Trish Boland testified today. She’s Title 1 coordinator for CDE (state dept. of education).
She said:
- No state turns down federal funds.
- Title 1 funds for “neediest” students.
- 100 percent proficiency is a federal goal—that was the initial intention of the legislation.
- A “few” districts turn down federal funds.
- State does not have a role in local school district decision to not accept federal funds.
- Federal government requires that fed. employees track their time and effort on federal programs.
- $23 million finding by US Dept. of Ed. against CDE because time not tracked correctly.
- CDE hired for-profit WestED and D.C. law firm to help fix problem.
- CDE needed 9 additional employees to comply with No Child Left Behind. “Theoretically.”
- CDE needed 19 additional employees to comply with federal special education requirements.
- State does not know how much it costs for districts to comply with federal requirements.
- There is a federal requirement to supplement, not supplant local spending.
- Decision on what schools to serve with federal dollars is a local decision.
- Few CDE resources are “authentically flexible” (report from WestEd).
- State and/or private resource increases needed (report from WestEd).
- OMNI report (study) looked at variety of schools and how much Title 1 dollars they received.
- The group with highest dollar amount had the highest growth rates for achievement.
- Nothing in law prohibits the state from supplementing federal programs.
- When more resources are added to a school, better results are seen.
- The per-pupil amount may have a relationship to outcomes in Title I schools.
- Districts decide whether to concentrate funds. Local control allows for flexibility with federal Title I funds.
- It’s “always a hard decision” for local districts about how to apply federal Title I dollars.
Ed Steinberg also testified today. He’s an assistant commissioner at the state department of education (CDE) overseeing special education, among other areas.
He said:
- Outcome rates more important that compliance for special education students.
- Wishes federal government would focus on performance of the programs.
- 84,300 studentsidentified in Colorado as needing special education services.
- Autism a growing concern. Colorado state legislature has earmarked $4 million for “high cost students” and their needs.
- There is a nationwide shortage of educators trained to serve special education students.
- Just because state doesn’t pay all the costs, doesn’t mean students aren’t having their needs met.
- Gifted education programs are for students who show high potential.
- Colorado provides funding for gifted education; one of 30 or 35 states that do.
- Achievement in reading and math across the state is flat and shows signs of declining for students needing special education services.
- As a state, we need general ed. classroom teachers and special ed. classroom teachers who know how to teach reading.
- We don’t need additional resources to fix literacy training for teachers.
- We need to shift teacher colleges and their training. Need to move away from whole language approach.
- We need to re-allocate existing resources.
- We can’t mandate curriculum or a particular reading program. Local control issue.
- Proficiency rates down in math and science.
- State performance plan targets were lowered because of poor performance.
- Wide achievement gap exists for students with disabilities
- Have concerns about ability of special education teachers and their ability to remediate students who aren’t reading on grade level.
- It’s the state’s obligation to ensure districts are compliant with special education regulations.
- As recently as June 2011, federal programs determined Colorado “needs assistance” (below “meets requirements”) level.
- 70 percent of staff time at CDE is spent on compliance.
- CDE time is spent on compliance, not student achievement.
- “Frustrating” CDE can’t spent time on student achievement.
- CDE has not analyzed whether implementing RTI (Response to Intervention) is cost-efficient.
- RTI requires professional development to implement.
- Charter schools serve a smaller percentage of students with disabilities than non-charters.
- Some charters discourage enrollment for high-needs special education students.
- Rural salaries are not high enough to retain teachers
- In 1992-1993, state paid only 31.6 percent of approved costs for special education needs.
- At that time (92-93), legislative council recommended reimbursing local districts for 80 percent of approved costs.
- A 2000 survey, of special education directors, 74 percent of respondents said state is under-funding special education.
- From same study, 93 percent urged more state funding for special education.
- “I believe districts could benefit from more state funding.”
- Colorado is the lowest or second or third-lowest in terms of identified students with disabilities. Districts are concerned about funding 60 percent of special education costs.
- Colorado ranks low for its contribution to special education (including all states and D.C.)
- No reason to dispute one finding that ranked Colorado 51st among all states and D.C. in special education contribution.
- State does not provide all the funding needed for high-cost special education students.
- CDE does not have data for the costs of educating all special education students in the state.
