Wednesday, May 12, 2010

Poll Results In - RtI is the Winner

Statistical surveyImage via Wikipedia

Our most recent poll is finished. First a caution, our polls are not scientific measurements. They are one way we keep our finger on the pulse, but we do not pretend that we have a random sample of the country, or that our questions are bias-free or that a poll under the best conditions can be anything other than a good snapshot. That said, we do have some fun with these polls.

The question this time was: What Should Be Changed in IDEA? Here are the results:

1. Expand and Encourage Response to Intervention 43

2. Regulate Seclusion/Restraints 40

3. tie Raise the Bar for FAPE 36

3. tie Give Expert W Fees to Prevailing Parents 36

5. Assess Children with Disabilities at Instructional Levels for AYP 34

6. Place Burden of Persuasion on School Districts 33

7. tie Increase Transition Rights 27

7. tie Allow Arbitration and More Mediation 27

9. Restrict Comp Ed/Reimbursement as Remedies 19

10. Expand Role/Mission of OSEP 16

So you can see that it was very close. What thoughts do you have about the poll?

What changes would you like to see in IDEA? Any of those listed - or something not on the list? Remember I intend to forward your suggestions on to OSEP when the discussions about reauthorization heat up. So send me your ideas, and keep thinking about it.

Also what topic would you suggest for our next poll?
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]


  1. A concern not on the list:

    Change the way OSEP and state departments of education administer IDEA and monitor compliance. State departments of education and OSEP are obsessed with SPPs and APRs, squandering grotesque amounts of staff time and taxpayer money with little or no discernible improvement in teaching and learning. These processes provide, at best, oblique suggestions of compliance and reveal nothing about what goes on in the classroom, what amount and quality of services children with disabilities receive, how districts collaborate with parents, whether teachers possess adequate relevant skills (in assessment, curriculum, instruction, behavior support, etc.), or whether SDI and services are truly individually determined or consistently delivered.

    Failure to develop meaningful IDEA monitoring has always hobbled special education. Focus on superficial procedural compliance has never and will never reveal anything about substantive benefits to children with disabilities. Focus on collecting and reviewing data on “indicators” that have no demonstrated relationship to the provision of effective special education consumes district resources that could be better spent on professional development and direct services.

  2. Mary Anne,

    Thanks for the comment. Very well said.