New Mexico

Dear Mr. Kaczor:

Thank you for your inquiry regarding the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) issuing a new “informal guidance” regarding the “maintenance of effort” requirement for the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). I appreciate your bringing your concerns to my attention.

In order to obtain a thorough response to your inquiry, I have forwarded your comments to the Department of Education (ED) with a request that they review this matter as soon as possible. I have asked that they report to both you and me with their findings.

If, upon receipt of the ED’s response, you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to continued correspondence with you on this or any other issue of importance.
Sincerely,

JEFF BINGAMAN
United States Senator

Phone: (202) 224-5521
Toll-free in NM: 1-800-443-8658
Website: http://bingaman.senate.gov
Subscribe to my e-newsletter.
Look for me on Facebook and YouTube.

JB/sk

IDEA Money Watch has obtained the information submitted by the New Mexico Dept. of Education to the U.S. Dept. of Education regarding reduction to local spending (maintenance of effort or  MOE) and use of federal IDEA funds for Coordinated Early Intervening Services (CEIS) for each school district for the 2009 fiscal year. Get New Mexico information here. (PDF,  3 pgs).

This information is important because it indicates if school districts reduced local spending in light of IDEA Recovery Act funds in FY 2009. IDEA does not require that local districts replace these funds when the Recovery funds run out, putting services for students with disabilities at risk.

June 8, 2011

Beverly Friedman
Public Information Officer
NMPED Custodian of Record
300 Don Gaspar
Santa Fe, NM 87501

Sent via Email: Bev.Friedman@state.nm.us

Re: Public Records Request

Dear Ms. Friedman:

This is a request under the New Mexico Inspection of Public Record Act (NMSA 1978, Chapter 14, Article 2).

We request a copy of an electronic version of the complete data that New Mexico was required to submit by May 1, 2011 to the U.S. Dept. of Education, Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) pursuant to the requirements of 20 U.S.C. §§ 1413(f)(4) and 1418(a)(3).

The specific material required to be submitted to OSEP (via web-based entry and submission to the Data Accountability Center at www.IDEAdata.org) is identified as follows:

Report on IDEA Part B Maintenance of Effort Reduction (34 CFR §300.205(a)) and Coordinated Early Intervening Services (34 CFR §300.226) FFY 2009 or Table 8. (See attachment)

I recognize that you may charge for reasonable costs incurred to comply with this request. If you expect charges to exceed $10.00, please contact me regarding this request. To reduce copying charges and for ease in use, I am requesting the documents in electronic format if possible. As I am seeking this information in my role as an advocate for children with disabilities, disclosure of these documents is in the public interest. I would, therefore, ask you to consider waiving any fees since disclosure would benefit the public interest.

As you are aware, I must be provided with this information within 10 days. If you cannot comply with my request, please provide an explanation in writing. Please contact me with any questions regarding this request. Thank you.

As ever,

Michael J. Kaczor I, Master Advocate
kazeman@juno.com
Advocacy for Children with dis-Abilities
PO Box 221, Glorieta, New Mexico 87535

Meet Sen. Bingaman, the Newest Member of ESEA’s Big 8
By Alyson Klein on January 18, 2011 6:57 PM | No comments | No recommendations

Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., is going to play a big part in the push to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. He’ll serve as a key wingman to Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, the chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee.

Bingaman will be taking over former Sen. Christopher J. Dodd’s role in the “Big 8″—the lawmakers who the Obama administration is courting in its push to renew the education law, said Jude McCartin, Bingaman’s spokeswoman. Dodd, D-Conn., retired from Congress last year.

Although the Big 8 is made up of the chairman and ranking members of the committees and subcommittees overseeing K-12 policy, it’s unclear whether Bingaman will also take over the subcommittee on education that Dodd headed in the previous Congress. But he will be taking Dodd’s place as the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate on ESEA reauthorization.

Bingaman, whose state includes lots of Hispanic students, has a keen interest in English-language learners. And he’s been active on mathematics and science education, as well as high school overhaul and graduation rates.

Bingaman has a record of bringing bipartisan legislation to the finish-line, including an energy bill in 2005. He recently championed the America COMPETES Act, working closely with Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., the ranking member of the Senate’s K-12 policy subcommittee. Alexander, who’s also a member of the Big 8, will be a major GOP player on ESEA.

And Bingaman has an important connection to a key member of Secretary of Education Arne Duncan’s team, in that he’s Carmel Martin’s former boss. Martin, as assistant secretary for planning, evaluation, and policy development, is responsible for selling the administration’s ESEA proposal on Capitol Hill. She worked for Bingaman when NCLB was under consideration in the Senate, back in 2001.

Bingaman’s help could be important. According to (anonymous) comments on a survey of education insiders conducted by Whiteboard Advisors, Harkin is better known for his principled stances on key issues than his inclination to wheel-and-deal. (We wrote about the survey here.) And more importantly, Harkin may be very busy this year working to fend off Republican attempts to dismantle the health care law.

Harkin’s spokeswoman, Justine Sessions, said they’re happy to have Bingaman on the Big 8 team:

“Chairman Harkin asked Senator Bingaman to step into the role vacated by Senator Dodd as the No. 2 Senate Democrat in the bipartisan/bicameral ESEA negotiations, while Harkin continues in his roles as lead Senate Democrat. Senator Bingaman is one of the many HELP Committee members with great expertise and interest in education reform, and Chairman Harkin looks forward to an inclusive bipartisan process that leverages the strengths of individual HELP Committee members.”

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaign-k-12/2011/01/bingaman_to_take_major_role_on.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CampaignK-12+%28Education+Week+Blog%3A+Politics+K-12%29

According to the spending reports made available on the U.S. Department of Education Recovery Act web site (http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/reports.html), about 14% of the IDEA Part B Recovery Act funds have been obligated nation wide as of Dec. 25, 2009. Some states report zero funds obligated while a few states (HI, OK) report as much as 50% of funds have been obligated. All IDEA Recovery Act funds must be obligated by Sept. 30, 2011.

State-by-state spending appears below.

Candace Cortiella

www.IDEAmoneywatch.com

A Project of

The Advocacy Institute

Federal Outlay
Obligated
Still Available
Percent
Obligated

AK
Alaska
32,956,419.00
525,835.74
32,430,583.26
2%

AL
Alabama
181,864,783.00
21,664,164.46
160,200,618.54
12%

AR
Arkansas
112,177,929.00
22,844,473.28
89,333,455.72
20%

AS
American Samoa
230,169.00
0.00
230,169.00
0%

AZ
Arizona
178,476,064.00
15,803,148.61
162,672,915.39
9%

CA
California
1,226,944,052.00
260,651,742.00
966,292,310.00
21%

CO
Colorado
148,730,571.00
4,863,334.00
143,867,237.00
3%

CT
Connecticut
132,971,468.00
25,775,659.00
107,195,809.00
19%

DC
District of Columbia
16,441,924.00
0.00
16,441,924.00
0%

DE
Delaware
32,700,531.00
3,532,681.96
29,167,849.04
11%

FL
Florida
627,262,665.00
139,995,026.36
487,267,638.64
22%

GA
Georgia
313,758,336.00
27,211,908.43
286,546,427.57
9%

GU
Guam
510,352.00
14,237.02
496,114.98
3%

HI
Hawaii
39,925,269.00
19,962,635.00
19,962,634.00
50%

IA
Iowa
122,095,134.00
48,838,070.00
73,257,064.00
40%

ID
Idaho
53,247,375.00
4,414,508.67
48,832,866.33
8%

IL
Illinois
506,479,753.00
75,668,102.00
430,811,651.00
15%

IN
Indiana
253,534,865.00
100,346,017.00
153,188,848.00
40%

KS
Kansas
106,871,769.00
5,258,886.00
101,612,883.00
5%

KY
Kentucky
157,569,975.00
24,435,478.00
133,134,497.00
16%

LA
Louisiana
188,749,525.00
18,518,575.00
170,230,950.00
10%

MA
Massachusetts
280,551,559.00
33,991,801.25
246,559,757.75
12%

MD
Maryland
200,241,802.00
14,958,775.13
185,283,026.87
7%

ME
Maine
53,163,974.00
12,002,856.00
41,161,118.00
23%

MI
Michigan
400,607,836.00
18,962,176.13
381,645,659.87
5%

MN
Minnesota
189,839,228.00
9,781,910.49
180,057,317.51
5%

MO
Missouri
227,175,274.00
24,414,930.91
202,760,343.09
11%

MP
Northern Mariana Islands
174,906.00
1,386.00
173,520.00
1%

MS
Mississippi
117,836,482.00
2,829,739.15
115,006,742.85
2%

MT
Montana
36,708,056.00
5,564,052.00
31,144,004.00
15%

NC
North Carolina
314,410,039.00
74,026,807.32
240,383,231.68
24%

ND
North Dakota
26,552,439.00
3,822,876.75
22,729,562.25
14%

NE
Nebraska
74,676,976.00
2,906,222.00
71,770,754.00
4%

NH
New Hampshire
47,461,265.00
3,433,899.67
44,027,365.33
7%

NJ
New Jersey
360,691,433.00
4,848,367.01
355,843,065.99
1%

NM
New Mexico
91,147,493.00
7,500,268.72
83,647,224.28
8%

NV
Nevada
67,119,396.00
13,192,419.20
53,926,976.80
20%

NY
New York
759,193,324.00
42,118,905.00
717,074,419.00
6%

OH
Ohio
437,736,052.00
72,831,437.36
364,904,614.64
17%

OK
Oklahoma
147,924,906.00
74,610,158.21
73,314,747.79
50%

OR
Oregon
128,979,436.00
15,370,068.37
113,609,367.63
12%

PA
Pennsylvania
427,178,222.00
97,578,738.43
329,599,483.57
23%

PR
Puerto Rico
109,098,472.00
0.00
109,098,472.00
0%

RI
Rhode Island
43,734,211.00
2,088,800.00
41,645,411.00
5%

SC
South Carolina
173,239,745.00
11,082,734.86
162,157,010.14
6%

SD
South Dakota
31,630,863.00
2,300,063.00
29,330,800.00
7%

TN
Tennessee
229,613,418.00
36,103,764.70
193,509,653.30
16%

TX
Texas
945,636,328.00
119,846,845.02
825,789,482.98
13%

UT
Utah
105,540,856.00
4,038,829.00
101,502,027.00
4%

VA
Virginia
281,415,033.00
12,267,604.37
269,147,428.63
4%

VI
Virgin Islands
324,371.00
0.00
324,371.00
0%

VT
Vermont
25,601,621.00
3,436,051.79
22,165,569.21
13%

WA
Washington
221,357,461.00
14,948,429.70
206,409,031.30
7%

WI
Wisconsin
208,200,108.00
19,029,325.84
189,170,782.16
9%

WV
West Virginia
75,951,991.00
14,048,525.67
61,903,465.33
18%

WY
Wyoming
25,786,496.00
0.00
25,786,496.00
0%

Total

11,300,000,000.00
1,594,263,251.58
9,705,736,748.42
14%

December 3, 2009

At 2 p.m. Eastern time today, OMB Watch will release a beta version of a new database on FedSpending.org that gives the public improved access to and searchability of Recovery Act recipient report data. The database allows users to search more than 160,000 reports from recipients of almost $159 billion in Recovery Act contracts, grants, and loans awarded between Feb. 17 and Sept. 30.

FedSpending.org is OMB Watch’s federal spending tracking website and was launched in October 2006 following passage of a law co-sponsored by Barack Obama and Tom Coburn that mandated a searchable website of government spending; its underlying software serves as the basis for the federal government’s website, USAspending.gov. It allows users to search through trillions of dollars’ worth of federal spending dating back to FY 2000.

OMB Watch obtained the Recovery Act recipient reports through Recovery.gov, a website required by the Recovery Act and maintained by the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board. FedSpending.org’s Recovery Act data tab gives users flexibility to search, either individually or in aggregate, for prime recipients, sub-recipients, ZIP codes, congressional districts, federal awarding agencies, award amounts, and much more through a variety of means, including an Advanced Search function. Additionally, any search results can be downloaded from the site.

We created the Recovery Act data tab to expand the options people have for searching, sorting, and analyzing Recovery Act data. We believe the mapping features on Recovery.gov are great, but there are lots of other ways to interact with this data. We hope our website serves as a springboard for further changes at Recovery.gov.

Because the Recovery Act database on FedSpending.org is being released as a beta version, it may contain technical glitches despite our best efforts. That’s where you come in – if you have technical difficulties or notice any other bugs, please contact us using the FedSpending.org feedback form. Please note that we did not alter the underlying data in any way, so any errors contained within the data are not our own.

The database is available at http://www.fedspending.org/rcv.

Date Posted: September 10, 2009

The extra $11.3 billion in Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) stimulus dollars will provide local districts with unprecedented opportunities to improve instructional quality and integrate new technologies, say school leaders.

Not only does the near doubling of IDEA funding in the 2009-10 school year offer additional flexibility in offering coordinated early intervening services (CEIS) and meeting “maintenance-of-effort” requirements, but the new resources can help districts integrate research-based strategies and break down educational silos.

At a July forum on Capital Hill, Judy Wurtzel, the U.S. Department of Education’s (ED’s) assistant secretary for planning, evaluation and policy development, called the IDEA stimulus money an “unheard-of opportunity” in building long-term capacity.

At the same time, however, the one-time nature of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funding and the intricacies of the law’s civil rights’ mandates require that district leaders tread carefully in spending the new money. In addition, the slow
distribution of stimulus funding by the states to local education agencies (LEAs) and some confusion about basic requirements such as reporting continue to pose challenges.

CEIS Opportunity

Although ED released IDEA stimulus guidance in April, Wurtzel admitted it was “very general.” Over the next couple of months, ED intends to release more detailed guidance on uses of the new funding that will stress CEIS and push for linkages with Title I that
create cross-program efforts that “really get at the early ages around literacy,” she said.

IDEA’s CEIS provision enables districts to use up to 15 percent of their total Part B grant to fund educational and behavioral evaluations and supports — typically through a model referred to as “Response to Intervention” — as well as professional development in scientifically based academic and behavioral interventions. The money also can augment activities authorized under No Child Left Behind (NCLB), provided the funding supplements, and not supplants, NCLB funding.

CEIS funds target students who currently are not identified as needing special education services, but need additional academic and behavioral supports to excel in the general education environment. Students officially designated as in need of special education may not receive CEIS services, except for problems not grounded in the disability that led to their designation as in need of special education.

Specifically, ED’s ARRA guidance suggests that districts may use CEIS dollars to provide behavioral interventions to nondisabled students who have exhibited disciplinary difficulties. Further, the document says the funding could be used to help reading and math specialists assist nondisabled students who haven’t reached grade-level proficiency in those areas, or fund tutoring for nondisabled students struggling on state tests.

CEIS professional development activities typically involve all personnel charged with providing additional academic and behavioral supports to general education students. Personnel working solely with students with disabilities or students who don’t need additional support may participate as long as their participation does not boost the cost of the professional development or decrease its effectiveness.

Chance for New Technology

Technology is frequently cited as another area in which the extra ARRA money can have a impact without the need to hire personnel who cannot be sustained once the ARRA funds run out.

Candace Cortellia, the executive director of the Virginia-based Advocacy Institute, identified technology as a “significant need,” including the purchases of hardware and software as well as training for teachers, assistive technology professionals, students and parents. “Some of these expenditures can be quite costly, so the ARRA funds provide a perfect opportunity to really ratchet up technology,” she explained in an e-mail.

The list of potential technology purchases is almost endless. The guidance recommends the use of IDEA stimulus dollars for “state-of-the art assistive technology devices and … training in their use to enhance access to the general curriculum for students with disabilities.” Districts also may want to explore data-collection systems that track individual student data as a means of differentiating instruction.

Wurtzel suggested that districts could create systems that placed standards-based individualized education programs (IEPs) online. “Using technology to increase efficiency,” she said was the benefit. “A short-term investment for a long-term gain.”

Cortellia and Patty Guard, ED’s deputy director of special education, also emphasized that many IDEA stimulus expenditures have the potential to benefit all students, whether through dropout-prevention programs or Title I schoolwide programs.

In Title I schoolwide programs, schools are allowed to blend all of their state, local and federal funds into a single pot. The Title I law says that schoolwide programs do not have to maintain separate accounting records showing which funds support which activities, meaning that the funding can go toward programs for all students, provided the civil rights mandates are met for disabled and limited English proficient (LEP) students.

Guard admitted that using ARRA IDEA funds in a schoolwide scenario was “complicated” because of the various requirements associated with each federal funding stream, but said “there are ways to use those funds that are consistent with the program requirements and still in a coordinated way to improve outcomes for all students.”

Local District Perspectives

School leaders at the congressional forum, which was jointly sponsored by the Mitsubishi Electric America Foundation and the Emily Hall Tremaine Foundation, offered specifics related to their districts’ plans for spending ARRA IDEA money.

In assessing the best course of action with the stimulus funding, Judith Higgins Moening, the executive special education director for the North East Independent School District in San Antonio, Texas, noted that her district convened a task force that included staff from the Title I, English language learners (ELLs), instructional technology and special education departments. The task force conducted a district-wide needs assessment that was completed by staff and parents at all of the district’s schools.

North East ISD identified a number of strategies to meet the district’s needs, including:

Using professional development in research-based instructional strategies, coteaching, Direct Instruction, positive behavioral supports (PBS), intervention methods and technology;
Supporting inclusive instruction;
Using CEIS dollars for tutoring, intervention specialists and materials in RTI programs;
Placing PBS-trained teams in each school with PBS training to be held annually;
Fostering collaboration between central office staff and school administrators to monitor school-level data and close the achievement gap; and
Collaborating across district-level departments of special education, curriculum development, ELLs and educational technology through regular meetings, presentations to principals and joint data review.
“We have already submitted our application to the state,” Higgins said, “and we are ready to start spending money as soon as Texas is ready to give it to us.”

Claire Crane, the principal of Robert L. Ford NASA Explorer Elementary School in Lynn, Mass., advocated the use of IDEA stimulus funding for thoughtful and wellplanned approaches to Universal Design for Learning (UDL) — an approach to educational planning and implementation that considers all learners from the outset, including special education, LEP and gifted students.

“By ‘thoughtful and well planned,’ I’m referring to approaches that are designed from the outset to meet the needs of diverse learners and the teachers who teach them,” she said.

To this extent, Crane specifically urged LEAs to consider applying UDL principles in Title I schoolwide programs and acquiring assistive technologies that can support learning for all students in the least restrictive environment. Any effort to apply UDL
principles should be accompanied by professional development related to UDL, particularly as it relates to the implementation of an inclusive curriculum.

Remaining Challenges

While the tendency might be to shrug off the challenges tied to the stimulus package’s extra IDEA funding, they are plenty and should be considered in spending decisions.

ED has warned districts against funding projects or programs that it would be forced terminate after the stimulus funding ends in two years. For example, districts seeking to avoid difficulties related to the so-called “funding cliff” should avoid boosting the levels of services outlined in a child’s IEP. Since school districts already are required to provide the services necessary to ensure a “free, appropriate public education,” or FAPE, it is hard to add ARRA services and then rescind them a year or two later without courting a lawsuit.

Although little IDEA money has been distributed yet by the states, districts must plan to vigilantly track and report on all expenditures. All ARRA programs must be tracked separately from the traditional appropriations, meaning that they have to be coded separately as well. The Office of Management and Budget has released specific details on reporting requirements.

Finally, Cortellia pointed out that the $11.3 billion in additional IDEA money really is not a lot when it’s broken down per student. Over the course of the two-year life of the funding, districts will receive only about $433 per student with disability per year.

“It will be a challenge for a lot of districts to show us interesting and good results with that amount of money,” she said.

Potential Investments With ARRA IDEA Funds

During a July 13 panel discussion in Washington, D.C., Judith Higgins Moening, the executive director of special education for the North East Independent School District in San Antonio, Texas, offered suggestions for areas that school leaders could target with the $11.3 billion in special education money they will receive under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, including:

Professional Development — Professional development should consist of research-based initiatives that are job-embedded with ongoing follow-up activities.
Technology — Technology can be used to differentiate learning and provide access to the curriculum. In addition, it should be tied to professional development.
Data-Management Systems — These systems can be used to track student achievement and make decisions regarding interventions.
Response to Intervention — The 15 percent of the total grant that can be set aside for coordinated early intervening services can pay for RTI. Funding may be used to purchase classroom materials and other resources, software, and trained interventionists.
Positive Behavior Supports — These interventions target students struggling with emotional and disciplinary issues at school.
Contract Facilitators, Trainers and/or Support Staff — These individuals can provide follow-up in classrooms with teachers to support implementation of new teaching behaviors

- Travis Hicks

For Further Information

Access ED’s ARRA IDEA guidance at www.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/guidance/idea-b.pdf.
Learn more about universal design for learning at www.udl4allstudents.com.

On June 3, 2009, the state of New Mexico received a “Needs Assistance” rating from the U.S. Department of Education for its implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) based on its 2007-2008 performance on the state’s State Performance Plan.  Details on the 2009 rating for New Mexico are available here. This is the same rating the state received in both 2007 and 2008.

The ratings that New Mexico has assigned to each of its local school districts – as required by IDEA federal regulations – are available here.