Qualitative Summary
Qualitative Summary on Solicitation of Input from AHEAD Members in Regards to Proposed IDEA 2004 Summary of Performance Template
July 27, 2005
Background
In the summer of 2004, at the AHEAD Conference in Miami, representatives of 12 national organizations, representing a broad compliment of stakeholder groups, met to discuss expected changes to IDEA. AHEAD was at the table as a leader and active participant regarding an issue that directly impacts our field. Additionally, since (1) AHEAD members around the country are active on state transition committees, (2) AHEAD conferences typically have a number of sessions addressing transition issues, and (3) AHEAD members often express concern about secondary personnel and parents not understanding the requirements of postsecondary education, the AHEAD Board of Directors saw this collaboration as an opportunity to impact and educate. It was generally known at that time that the new regulations would include features specific to documentation and transition.
In the fall of 2004, AHEAD was one of a number of organizations that addressed the transition features of the expected IDEA reauthorization in detail. Through continuing collaboration, a template for a model Summary of Performance (SOP) [in response to wording in Section 614 of IDEA 2004] that would be helpful to students, parents and disability service providers in postsecondary settings was developed by this group of representatives. After a series of revisions, the SOP Template was posted to the AHEAD website for comment, in anticipation of refinement. The SOP Template attempts to address 1) the recognized need to have comprehensive information on the SOP, 2) the trend that indicates that diagnostic testing will be less and less “fresh” over time, 3) the fact that information contained in the SOP will, in many cases, not be sufficient to meet the standards of postsecondary disability documentation and/or documentation of the sort required by testing agencies.
Method
AHEAD staff established a dedicated email account IDEA2004@ahead.org to collect feedback from AHEAD members and others in the DSS field. The email account was active from May 9 to July 15, 2005.
An ALERT article, a targeted email to members and links on the AHEAD website informed members and others about the feedback period. No structured questions were developed; constituents were asked to share their thoughts on the SOP Template.
Eighty individual respondents sent emails to IDEA2004@ahead.org by July 15th. The total number of emails numbered 95.
Ninety-five percent of the respondents were AHEAD members and other DSS professionals. The rest were K-12 educators, transition specialists, rehabilitation counselors and other interested parties.
The majority of the comments (96%) were critical of the draft SOP Template or skeptical of AHEAD’s participation in the development of such a document. The majority of these respondents (85%) were critical of terminology found in the SOP Template. While half of these saw merit in the concept of a document like the SOP, the other half strongly suggested that AHEAD not be involved in the development or endorsement of this or any SOP. About ¼ of the critical respondents made the assumption that AHEAD was claiming that the SOP would take the place of formal documentation.
Only 4% of the respondents (3 people) had completely positive things to say about the SOP. They saw it as something related to IEP’s and commented that they would regard an SOP from a high school as another document to review, but that the traditional role of the DSS professional to obtain proper documentation would still hold.
Themes
Two strong themes ran through the emails: questions about the need for a summary of performance, and the use of particular terminology in the template.
The Need for a Summary of Performance
As mentioned above, about half of the critical comments concerned the nature of the SOP itself and warned AHEAD about being involved in the development or endorsement of it. Some of the respondents missed the concept that the SOP was the result of the multidisciplinary Summit group and thought that AHEAD had developed the SOP to “tell secondary schools what to do.” A few of these admitted their unfamiliarity with the IDEA changes or the concept of the “summary of performance” in Section 614. One knowledgeable and well-respected education consultant gave some reasoned arguments that the “jury is still out among peers” about the nature of a “summary of performance” as a document per se.
The other half of the respondents, though critical, did see the concept of a SOP as a useful tool as long as secondary personnel, parents and students understood that it does not take the place of formal documentation.
Terminology: “Modifications,” “Success” and “Essential”
There was nearly unanimous agreement among those who were critical of terminology in the SOP Template that the use of the term “modification” as found in the cover sheet instructions and in Parts 3 and 4 of the Template was inappropriate for the postsecondary setting. A number of emails stated that “colleges do not modify their programs.” Among those who did recognize that colleges do modify some components of their programs (e.g., foreign language requirements), they worried that the understanding of “modification” is different in the K-12 setting as compared to college.
While the numbers weren’t significant, some of the respondents had trouble with the concept and emphasis on the use of the term “success” throughout the SOP Template. They wanted to emphasize that DSS personnel are concerned with the “access, NOT success” of disabled students in college. Some others understood that “success” is used in IDEA 2004 and knew that K-12 education emphasizes this concept, but were afraid that parents and students would assume that college personnel would also be focusing on success regardless of a student’s qualifications to be in college.
The greatest concern was with the term “essential” as found in Parts 3 and 4. More than ¾ of the people who had problems with the terminology felt that “essential” was a “dangerous” term to include on such a document. Virtually all of them stated that they were afraid that “parents and students will demand” “unreasonable accommodations such as untimed tests” based on what is recorded in Parts 3 and 4 of the SOP Template. Many of the emails felt that the inclusion of “essential” accommodations would “tie their hands” in determining accommodations and that the SOP would “dictate” which accommodations should be offered without input from the DSS professional. Those who saw the benefit of the SOP suggested that “essential” be changed to “recommended,” though many people wanted the term and concept removed completely.
Summary
AHEAD encouraged members and other DSS professionals to submit input on a proposed Summary of Performance template that was developed in response to wording in Section 614 of IDEA 2004, in order to ensure that higher education had a voice in the process. Members and others were given 10 weeks to submit their comments. 80 individuals responded. While the majority of respondents were critical of the SOP template, about half of all of the respondents felt that the concept of, or a document like, the SOP Template had merit as long as it was designed well and not used as a replacement for formal documentation.
