| IDEA 2004 and AHEAD |
|
 |
|
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.
top of page
|
