The pending reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and the ensuing federal and state regulations represent a significant and even profound challenge for all individuals and organizations involved in the education of children and youth with disabilities. Along with the 2002 Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act -- No Child Left Behind (NCLB) -- policy makers, parents and educational professionals are facing the most significant changes in federal educational policy in perhaps 30 years.

As a leader within the educational community in California, the California Association of School Psychologists (CASP) has engaged in multiple activities regarding this most important issue. The Executive Board considers it its responsibility to address the major philosophical and policy changes contained in this legislation, which affects the welfare of children and the profession of school psychology, and to advocate for critical issues within the legislative and policy arena. Whenever possible, CASP will form legislative and advocacy alliances with parents and other professional organizations, to more effectively influence public policy affecting children, schools and our profession.

Along with the CASP executive director, members of the CASP Board of Directors have worked collaboratively with parents, administrators, and policy makers to organize the California Reauthorization Summit, which was held in Sacramento on January 18, 2003. The purpose of the Summit was to articulate areas of agreement among stakeholder groups regarding issues identified through an on-line IDEA survey administered by CASP. The major areas all groups identified as critical are: a) full and appropriate funding; b) paperwork reduction; c) prevention and early intervention; d) student success and outcomes; and e) the implications of No Child Left Behind for the Reauthorization of IDEA.

The CASP Board has also engaged in a spirited discussion and debate regarding its position on issues related to reauthorization specific to the profession of school psychology. Topics of discussion include the funding of early intervention, the definition of learning disabilities, the importance of research-based practices and clinical judgment, the implications of a "response to intervention" approach to special education eligibility, and the challenges and opportunities for expansion and re-definition of the role of the school psychologist contained in No Child Left Behind, the report of the President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education, and the recommendations of the Learning Disabilities Roundtable.

As this process progresses, the CASP Board will consider the adoption and publication of a series of policy statements identifying its position on various aspects of proposed policy and legislation. The purpose of these statements is to communicate in a concise and timely fashion to CASP membership and to the public the CASP Board position regarding specific issues involved in the Reauthorization of IDEA, and to assist CASP leaders as they participate in related advocacy efforts.

Due to the significant nature of the changes proposed regarding the area of "high incidence disabilities," this first set of key constructs focuses on the area of assessment and intervention specifically related to children with learning difficulties or suspected learning disabilities. It is based on CASP’s analysis of the recommendations contained in the final report of the Commission on Excellence in Special Education (2002), the final report of OSEP-sponsored Learning Disabilities Roundtable (2002), and policy recommendations regarding assessment and identification developed by the National Association of School Psychologists, the Council for Exceptional Children (2002), the American Academy of School Psychology (2002), and the Center on Educational Policy (2002). CASP’s response is not meant to be an analysis of the complex issues raised by these documents. It is instead meant to be a concise statement identifying key principles or constructs that the CASP Board of Directors believes are critical for policy makers to consider regarding this aspect of IDEA reauthorization.

1. Funding – services for all children at risk of scholastic failure must be appropriately funded

• Full federal funding of IDEA (40 percent federal contribution of the cost of special education).
• Adequate state support of IDEA, to reduce or eliminate "encroachment."
• Appropriate funding for all levels of assessment and intervention.
• Shared non-categorical funding for prevention and early intervention, and intervention-based assessment within general education.
• Development of a unified funding stream including adequate funding of both No Child Left Behind and IDEA.

1. Support for all Children – a unified educational system for all children at risk of academic failure

• It is the responsibility of each public school to educate all children, including those with disabilities.
• Children with disabilities are general education students first, and responsibility for their education is a shared responsibility between general and special education.
• There are pupils in the school system with no identifiable disability that general education has failed to serve appropriately.
• All children who have learning problems deserve intervention.
• Early intervention can, in some instances, prevent the development of scholastic difficulties that eventually lead to placement in special education in the current system.
• Methods for valid and reliable screening for academic and behavioral problems exist, but are often under-utilized.
• School psychologists are representatives of the discipline of psychology within public schools, with a mandate and responsibility to serve all children.
• An effective multidisciplinary team process, including the presence of a school psychologist, is essential for the success of prevention, early intervention, and intervention-based assessment.
• School psychologists play an essential role in prevention, screening, early identification, appropriate intervention, progress monitoring, and the assessment of psychological processes and overt behaviors related to learning.
• The involvement of the school psychologist early in the process provides a level of expertise essential to planning and implementing interventions with measurable outcomes within the general education program.

1. Scientific Framework for Assessment and Intervention

• Empirically validated practices must be employed for both assessment and intervention.
• School psychologists play an essential role in the reliable measurement of interventions and educational outcomes.
• Assessment and intervention methodologies must be culturally sensitive and ecologically valid.
• School psychologists have knowledge and training in methods of school-based consultation that is critical to the success of problem-solving teams.
• School psychologists are equipped to conduct a wide range of individual and group assessments including, but not limited to, assessment of academic achievement, cognitive functioning, social and emotional functioning, behavior, adaptive functioning, instructional supportiveness and vocational readiness.
• School psychologists have background knowledge that is useful in evaluating the soundness of instructional approaches and the effectiveness of interventions (data-based formative assessment).

1. Learning Disabilities

• Children learn in many different ways.
• Some learning styles and aptitudes require modifications in typical classroom instructional approaches.
• Not all children who learn differently from their peers are learning disabled.
• Specific learning disabilities are intrinsic to the individual, and persist across time.
• Not all children with specific learning disabilities require special education assistance. (Modifications and interventions within general education can meet the needs of many pupils with specific learning disabilities.)
• The current method for determining the severity of a learning disability (severe discrepancy between global ability and achievement) is problematic and controversial from both a theoretical and psychometric perspective.
• The current system has led to the misidentification of some children as learning disabled, and a delay in services to other children at critical points in their development.
• There is strong empirical support for a "3-Tiered," sequentially layered process for screening, early identification and eventual eligibility under IDEA for pupils with learning disabilities. (See Appendix I for a detailed description of such a model.)

1. Assessment

• Assessment must be linked to state curriculum standards.
• Assessment must be linked to instructionally relevant intervention.
• All intervention efforts must include careful and continuous monitoring of progress.
• Comprehensive psychoeducational assessment is an essential part of the process for determining appropriate interventions for children who do not respond successfully to intervention efforts within the general education setting (Tiers 1 & 2).
• Multi-source, multi-method assessment is essential for the assessment of learning and behavior problems. (Norm-referenced, criterion referenced, curriculum-based assessment, skilled clinical observation, continuous monitoring methods, interviews and standardized procedures are essential tools, utilized by a skilled and appropriately trained school psychologist at different points in the assessment process.)

1. Eligibility

• Eligibility for services under IDEA must be established using objective, empirically valid definitions and assessment methodologies for all handicapping conditions.
• Data collected for determining eligibility must offer meaningful information for designing empirically supported interventions.

1. Training

• Appropriately trained and credentialed personnel are essential at all stages of assessment and intervention.
• On-going staff development for school psychologists, teachers and other support personnel is essential.
• School psychologists need to develop expertise in the assessment of underlying cognitive processes that support instruction and promote learning.
• School psychologists are essential team members for assessing instructional outcomes and making relevant recommendations.
• School psychologists can provide in-service training in all areas critical to the success of pupils with learning difficulties.

Highly trained and skilled school psychologists are essential to the success of proposed educational reform of both general and special education. The Board of Directors of CASP is committed to collaborating with the California Department of Education, including, but not limited to the Division of Special Education, the Association of California School Administrators, SELPA Directors, the California Teachers Association, Learning Disability Association of California, the California Association of Resource Specialists (CARS+), California Speech-Language-Hearing Association, parent groups and other stakeholders in the design of an effective system for serving children with learning difficulties.

Using the above constructs and principles, CASP will play an active role in the legislative process at both a federal and state level, assisting to shape legislation and regulations which emphasize and mandate a clear role definition for school psychologists in prevention, screening, intervention, and comprehensive assessment for all students, including those with learning and behavioral difficulties. Finally, CASP will continue to provide state-of-the art training utilizing conference and continuing professional development resources in order for CASP membership and other members of the educational community to develop the necessary skill base to implement these principles.

• There is strong empirical support for a "3-Tiered," sequentially layered process for screening, early identification and eventual eligibility under IDEA for pupils with learning disabilities.
• Tier 1 is begins when pupils fail to make expected progress within general education.
• Tier 1 interventions are preventative in that the process is invoked as soon as a child’s acquisition of academic skills (particularly reading) is behind that of his/her peers.
• Students identified as functioning below the instructional range must receive timely, persistent, research-based interventions addressing the identified deficiency.
• The effect of curricular and instructional suggestions made to the classroom teacher in Tier 1 must be measured through relevant and frequent data collection.
• For children who fail to make adequate progress, a systematic and multidisciplinary problem-solving process is invoked in Tier 2.
• Tier 2 involves a multidisciplinary, problem-solving process for pupils who fail to make adequate progress following Tier 1 interventions.
• The problem-solving process in Tier 2 must involve both general and special education teachers and support personnel, but still falls within the administrative and fiscal responsibility of general education.
• The Student Study Team (or other mechanism employed in Tier 2) has the following essential features: a) a commitment to collaborative problem-solving regarding a student’s difficulties within the general education classroom; b) problem definition/functional analysis of the problem; c) generation of empirically supported intervention strategies employing the resources available in the school, home and community to implement and sustain these interventions; and d) systematic evaluation of intervention effects.
• When a student’s rate of progress continues to be problematic, a referral for a comprehensive psycho-educational evaluation is appropriate.

• Tier 3 is used to define the special education referral process for pupils who continue to fail to make adequate progress.

• The evaluation is for determining eligibility under IDEA as learning disabled, and utilizes all previously collected data concerning rate of progress, results of direct observation, and additional individual assessment.
• The Tier 3 assessment would be a comprehensive multidisciplinary assessment of the child’s educational needs.
• The psycho-educational evaluation shall include an individual assessment based on current theory and research regarding learning disabilities.
• Cognitive assessment relative to the area of academic need is essential in the identification of learning disabilities, as well as other developmental or "high incidence" disabilities (e.g., ADHD).
• If the results of this comprehensive evaluation indicate that a student’s instructional needs cannot be met solely in the general education program, an IEP Team meeting may be convened to determine appropriate supports and services in special education.
• All aspects of the evaluation are considered when determining eligibility, including data collected throughout the problem solving process.
• If special education services are to be provided, the IEP Team will then determine the process and data necessary to measure continuous progress toward the stated goals and objectives.
• In concurrence with No Child Left Behind, systematic and focused interventions shall include documented accountability measures as an integral part of a research based, response-to-intervention approach to measuring student progress.
• The IEP Team shall be the responsible forum for discussion of necessary modification and adaptations of a child’s curriculum to bring about optimal improvement appropriate to an individual child’s needs and developmental level.