PreK, Policy, and Prevention: How High Quality PreK Can Have a Profound Impact on the Lives of Students with Disabilities

Build knowledge. Gain expertise. Share best practices.
SPEDCHAT WEBINAR SERIES
PreK, Policy, and Prevention: How High Quality PreK can
Have a Profound Impact on Students With Disabilities

Tweet about the webinar using #SpedChatWeb
and follow us on social to find out about
future webinars, events, news, and contests.
@AccelifyLLC
We’re Social!
facebook.com/Accelify linkedin.com/company/accelify-llc

The Honorable Dr. Robert Pasternack
Dr. Pasternack is the Chief Education Officer at
Accelify and has over 40 years of experience in
public education, including a term as U.S Assistant
Secretary for the Office of Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services. During his tenure, Dr.
Pasternack led the 2004 Reauthorization of IDEA,
and helped with the implementation of NCLB. Dr.
Pasternack has been a long-time proponent of
policy reforms that will improve the lives of
individuals with disabilities from birth through
adulthood.

History of IDEA

HISTORY OF IDEA
1967 – Almost 200,000 individuals with significant disabilities were in state
institutions, many of which provided only minimal food, clothing, and shelter.
1970 – U.S. schools educated only 1 in 5 of the nation’s children with disabilities, and
many states had laws excluding those who were deaf, blind, emotionally disturbed or
intellectually disabled.
November 1975 - Congress passes the Education for All Handicapped Children Act,
P.L. 94-142.
1967 1970 1975

HISTORY OF IDEA
Education for All Handicapped Children Act, P.L. 94-142
Four Purposes:
• To assure that all children with disabilities have available to them…a free and an appropriate
education which emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their
unique needs;
• To assure that the rights of children with disabilities and their parents….are protected;
• To assist States and localities to provide for the education of all children with disabilities;
• To assess and assure the effectiveness of efforts to educate all children with disabilities.

HISTORY OF IDEA
Today
57 percent of students
with disabilities are in general
education classrooms for
80 percent or more of the day.
350,000 infants and toddlers receive early intervention.
6.7 million children and youth receive special education and related services.
Source: www.IDEAdata.org

Percentage of students served under IDEA, Part B,
by disability category: SY 2011-12
Intellectual
Disabilities
7.4%
Hearing
Impairments
1.2%
Speech or Language
Impairments
18.5%
Visual Impairments
, 0.4%
Emotional
Disturbance
, 6.4%
Orthopedic
Impairments
, 0.9%
Other Health
Impairments
12.7%
Specific Learning
Disabilities
40.7%
Deaf-Blindness
0.0%
Multiple Disabilities
2.2%
Autism
7.0%
Traumatic Brain
Injury , 0.4%
Developmental
Delay
2.0%

POLICY

POLICY
Section 619 of IDEA Part B
• Defines the preschool program for children with
disabilities
• Authorizes grants to states for preschool children
with special needs, ages 3-5 (Sec. 611 funds state
grants for students ages 6-21)
• Guarantees FAPE to children age 3-5
• Entitles them to Special Education and Related Services in the LRE if identified as
having condition named in Part B of IDEA

POLICY
Funding
• Funding formulas nearly identical, but
Congress allocates total funds for 611/619
separately
• Districts use a combination of 611 and 619
funding to cover EC special education costs
• Must make FAPE available to all 3-5 year
olds with disabilities in the state to
be eligible
$1,677
$474
$0.00
$500.00
$1,000.00
$1,500.00
$2,000.00
Section 611 vs. Section 619
Avg. Per Pupil Spending
611 (Ages 6-21) 619 (Ages 3-5)

Literacy and ECE

“Reading is the foundation for all
learning – and that foundation is built early,
by exposing young children to the
love of books and the simple rules of language”

LITERACY AND ECE
Before entering school, children should…
 Know their letters
 Begin to know the sounds those letters make
 Learn what the written word looks like
 Be excited about reading, because they have seen others do it

LITERACY AND ECE
Early Literacy and the Link to Future Success
Which of the below do you think is the most
accurate predictor of 9th grade reading scores?
• The amount of funding the child’s school receives
• A child’s vocabulary and knowledge of the alphabet
in kindergarten
• A child’s economic status

LITERACY AND ECE
Early Literacy and the Achievement Gap
• To close the achievement gap in our
schools, we must close the early
childhood education gap in our society
• The federal government provides states
with considerable funds for childcare –
but there is little emphasis in the law on
the educational quality of childcare. That
must change

LITERACY AND ECE
Early Literacy and Policy
• Anyone serious about educational reform must be serious about early childhood
education
• If we want all our children reading by the third grade, then all our children must be
ready to learn on their first day of school
• States must provide PreK programs with guidelines on language development, pre-
reading and literacy skills
• States must have a plan to expand the training of child care and pre-school teachers in
their state

IDEA Section 619
What does the data tell us?

IDEA 619 – What does the data tell us?
Early Literacy and Policy
• In the fall of 2005, 704,087 children age 3-5 were being served
through Section 619 (8% of total age group)
(Source: www.ideadata.org)
• In 2005-2006, $380 million dollars was awarded to the states
and territories to help with the cost of the program

Year Total served under Part B ages
3-5
In the 50 states, DC, BIE
schools, PR, and the four
outlying areas
Resident population
ages 3-5
in the 50 states and DC
In the 50 states,
DC, and BIE schools
% of resident population
served under Part B
ages 3-5
in the 50 states, DC, and BIE
schools
2003 680,142 670,750 11,501,168 5.8
2004 701,949 693,245 11,714,436 5.9
2005 704,087 698,938 11,866,471 5.9
2006 714,384 706,635 11,987,484 5.9
2007 709,136 698,931 11,975,329 5.8
2008 709,004 700,296 12,037,364 5.8
2009 731,832 716,569 12,129,397 5.9
2010 735,245 720,740 12,255,590 5.9
2011 745,954 730,558 12,312,888 5.9
2012 750,131 736,195 12,203,162 6.0

• In 2012, 750,131 children ages 3-5 were served under IDEA Part B
• Of these children, 736,195 were in the states for which data were available, the
District of Columbia, and BIE schools
• Represents 6% of the population ages 3 through 5
• Between 2003 and 2012, the number of children ages 3 through 5 served under
IDEA Part B, increased from 680,142 to 750,131
• Additional 69,989 children represents a 10.3% increase in the number of children
served

IDEA Part B
Disability Categories and Demographics

IDEA Part B – Disability Categories and Demographics
Percentage of children ages 3-5
served under IDEA, Part B, by
disability category (Fall 2012)
• Speech or language impairments
(44.7%)
• Developmental Delay (37.2%)
• Autism (7.8%)
• Other disabilities combined (10.3%)
45%
37%
8%
10%
Speech or language impairments
Developmental delay
Autism
Other disabilities combined

DEVELOPMENTAL DELAY
A delay or disorder in sensory, physical, mental, or
social/emotional development or delays in comparison to peers, as
documented by diagnostic testing.

Developmental Delay
• IDEA allows states to:
• Use this eligibility category up to age 9
• Establish their own criteria such as developmental inventories and/or
informed clinical opinion
*IDEA - Section 1402: Young children who may later be identified as Learning Disabled are
frequently included in this category.

Other Disabilities Combined Includes:
• Deaf-Blindness (<0.05%)
• ED (0.4%)
• Hearing Impairments (1.3%)
• Intellectual Disabilities (2.0%)
• Multiple Disabilities (1.1%)
• Orthopedic Impairments (0.9%)
• OHI (2.9%)
• SLD (1.2%)
• TBI (0.1%)
• Visual Impairments (0.4%)

Race/ethnicity
Child count in 49
states, DC, and
BIE schools
Resident population
ages 3 through 5 in 49
states and DC
Risk index (%)
Risk index for all other
racial/ethnic groups
combined (%)
Risk ratio
American Indian or Alaska
Native
8,577 104,993 8.2 6.0 1.4
Asian 23,082 563,266 4.1 6.1 0.7
Black or African American 102,677 1,689,886 6.1 6.0 1.0
Hispanic/Latino 163,970 3,110,463 5.3 6.3 0.8
Native Hawaiian or Other
Pacific Islander
2,112 24,044 8.8 6.0 1.5
White 399,008 6,168,348 6.5 5.6 1.2
Two or more races 36,770 542,162 6.8 6.0 1.1
Total 6,736,195 12,203,162 6.0 † †
*2012 Data
Risk Index by Race and Ethnicity for Children Ages 3-5

Risk Index by Race and Ethnicity for Children Ages 3-5
Risk Ratio % Race Likelihood to Served Under Part B
Risk Ratio above 1.0 • American Indian or Alaska Native
• Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
• White children
• Multiple races
More likely than all other
racial/ethnic groups combined
Risk Ratio of 1.0 • Black or African American As likely as all other racial/ethnic
groups combined
Risk Ratio below 1.0 • Asian and Hispanic/Latino Less likely than all other racial/ethnic
groups combined

Children Ages 3-5 Served Under IDEA
Part B by Educational Environment
• Regular early childhood program at least 10 hrs/week:
• Majority in program (37.2%)
• Majority elsewhere (17.4%)
• Regular early childhood program less than 10 hrs/week:
• Majority in program (5.3%)
• Majority elsewhere (5.1%)
• Separate Class (23.6%)
• Service provider location or some other location (6.5%)
• Other environments (4.9%)
37%
17%
5%
5%
24%
7%
5%
At least 10 hrs/wk - majority At least than 10 hrs/wk - elsewhere
Less than 10 hrs/wk - majority Less than 10 hrs/wk - elsewhere
Separate class Service provider location other
Other environments

Children Ages 3-5 Served Under IDEA
Part B by Educational Environment
• Regular early childhood program for some amount of
time (65%)
• Separate Class (23.6%)
• Service provider location or some other location (6.5%)
• Other environments (4.9%)
• Separate school
• Residential facility
• Home
65%
24%
6%
5%
Regular early childhood program
Separate class
Service provider location other
Other environments

ESSA
Summary
• Standards
• Assessments
• Accountability Systems
• Public Reporting
• Teachers and Leaders
• Funding

ESSA
Fiscal Requirements
• Supplement, not supplant (Sec. 1118)
• LEAs must demonstrate their methodology to
allocate state and local funds to schools

ESSA
Title II
Professional development (teachers, principals, school leaders)
Literacy Education for All, Results for the Nation (LEARN)
• Comprehensive birth through grade 12 literacy program
• Targets high-needs schools with greater percentage of children reading/writing below grade level
• All sections address SWDs
21st Century Community Learning Centers, charter, and magnet school programs
Family engagement program
• Statewide grants to carry out parent education and family engagement
• Training and technical assistance to states, LEAs, schools, and organizations

ESSA
PreK Funding
$250 million Preschool Development Grant
program focused on children from low-income
or vulnerable backgrounds
• Coordinate existing learning programs
• Improve preschool program
• Expand access
• Strengthen transition to elementary school

PROGRAM MODELS

Program Models
Pay for Success Initiative
(in ESSA): a performance-based
grant, contract, or cooperative
agreement awarded by a public
entity in which a commitment is
made to pay for improved
outcomes that result in social
benefit and direct cost savings or
cost avoidance to the public
sector.

Program Models
Pay for Success Initiative (in ESSA)
Such an initiative shall include:
• A feasibility study on the initiative describing how the proposed intervention is based on
evidence of effectiveness;
• A rigorous, third-party evaluation that uses experimental or quasi-experimental design or other
research methodologies that allow for the strongest possible causal inferences to determine
whether the initiative has met its proposed outcomes;
• A requirement that payments are made to the recipient of a grant, contract, or cooperative
agreement only when agreed upon outcomes are achieved, except that the entity may make
payments to the third party conducting the evaluation described in subparagraph

Program Models
Specific interventions
“are not spelled out… allowing providers the flexibility to adopt
whatever strategies they determine will be most effective,”
noting also that, in some cases, “private investment provides
upfront financing, taking on the risk that the intervention won’t
succeed and recovering the investment if it does.”

Program Models
Also found in:
• Title I, Part D, (“Prevention and Intervention Programs for Children and Youth Who
Are Neglected, Delinquent, or At Risk”)
• In Title IV, Part A, (“Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants,” section
4108, “Activities to Support Safe and Healthy Students”) of the new bill.

Program Models
• Not a mandate but an allowable use option that state and LEAs can choose to
incorporate into how they structure funding decisions — using outcomes as the
driver of payment allocation
• Is just one instrument in the education system's general toolkit, aimed at helping
children.
• Expands funding for high-quality programs that actually deliver results, leading to
greater benefits for students

Program Models
Pay for Success – Social Impact Bonds
• In this “results-based financing” model, if the preschool program does not result in
increased school readiness and decreased use of special education services, the Salt
Lake City County gets its money back from the United Way and there is no obligation
on the part of United Way to repay Goldman Sachs and the Pritzker Foundation.
Expansion
• At the local level, Fresno, Calif., New York City, Cuyahoga County, Ohio, and Salt Lake
City have each launched SIB programs within the past three years.
• Additionally, Santa Barbara, Calif., and Philadelphia have each commissioned studies
on the impacts of potential SIB programs

Program Models
Pay for Success Model in Granite School District, Utah
• The Salt Lake County, Utah, High-Quality Preschool Program sought to increase the
number of low-income children in the county who started kindergarten on track and
ready to learn.
• Based on predictive assessments, the county estimated that, absent of some special
effort, 110 of the 600 low-income children in its study cohort would need special
education in kindergarten.
• Their pilot, funded through an outcome-focused public-private investment mechanism
called Pay for Success (PFS), determined to change those numbers, and it did.
• After a year of the PFS-sponsored program, only one – yes, one – child was found to
need special education.
• The win for the children was also a win for the taxpayers. The county says it has saved
$281,000 in education expenses; presumably those savings will rise if children stay in
mainstream classes over the long run.

Pay for Success Model in Granite, Utah
• 3-4 year old children, most affected by poverty
• 128 languages, none proficient in English
• 3 hrs/day, 4 day/wk – Half day
• Well-informed teachers and teachers assistants
• $1,500 per child/year
• Full inclusion model – all children included in data
Program Models

Social Impact Bonds
At the beginning of their 9th year:
• 12-hour a week intervention
• 34,000 children in study; replicated in YMCAs, charter schools, daycares, Head Start
• 180 languages in study, none proficient English
• Lowered SPED referral rate from 30% to 1%
• Cost savings over $3 million
• Sustained gains with no support post PreK
• Received over $8 million to extend study
Program Models

Social Impact Bonds
Program Funding:
• Focus on evidence of effectiveness and sustained gains
• $7 million loan from Goldman Sachs and the Pritzker Foundation to the
Granite School District to replicate and expand model
• Added 600 children, Sept. 1, 2013
Program Models

Social Impact Bonds
Compare Costs to Benefits
• Abecedarian Project: $39,672/child
• Chicago CPC: $5372/child, half day
• Perry Preschool: $17,526/child
• Tulsa, OK: $4403/child, half day
• Tulsa, OK: $8803/child, full day
Program Models
Granite Study
$1500/child, 3-hr day

Program Models
Head Start
• ECE affects children’s school
readiness and long-term outcomes
• 173 Head Start centers
• 4,667 children in study
• 2,559 three year olds
• 2,108 four year olds
*Head Start Impact Study, USDHHS, NHS, 2010

Program Models
Head Start Impact Study Summary
• 4 year olds language and literacy faded
• No increase in math or pre-writing skills
• Slight gains did not lead to long-term gains in elementary school
• No affect for children attending HS for 2 years (entered at age 3)
Funding
• Fiscal budget in 2011 was $8.2 billion
*Head Start Impact Study, USDHHS, NHS, 2010

WHAT WE KNOW

What We Know…
“There is a greater tragedy than being labeled
as a slow learner - and that
is being treated as one.”

“Children are eager
and capable learners…”

Research (Hart & Risley, 1995)
Words Heard per hour Affirmatives per hour Prohibitions per hour
Professional family
child
2153 32 5

Professional family
child
2153 32 5
Working class child 1251 12 7

Professional family
child
2153 32 5
Working class child 1251 12 7
Child living in
poverty
616 5 11

“Early learning begets later learning and early success
breeds later success…The later in life we attempt to
repair early deficits, the costlier remediation
becomes…”
James Heckman, Nobel Prize-Winner, Economics, 2000

A longitudinal study of 407 students found that 74% of
the children whose difficulty in reading was first
identified at nine years of age or older continued to read
in the lowest quintile throughout their middle and high
school years.

WHAT WE NEED

Shift in Thinking
From… To…
Student
Which students need help?
What help does EACH student
need?
System
Categorical program and
people available
Intention design based on services
and resources needed

What We Need
• All students achieving to high standards by being provided sufficient time and
support
• All low performing students being provided focused instruction
• All teachers teaching students to high standards by being given the right conditions
and assistance
• All teachers intervening in the learning process when there is an indication of a
failure to learn
• All teachers focusing early intervention resources on the early years of schooling
• All good first instruction being provided by the classroom teacher
*Leadership Compass, Fall 2006, National Association of School Principals

HOW WE GET THERE

How We Get There
Shifts in Preschool Practice
• Early intervention as prevention
• High quality teaching
• Responsive care-giving
• Differentiated support and instruction
• High quality curriculum
• On-going assessment
• Continuous progress monitoring
• Data-based decision-making

How We Get There
What Creates Sustained Gains?
• Evidence-based decision making
• Changes in teaching and practice
• Proven-effective curriculum
• Professional development
• Monitoring progress

How We Get There
Quality preschool program have common characteristics
• Clear expectations and goals
• Leadership & support
• Classroom management
• Proven effective curriculum
• Evidence-based teaching/practice
• Progress monitoring
• Close gaps and sustain gains

To learn more about Accelify and find
out about future webinars, events, and
news, visit www.accelify.com or follow
us on social media.
Thank you.
For additional information, contact:
Robert.Pasternack@accelify.com
SPEDCHAT WEBINAR SERIESBuild knowledge. Gain expertise. Share best practices.

PreK, Policy, and Prevention: How High Quality PreK Can Have a Profound Impact on the Lives of Students with Disabilities

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (10)

Ähnlich wie PreK, Policy, and Prevention: How High Quality PreK Can Have a Profound Impact on the Lives of Students with Disabilities

Ähnlich wie PreK, Policy, and Prevention: How High Quality PreK Can Have a Profound Impact on the Lives of Students with Disabilities (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

PreK, Policy, and Prevention: How High Quality PreK Can Have a Profound Impact on the Lives of Students with Disabilities