DOCUMENT RESUME ED 467 246 EC 309 102 Gaston, Caroline AUTHOR Shared Successes, Continuing Challenges: Fostering IDEA and TITLE Title I Collaboration. Proceedings of the Council of Chief State School Officers and the Policymaker Partnership Peer Consultation (3rd, Baltimore, Maryland, December 11-14, 2001). Council of Chief State School Officers, Washington, DC.; INSTITUTION National Association of State Directors of Special Education, Washington, DC. Special Education Programs (ED/OSERS), Washington, DC. SPONS AGENCY PUB DATE 2001-00-00 25p.; Written under the guidance and direction of Elaine NOTE Bonner-Thompkins. Council of Chief State School Officers, Division of State AVAILABLE FROM Services and Technical Assistance, One Massachusetts Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20001-1431. Tel: 202-336-7016; Fax: 202- 408 -8072; e-mail: [email protected]. For full text: http://www.publications.ccsso.org. Collected Works PUB TYPE Proceedings (021) Reports Descriptive (141) EDRS PRICE EDRS Price MFO1 /PCO1 Plus Postage. Administrative Change; *Agency Cooperation; Change DESCRIPTORS Strategies; *Compensatory Education; Delivery Systems; *Disabilities; Educational Change; Elementary Secondary Education; *Integrated Services; Interprofessional Relationship; Program Improvement; *Regular and Special Education Relationship; Shared Resources and Services; State Programs; Teacher Collaboration IDENTIFIERS Elementary Secondary Education Act Title I; Illinois; Improving Americas Schools Act 1994 Title I; Individuals with Disabilities Education Act; Kansas; Kentucky; Louisiana; Michigan; Utah; Washington; Wyoming ABSTRACT The Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) and the Policymaker Partnership (PMP) of the National Association of State Directors of Special Education have joined together to consider challenges and opportunities for coordinating special and compensatory education among states, districts, and schools. As part of this effort toward increasing collaboration, CCSSO and PMP hosted 2 peer technical assistance matches as vehicles for raising awareness and understanding among key stakeholders in the year 2000. The success of these consultations led to sponsoring organizations hosting another similar event, a peer consultation in late 2001. This report summarizes the proceeding and key lessons from that peer consultation. The peer consultation included two components. In the first component, three states (Illinois, Louisiana, and Wyoming) not previously involved in the network met together to develop their vision of the elements of successful collaboration and barriers to collaboration. In the second component, five states (Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Utah, and Washington) that had previously been involved in peer consultations that focused on the collaboration joined the three new states. Results from the discussion groups Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. indicate that professional development is a key vehicle for furthering collaboration. A second commonly heard theme was the importance of using multiple communication strategies to foster collaboration. This document includes the following sections: Introduction; Three State Consultation; Eight State Consultation; and Next Steps. A list of participants is appended. (CR) Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. Shared Successes, Continuing Challenges -ostering I 1 FA and 7itle I Collaboration A Peer Consultation U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION oiii e of Educational Research and Improvement ATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION ED CENTER (ERIC) This document has been reproduced as received from the person or organization originating it. 0 Minor changes have been made to improve reproduction quality. PA.IRTNERSHIPS Points of view or opinions stated in this document do not necessarily represent official OERI position or policy. Pink-Yoko:01S National Association of State Directors Council of Chief State School Officers in partnership with of Special Education Conference Proceedings December 11 14, 2001 N Baltimore, Maryland J U 4-1 BEST COPY AVAILABLE Council of Chief State School Officers The Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) is a nationwide, nonprofit organization of the public officials who head departments of elementary and secondary education in the states, the District of Colum- bia, the Department of Defense Activity, and five extra-state jurisdictions. CCSSO seeks its members' consensus on major educational issues and expresses their views to civic and professional organizations, federal agencies, Congress, and the public. Through its structure of standing and special committees, the Council responds to a broad range of concerns about education and provides leadership and technical assis- tance on major educational issues. Division of State Services and Technical Assistance The Division of State Services and Technical Assistance supports state education agencies in developing standards-based systems that enable all children to succeed. Initiatives of the division support improved methods for collecting, analyzing and using information for decision-making; development of assessment resources; creation of high-quality professional preparation and development programs; emphasis on instruc- tion suited for diverse learners; and the removal of barriers to academic success. The division combines existing activities in the former Resource Center on Educational Equity, State Education Assessment Center, and State Leadership Center. Initiative to Improve Achievement in High Poverty Schools The Initiative to Improve Achievement in High Poverty Schools, launched in the spring of 1995, focuses on building the capacity of state education agency officials and their local partners through effective implemen- tation of ESEA, Title I, and other federal and state programs. The Initiative, whose goal is to ensure that students in high poverty schools gain the knowledge and skills necessary for sustained success, has come to encompass a wide set of activities and products to reach these objectives. These include national working conferences, special education and extended learning initiatives, the Limited English Proficient Students Assessment Project, State Support of Alternative and Community-Based High Schools, and the High School and Immigrant Students' Project. Council of Chief State School Officers Suellen K. Reed (Indiana), President Michael E. Ward (North Carolina), President-Elect Peter McWalters (Rhode Island), Vice President G. Thomas Houlihan, Executive Director Julia Lara, Deputy Executive Director, Division of State Services and Technical Assistance 3 JEST COPY AVAIIIIA Tug Acknowlegements The Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) thanks the National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE) and the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) for their generous support of the Shared Successes, Continuing Challenges peer technical assistance meeting on which this proceedings document is based. In particular, we thank Joanne Cashman, Director of the Policymaker Partnership at NASDSE, and Debra Price-Ellingstad, federal Project Officer for the Policymaker Partnership at OSEP. CCSSO extends a special thanks to the state team members from Louisiana, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Utah, Washington and Wyoming who made the meeting possible with their collective administra- tor , practioner and parent perspectives. We also thank representatives from OSEP, the federal Title I office and the Inspector General's Office of the U.S. Department of Education for sharing their expertise. The resources shared from the Mountain Plains Regional Resource Center, Great Lakes Regional Resource Center and the Elementary and Middle School Technical Assistance Center during the meeting are also appreciated. The contents of this document do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Department of Education or those of the organizations cited above. This proceedings document was written by Caroline Gaston, CCSSO Consultant, under the guidance and direction of Elaine Bonner-Tompkins, CCSSO Project Director. Elaine Bonner-Tompkins and Gitanjali Pande, CCSSO Project Assistant, provided editorial assis- tance with this document; Kathrin Breitt Brown, CCSSO Research Assistant, provided both editorial and design assistance. The authors and editors take collective responsibility for the opinions expressed in this document. 4 . , Contents Introduction 1 Purpose of the Peer Consultation 1 Context 1 Three State Consultation 3 State Reports: Illinois, Louisiana and Wyoming 3 Promising Strategies Identified by Illinois, Louisiana and Wyoming 5 Barriers to Collaboration and Potential Strategies 6 Synthesis of the Three State Meeting 7 Eight State Consultation 8 State Reports: Washington, Michigan, Kansas, Kansas, and Utah 8 Shared Successes, Continuing Challenges: A First Look 11 The Federal Perspective 11 Federally-Funded Resources to Support Collaboration 12 Distinguishing Between Real and Perceived Barriers 12 Focusing on Results and Accountability 13 Next Steps 15 Appendix 16 1 Introduction The Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) and the Policymaker Partnership (PMP) of the National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE) have joined together in a partnership to consider challenges and opportunities for coordinating special and compensatory education among states, districts, and schools. Toward this end, CCSSO and PMP have established a dialogue with the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) and Office of Compensatory Education Programs (Title I) seeking greater guidance on behalf of state and local administrators on the parameters of special education and Title I collaboration available under the 1997 Amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the Improving America's Schools Act (IASA). As part of this effort to move toward increasing collaboration, CCSSO and PMP hosted two peer technical assistance matches as vehicles for raising awareness and understanding among key stakeholders in 2000. Identifying opportunities and barriers to greater Title I and IDEA coordination were the underlying goals of each consultation.' The success of these consultations led the sponsoring organizations to host another similar event, a peer consultation in late 2001. This report summarizes the proceedings and key lessons from that peer consultation. Purpose of the Peer Consultation The third peer consultation on collaboration was held in Baltimore, Maryland, December 11 14, 2001. Five primary purposes formed the basis for this collaboration: To further advance collaboration between IDEA and Title I at state, district, and school levels to increase achievement for all students, especially students with special needs To create an opportunity for three new states to consider the advantages and opportunities of collaboration To share successes since the previous set of peer matches on collaboration To further explore peer-to-peer technical assistance as a strategy for states to share and learn from each other To consider strategies to continue networking among the nine states that have been involved in the peer matches and to spread the message of collaboration beyond these states Context This peer consultation included two components. In the first component, three states not previously involved in the network met together to: Develop their vision of the elements of successful collaboration Identify the benefits that can accrue from successful collaboration Consider how perceived barriers to collaboration can be overcome, and Learn from each other about successful collaborative practices ' A report on the proceedings and lessons from the year 2000 peer matches is available from the Council of Chief State School Officers website at http://www.ccsso.org/hps/hpspolicymaker.html 6 2 In the second component of the consultation, five states that had previously been involved in peer consultations focused on collaboration joined the three new states. During their time together, the returning states shared their successes and challenges with each other, with the three new states, and with federal representatives. Together the states explored new areas and opportunities. The synergy created by this combination brought power and meaning to the three days of discussions. This consultation took place at a time of increasing emphasis on results, with the process seen as not an end in itself but rather as a means to achieve results. Accompanying this was a growing recognition that in order to achieve improved results for students with challenges, not only special education and compensatory education but also general education must be involved. Federal representatives from the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), the Office of Compensatory Education Programs, and the Inspector General's Office of the U.S. Department of Education, and federally funded technical assistance providers also participated in this consultation. Three State Consultation Louisiana, Illinois, and Wyoming began their session by analyzing what successful The three new states collaboration would look like from their perspectives. They agreed that the hallmarks of successful collaborations between IDEA and Title I are: Strong parent education programs coupled with strong staff development programs that help teachers and para-professionals learn how to work with parents Agreement on common, child-focused results, and maintaining focus on such results Development of true understanding about both programs by all educators, especially Title I and special education staff Effective communication from staff to parents, administrators to staff, and state agencies to local districts and schools Use of common language while avoiding jargon Respect for others' opinions Willingness to be open-minded, listening to others without feeling threatened Respect for diversity Understanding by everyone that, with increasing emphasis on high-stakes accountability, the performance of each sub-group affects schools' and districts' accountability performance. It is important for all educators to understand their roles and that of their colleagues in the account- ability system. Investing real meaning and commitment into the statement that "all children can learn" Effective staff development programs for teachers and para-professionals that create awareness about services, and Strong leaders willing to make tough decisions that foster collaboration Discussion led to consensus that collaboration between Title I and special education has definite benefits for students and, in the current climate of accountability, for all school staff. There was further consensus, however, that collaboration may well pose threats to some educators and to some parents. These threats can best be overcome by using strategies that encompass the hallmarks of success listed above. During the conference calls that preceded the peer consultation, some state team members had expressed uncertainty about the parameters of collaboration and how it might look in practice. Others expressed In order to address these concern that they might try an approach and then face a program or fiscal audit . issues, each state was asked to come to the match prepared to share examples of successful collaboration within their states. This sharing session proved to be a highlight of the day. State Reports: Illinois, Louisiana and Wyoming Illinois The Illinois team described its State Flexible Service Delivery Pilot. The idea for this pilot program arose from the field, and models are developed locally. The pilot focuses on improving achievement for children who face challenges to learning. Schools that volunteer to become part of the pilot receive grants of 1 S 4 $10,000 for professional development and common planning time for intervention teams. To date, schools in 19 districts, including Chicago, have joined the program. These districts develop plans to increase learn- ing for at-risk students. These plans range from addressing the needs of individual students to building-wide plans. The districts are allowed considerable flexibility in the use of state and federal funds. This was described by one Illinois team member as a "bucket rather than an egg carton" approach. It is important to note that the use of funding must support the intent of their authorizing legislation. General education teachers are involved in providing services and become more capable of providing in-class intervention. Medicaid funds are part of the funding mix in some districts. (It was noted that teachers were reluctant at first to do the paperwork required to bill Medicaid for their time, but they became more willing when dis- tricts promised 50 percent of Medicaid reimbursement would be available for classroom use.) Illinois believes this to be a successful model. They identified six keys to success: (1) involving parents from the beginning so that they do not see this as an effort to reduce services; (2) recognizing that trust must be built; (3) including not only Title I and special education teachers but also general education teachers in providing interventions; (4) encouraging everyone to use the language of "our kids" rather than "your kids" or identifying children with labels; (5) using not only IDEA and Title I dollars but also other funds available to schools; and (6) creating a marketing plan that describes the purposes and safeguards built into this new approach. They also believe that collaboration such as this has a better chance of success in a school-wide Title I school. (Note: Later discussions in this peer consultation revealed much agreement with this belief, but also discussants made note of the fact that collaboration can work in schools that are designated as Title I targeted-assistance campuses.) Louisiana The Louisiana team reported several strategies that they believe have furthered collaboration. They reported that the state education agency was reorganized five years ago based upon function rather than funding stream. This re-organization strategy resulted in increased collaboration as people in the same office, paid by different funding streams, began to work and plan together. The second strategy discussed by the Louisiana team was the School Analysis Model. The School Analysis Model is an intensive data collection and analysis approach that includes interviews with teachers, administrators and students; classroom observation; and subsequent cross-referencing of data. These data become part of the school improvement process and are used by cross-disciplinary District Assistance Teams. The cross-disciplinary teams assist districts with designing and providing professional development that enable schools to address gaps in academic achievement. A third strategy utilized in Louisiana asks schools to allocate their school improvement resources by looking first at the needs of their students, using data to identify those needs. Schools then plan strategies designed to meet the identified needs. Only after these two steps have been completed do they decide how to use available funds to implement their strategies. Louisiana also talked about the importance of communication, both within the department and with parents. The other states were particularly intrigued by Louisiana's use of tray liners in McDonald's restaurants to inform parents of the state's accountability system for schools. The tray liners give questions that may be used on statewide tests and provide examples of answers that would be rated as basic or proficient. 9