The Impact of UPK on Preschool Special Ed and Preschool LRE: Are We Squandering An Opportunity or Ca

1
The Impact of UPK on Preschool Special Ed and
Preschool LREAre We Squandering An Opportunity
or Capitalizing on It?

• Abby J. Cohen
• Region IX State TA Specialist, NCCIC
• November 2006

2
The National Child Care Information Center
A service of the Child Care Bureau,
Office of Family Assistance, Administration for
Children and Families, DHHS
3
Laying the Groundwork for a Discussion

• Lay out a simplified history on how we got to
  where we are
• Review some of what is now occurring
• Discussion What can we do to ensure that the
  potential opportunity is capitalized on and not
  squandered?
• I come from the child care/prek side correct and
  add to my understanding of special ed side and
  Head Start side this is a work in progress!

4
Publicly funded pre-k continues to grow

• Increased knowledge about social and economic
  benefits of high quality pre-k has fueled growth
• A major breakthrough in expansion occurred in the
  last ten years or so as there came to be support
  for a mixed (public and private) delivery system

5
The current publicly funded pre-k landscape

• State pre-ks served 801,902 children in 2004-05.
• State pre-k has now surpassed federal Head Start
  for number of 4 year old children served.
• 17 of nations 4 year olds now being served.
• Source NIEER, 2006

6
Pre-k Landscape

• Wide variability in the array of standards which
  are applied to pre-k
• 16 states require teachers to have bachelors
  degrees in all classrooms
• In 2006 no decreases in prek funding
• 10 states have no program
• (Sources NIEER, 2006 Preknow, 2006))

7
Universal vs. Targeted

• Still really talking largely about targeted prek
  as opposed to universal few of the states have
  truly universal programs most are targeted to
  at-risk children as defined by each state
• Issue of significant controversy not so much
  about benefit for all children but whether public
  should pay for children who are not low income
  when benefit is greatest for those at most
  disadvantage
• Nevertheless recognize political advantages, no
  means testing, and benefits to all children

8
Legal Requirements under IDEA

• Each public agency shall ensure that a continuum
  of alternative placements is available to meet
  the needs of children with disabilities. 34 CFR
  300.551

9
Prek Placement Options

• The full continuum of alternative placements at
  34 CFR 300.551, including integrated placement
  options, such as community based settings with
  typically developing age peers, must be available
  to preschool children with disabilities.
• 34 CFR Part 300 Comments to Regs

10
Preschool LRE

• Requirements of Least Restrictive Environment
  (LRE) also apply to preschoolers.

11
History of Preschool Special Ed

• Unlike K-12 where a formal education system
  existed, the guarantee of a free public education
  (FAPE) to 3-5 year olds (required by 1991-2
  school year) meant that school districts needed
  to find alternative means of serving preschool
  children.

12
History (contd)

• Many districts created segregated settings
  because there were no programs in the public
  school available to typically developing
  children.
• General lack of knowledge about settings outside
  of school districts
• When known, concerns about quality, esp. teacher
  qualifications and issues of funding,
  supervision, etc.

13
Inclusion

• Regular ed curriculum and access to typically
  developing peer group provide learning
  opportunity unavailable in special ed only
  classrooms
• LRE provisions of the law
• Most appropriate in meeting the needs and desires
  of families

14
Preschool Options

• Segregated (self-contained) classes began to be
  desegregated (reverse mainstreaming) by
  including typically developing children into
  formerly segregated classrooms
• Community preschool programs began to be used,
  with itinerant special education services
  provided, or co-teaching, etc.

15
What benefits could public pre-k offer for LRE
purposes?

• Like K-12, publicly funded pre-k offers a
  regular educational placement, often with a
  general curriculum, with early learning standards
• When children are identified through screening,
  as is often required in pre-k programs, they may
  be able to stay where they are rather than be
  moved

16
Benefits of publicly funded pre-k for LRE

• Higher staff qualification requirements than
  might be typical in child care settings
• Often more structured and available opportunities
  for staff development
• Better ratios than might exist under child care
  licensing
• Overall, potential of better quality as a
  foundation on which to build

17
Benefits (contd)

• Generally, these programs will have some form of
  assessment for the enrolled children already in
  place
• Efficient use of resources
• Q what other benefits?

18
Potential concerns

• Targeted as opposed to universal programs may not
  be considered LRE programs targeted to at risk
  of school failure rather than to those of low
  income such as Head Start may not be seen as a
  regular class(see La Grange v. Illinois State
  Bd of Ed, 184 F.3d 912, 1999)
• Publicly funded pre-k usually is only available
  for one year may result in undesirable
  discontinuity for the child (but note IL and NJ)
• Report Prekindergartners Left Behind Expulsion
  Rates in State Prekindergartens may be an
  indication about the lack of support and quality
  within programs

19
Potential Concerns

• Q What other concerns or issues arise from
  relying on publicly funded prek to serve the
  needs of children with disabilities?

20
How has it played out?

• Limited information available what we know from
  documents may not be what goes on on the ground
  Lets share what we know
• Need for more systematic research about barriers
  and best practices
• Principles have been developed by Child Care Law
  Center to help guide inclusive pre-k program
  development

21
Illustrative state New York

• Students with disabilities can participate in
  UPK programs and receive preschool special
  education programs and services while enrolled in
  UPK programs. A childs IEP can be implemented
  easily within the context of the developmentally
  appropriate UPK program.

22
New York contd

• It is recommended that UPK staff participate in
  Committee on Preschool Special Ed (CPSE) meetings
  as the childs teacher or as others who have
  knowledge regarding the child. The UPK
  administrator and/or staff can provide the CPSE
  with valuable information on the learning
  standards addressed in the UPK curriculum.

23
New York (contd)

• . . .when preschool children with disabilities
  are enrolled in UPK, funding from the UPK and
  funding available through federal, State and
  county sources for special education, can be used
  to support such arrangements.But doesnt supply
  specifics of funding allocation.
• Considerations of communication, parent
  participation, and joint staff development

24
Illustrative State Oklahoma

• Closest to universal 90 of preschool age
  children attend some form of public pre-k
• According to Oklahoma, no need for MOUs or
  policies since most prek is offered by school
  districts and children with IEPs are attending
  these programs

25
Illustrative State Georgia

• Universal prek 6.5 hour program eligible one
  year only though can make special request to
  repeat
• Child eligible for prek and special ed shall not
  be denied services in the prek program.
• Dual enrollment in public school disabilities
  classes and prek acceptable

26
Illustrative State WV

• As settings are established for UPK, it is
  important that children with disabilities are a
  part of the process and have the same options
  available to them as children without
  disabilities. The least restrictive environment
  must be the FIRST consideration for children
  (3-21 years of age). (www.wvdhhr.org/oss/pieces/t
  a/faq.asp)

27
Illustrative State NM

• 5 million pilot for at risk kids serving about
  1500 children
• Prek Program standards
• Children with disabilities and developmental
  delays integrated with peer, with supports from
  appropriate service providers

28
New Mexico (contd)

• Modifications made in physical and learning
  environments, with supports from appropriate
  service providers
• Ancillary services (occupational,
  speech/language and/or physical therapy) are
  integrated within regular program activities and
  routines to max. extent appropriate for each
  child
• Professional in-service training provided that is
  specific to inclusionary practices

29
Illustrative state NJ

• New Jersey has two prek programs about 43,000 3
  and 4 yr.olds in Abbott districts
• Self-assessment validations system for Abbott
  preschools
• NJ Office of Special Ed Programs involved in
  revising the SAVS areas and indicators saw that
  related services being offered in pull out model
• (http//www.nectac.org/meetings/InclusionMtg2006/
  mtgconcurrent6.asp)

30
NJ (contd)

• There are three distinct areas now on the revised
  SAVS which relate to our issues of concern (in
  addition to assessment and screening)
• Inclusion
• Preschool intervention and support
• Transition

31
NJ (contd)

• In each of these areas a number of criteria are
  assessed leads to the development of an
  improvement plan
• Based on information coming from the SAVS,
  workshops and summer institutes have been held on
  a number of topics related to successful inclusion

32
Illustrative County Los Angeles (LAUP)

• LA has taken a different approach neither
  segregated nor wholly integrated
• Using RFP process to identify model inclusive
  centers of high quality and which meet certain
  criteria. These programs are effectively
  identifying best practices that will help shape
  all programs as UPK moves to scale.

33
LAUP

• Question Will this provide the best of both
  worlds during an interim period or will we be
  recreating another form of segregation or is such
  a hybrid necessary permanently?

34
Barriers

• Some locales have continued to operate two
  separate programs with no thought as to how to
  bring the separate strands together no
  collaborative planning
• Lack of communication
• Lack of joint and cross training
• Continued differences in philosophy

35
Barriers (2)

• Insufficient attention to figuring out how
  funding will work
• Insufficient attention to how staffing will
  function

36
Discussion

• What can we do to ensure that existing publicly
  funded pre-k programs are better utilized as
  potential LRE for preschool children with
  disabilities?
• What can we do to ensure that new pre-k programs
  in the planning phase are designed with inclusion
  in mind?

37
Resources on Publicly Funded Pre-k

• www.nieer.org
• www.preknow.org
• www.ecs.org
• www.nccic.acf.hhs.gov

38
Resources on Preschool LRE

• www.nectac.org/inclusion/default.asp (NECTAC Keys
  to Natural Environments and Inclusion)
• www.tacommunities.org/ev_en.php?ID1028_201ID2DO
  _COMMUNITY (OSEP TA Communities Preschool
  LRE-Part B/619 Community)
• www.dec-sped.org
• www.preschooloptions.org (LRE options)
• www.idhi.uky.edu/sparc (assessment and
  accountability issues)

39
National Child Care Information Center

• Phone [phone]
• Fax [phone]
• TTY 800-516-2242
• E-mail info_at_nccic.org
• Web site http//nccic.acf.hhs.gov
• Mail 10530 Rosehaven Street, Suite 300,
  Fairfax, VA 22030

40
Thank You!