Appendix
D
State
Part B Administrator Survey
IDEA – NAIS
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
This survey is part of the IDEA National Assessment Implementation Study (NAIS), a new study that is occurring as part of the congressionally mandated National Assessment of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA 2004). The NAIS is sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education (ED), Institute of Education Sciences (IES). The purpose of the study is to determine how state and local government agencies are implementing early intervention and special education programs supported under IDEA 2004. The NAIS will have important implications for the education of students with disabilities as it will provide critical information to the Department of Education and Congress and inform the next reauthorization of IDEA.
We are requesting you and other state special education directors complete this questionnaire because you and your staff have the most knowledge about special education policies and practices in your state. With your contribution, ED and Congress will gain a more accurate and complete understanding of how IDEA is being implemented at the state level. Please note that data on state policies and resources/supports may be reported by state.
Thank you for joining us in our effort to understand the implementation of IDEA 2004. We appreciate your time and cooperation.
Please see the next page for definitions for completing this survey.
According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless such collection displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this information collection is 1800-0011. The time required to complete this information collection is estimated to average one hour (or minutes) per response, including the time to review instructions, search existing data resources, gather the data needed, and complete and review the information collection. If you have any comments concerning the accuracy of the time estimate(s) or suggestions for improving this form, please write to: U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C. 20202-4537. If you have comments or concerns regarding the status of your individual submission of this form, write directly to: Lauren Angelo, U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, 555 New Jersey Avenue, N.W., Suite 502H, Washington, D.C. 20208.
If you have any questions, contact:
Martha Wilaby, 800-XXX-XXXX
e-mail: IDEA-NAIS@westat.com
Definitions
Throughout this questionnaire “students with disabilities” means school aged-students having mental retardation; hearing impairment, including deafness; speech or language impairment; visual impairment, including blindness; serious emotional disturbance (hereafter referred to as emotional disturbance); orthopedic impairment; autism; traumatic brain injury developmental delay; other health impairment; specific learning disability; deaf-blindness; or multiple disabilities and who, by reason thereof, receive special education and related services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) according to an Individualized Education Program (IEP).
STATE EDUCATION AGENCY QUESTIONNAIRE
Identification
Significant Disproportionality and Early Intervening Services (EIS)
According to IDEA 2004 and the accompanying regulations, an LEA may choose to use up to 15% of its Part B funds for EIS. If an LEA is identified as having significant disproportionality in identification, placement, or discipline, it is required to reserve 15% of its Part B funds to provide EIS to students in the LEA. Each state develops a definition of significant disproportionality for making this determination.
What
best describes the status of your state’s progress in defining
significant disproportionality for 2008-09? Choose one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Please enter the web address of a location where we may view your current definition of significant disproportionality. If this information is not available on a website, please include a hard copy when you return your survey.
|
How many LEAs are required to use EIS during the current school year as a result of significant disproportionality?
Unduplicated count |
|
|
|
If zero, skip to Item 5 |
Specify the number of LEAs required to use EIS as a result of significant disproportionality during the current school year in each of the three areas: identification, placement, and discipline. If the LEA is required to use EIS because of disproportionality in multiple areas, count the LEA in each of those areas.
Area of significant disproportionality: |
|
Number of LEAs required to use EIS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When an LEA is
required to use EIS as a result of significant disproportionality,
which of the following actions does your state education agency
(SEA) undertake? Check all that apply.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
h. None of the above |
|
If “other”, please describe below:
|
Please specify the number of LEAs that voluntarily are using any portion of their Part B funds to implement EIS during the 2008-09 school year. If you don’t know, enter ‘DK’ in the box.
Number of LEAs choosing to use EIS |
|
If an LEA in your state does not have significant disproportionality and wishes to use Part B funds to provide EIS…
|
Yes |
No |
|
|
|
|
|
… |
|
|
… |
|
|
… |
Response to Intervention
Response to Intervention (RtI) is a multi-step approach to providing early and progressively intensive intervention and monitoring within the general education setting. In principal, RtI begins with research-based instruction and behavioral support provided to students in the general education classroom, followed by screening of all students to identify those who may need systematic progress monitoring, intervention, or support. Students who are not responding to the general education curriculum and instruction are provided with increasingly intense interventions through a “tiered” system, and they are regularly monitored to assess their progress and inform the choice of future interventions, including possibly special education for students determined to have a disability.
Which of the following describe state-level activities related to RtI? Check all that apply.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If “other”, please describe below:
|
Please describe any current SEA initiatives related to RtI in each of the content areas below.
|
Reading |
Math |
Behavior |
Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If your state has either a
pilot or statewide initiative that promotes RtI in elementary
schools, at what level are decisions made about each of the aspects
of RtI implementation described below? Check one or more box in
each row.
If your state has no current initiatives related to implementation of RtI in any area, skip to item 11.
|
|
||||
|
Level or levels where decision is made
|
||||
Staff at SEA decide |
Staff at LEA decide |
Staff at school decide |
Not done |
Don’t know |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In determination of eligibility for special education under Specific Learning Disability (SLD), which best describes your state’s policy with respect to RtI? Choose one.
|
|
Skip to Item 14 |
|
|
Skip to Item 14 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If “other”, please describe below:
|
If your state permits the use of a discrepancy method in determining Specific Learning Disability, which best characterizes your state policy? Choose one.
|
|
|
|
Does your state have a plan to eliminate the use of an IQ-achievement discrepancy model as a determination of eligibility for special education under Specific Learning Disabilities by the 2010-2011 school year?
Yes |
|
No |
|
Personnel and Staffing
The following items ask about personnel and staffing issues for both general education and special education teachers. Some or all of the items may require data that is most easily accessible outside the special education office, such as from a certification or licensing bureau or from a human resources or personnel department. Please feel free to consult with others as necessary in order to provide the most accurate data possible for these items.
Which state agency is responsible for licensing and certification of special education teachers?
|
|
|
|
|
|
If “other”, please describe below:
|
During the current (2008-2009) and prior (2007-2008) school years, what strategies has your state routinely used to increase the proportion of teachers who meet the Highly Qualified Teacher (HQT) provisions of IDEA and NCLB? Check all that apply.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If “other”, please describe below:
|
In the questions below, HOUSSE refers to High, Objective, Uniform State Standard of Evaluation. Using HOUSSE, the No Child Left Behind law (NCLB) allows states to develop an alternate way for current teachers to demonstrate subject-matter competency and meet HQT requirements consisting of a combination of teaching experience, professional development, and knowledge in the subject garnered over time in the profession.
Under HOUSSE, in what ways does your state measure subject matter knowledge for special education teachers at the elementary school level? Elementary schools are schools for which the lowest grade is 3 or lower, and the highest grade is 8 or lower. Please indicate whether the alternate ways of demonstrating subject-matter competency are required or optional under HOUSSE. Check all that apply.
|
Required |
Optional |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If “other”, please describe below:
|
Under HOUSSE, how does your state measure subject matter knowledge for special education teachers at the middle school level? Middle schools are schools for which the lowest grade is between 4 and 7, and the highest grade is between 4 and 9. Please indicate whether the alternate ways of demonstrating subject-matter competency are required or optional under HOUSSE. Check all that apply.
|
Required |
Optional |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If “other”, please describe below:
|
Under HOUSSE, how does your state measure subject matter knowledge for special education high school teachers? High schools are schools for which the lowest grade is 7 or higher and the highest grade is 12. Please indicate whether the alternate ways of demonstrating subject-matter competency are required or optional under HOUSSE. Check all that apply.
|
Required |
Optional |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If “other”, please describe below:
|
Parent/Guardian Involvement
For the 2008-2009 school year, is your SEA offering any of the following to LEAs to promote the involvement of parent/guardians of students with IEPs? Check all that apply.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If “other”, please describe below:
|
For the 2008-2009 school year, does your state have a federally funded Parent Training and Information Center (PTI)?
Yes |
|
No |
Skip to Item 22 |
For the 2008-2009 school year, in what ways are SEA staff collaborating with the PTI? Check all that apply.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If “other”, please describe below:
|
Academic Standards
Alignment of Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) with State Standards
Standards-based IEPs are those that align goals for students with disabilities with the content and academic achievement standards that form the basis of each state’s general education curriculum.
Content standards describe what students should know and be able to do in the core academic subjects.
Academic achievement standards gauge the proficiency with which content standards have been attained by individuals or groups of students.
For the 2008-2009 school year, does your SEA provide a mandated standards-based IEP for LEAs?
Yes |
|
No |
|
For the 2008-2009 school year, does your SEA provide a suggested standards-based IEP for LEAs?
Yes |
|
No |
|
For the 2008-2009 school year, does your SEA have formal written policies in place regarding development and use of standards-based IEPs?
Yes |
|
No |
|
For the 2008-2009 school year, does your SEA have written guidelines in place regarding the development and use of standards-based IEPs?
Yes |
|
No |
|
During the 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 school years, has your SEA provided any training or professional development on the development of standards-based IEPs?
Yes |
|
|
No |
|
Skip to Item 29 |
Who was the target audience for the training or professional development on the development of standards-based IEPs? Check all that apply.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If “other”, please describe below:
|
What topics were covered by the professional development on standards-based IEPs? Check all that apply.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If “other”, please describe below:
|
Use of Testing Accommodations
For the 2008-2009 school year, does your SEA have formal written policies that specify a list of allowable/permissible testing accommodations?
Yes |
|
No |
|
Please indicate when the testing policies being used for the 2008-2009 school year first became effective.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If “other” please note school year below:
|
Dispute Resolution
During the last school year (2007–2008), how many formal mediations did your state complete?
|
If none, enter 0, then skip to Item 35 |
How
many of these formal mediations resulted from the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Of the mediations reported
in Item 31, how many concerned the following issues?
Count
mediations more than once if they involved more than one issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If “other”, please specify below:
|
Of the mediations reported in Item 31, how many resulted in a mediation agreement?
|
During the last school year (2007–2008), how many resolution meetings were requested?
|
During the last school year (2007–2008), how many impartial due process hearings were requested?
|
If none, enter 0, then skip to Item 39 |
Of the number of impartial due process hearings reported in Item 36, how many were completed after unsuccessful mediation?
|
Of the number of impartial due process hearings reported in Item 36, how many concerned the following issues? Count hearings more than once if they involved more than one issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If “other”, please specify below:
|
Does your state education agency conduct administrative reviews?
Yes |
|
|
No |
|
Skip to Item 42 |
During the last school year (2007–2008), how many state administrative review hearings did your state agency complete?
|
If none, enter 0, then skip to Item 42 |
Of the number of state administrative reviews reported in Item 40, how many concerned each of the following issues? Count reviews more than once if they involved more than one issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If “other”, please specify below:
|
During the last school year (2007–2008), how many state/federal judicial reviews of hearings did your state complete?
|
If none, enter 0, then skip to end of survey |
Of the number of state/federal judicial reviews reported in Item 42, how many concerned each of the following issues? Count reviews more than once if they involved more than one issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If “other”, please describe below:
|
THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO COMPLETE THE SURVEY!
Please use the space below to provide any additional information or comments that you have.
|
Contact Information
Please provide us with your name, title, address, phone number, fax number and email address in case we need to contact you to clarify responses to any of these questions.
Name |
|
|
|
Title |
|
|
|
Address |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phone |
|
|
|
Fax |
|
|
|
|
If more than one person filled out this survey, please indicate their positions below and the sections each completed.
Position/Section… c… |
|
|
|
Position/Section… |
|
|
|
Position/Section… |
|
Please estimate how long it took, in total, to complete this questionnaire.
|
hours |
|
minutes |
Thank you for completing this questionnaire.
File Type | application/msword |
File Title | SEA Survey |
Author | Tamara Daley |
Last Modified By | doritha.ross |
File Modified | 2008-09-18 |
File Created | 2008-09-18 |