Getting Out of Special Education as a Measure of Early Intervention Success: The Utah Early Interven

1
Getting Out of Special Education as a Measure of
Early Intervention Success The Utah Early
Intervention Project

• Mark S. Innocenti
• Early Intervention Research Insititute
• Center for Persons with Disabilities
• Utah State University
• Logan, UT 84322-6580
• Mark.Innocenti_at_usu.edu
• May 20, 2005
• Presented to the Interagency Collaboration
  Council, Salt Lake City, UT.
• Work reported in this brief was supported by
  grants from the Utah State Office of Education to
  the Early Intervention Research Insititute at
  Utah State University. No official endorsement
  is implied.

2
What is Success in Early Intervention?

• Is success measured by developmental gains?
• Is success placement in regular education?
• Is success measured in dollars and cents?
• Is success defined by the parent?
• Is success something that cannot be measured
  until the student becomes an adult?

3
Utah Early Intervention Project History

• Utah Early Intervention Project (UTEIP)
• Dates 1995-1999
• Funded by Utah State Office of Education and
  Utah Department of Health
• Principal Investigator Richard N. Roberts
• Co-Principal Investigators Mark S. Innocenti
  Linda D. Goetze
• Assessments included Child, family, and service
  measures.
• Children were enrolled to represent a variety of
  early intervention service contexts throughout
  the state. Including children enrolled both in
  Part C and Part B services.

4
General Findings from Phase 1 of UTEIP
5
Utah Early Intervention Project Follow-Up
History

• Utah Early Intervention Project Follow-up
• Dates 1999-2003
• Funded by Utah State Office of Education
• Principal Investigator Mark S. Innocenti
• Data Collection Schedule Yearly with parents and
  educators
• Longitudinal data were collected yearly in the
  areas of
• consistency and changes in disability,
• classification, movement in and out of special
  education and other special services,
• service delivery patterns, and
• parents perceptions of services.

6
How do we know early intervention is effective?

• Changes in developmental skills
• Casto Mastropieri, 1986
• Guralnick, 1997
• Efficacy is demonstrated
• Later outcomes of students
• Post high school transition
• Only recently begun to be addressed
• Performance on state measures of progress
• Special education declassification
• Students once eligible for special education are
  no longer eligible for services
• Assumed to be the result of successful prior
  special education services

7
A clarification I use the term early
intervention to mean services provided to
children and families under an Individualized
Family Service Plan (IFSP) and/or an
Individualized Education Program (IEP) prior to
childrens kindergarten entry.
8
Importance of Special Education Declassification
to Early Intervention

• In 1986, advocates for a preschool/early
  intervention component to the Individuals with
  Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, then PL 94-142)
  argued that providing early intervention services
  to children with disabilities would reduce the
  number of children needing later special
  education and ultimately reduce educational costs
  
• Despite this philosophy literally changing the
  field of early intervention, very few studies in
  the literature have sought to define success by
  looking at the declassification of children over
  time.

9
Past Research

• Carlson Parshall (1996)
• N 51,624 in Michigan
• 1989 1993
• 7 declassified
• Not clear if any children were in early
  intervention
• Goetze Price (2000)
• N 323, multi-state sample
• All children had received early intervention
• Examined at 6 and 10 years of age
• 17 of students not classified at both time
  points
• 22 at either time point

10
How does this inform?

• Declassification rates ranged from 7 to 22
• Practical significance
• 7 many not be practically significant
• 17 and 22 most likely practically significant
• My premise If children in Utah are declassified
  at a rate similar to or higher than that found by
  Goetze and Price (2000), it would seem reasonable
  to state that Utahs early intervention program
  is effective in meeting the original intent of
  IDEA in practically reducing the number of
  children needing special education and reducing
  overall educational costs.

11
Research Objectives

• Using data collected by the UTEIP study on
  children who were once enrolled in early
  intervention services
• Identify children who are no longer receiving
  special education services in the academic years
  2001/02 through 2003/04.
• Using data collected while children were in early
  intervention, compare information between those
  who remain in special education with those who
  have been declassified

12
Size of UTEIP Follow-Up Sample
13
Description of Children Previously Enrolled in
Early Intervention for the Academic Years 2001/02
Through 2003/04
14
Percent of Children, Previously Enrolled in Early
Intervention, Declassified from Special Education
for the Academic Years 2001/02 Through 2003/04
Note No differences based on location of
services.
15
What about those children we were not able to
find?

• More likely to have had a lower income and more
  negative life events while in early intervention.
• Could impact declassification rates.

16
Percent of Children Declassified - Assuming All
Missing Children Remain in Special Education
Very conservative assumption
17
Disability Classification (in percent) of
Children Previously Enrolled in Early
Intervention for the Academic Years 2001/02 and
2002/03
Data not available for 2003/04
18
Early Intervention Entry Variables Where
Statistically Significant Differences Occurred
Between Children Later Classified or Not
Classified for Special Education
Using ANOVA, all different at p lt .05
Similar results found for all 3 years, 2001-02
through 2003-04, unless noted. 1 Similar
results for 2 of the 3 years.
19
Classification Entry Variables Differences
Implications

• Milder disabilities more likely to lead to
  declassification
• Parent functioning child health are important
  areas for predicting later classification
• More so in preschool than Baby Watch
• Emphasizes the need for early intervention to
  partner with other programs in the community to
  address the diverse needs of families

20
Implications

• Almost half of the children who were in early
  intervention have graduated from special
  education.
• Attrition may have slightly inflated results
• Making conservative assumptions on attrition,
  more than 25 still graduate from special
  education.
• Specific reasons cannot be unequivocally stated
• No control group
• No information on what would have happened if the
  higher functioning children (but still eligible)
  not received early intervention
• Regardless, these results are positive!!
• Findings support the philosophy that helped early
  intervention become a reality.
• Less need for special education
• saved

21
Thanks for coming!
For more information Mark.Innocenti_at_usu.edu
Thanks to my colleagues Linda Goetze and Cora
Price and to the children, parents, teachers,
and school district staff who participated in
this study.