UNFUNDED MANDATE: DOES MORE MONEY MEAN BETTER SPECIAL EDUCATION COMPLIANCE?

1
UNFUNDED MANDATE DOES MORE MONEY MEAN BETTER
SPECIAL EDUCATION COMPLIANCE? Final Dissertation
Presentation prepared for the Final Committee
Conference Call by Wendy Bolduc CAROLE
BURNWORTH, Ph.D., Faculty Mentor and
Chair KATHLEEN MONDELL, Ph.D., Committee Member
BARRY PERSKY, Ph.D., Committee Member Barbara
Butts Williams, Ph.D., Dean, School of
Education Submitted in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of Doctor of
Philosophy CAPELLA UNIVERSITY JUNE, 2012
2
DEDICATION

• This effort is dedicated to my parents, who
  were both lifelong learners. They instilled in
  me a love of learning and a desire to pursue the
  truth. They encouraged my endless curiosity, and
  taught me the value of integrity and
  self-respect.
• In memoriam, thank you Mom and Dad.
• .

3
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

• I would like to acknowledge the advice and
  support of my mentor, Dr. Carole Burnworth,
• my dissertation committee members,
• Dr. Kathleen Mondell and Dr. Barry Persky,
• and my advisor Dr. Jonathan Gehrz
• throughout this effort.

4
WHY THIS TOPIC WAS SELECTED

• My experience has been that compliance with IDEA
  is largely ignored until there is a threat of due
  process or a loss of funding.
• I believe that compliance with Part B of IDEA
  (2004) will produce better educational and life
  outcomes for students with disabilities and help
  them to become independent contributors to
  society rather than make them dependent upon
  society,

5
WHY TOPIC WAS SELECTED (continued)

• We have a legal, ethical and moral responsibility
  to students with disabilities and their families
  to improve special education programs through
  improved compliance in order to provide
  successful educational experiences and life
  outcomes for these students
• Beginning with funding levels, determining some
  of the factors that may impact compliance seemed
  to be a good starting place to improve

6
RESEARCH QUESTIONS

• R1 What relationship, if any, exists between
  per pupil funding for special education as
  provided through the ARRA stimulus program for
  Part B of IDEA (2004) and improved special
  education compliance as measured by the twenty
  performance indicators reported in state Annual
  Performance Reports (APRs)?
• R2 Are there any significant or distinct
  characteristics that states demonstrating
  adequate or improved compliance with Part B of
  IDEA (2004) share?
• R3 Are there any significant or distinct
  characteristics of states demonstrating
  inadequate or reduced compliance with Part B of
  IDEA (2004)?

7
MAJOR POINTS OF LITERATURE REVIEW

• No seminal studies on the relationship of
  compliance to finance in special education were
  identified (McLeskey Landers , 2006)
• Studies on special education funding and/or
  compliance were separate
• ARRA (2009) stimulus program doubled federal
  special education funding in FFY09
• Non-compliance results in high litigation costs
  to the district, inadequate program outcomes and
  poor relationships with families in special
  education

8
MAJOR POINTS OF LITERATURE REVIEW

• Other factors identified in the literature which
  may influence compliance
• IDEA (2004) and No Child Left Behind (NCLB, 2001)
  requirements for SWDs
• Variations in state special education financing
  methods
• Current state of the economy causing staffing
  and program cuts
• Administrator awareness of special education
  legal requirements
• Number of ELL and ESE students

9
RESEARCH METHODS

• This was a quantitative correlational study
• using measurable variables.
• Compliance was first compared to funding, and
  then to other factors to determine if any were
  related to compliance

10
RESEARCH METHODS (continued)

• Compliance for each of the two study years was
  measured using a calculated compliance rate.
• The number of indicators for which the state
  target was met was divided by the number of
  indicators reported by the state Annual
  Performance Report (APRs), or from the Office of
  Special Educations Response Tables to the
  states.
• Funding was measured by the average per pupil
  (APPE) special education grant amounts.
• Special education APPEs were calculated from the
  total federal special education grant amounts to
  the state divided by the number of special
  education students served under Part B by the
  state for each of the two study years.

11
RESEARCH METHODS

• Compliance rates for states grouped and coded as
  compliant and non-compliant were compared to
• the number of Part B special education students
  served by the state
• the total number of special education disputes
  for the state
• the cost-of-living index AND

12
RESEARCH METHODS (continued)

• the percentage of students with disabilities
  relative to school population
• the percentage of ARRA funds obligated or spent
  by March 4. 2011
• region of the country
• by performing statistical procedures to compare
  means, paired samples t-tests, and correlations
  using Predictive Analysis Statistics GradPack 18
  software (PASW-18).

13
RESEARCH QUESTION 1 RESULTS

• R1 Is there a relationship between
  increased
• funding and compliance?
• NO
• No relationship between funding levels and
  compliance for either study year was found
• There is a 91.7 probability that differences in
  the two years can be attributed to chance
• The null hypothesis must be accepted for research
  question one.

14
RESEARCH QUESTION 2 RESULTS

• R2 Do states showing adequate or improved
  compliance share significant or distinct
  characteristics?
  
• YES
• States with
• smaller special education populations
• lower numbers of special education disputes
• location in the Central Plains, Southwest, West,
  Northwest and Pacific regions
• were more likely to show higher compliance rates
  for both study years.

15
RESEARCH QUESTION 3 RESULTS

• R3 Do states showing reduced or inadequate
  compliance rates share significant or
  distinct characteristics?
  
• YES
• States
• with larger special education populations
• with more special education disputes
• located in the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic,
  Appalachia, Southeast, and Midwest regions
• were more likely to have lower compliance rates
  for both study years

16
ADDITIONAL RESULTS

• The percentage of students relative to the total
  school population identified as disabled and
  needing special education services was not found
  to be significantly related to compliance rates
• The cost-of-living index for FFY09 showed a weak
  inverse relationship to compliance rates for
  FFY09
• The percentage of ARRA money obligated or spent
  as of March 4, 2011 was not found to be
  significantly related to compliance rates

17
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

• States with large special education populations
  might consider ways to break their special
  education populations into smaller subgroups
• States should focus on reducing the total number
  of special education students, not percentages
• High levels of poverty and large numbers of ELLs
  tend to produce larger numbers of students in
  special education programs (Baker Ramsey, 2010)
  so districts should attempt to further address
  ways to minimize the effects of these

18
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE(continued)

• States should attempt to reduce the number of
  complaints they experience (whether settled,
  withdrawn or dismissed) by analyzing the types
  and numbers of complaints to pinpoint areas of
  improvement on which to focus
• Encouraging the development of positive
  relationships with the parents of students with
  disabilities has been suggested in recent
  literature as a way to reduce the number of
  complaints (Diliberto Brewer, 2012).

19
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

• Further study into compliance rates and ARRA
  funding for FFY10 is indicated
• Long-term effects of programs funded through ARRA
  should be examined
• The point at which the number of special
  education disputes and the number of special
  education students begin to adversely affect
  compliance should be examined

20
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
(continued)

• Why region of the country appears to be a factor
  in compliance should be studied
• The performance indicator targets should be
  examined more closely for consistency across
  states. Meeting the target in one state can mean
  something entirely different from meeting the
  target in another.

21
CONCLUSIONS

• Whether inadequate funding is the cause of
  states failure to fully comply with IDEA has not
  been settled by this study
• The studys results can contribute to the
  conversation about the relationship between
  funding and compliance and has identified other
  factors which may be as important if not more
  important than funding in states efforts to be
  fully compliant with IDEA requirements

22
CONCLUSIONS (continued)

• We have a legal, ethical and a moral
  responsibility to provide students with
  disabilities with a free, appropriate public
  education in the least restrictive environment
  and in so doing improve their educational and
  life outcomes
• Full compliance with IDEA can help to ensure that
  this becomes a reality. The futures of students
  with disabilities, and their successful
  transition into society when their schooling has
  ended depend upon it.