+ All Categories
Home > Documents > 1 Spotlight on Practice: Special Education and the Shrinking Pie SES Fall 2010.

1 Spotlight on Practice: Special Education and the Shrinking Pie SES Fall 2010.

Date post: 12-Jan-2016
Category:
Upload: elfreda-jordan
View: 216 times
Download: 0 times
Share this document with a friend
Popular Tags:
32
1 Spotlight on Practice : Special Education and the Shrinking Pie SES Fall 2010
Transcript
Page 1: 1 Spotlight on Practice: Special Education and the Shrinking Pie SES Fall 2010.

1

Spotlight on Practice:Special Education and the

Shrinking Pie

SES Fall 2010

Page 2: 1 Spotlight on Practice: Special Education and the Shrinking Pie SES Fall 2010.

2

Funding Primer• Mandate

reimbursements• General unrestricted

funding• Categorical funding

Page 3: 1 Spotlight on Practice: Special Education and the Shrinking Pie SES Fall 2010.

3

Let’s Take a Look

Interdistrict TransfersCounty Mental HealthStaffing

Page 4: 1 Spotlight on Practice: Special Education and the Shrinking Pie SES Fall 2010.

4

Interdistrict Transfers Less Control

Interdistrict Transfers

Page 5: 1 Spotlight on Practice: Special Education and the Shrinking Pie SES Fall 2010.

5

Seasons of Repose

• Generally parent/legal guardian’s residency determines where student attends school

– Residency is the place where parent remains and to which he/she returns “in seasons of repose”

• An exception – interdistrict transfer

Page 6: 1 Spotlight on Practice: Special Education and the Shrinking Pie SES Fall 2010.

6

Interdistrict Attendance Options

• Traditional

• School District of Choice

• Open Enrollment Act

Page 7: 1 Spotlight on Practice: Special Education and the Shrinking Pie SES Fall 2010.

7

Traditional

• Admission standards:

– Different standard than general education students? No

– Discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, sex, religion, national origin or disability? No

Page 8: 1 Spotlight on Practice: Special Education and the Shrinking Pie SES Fall 2010.

8

Traditional

• Admission limitations

– Space availability? Yes

– Creation of a new program or service? Yes

Page 9: 1 Spotlight on Practice: Special Education and the Shrinking Pie SES Fall 2010.

9

School District of Choice

• Admission standards:

– Different standard than general education students? No

– Discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, sex, religion, national origin or disability? No

– Discrimination on the basis of academic or athletic performance? No

Page 10: 1 Spotlight on Practice: Special Education and the Shrinking Pie SES Fall 2010.

10

School Districts of Choice

• Admission limitations:

– Random, unbiased selection? Yes

– Creation of a new program or service?No … at least not for students with disabilities or English learners

Page 11: 1 Spotlight on Practice: Special Education and the Shrinking Pie SES Fall 2010.

11

School District of Choice

• Space availability:– If applied equally to both general and special

education students, then limitation can apply– A school district can reject a transfer if it

would be obligated to create a new program• “[E]xcept that a school district of choice shall not

reject the transfer of a special needs pupil, including an individual with exceptional needs … and an English learner …”

Page 12: 1 Spotlight on Practice: Special Education and the Shrinking Pie SES Fall 2010.

12

Open Enrollment Act(“Romero Bill”)

• Admission standards:

– Different standard than general education students? No

– Discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, sex, religion, national origin or disability? No

Page 13: 1 Spotlight on Practice: Special Education and the Shrinking Pie SES Fall 2010.

13

Open Enrollment Act(“Romero Bill”)

• Admission limitations:

– Adverse financial impact? Yes, but be careful

– Space availability? Yes, but be careful

Page 14: 1 Spotlight on Practice: Special Education and the Shrinking Pie SES Fall 2010.

14

Who Transports?

Page 15: 1 Spotlight on Practice: Special Education and the Shrinking Pie SES Fall 2010.

15

County Mental HealthTenuous State Mandate

Interdistrict TransfersCounty Mental Health

Page 16: 1 Spotlight on Practice: Special Education and the Shrinking Pie SES Fall 2010.

16

Terminology(a non-exhaustive list)

Services

AB 3632

AB 2726

Chapter 26.5

Agencies

CMH

DMH

DBH

Page 17: 1 Spotlight on Practice: Special Education and the Shrinking Pie SES Fall 2010.

17

History

• Assembly Bill 3632 (1984)

• Assembly Bill 2726 (1996)

• Assembly Bill 1895 (2004)

Page 18: 1 Spotlight on Practice: Special Education and the Shrinking Pie SES Fall 2010.

18

Referral Requirements

1. Following assessment, district, parent, or IEP team can refer; or

2. Based on preliminary results of assessment, only district can refer

Page 19: 1 Spotlight on Practice: Special Education and the Shrinking Pie SES Fall 2010.

19

Funding Sources

• Federal IDEA funds $69 million

• State categorical funding $31 million

• State categorical funding $52 million

$152 million

and

• Mandate reimbursement $0 (lately)

Page 20: 1 Spotlight on Practice: Special Education and the Shrinking Pie SES Fall 2010.

20

Governor’s Action

• Veto of $133 million in mandate reimbursements

• “This mandate is suspended.”

Page 21: 1 Spotlight on Practice: Special Education and the Shrinking Pie SES Fall 2010.

21

What We Want to Know

• Does the Governor have the legal authority to suspend a mandate?

• Who is responsible for mental health services while we find out?– The answer may evolve on a case-by-case

basis

Page 22: 1 Spotlight on Practice: Special Education and the Shrinking Pie SES Fall 2010.

22

However …• The IDEA says school districts are the payers of

last resort• CDE agrees• If a public agency other than a school district

fails to provide or pay, the school district must provide or pay in a timely manner

• The school district can use the interagency agreement or other mechanism to claim reimbursement

(34 C.F.R. § 300.154(b)(2).)

Page 23: 1 Spotlight on Practice: Special Education and the Shrinking Pie SES Fall 2010.

23

What Does This Mean for You?

• Maintaining timelines

• Obtain services

• Due process available

• Interagency dispute available

• Stay put

Page 24: 1 Spotlight on Practice: Special Education and the Shrinking Pie SES Fall 2010.

24

What to do?• Pre-referral services

• Build capacity, build relationships

Page 25: 1 Spotlight on Practice: Special Education and the Shrinking Pie SES Fall 2010.

25

Increased Class-SizeMaking Do

Interdistrict TransfersCounty Mental HealthStaffing

Page 26: 1 Spotlight on Practice: Special Education and the Shrinking Pie SES Fall 2010.

26

Furloughs and Shorter School Year

• Furloughs: To whom do they typically apply?

• Shortened school year: How low can you go?

Page 27: 1 Spotlight on Practice: Special Education and the Shrinking Pie SES Fall 2010.

27

Litigation Has Started

Page 28: 1 Spotlight on Practice: Special Education and the Shrinking Pie SES Fall 2010.

28

What Does CDE Say?

Page 29: 1 Spotlight on Practice: Special Education and the Shrinking Pie SES Fall 2010.

29

What Does CDE Say?

• IEP Trumps!!

• When necessary, reconvene to determine alternative means of addressing need

Page 30: 1 Spotlight on Practice: Special Education and the Shrinking Pie SES Fall 2010.

30

What does this mean for you?

• LRE standards– Increased class-size– Availability of supplementary aids and

services– Availability of related services

• ESY

• Section 504

Page 31: 1 Spotlight on Practice: Special Education and the Shrinking Pie SES Fall 2010.

31

Conclusion

• Know how interdistrict transfers affect your particular district status

• Build capacity for mental health services

• Analyze the effect of staff furloughs on an individualized basis

Page 32: 1 Spotlight on Practice: Special Education and the Shrinking Pie SES Fall 2010.

32

Q & A


Recommended