Special Ed Connection
• OSERS head advocates for multiple measures, greater inclusion efforts
• Posny reiterates 'special ed is never going to go away'
• Posny hopes to release shortly states' plans on restraint, seclusion
Special ed is here to stay, new OSERS chief says
Alexa Posny became head of OSERS on Nov. 9, but she is not a newcomer to
Washington. From 2006 to 2007, Posny ran OSEP, where she helped roll out a
new
set of IDEA Part B rules and set the stage for the growth of RTI.
Posny left to become the Kansas schools chief, but she kept her hand in
national affairs by serving on the National Assessment Governing Board, and
she
later chaired an expert panel on how to get more students with disabilities
to participate in the National Assessment of Educational Progress.
On Dec. 23, the former special ed director for Shawnee Mission, Kan., talked
with Special Ed Connection® about the continuing importance of special
education
as a distinct field, even though special educators and general educators are
working more closely together than ever before.
Here are excerpts from the conversation.
Q: The NAEP math results came out the other month, with gaps as large as 40
points between students with and without disabilities. And that's after
you've
excluded, in the case of Maryland, the majority of eighth-grade students
with disabilities from the test. So, how do you approach that?
A: What we really need are multiple measures, to really take a look at it.
Because when I look at some of the state data on the state assessments, I
see
students with disabilities who have made great gains, I have. I don't know
why we're not seeing it [on NAEP] but I would hope that the gap has begun to
narrow, just based on what I'm seeing from state data. . . . And I can speak
about Kansas. I mean, the gap closed.
Q: What did it take?
A: There was a lawsuit that was settled [Montoy v. State of Kansas, 105 LRP
446 (Kan. 01/03/05)]. That was back when I was still there. It was for
inadequate
funding for education, that several of the districts did a lawsuit saying,
"You're not funding us at the level we need to -- in order to have adequate,
provide an adequate education."
Q: For all students?
A: For all students. . . . So it went to court -- I was on the stand for six
hours -- and the judge said, "You're right, you're not adequately being
funded."
So it was almost a billion dollars in increase across five years, was sent
out to the districts. That's a lot of money, and it's the idea that money
alone
is not going to make the difference. It's what they did with it. It's the
intervention specialists they put in, it's the extended school year, the
extended
time. It's the master teachers, it's all the supports and interventions they
put into place that I believe have made all the difference in the world.
Q: Speaking of money, we're gearing up for the FY 2011 federal budget. How
much have you asked for, and does it include the stimulus baseline?
A: What we submit a request for is for my particular office, not for the
funding that goes out.
Q: Oh, not for the IDEA?
A: No, no. . . . I mean, has [the stimulus money] made a difference? . . .
Oh, of course, yeah. I mean, we know. And go back to when 94-142 [the
Education
for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975] came about. If we could get up to
the 40 percent funding level . . . it would be great.
Q: What, if anything, can you do to change that whole trend of sending
children away to private schools?
A: We're talking about including kids within their own community, and that's
been part of IDEA since the early 1990s. And it's not even just students
with
disabilities. . . . We should be able to provide this for any child,
regardless of whether the child has the label of a child with a disability
or whether
they're disadvantaged, disengaged, disenfranchised, it makes no difference.
. . . We had the beginning of it in terms of the early intervening services,
where you can use up to 15 percent of the federal dollars for nonidentified
students. I really think that's the way to go.
Q: I really get the sense that over the course of your career, you've gotten
to the point where -- I mean, you've alluded to this already, it's like,
special
ed was a necessary historical artifact.
A: Correct.
Q: But from here forward, it's not necessarily the only or necessarily the
best frame of reference.
A: I go back historically. I mean, [2010] is going to be 35 years since [The
Education for All Handicapped Children Act], and some people are saying,
"Gee,
we really haven't done enough." And I say, "I think it's been absolutely
remarkable in terms of what's happened for students with disabilities over
that
three and a half decades." . . . One of the reasons I went into special ed
is, one of my playmates, when I grew up, was a child with Down syndrome. And
we played with him, and he was far more like us than he was unlike us. But
he never attended school, and I could never understand why he wasn't in
school.
. . . The kids now, with Down syndrome, are going to college. And here, I
had a playmate that never even walked in a school door. Now, do we have more
places to go, and can we continue to improve? Absolutely. But we had to
start out in 1975 providing segregated services. That's all we knew, that
was the
state of the art at the time. Now we know that we need to include kids more,
because they're then exposed to the general ed curriculum and they're
expected
to do more, their peers do it. At the same time, I do want to go on the
record: Special ed is never going to go away. We have kids with significant
disabilities
who require special ed services that may or may not be within general ed. So
that's never going to go away, and I want to make that very clear. I made
a few people nervous once upon a time.
Q: I have to ask about the proposed new rules for Part C. Why has it taken
so long?
A: It was just timing. Before I left [OSEP], we were finishing up with
responding to all the comments and all of that. Then it was just a matter of
going
through all the different divisions that it had to go through, [the Office
of Management and Budget] and the Office of General Counsel and all the
rest.
So by the time it got clearance, it was almost at the end of the last
administration, and at that point, it just wasn't an appropriate time to go
through.
[But] as soon as I came back, I said, "OK, what about Part C?" So I have
asked for it to be revived, and I'm sending it back through so that it can
be
done.
Q: Education Secretary Arne Duncan said he would talk to the states about
restraint and seclusion, and he sent out that letter July 31. We've yet to
see
the results of that letter, in terms of the upshot of whatever conversations
he may have had with states. Are you involved in that process at all?
A: Very much so. All I can say is that we hope it can come out shortly. . .
. It was compiled and put together. We need to give states the opportunity
to
say, "Is this an accurate picture of what it looks like?" . . . Because [we
asked them], "What are your rules, what are your policies, what are your
procedures,
what guidance do you have out?" We just want to make sure that the profiles
that are out there are accurate. And they're just verifying that, because
these
were put together by the Comprehensive Centers. So once the verification has
been done, it should be posted.
Q: And are you working with OCR chief Russlynn Ali to flesh out her addition
to the Civil Rights Data Collection, where she's going to start asking
schools
to report incidents of restraint and seclusion?
A: We've briefly talked about it, and we have a meeting set up to meet with
the representatives from the state directors of special ed, regarding the
data,
because this is an additional data burden. And yet, you know, there's a part
where having the data would be extremely helpful, so you know it's weighing
the good with the burden.
Q: So the OCR addition is not a done deal yet?
A: I honestly can't answer that question. I don't know. . . . But as far as
I'm concerned, it's going to happen.
Q: Where are you at in finding an OSEP director?
A: I've been here what, a little less than five weeks, so there's a part of
me saying I need to get the lay of the land. And that's probably exactly
where
we're at. I want to do this in a very thoughtful manner, so it's matter of
finding out what our plan is, where is it that we're headed. So in terms of
what our goals are and what our strategic planning does, that will then lead
in the direction in terms of then, what type of a person do I need.
Q: Can't say anything more about 2011 funding for special ed? A lot of
people in the field are very anxious about the funding.
A: Oh, I'm sure.
Q: Late last year, funding was the No. 1 thing on our readers' minds. And
then the next was restraint and seclusion, and then the third was the ESEA-IDEA
reauthorization.
A: That makes sense, I would say those would absolutely be at the top of the
list. However, you know what I'd like to have top on the list? Student
achievement.
Bottom line. Always keep the student in the front.
Special Ed Connection® related stories:
• Posny offers support for new Part C rules, more funds for early childhood
(Dec. 8)
• Panel says 95 percent of students with IEPs should take NAEP (Aug. 7)
• OSERS nominee wins plaudits from all sides (July 10)
• Posny called right pick for RTI era (July 7)
Kara Arundel and Mark W. Sherman, Washington bureau correspondents, cover
special education issues for LRP Publications.
January 7, 2010
Copyright 2009 © LRP Publications