
- Who should be the next OSEP Director.
_ _ _ _ _
As history (re-)turns its page toward a new Presidential administration and leadership team, I hope that you will reflect on the quality of special education services, supports, and interventions received by the Students with Disabilities that you serve or know.
And. . . I hope that this Blog has been useful in delineating directions not just for the new Administration. . . but for your administration of services for SWDs. . . if you are in that kind of position.
There are many proven solutions for SWDs and their early interventions that are often now found in schools. . . because of some of the issues delineated above.
If you would like to discuss these with me, please do not hesitate to reach out so that we can set up a (free) time for our first conversation.
This is the best time of the year to conduct a Needs Assessment—resulting in a realistic and workable Action Plan—in this critical area for all our students.
I hope to hear from you soon.
Best,
