Education reform and funding policies in Georgia : an analysis of their impact on students with disabilities : a study commissioned by the Governor's Council on Developmental Disabilities of Georgia / National Association of State Boards of Education

Education Reform and Funding Policies in Georgia: An Analysis of Their Impact on Students with Disabilities
A Study Commissioned by the Governor's Council on Developmental Disabilities of Georgia
September 2002
National Association of State Boards of Education Virginia Roach, Ed.D., Project Director 277 S. Washington Street, Suite 100 Alexandria, Virginia 22314
1

Table of Contents
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ 3 Assessment .................................................................................................................. 3 Accountability.............................................................................................................. 3 Finance ........................................................................................................................ 4 Professional Development............................................................................................ 4
Introduction..................................................................................................................... 5 Background..................................................................................................................... 7
Legislation ................................................................................................................... 8 No Child Left Behind................................................................................................ 8 H.B. 1187 A Plus Education Reform Act ............................................................... 9 H.B. 656 Georgia Academic Placement and Promotion........................................ 10 H.B. 500 Amendments to the Georgia Education Code for Special Education Funding .................................................................................................................. 10
Revised State Board of Education Rules .................................................................... 11 Findings and Recommendations .................................................................................... 12
Assessment ................................................................................................................ 12 Current policy......................................................................................................... 12 Findings.................................................................................................................. 16 Summary ................................................................................................................ 17 Recommendations................................................................................................... 17
Accountability............................................................................................................ 21 Current policy......................................................................................................... 21 Findings.................................................................................................................. 22 Summary ................................................................................................................ 24 Recommendations................................................................................................... 24
Finance ...................................................................................................................... 25 Current policy......................................................................................................... 25 Findings.................................................................................................................. 27 Summary ................................................................................................................ 28 Recommendations................................................................................................... 29
Professional Development.......................................................................................... 29 Current policy......................................................................................................... 29 Findings.................................................................................................................. 30 Summary ................................................................................................................ 31 Recommendations................................................................................................... 31
Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 33
2

Executive Summary
As part of its on-going effort to monitor the well being of students with disabilities, the Georgia Governor's Council on Developmental Disabilities commissioned a statewide study to determine how Georgia's education reform policies are impacting students with disabilities. Specifically, the study was to determine whether current policies are likely to promote or impede the inclusion of students with disabilities in general education reforms enacted both in Georgia and at the federal level.
Through interviews at the state level with policymakers, document reviews, and a series of five regional forums throughout Georgia, the research team learned about the current strengths and successes of the education system and areas for improvement. Key findings are discussed in four major policy areas: assessment, accountability, finance, and professional development.
Based on these findings, a review of best practices literature, and the experiences in other states, a series of recommendations is offered for state policymakers to consider in the four policy areas:
Assessment Georgia should consider adopting a new alternative assessment that provides a
mechanism to reliably and validly track student achievement over time and compare relative achievement across districts.
When revising the QCC, Georgia should consider a curriculum based on the principles of universal design thereby assuring that the state-approved standards have the breadth and depth necessary to address the educational needs of all students (including those with significant disabilities).
The State should continue its focus on developing on-line assessments.
Accountability
The state should stay the course and fully implement what has been legislated.
The State should provide more intensive technical assistance and training on all aspects of accountability. This includes appropriate uses of data, how to interpret data, and school improvement strategies.
Georgia policymakers should explicitly tie general education to special education by: requiring common data reporting for all students in the state; developing a common monitoring and school improvement process in the state; and requiring that special education be part of the School Improvement Plan (SIP).
3

Finance Georgia should continue to pursue effective school reform strategies through
discretionary funding as well as continue to adequately fund the QBE. The state should consider revising sec. 20-2-152 (d) to ensure placement neutrality
and support a variety of service delivery options.
Professional Development The state should utilize and expand sound teacher training programs as a way to
develop and sustain positive teacher attitudes toward inclusion. The state should focus on infusing successful professional development programs and
practices for working with students with disabilities into the emerging professional development infrastructure. This requires systematic review of discretionary-funded projects, i.e., those special projects funded by the state, either through the Developmental Disabilities Council, the Georgia Department of Education, or Georgia universities and colleges.
** * In conclusion, Georgia has laid the foundation for an ambitious reform that has the potential to enhance the achievement of all students, including those with disabilities. The ultimate success of this reform for students with disabilities will depend on developing a solid infrastructure of curriculum and professional capacity to teach that curriculum to all students. Furthermore, we recommend amending state policies in assessment, accountability and finance to ensure that students with disabilities are fully included in the accountability structures and that they receive the in-class support they need to succeed.
4

Introduction
The Governor's Council on Developmental Disabilities (GCDD) was established to:
...influence public policies that enhance the quality of life for people with developmental disabilities and their families. This is accomplished through public policy analysis and research, education, program implementation, funding, and advocacy activities.
The current Council was appointed by Governor Barnes and has representation from people with developmental disabilities, family members, and professionals from eight state agencies within Georgia, including the Georgia Department of Education. GCDD has five priority action areas of which "education and children" is one. The Council has supported this action area through a variety of activities, including funding direct projects and pursuing a policy agenda in the state legislature.
As part of its on-going effort to monitor the well-being of students with disabilities, GCDD contracted with Project WINS and Project Bridges (in Georgia), and the National Association of State Boards of Education (NASBE) to conduct a statewide study to determine how the Georgia policies on assessment and accountability are impacting students with disabilities. The focus of the study was to determine whether current policies are likely to promote or impede the inclusion of students with disabilities in general education reforms enacted both in Georgia and at the federal level. Specifically, the research team investigated:
1. The degree to which students with disabilities and special education are included in these reforms.
2. The impact of these reforms on students with disabilities. 3. The impact of these reforms on special education programs and policies.
In addition, GCDD asked the research team to investigate the impact of H.B. 500 -amendments to sec. 20-2-152 of the Georgia Code (special education funding) -- on the delivery of special education services to students with disabilities in the general education program. H.B. 500 allows districts to receive funding that would be allocated to a local district for special education services, even if those services are provided in the general program versus a special education program.
To investigate these three issues, the research team:
1. Conducted a series of interviews with key state-level policymakers.
2. Conducted a series of regional forums with a broad group of stakeholders, including families, higher education, teachers, school administrators, and advocates.
3. Reviewed relevant state documents.
5

These data were analyzed and synthesized with the findings of other national studies and practices in other states to develop recommendations for the GCDD. (See Appendix H for a full description of the study methodology). This report is the product of the study. The findings and recommendations will also be shared with the Georgia State Board of Education, Georgia State Department of Education, and Georgia Office of Education Accountability. It is the authors' hope that this report can serve as a spring board to further discussion and policy refinement to support the needs of students with disabilities in the educational system.
6

Background

For many years Georgia ranked closed to the bottom on a number of national education indicators from standardized test scores to high school graduation rate. Georgia's current governor, Roy Barnes, successfully campaigned on a platform of improving education in the state. Since his election, and subsequent appointment of the current State Board of Education and Development Disabilities Council, the Governor has worked with state policymakers to implement his campaign promises. Throughout his work, the Governor has remained mindful of the particular needs of students with disabilities as well as the general student population. This section provides some general background on the Georgia education system and the policies that have been put into place to support improved student achievement among students with or without disabilities.

Based on data from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Georgia has approximately 1.4 million students enrolled in almost 1900 schools in 180 school districts. Georgia's 90,000 teachers staff the schools at an average teacher: student ratio of 16:1, which includes all certificated personnel in the buildings. Georgia's average teacher salary of about $41,000 is the highest among the Southern states and is slightly above the national average. The average high school completion rate in the state is 83.5 percent, slightly lower than the national average. Per pupil expenditures in Georgia are greater than the national average and the state contributes slightly more to education (49 percent) than the average state (47 percent). Almost one in four students in Georgia lives in poverty whereas the national average is just over one in five.

According to the most recent Annual Report to Congress, during the 1999-2000 school year, 10.52 percent of the students, aged 6 to 17, received special education services. This figure is based on estimates of resident student population and is slightly lower than the 11.26 percent national average. (U.S. Department of Education, 2002). Of Georgia's resident student population aged 6 to 17: 3.35 percent are identified as having a specific learning disability (national average is 5.68 percent); 2.02 percent are identified as having mental retardation (national average is 1.13 percent); 2.31 percent are identified as having a specific speech or language disability (compared to 2.27 percent nationally); and 1.69 percent are identified as having an emotional disability (compared to .93 nationally). The remaining 1.15 percent of the students in special education are in the less prevalent categories of autism, traumatic brain injury, hearing impairment, visual impairment and other health impairments.

Comparison of Georgia's Enrollment in Selected Special Education Categories to
the National Average as Reported by Percentage Based on Estimated Resident Population1

Percentage of Resident Student Population in

Georgia

United States Average

1 Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education. 23rd Annual Report to Congress located at http://www.ed.gov/offices/OSERS/OSEP/Products/OSEP2001AnlRpt/Appendix_A_Pt1.doc.

7

Special Education by Type of Category All Categories Learning Disability Speech or Language Disability Mental Retardation Emotional Impairment Others

10.52 3.35 2.31
2.02 1.69 1.15

11.26 5.68 2.27
1.13 .93 1.25

There are a number of rules, legislative amendments to the education code, and policies at both the federal and state level that create the policy context in which students with and without disabilities are educated in the state of Georgia today.
Legislation
No Child Left Behind
On January 8, 2002, President Bush signed into law the "No Child Left Behind Act." The Act also has significant implications for Georgia's assessment and accountability systems. The federal law is based on four key elements: "stronger accountability for results, flexibility for states and communities, concentrating resources on proven education methods, and choices for parents" (U.S. Department of Education, 2002). The assessment and accountability provisions call for states to:
Test every student's progress toward state standards in three grade spans (3-5), (6-9) and (10-12) beginning with the 2002-2003 school year and then test every student in grades 3-8 in mathematics and reading beginning with the school year 2005-06, adding science in the school year 2007-08;
Judge "adequate yearly progress" of schools, districts and the state as a whole, on achieving the state's standards based on student test data; and
Mark student achievement based on the progress of different subgroups of students such as those with limited English proficiency and disabilities;
Provide assistance to those districts and schools that are judged to be inadequate in their progress; and
Provide a system of public school choice for those students in schools that do not make progress despite state assistance.
Because this legislation specifically requires that every student be tested and that student assessment data be disaggregated by special education status, students with disabilities are explicitly included in this legislation.

8

H.B. 1187 A Plus Education Reform Act
As noted above, Governor Barnes campaigned on a platform of education reform. In June 1999, after the Governor had been in office for a year, the Education Reform Study Commission was formed. This Commission worked through four subcommittees and gathered data through a number of processes, including public hearings and soliciting position papers from key constituencies in the state. The focus of the Commission's work was to explore ways that Georgia could revise its state system of education to promote greater student achievement.
Students with disabilities were considered in this process along with other special student populations. Input was solicited from the disability community in a variety of ways, including a position paper that was submitted by Project WINS and the GCDD. This paper addressed four sub-issues related to standards-based reform. These included:
How can we assure that all students (including those with significant disabilities) meet high educational standards?
What changes are necessary in professional development? How can we meaningfully involve parents in the education of their children? What changes are necessary in state policy to support education reform, particularly
in light of students with disabilities?
Specific recommendations of that paper included:
Send a message to schools that the State expects at least 97 percent of the school-aged population to be educated in the Quality Core Curriculum;
Send a message to the schools that the State expects ALL students to be regularly assessed. At least 97 percent of the school-aged population should be assessed on state-wide assessments and the remaining students to be assessed in an alternative assessment system.
Put in motion an accountability system with rewards and sanctions to schools on the basis of their ability to educate all students.
Evaluate the implementation for the current graduation requirements to assure that they do not systematically discriminate against students with disabilities.
Many of the recommendations cited in the position paper are found in the final bill. The A Plus Education Reform Act of 2000 (H.B. 1187) established: a state Office of Education Accountability and a state report card of school performance; a system of educational accountability and grading schools based on student assessment; rewards and sanctions for schools based on their performance; remedial and alternative education
9

programs; annual teacher performance appraisal addressing specific criteria; class size reductions; and local school councils for every school.
H.B. 656 Georgia Academic Placement and Promotion
The Education Reform Study Commission continued its work and the following year the GCDD and Project WINS were asked to present an analysis and recommendations on assessment and accountability and its impact on students with disabilities to the Commission. GCDD and Project WINS presented to the Program Subcommittee of the Commission in December 2000. That position paper provided recommendations in six key policy areas: curriculum, assessment, accountability, professional development, governance and finance.
In 2001, an additional piece of the reform legislation was enacted, H.B. 656, the Georgia Academic Placement and Promotion Act. This legislation: created an early intervention program for students; requires students to be retained in the 3rd, 5th and 8th grades if they do not score on grade level on a standardized test (sec. 20-2-283 through sec. 20-2-285); provides money for school construction; and establishes a Georgia "Closing the Achievement Gap" Commission. The Closing the Achievement Gap Commission is specifically charged with "providing a public policy focus on closing the students achievement gap that exists for at-risk students, including groups of students disaggregated by...disability..." (sec. 20-2-286).
In addition, the legislation allows determination of the "education setting in which the student is most likely to receive the instruction and other services needed in order to succeed and progress to the next higher level of academic achievement" (sec. 20-2-282).
H.B. 500 Amendments to the Georgia Education Code for Special Education Funding
In 1995 H.B. 500 was enacted. This bill amended section 20-2-152 of the Georgia Code to specifically "provide that special education funding weight shall apply to special education students placed in general education programs." Education funding in Georgia is currently calculated by additional "weights" that are added to the base Quality Basic Education amount. For special education there are five categories or potential weights that can be added to the base weight. These categories are defined by law as:
(d)(1) Category I: self-contained specific learning disabled and self-contained speechlanguage disordered;
(2) Category II: mildly mentally disabled;
(3) Category III: behavior disordered, moderately mentally disabled, severely mentally disabled, resourced specific learning disabled, resourced speech-language disordered,
10

self-contained hearing impaired and deaf, self-contained orthopedically disabled, and self-contained other health impaired;
(4) Category IV: deaf-blind, profoundly mentally disabled, visually impaired and blind, resourced hearing impaired and deaf, resourced orthopedically disabled, and resourced other health impaired;
(5) Category V: those special education students classified as being in Categories I through IV, as defined in this subsection whose Individualized Educational Programs specify specially designed instruction or supplementary aides or services in alternative placements, in the least restrictive environment, including the regular classroom and who receive such services from personnel such as paraprofessionals, interpreters, job coaches, and other assistive personnel; and
(6) Category IV: intellectually gifted. (sec. 20-2-152)
Revised State Board of Education Rules
Aside from federal and state legislation, State Board of Education rules have the next greatest state policy influence on the education of students with disabilities in Georgia. Rules passed by the State Board of Education legally carry the force of law in the state. During the spring of 2000, the State Board of Education appointed a committee to assist them in reviewing the special education rules. Convened in May 2000, the Committee was charged with reviewing the rules and making recommendations for amendments that would make the rules consistent with federal and state law and best practices in the field of special education. In July 2000, the State Board of Education passed revisions to 27 rules related to special education. These rules encompass a broad range of areas in special education, such as procedural safeguards, categories for eligibility, evaluations and eligibility determinations, and determination of a local school system's ability to provide services to students with disabilities.
The major pieces of legislation, along with the State Board of Education rules, create the foundation context for how students with disabilities are treated in the education reforms currently being implemented in Georgia. It is important to note that in creating each policy, members from the disability advocacy community were consulted to determine the potential impact of the reforms on students with disabilities.
11

Findings and Recommendations
This section provides a synthesis of the findings from the study. Major findings are based on data from interviews with state policymakers, focus groups with key constituencies around the state, and document reviews. The standard for including a finding was that the issue had to be raised in all three data venues. Additional issues are noted when evidence was presented across two of the three venues. A full discussion of the study methodology may be found in Appendix H.
It is significant that, although investigators specifically focused data gathering efforts on the policy areas of assessment, accountability and finance, respondents also noted a high level of concern in the areas of professional development, curriculum and governance. In fact, these six major policy areas are integrally related. Issues associated with assessment immediately bring in to question what is to be assessed, that is, the curriculum. Determining if it is appropriate to hold teachers accountable for student test results raises the issue of whether the teachers are adequately prepared to teach the curriculum to all students. And, deciding if programs are funded at adequate levels raises the larger question of how programs are organized and managed and system leadership.
For each policy area investigated this section first presents a brief summary of the current state policy. This summary is followed by the specific findings in that area and then recommendations for further action based on those findings. It is important to note that the recommendations are based on the conceptual framework for the investigation, that is, the inclusion of all students in standards-based reform.
Assessment
Current policy
Georgia's assessment policy encompasses K-12 assessment requirements stated in Georgia school law (O.C.G.A. 20-2-281). Significant revisions to the assessment policy were made as a result of Georgia's A Plus Education Reform Act of 2000. Included in this comprehensive education reform act was the expansion of state developed assessments measuring the level of student achievement of the Quality Core Curriculum (QCC) standards. Respondents credit Governor Barnes with initiating the discussion about changes in assessment.
Georgia's requirements include both nationally norm-referenced and state criterionreferenced assessments. The Stanford Achievement Test Series, Ninth Edition replaced the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills in the school year 2000-2001. This state mandated normreferenced assessment was administered at grades 3, 5, and 8 in reading, mathematics, science, and social studies. However, as of July 2002, the norm-referenced test will be optional for the school year 2002-2003. Local school systems choosing to administer norm-referenced tests will be able to select a testing company from a list provided by the
12

State Board of Education. Changes to the norm-referenced assessment requirement are expected during the 2003 Georgia legislative session.
Upon revision of Georgia's Quality Core Curriculum (QCC) in 1997, the State Board of Education contracted for the development of criterion-referenced competency tests (CRCT) designed to test student knowledge of QCC content standards. Initially, the CRCT included three content areas, reading, English/language arts, and mathematics in grades 4, 6, and 8. Then in the Spring of 2002, the CRCT was expanded to include grades 1-8 in reading, English/language arts, and mathematics. In addition, science and social studies were administered in grades 3-8.
Georgia's assessment program includes several other criterion-referenced tests. These include: writing assessments at grades 3, 5, 8, and 11, high school graduation tests, and end-of course tests, and The Georgia Kindergarten Assessment Program- Revised (GKAP-R).
The Georgia Kindergarten Program (GKAP), adopted in 1990, was revised in 1998 as the GKAP-R. All kindergarten students participate in GKAP-R without accommodations unless specified in a written and approved Individualized Education Program (IEP), Individual Accommodation Plan (IAP), or Limited English Proficient Testing Participation Committee (LEP/TPC) Plan. An assessment plan is developed for services through the English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) Program. Students with IEPs must either participate in the GKAP-R or be provided the Georgia Alternate Assessment (GAA). The primary purpose of the GKAP-R is to provide cumulative evidence of a student's readiness for first grade, as reflected on kindergarten QCC curriculum content standards.
Georgia's performance-based writing assessments are given in grades 3, 5, 8, and 11. Student writings are evaluated on a developmental stage scoring scale in grades three and five to provide diagnostic feedback to teachers. The 8th grade assessment known as the Middle Grades Writing Assessment (MGWA) provides predictive information to eighth grade students about their future writing performance. The Georgia High School Writing Test (GHSWT) given for the first time in the 11th grade is one of the assessments used for graduation purposes.
High school graduation is dependent on completing the requisite Carnegie units, passing the high school exit exam, and attendance. The Georgia High School Graduation Tests (GHSGT) are curriculum-based assessments administered for the first time in the 11th grade. The GHSGT include English/language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies. The tests are administered several times each year so that students have up to five opportunities to take each of the tests within their eleventh and twelfth grade years. Students are required to pass all of the GHSGT and the High School Writing Test to receive a high school diploma. Students completing attendance and course requirements but not passing all of the graduation tests receive a certificate of performance.
13

In the past, all students could get a waiver from one or more sections of the test. While there is no rule restricting how many sections of the test the student may be exempted from, usually students were exempted from one to two sections. Requests for waivers from all or any of the GHSGT are reviewed and either accepted or denied by the State Board of Education on an individual case by case basis. Students are able to take the high school graduation test with accommodations. Some accommodations, like extended time, apply to all students.
Special Education students pursuing a Special Education Diploma are not required to participate in or pass the graduation tests.
The Georgia A Plus Education Reform Act of 2000 required that the GHSGT remain in effect until the End-of-Course Tests (EOCT) are fully developed and implemented according to a schedule to be set by the State Board of Education (SBOE). Currently eight of the proposed twenty five tests are developed. The EOCT was administered for the first time in the Spring of 2002 for the following courses: Ninth Grade Literature and Composition, American Literature and Composition, United States History, Economics/Business/Free Enterprise, Algebra I, Geometry, Physical Science, and Biology. Local Boards of Education have the option of allowing scores on EOCT to be counted as part of the student's grade in the course. In August of 2002, the State Board of Education amended the Statewide Passing Score rule to include guidelines for the EOCT. Beginning in the fall of 2003, in order for a student to earn credit for a course that is assessed by an EOCT, the following weighted calculation must be used: Student's final grade in the course as determined by local board policy (80 percent) and Student's grade on the EOCT (20 percent). The resulting average must meet or exceed 70 percent.
As noted above, Georgia officials were planning to phase out the high school graduation test in favor of the end-of-course tests. However, with the timing of the exit exam requirement in No Child Left Behind, students could be required to take end-of-course tests that are not yet developed. Georgia officials are reviewing this strategy, and determining how to proceed.
In the ongoing assessment of their CRCTs, Department officials report looking at expanding the item types of the test. Department staff would like to move away from multiple choice items. In addition, the state is looking at on-line assessment. A timeline had been established for developing on-line assessments. Special education staff in the Department of Education participate in the meetings regarding potential assessment changes.
All students with disabilities must be assessed, either with the standard assessment or the alternate assessment. There are no waivers from the general assessment process except if a parent objects on moral grounds to the tests. For the past two years there has been a gap between the general education and special education student test scores. Last spring the average gap was 52 percent, which was a bit better than the year before, rendering a small reduction in the achievement gap.
14

Alternate Assessment
The Georgia Alternate Assessment (GAA) was first administered in 2001 for reporting purposes. The current GAA is IEP-based. The statewide committee looked at traditional functional curriculum areas that are used in the state and selected a criteria of five out of the eight primary curriculum areas for assessment. The assessment is the degree of attainment of five IEP objectives, of which one must be communication.
The state conducted workshops and distributed manuals on the GAA two to three years ago. Training manuals are under "constant revision". Since the state's initial training, the higher education institutions, Georgia Learning Resources System (GLRSs), and the Regional Education Service Agencies (RESAs) provide training on request. Training is conducted jointly between state special education staff and the assessment staff. However, the training is primarily funded through assessment funds.
Currently, there are no benchmark participation rates for the GAA as the state was just gathering their first round of data in 2002. However, both state administrative and policy officials anticipate establishing a benchmark. According to the Department of Education, the benchmarks will be set by the Office of Education Accountability with input from a committee. The Department anticipates that the benchmarks will be set at somewhere between five and ten percent of the special education student population, which is approximately .5 to 1 percent of the overall student population. Of note are the proposed rules for the No Child Left Behind Act, which stipulate that "no more than 0.5 percent of all students tested in a state or district can be held to other than a grade-level standard for accountability purposes. If more than 0.5 percent of disabled students took alternative assessments, they would have to be held to the state's grade-level standards" (Education Week, 7 August 2002).
Georgia's Office of Educational Accountability (OEA) will be monitoring participation of students with disabilities in the GAA. The state is not going to rate schools on the number of students in the GAA, but the OEA will be reporting the participation rates of those students. The OEA will give the participation information to the state board of education.
The GAA has not been reviewed since the regulation was changed in 2001. According to Department staff, there needs to be a change in the GAA to align with the CRCTs, but before they can make that alignment, staff feel that Georgia's Quality Core Curriculum needs to be expanded. Staff is not sure if the GAA will be IEP-based in the future.
Some people in the districts would like to explore a "middle of the road" GAA something more individualized or simpler than the standard assessment, particularly for students who are reading significantly below grade level.
15

Findings
The new assessment requirements at the federal and state level appear to be having a positive impact on students with disabilities in Georgia. Since the passage of the A Plus Education Reform Act, more students with disabilities are being included in the standardized assessments. In addition, the scores of students with disabilities on those tests are rising. While no specific data was offered at the state level to support this observation, local officials reported specific data documenting the rise in test scores. Finally, the graduation rate of students with disabilities, as reported by local districts, is rising.
The CRCTs are based on the QCC. However, an audit of the QCC has found significant deficiencies in that curriculum. An external audit of the QCC found that, "Georgia's QCC for English/language arts and mathematics to be inadequate to guide teaching and establish common expectations for student achievement across the State. Overall, auditors found [those parts of the QCC] lack clarity and validity" (International Curriculum Management Audit Center, 2001). The auditors concluded that "the Quality Core Curriculum and Georgia's Learning Connection are not adequate to ensure the consistent understanding, teaching, and assessment of the State's standards."
Students with disabilities do not have adequate exposure to the QCC. Many students with disabilities have not been systematically taught using the QCC. As a result, they are being tested on material they never had an opportunity to learn. This adversely impacts their performance on the CRCTs. One respondent noted that this may be an issue of concern for all students, just more pronounced for students with disabilities in paralleltrack programs.
The policies related to the participation of students with disabilities in state assessments are based on inaccurate presumptions about the scope of the QCC. This is leading to pressure to document student achievement in different ways and exclude students with disabilities from assessments. The State Board of Education policy on assessment states that:
3. It is the policy of the State Board of Education that the department of education (DOE) will review the access of all students with disabilities to the general curriculum and provide guidelines to all systems in including all students with disabilities in the Quality Core Curriculum (QCC). This includes students with significant disabilities who participate in a modified QCC below grade level or require the addition [emphasis added] of functional skills to the current QCC.
However, the scope of the current QCC is such that for some students the curriculum is inappropriate. This is leading to resistance to the philosophy of one curriculum and
16

assessment system for all students. In addition, stakeholders at both the state and local level are calling for documenting student achievement through portfolio assessments, offgrade testing, and other standardized measures.
The GAA is not standardized. The GAA is highly individualized. Student progress cannot be compared across students. Hence, there is no way to gauge if one school is enhancing student achievement over another as can be done with the general assessments. Furthermore, because the GAA is entirely based on the student's IEP and those goals change on a regular basis, an individual student's progress cannot evaluated longitudinally. Hence, there is no systematic way to document the progress and achievement for students with significant disabilities in the state.
There are no benchmarks for participation in the GAA. Department staff noted that a benchmark for participation in the GAA was going to be established based on the current participation rates of students with disabilities in that assessment. However, this assumes that common practice is best practice. Experience in other states has shown a relationship between the participation rates of students with disabilities in the standard assessment and the accountability consequences of the assessment (Roach and Raber, 2000). In addition, participation rates vary widely among districts and states (Erikson, Thurlow and Ysseldyke, 1996).
In addition to these findings, two additional issues were raised by some respondents: (1) the schedule for schools to receive their assessment results is such that principals and teachers are not able to use that data effectively to plan for the next year; and (2) there is limited ability in some districts and schools to analyze state data correctly so that it can be used to improve programs.
Summary In sum, the new assessment policies seem to be having a positive effect on students with disabilities. However, stakeholders are concerned about the ability to have all students in one curriculum, given the scope of the current QCCs and the number of students who have not received systematic instruction in the QCC. Curriculum and instruction play a key role in the ability of students with disabilities to master the QCC and be assessed on the core competencies. Finally, stakeholders are concerned about both the format and potential abuse of the GAA.
Recommendations
Georgia should consider adopting a new alternative assessment. As noted by the National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO), "Like regular assessments, the purpose of alternate assessments is to provide valid and reliable assessment data that accurately reflect the state's learning standards, and that indicate how a school, district, or state is doing in terms of overall student performance" (2002). Alternate assessments should test that which they purport to measure and interpretations of the scores, such as mastery of a skill, should be justified (validity). Furthermore, alternative assessments should render consistent results with a given student should the assessment be
17

administered again and the score of the assessment should accurately reflect the student's mastery of the skill (reliability).
Given these parameters, basing the alternative assessment on students' IEPs may be highly problematic. The literature base is replete with examples of IEP goals that are not truly "individualized" (Smith, 1990; Smith & Simpson, 1989), and seem to vary in quality based on the setting in which a student receives services (Espin, Deno & Albayrak-Kaymak, 1998; Hunt & Farron-Davis, 1992). Further, there are long-standing problems associated with development of IEPs. Most notable is the lack of meaningful parent involvement in the development of IEPs (Goldstein, Strickland, Turnbull & Curry; Scanlon, Arick & Phelps, 1981; Vaughn, Bos, Harrell & Lasky, 1988), particularly among families from racial and ethnic minority groups (Harry, 1992; Harry, Allen & McLaughlin, 1995). Monitoring rarely results in assessment of the educational value of the plans that are written or the degree of fidelity with which they were implemented. Thus, the use of IEPs as a vehicle for educational accountability is questionable at best and can mask the need for usable performance indicators.
NCEO has defined characteristics of good alternative assessments as:
1. There has been careful stakeholder and policymaker development and definition of desired student outcomes for the population, reflecting the best understanding of research and practice.
2. Assessment methods have been carefully developed, tested, and refined. 3. Professionally accepted standards are used to score evidence (e.g., adequate training,
dual scoring, third party tie breakers, reliability tests and rechecks or scorer competence). 4. An accepted standards-setting process has been used so that results can be included in reporting on accountability. 5. The assessment process is continuously reviewed and improved. (p.3)
Alternative assessments can and should be standardized, just as the regular state assessments. Approaches to standardized alternative assessments include: curriculumbased measurement, performance events, and activity-based observations. States such as Kentucky have developed standard alternate assessments that include common elements, are independently scored, and have stood up to tests of reliability such that achievement of students with significant disabilities can be meaningfully included in the accountability system.
When revising the QCC, Georgia should consider a curriculum based on the principles of universal design. It should be noted, that to include a broader range of students into the QCC does not necessarily mean to broaden or add to the curriculum. This recommendation is for a qualitative shift, not a quantitative change. Universal design, a term initially used in architecture, means, "the design of instructional materials and activities that allow the learning goals to be achievable by individuals with wide differences in their abilities to see, hear, speak, move, read, write, understand English, attend, organize, engage, and remember" (Orkwis & McLane, 1998). Importantly, with
18

universally designed curriculum, benefits accrue to all students, not just those with disabilities. Universally designed curriculum provides "multiple means of presenting materials," "multiple ways in which students can respond," and the ability to match students' learning motivations with those presentations and responses, (p.11). Student learning is enhanced through universal design through enhanced access to the curriculum. Furthermore, universally designed curriculum lends itself to universally designed assessment assessment that can, by definition, include more students (National Center for Educational Outcomes, 2002).
The state should continue its focus on developing on-line assessments. On-line assessments will not only be less costly, the results can be received much sooner than the current system in the state. This provides an opportunity for local districts and schools to use student data to plan program improvement. On-line assessments may also contribute to higher student test scores. In a recent study, Pomplun, Frey & Becker (2002) found that students taking a speed-reading test scored higher than those taking a paper and pencil version of the test. Similar results have been found for students taking writing assessments who are accustomed to writing with a word processor (Thompson, Thurlow, Quenemoen & Lehr, 2002).
* * * A special note about off-grade assessments...
A number of interview respondents mentioned an interest in pursuing out-of-level or "off-grade" assessments for some students with disabilities. Currently fourteen states allow out-of-level testing for students with disabilities. In their exploration of this option for statewide testing, researchers at the National Center for Educational Outcomes have noted several issues to consider, including:
While out-of-level testing is most frequently implemented with students with disabilities, there is minimal research involving these students (Mimmema, et. al, 2000);
Research raises concerns about the precision of equating out-of-level scores with inlevel test results (Minnema, Thurlow & Bielinski, 2002);
Test publishers do not provide enough information on out-of-level testing and score interpretation which leads to misuse and misinterpretation (Bielinski, et. al., 2000);
No program of research has been able to determine the accuracy of out-of-level assessments for students with disabilities. Therefore, we cannot determine if it is a more accurate way to assess student achievement or not (Minnema, Thurlow & Bielinski, 2002);
19

Out-of-level testing is often established by people who have little understanding about the science of assessment, and hence, is misused (Minnema, Thurlow & Bielinski, 2002); and
Out-of-level testing can be intentionally misused in order to enhance student test scores.
Given the limitations of out-of-level testing, it is an area that should be approached with great caution. As noted by Minnema, Thurlow and Bielinski, "the practice of testing students out of level has preceded research on the topic" (p.3). The researchers note that state policies in this area have often been debated "by stakeholders who have little knowledge about the precision and accuracy of tests that measure academic progress appropirately." It should be noted that, in the same report, these researchers credit Georgia as only one of two states that has considered out-of-level testing as part of their state assessment program and discarded it. (Alabama was the other state. South Dakota and Alaska have recently reversed their policy and no longer allow out-of-level testing).
* * * Given the state's reliance on student test scores for the accountability plan, assessment is inextricably related to accountability. Furthermore, assessment is fundamentally related to teachers' ability to teach (professional development) and the core curriculum.
20

Accountability
Current policy
Georgia established its current accountability policy with the A Plus Education Reform Act. This Act directed the creation of the Office of Education Accountability (OEA) and the "creation of a statewide accountability program that is performance-based and disaggregated for grades kindergarten through 12" (Office of Education Accountability, n.d.) The state is in year three of a six-year phase in of the accountability program.
The major focus of state accountability is the Office of Education Accountability (OEA) report card. The report cards are primarily based on student assessment results. Test results are disaggregated by a number of demographic characteristics of students, including disability. In addition to reporting student test scores, the state will report on ten additional indicators in which schools can be scored exemplary, satisfactory and unsatisfactory. These indicators will not contribute to a school's letter grade but they will be reported on the school's report card and will be part of the school rating. There are no sanctions for an unacceptable rating on one of these indicators. The primary purpose of the indicators is to give the data to the schools. The indicators will also be on the Web and schools will be compared to others with similar demographics.
Each school will be graded based on its student test scores. The OEA will propose the grading scale to the State Board of Education. Schools will be graded on two components, their absolute score and their progress. The OEA has a "Standards in Grading Committee" looking at proposals for how the two factors will be weighted. The Governor wants to weight progress more than an absolute score on the test.
In the future there will be monetary rewards for teachers for improvement and pooled monetary rewards for non-certified staff. There will be a change in the state's teacher evaluation system and student achievement will be part of the system. And, scheduled for 2003, state and local officials will be able to track individual student progress through a new statewide student record system that will span K-12 and higher education.
Schools that do not show adequate achievement will have to submit a school improvement plan to the state. Currently, there is no template for what should be in the school improvement plan and no one checks them when they come into the state department of education. OEA makes recommendations on how to set up the accountability system, but they have little independent authority. As a result there is no accountability for the School Improvement Plan. The school improvement processes that will be implemented in schools found unacceptable are packaged models such as Georgia's choice and the program that the RESAs are putting together.
There are a number of improvement programs that have been put in place in conjunction with the accountability system to help support students. These include: K-5 early intervention funds (but there are no professional development pieces to that program);
21

lower class sizes; twenty extra days of instruction for those who do not meet the standard for passing to the next grade at the gateway levels; and schools getting allotment sheets so that the school councils can ensure equitable funding across districts and have more say over the school budget allocations (up to 10% of any given line item).
In addition to school and teacher accountability, student accountability is built into the system. Results of the CRCT will be used in promotion and retention decisions for students in grades 3,5, and 8 beginning with grade 3 in 2003-2004, grade 5 in 2004-2005, and in grade 8 in 2005-2006. That is, students that do not achieve on grade level for those assessments will be retained in grade. There is a waiver process that applies to all students regarding these "gateway" tests. First, remediation programs, providing twenty additional instructional days, will be provided to students in the "gateway" grades to give them another chance to move on to the next grade. Then a committee of parents, teachers and administrators can look at other factors and decide to either promote or retain a student.
Special Education Accountability
Special education monitoring in Georgia, as in many other states, has historically been viewed as procedurally and input oriented, and not focused on program improvement. A task force convened by the special education division is looking at the state special education monitoring process. The task force is composed of state department of education staff, the state special education advisory panel, representatives of local school systems, advocates, superintendents, principals and parents. The task force is charged with proposing an "outcome oriented process." As described by one task force member, "the orientation is to reward good teaching and best practices, instead of just looking for bad guys. The idea is to reward good work with flexibility. The indicators currently being discussed are student achievement and parent satisfaction. In addition, they are looking at dropout rates, graduation rates and disproportionality." They are looking at the student outcome data vs. the state's averages and national averages to see where they stand. The task force is asking districts, `what will help you, what will hurt you'. Their response has been the reluctance of teachers to buy-in, "I would love to do this, but money...".
It is anticipated that there will be a new monitoring system in place within the next two years in the state. Department officials report that this should not need policy change because the changes that they will enact will put special education in step with NCLB and Georgia's A Plus Education Act.
Findings Of the policy areas in this study, accountability was most frequently mentioned as a barrier to including students with disabilities in the general program by parents and community agency personnel in the focus groups.
Respondents felt the various accountability policies will support students with disabilities. Because the accountability system is new and consequences have not been initiated yet, respondents mostly speculated on the impact of the accountability system. Parents and community agency personnel are looking to the accountability system as
22

another mechanism to support them and their children where the Individual Educational Program (IEP) and traditional special education monitoring has failed. As one parent noted, "I hope we really leave no child behind."
School districts that are seen as "progressive" and innovative are providing better services to students with disabilities already. Respondents attributed this change to the new accountability system. Examples of ways in which the districts are providing better services for students with disabilities include: student-focused instruction; outcomeoriented instruction; utilizing different delivery models for special education; and, in some instances, including students with significant disabilities in the general program and QCC.
General and special education teachers are fearful and unclear about who is responsible for the outcomes for students with disabilities. In the regional forums, special education teachers reported that the "fear of regular education teachers [is] that they will appear unsuccessful based on assessment data for [their] class if students with disabilities are tested." Both general and special education teachers noted that their concern was borne of the inadequate support that many teachers were receiving for students with disabilities in the general classroom. Noted special education teachers at the Atlanta forum, "General education teachers [are reluctant] because they don't have enough support. Special education co-teachers are always getting pulled out of class and used as substitutes." As one teacher judiciously summed it up, "General education teachers do not want responsibility for educating special education students and special education teachers do not want to be accountable for teaching general education curriculum."
Teachers, furthermore, reported that they were unsure of who would be held accountable for students with disabilities that are included in general education classes with support from special education teachers.
There is an overall concern about basing accountability solely on test scores and specifically for students with disabilities. Students with disabilities are generally seen as having had inadequate exposure to the general curriculum. Preliminary data in some of Georgia's school districts and, indeed, in other states indicate a wide gap between the achievement of students with disabilities and those in the general program. State policymakers are concerned that school and districts will attempt to segregate students with disabilities in separate classes and facilities in order to minimize the impact on the average building test scores in the district.
Traditional special education monitoring has not been linked to service delivery program improvement. Parents and community agency personnel in the forums consistently reported that IEPs are not implemented. There is no coordination in monitoring in special education and other federal programs at the state level. While teams provide support to schools through the School Improvement Process (SIP), special education is not systematically included in that nor is SIP coordinated with special education monitoring. Thus far, special education has not been involved in the federal
23

program consolidated application process. The Department of Education will make a decision on whether or not to include them next year. This decision will be based on whether including special education would place greater restrictions on the other federal programs in the state and whether including special education will make the federal payments too complicated.
Furthermore, the overall system of education in Georgia seems to be disbursed throughout a number of offices and agencies with no clear lines of authority, central monitoring, or reporting mechanism. Currently, it appears that the State Board of Education a policy and oversight body of lay leaders is coordinating the A Plus Reform effort through reports from the OEAs, RESAs, discretionary programs, the data program at the Board of Regents and other entities working on school reform.
Summary
The new accountability system holds promise for families and disability advocates people outside of the education system that the system will finally attend to the achievement of students with disabilities. Conversely, personnel within the system seem fearful and confused about how the accountability system will apply to students with disabilities. Because there are so many independent offices and agencies operating at the state level, local personnel question if there is a coherent plan to reform.
Recommendations
The state should stay the course and fully implement what has been legislated. The state should aggressively implement the accountability system by linking compliance in both general and special education to funding. The state should review all SIPs and provide feedback to districts on their plans and ways in which they can be improved.
The State should provide more intensive technical assistance and training on all aspects of accountability. This includes appropriate uses of data, how to interpret data, and how to incorporate data into school improvement strategies. Training should also include what the options are for students who do not meet the standard on the state assessments and developing standard components for the SIP.
Georgia policymakers should explicitly tie general education to special education by: requiring common data reporting for all students in the state; developing a common monitoring and school improvement process in the state; and requiring that special education be part of the School Improvement Plan (SIP).
24

Finance
Current policy
General fiscal condition in the state
Officials report a state of "cautious optimism" in Georgia. Fiscally, the state is not as strong as it was, but Georgia is better off than many states. Recent state revenues are falling, but not by as much as in other states. Georgia is a "balanced budget" state. That is, there can be no deficit budgeting or spending. There was a 2.5 percent cut across the board in the state budget for FY 02, but the formula part of education services was exempted from that cut. There was another 5 percent cut for FY 03 that resulted in additional cuts to the education budget (but not the formula part). The education cuts were in the Department of Education programs, local programs (transportation, media, maintenance, central administration), and a reduction in the pay raise for teachers by percent (from 3.5% to 3.25%). Since revenue is still projected to fall, the state is having each agency in FY 03 hold back 3 percent that will be taken out of the amended budget and remain out for FY 04. As with the other 5 percent in cuts, direct instruction is exempt from this hold back.
Sources of funding and budget/expenditures
State money for education comes out of the general fund. There is a state income tax and sales tax as well as licensing fees and minor "sin" taxes. There is a state lottery that is dedicated to education. The lottery funds the HOPE scholarship as its constitutional first priority, then pre-K programs, education reserves, teacher training in technology, the technology itself, and capital outlays.
Locally, there are several sources of education funding. There is a local property tax that is raised and remains at the local level. There is a 1 percent sales tax that the state allows districts to assess on themselves for school construction, by vote of the local community. Also, ten school systems receive funding from local option sales taxes for school operations, by vote of the local community. Ten school systems in north Georgia receive payment from the Tennessee Valley Authority.
Of the State money spent on education, 85 to 90 percent is spent on direct instruction. This funding comes to the districts by way of the QBE (Quality Basic Education) formula. The base amount per student for FY 03 is $2,334. The QBE formula is additionally weighted based on educational programs/ personnel that students receive. There are approximately nineteen programs and weights in the QBE formula which reflects a strategy of reducing the number of discretionary funds given to districts and increasing the base formula. The intent of this change was to make the programs more systemic in nature and to ensure more equity in funding across the districts. (Special education categories based on student disability label and placement [see definitions below] are weighted in the QBE formula).
25

Overall the legislature and governor have been very supportive of education and education reform. The legislature put $600 million into school construction last year which was the largest capital outlay they had ever enacted.
Major budgetary requests for the current state education budget include: class size reduction, $25 million for school improvement teams at schools where 50 percent or more of the students are not meeting the standards, and early reading programs.
Special education expenditures have continued to rise in Georgia with rising special education student populations. However, there is no cap on state special education expenditures as there have been in some other states.
Special education funding
When the QBE was enacted in 1984 the state went to a special education funding formula that is based on the full time equivalency cost of personnel for the student to be located in a particular level of intervention and placement. In 1984 the state had basically a pull-out model for instruction so that the formula segments/weights are based on a pull-out model. In addition to the base formula, a "category V" was created in 1995 in order to specifically "provide that special education funding weight shall apply to special education students placed in general education programs."
Section 20-2-152(d) of the Georgia Code describes the current funding categories for special education as follows:
(d) For purposes of funding under this article, the follow special education categories are authorized for the local units of administration of this state:
(1) Category I: self-contained specific learning disabled and self-contained speechlanguage disordered; (2) Category II: mildly mentally disabled; (3) Category III: behavior disordered, moderately mentally disabled, severely mentally disabled, resourced specific learning disabled, resourced speech-language disordered, self-contained hearing impaired and deaf, self-contained orthopedically disabled, and self-contained other health impaired; (4) Category IV: deaf-blind, profoundly mentally disabled, visually impaired and blind, resourced hearing impaired and deaf, resourced orthopedically disabled, and resourced other health impaired; (5) Category V: those special education students classified as being in Categories I through IV, as defined in this subsection whose Individualized Educational Programs specify specially designed instruction or supplementary aids or services in alternative placements, in the least restrictive environment, including the regular classroom and who receive such services from personnel such as paraprofessionals, interpreters, job coaches, and other assistive personnel; and (6) Category VI: intellectually gifted.
26

In addition to QBE formula funding, the state also provides funding for special education through six separate budget line items. The following are state appropriations for FY 2003:

Special Education Low-Incidence Grants Tuition for the Multi-Handicapped Pre-School Handicapped Program Severely Emotionally Disturbed Georgia Learning Resource System Special Education at State Institutions

Total:

$852,291 $1,900,000 $12,472,973 $61,838,139 $1,686,300 $4,046,930 $82,796,633

With lottery funding, the State also has appropriated approximately $2.5 million per year for assistive technology.

Findings
Funding has been designated from state and federal agencies for special projects to support students with disabilities in general education programs. A number of special projects have been funded through the Georgia Department of Education, the U.S. Department of Education, and the Georgia Governor's Council on Developmental Disabilities to support the inclusion of students with disabilities in the general education program and education reform. These include: Project WINS, Project WINNING Teams, and Bridges. Funding for Project WINNING TEAM was provided directly through the Georgia Department of Education. Projects WINS, Bridges and the Collaborative Education Initiative are funded through statewide competition.
The Governor and State Legislature have specifically supported education over the past several years. The support for education by the Governor and State Legislature has been evident by the capital improvement expenditure that was passed in the last legislative session, ensuring that the HOPE scholarship is funded, the money appropriated for class size reduction and the continued financial support for implementing the A Plus Reform Act.
Teachers and administrators reported that funding was the greatest barrier to supporting students with disabilities in general education. In particular, the respondents were concerned with adequate funding for teachers, teacher training, common planning time, and in-class support. District officials report that they are trying to keep students with disabilities in the general program, but it is "costing them money". If a child goes to a resource room, the district receives money from the state for that student's teacher. But, if the district wants to keep a slot for that student in the regular education classroom, the local agency pays for that slot without reimbursement because the student is already counted in the resource room for that portion of the day.

27

Georgia districts are struggling to implement a service delivery model that is not represented in the funding formula, namely inclusion. Category V funds are not seen as an adequate support for inclusion. Currently, category V funding only applies to paraprofessionals, interpreters, job-coaches and other assistive personnel, not co-teachers or consulting teachers. Furthermore, districts report that they cannot earn Category V funding unless they have identified five students in inclusive placements as designated in the IEP. Generally, those five students are not in the same general education classroom, making in-class support for those students by even the personnel defined in the law problematic.
As a result, parents of students with disabilities complain that special education funds are not "following the student" as a result of this system. Teachers complain that administrators resort to scheduling all the students with disabilities into the same classroom in order to receive Category V funding for a paraprofessional in the class. While the additional support is welcome, students are being placed in these classes at rates much higher than their natural incidence in the student population, thereby undermining inclusion.
Georgia administrators report that the current special education funding formula is not placement-neutral in that districts receive significantly more money for students placed in special education classes as those who receive the same level of service in the general education classrooms. Local administrators report that the state special education funding formula encourages districts to place students in separate programs. Districts get more money if they place students in segregated placements and little or no funds for students receiving services in general education. As noted by one respondent,
"We are going to lose money if I place teachers in co-teaching classrooms in general education. We get no money for consulting services so the district plays games with the reporting process or we don't report at all. On `count day' we move students to make up the counts we need. The system forces schools to do things that are inappropriate for children because that is how we get paid."
Summary
In sum, state leadership has been supportive of education through continued funding of key initiatives aimed at improving student achievement and supporting the inclusion of students with disabilities in general education reform. However, there appears to be a structural problem with the funding formula that discourages the education of students with disabilities in the general education classroom, or alternatively, encourages districts to place large numbers of students with disabilities in a single general education class to the frustration of teachers, parents, and students.
28

Recommendations
Georgia should continue to pursue effective strategies to enhance student achievement through discretionary funding as well as continue to adequately fund the QBE. Early indications point to improvements in student achievement in some areas from the school years 2000 to 2001. This suggests that the programming is having a positive effect on student achievement. Successful programs may include specially funded projects, the accountability system, class size reduction, or some combination of these. However, it is impossible to tell which programming (or combination) has been effective. Rigorous program evaluation should be part of every special project to determine which of the reforms are positively impacting student achievement.
The state should consider revising sec.20-2-152 (d) to ensure placement neutrality and support a variety of service delivery options. The Georgia funding categories are based on a combination of placement, disability label and personnel. National studies recommend that funding formulae should sever the link between funding, placement and disability label and focus, rather, on intensity of student service needs (National Association of State Boards of Education, 1992; Earne, Fruchter & Parrish, 1998; Feir, 1995; Parrish, 1997). States such as Oregon, Missouri and Maryland have formulae that reflect this principle. The federal government amended its funding formula in the Individual with Disabilities Act (IDEA '97) to move to a population-based formula that provides support for special student needs based on the general prevalence rate of disability in the state. California amended its formula to that end in 1997.
Professional Development
Despite specifically focusing the regional forums on assessment, accountability and finance, professional development was raised as a significant issue by all constituent groups, in all areas of the state. Professional development was raised as a significant in several of the interviews as well. Hence, we have added professional development as a major area of the report.
Current policy
Professional development has generally been fragmented without tight controls on approval of professional development experiences. The State Board of Education has been working on professional development with the Teacher Standards Commission. In June, 2002, the Board adopted two rules relating to professional development:
Rule 160-3-3-.10 Staff Development Unit (SDU) Program Approval; and
29

Rule 160-3-3-.04 Staff and Professional Development.
These rules require that teachers' professional development activities be linked to the school and district plans for professional development and that the primary focus of professional development shall "directly relate to improving student achievement" (Rule 160-3-3-.04 (2)(a). The Staff and Professional Development rule requires each district to develop and submit a staff and professional development plan as part of their systemlevel comprehensive school improvement plan and the Staff Development Unit Program Approval rule delineates requirements for providers wishing to have professional development programs approved by the State.
Professional development providers
The major professional development programs in the state are provided by the Regional Education Service Agencies (RESAs) (of which some of their programs are passed on to the state), local districts (although this varies), and private providers. The State Department of Education does provide some limited professional development programs. Typically, institutions of higher education are involved in professional development if they are in a collaborative with a local district.
There are sixteen RESAs in the state. The RESAs have traditionally provided professional development to districts. Local systems that belong to the RESA pay a per student fee to belong. Each RESA board is made up of the superintendents of its member school districts. RESAs ask districts what professional development they need and then work to provide it. RESAs also provide districts support in developing their SIPs and the professional development component of those SIPs. RESAs are funded through passthrough monies provided by the state department of education.
RESAs have been fairly independent across the state. There has been a recent reorganization to try to coordinate their efforts more and to bring a greater level of standardization to some of their work.
Findings
The state is developing an infrastructure for professional development by coordinating disparate providers, aligning policy and linking teacher development to school improvement and student achievement. It is important to note, however, that while we learned of these disparate activities and their link, only a few state-level respondents knew of the macro plan with respect to professional development. Most respondents knew only of one or two of the elements.
Both general and special education teachers need training in the QCC, instructional strategies, differentiated instruction, accommodations and modifications. One of the biggest barriers to including students with disabilities cited was teachers' lack of knowledge and skills in teaching that student population. General education teachers were generally credited with knowing the curriculum, but not how to teach it to a diverse student populations. Special education teachers were credited with being able to modify
30

instruction based on student needs, but not being familiar enough with the QCC to teach the general curriculum. RESA responders noted that the QCC is so broad that both sets of teachers need help in learning how to prioritize the curriculum.
Policymakers, parents and community agency personnel report teachers and administrators attitudes as one of the greatest barriers to including students with disabilities in assessment, accountability and the QCC. However, local administrators and teachers report that their reluctance is due to concerns over funding, training, scheduling and lack of planning time.
Summary
While several of the respondents pointed to poor professional development systems in the past, it does appear that the state is beginning to address this through new requirements linking professional development to student achievement and by coordinating the disparate providers of professional development into a comprehensive system statewide.
Recommendations
The state should utilize and expand sound teacher training programs as a way to ameliorate teacher "attitude" problems. The difference in opinion between the educators in the schools and the policymakers and families outside the school regarding teacher "attitude" toward inclusion is striking. Actual exposure to successful inclusive programs, along with specific preparation and support for including students with disabilities, has been shown to dramatically improve teachers' sense of ability to successfully work with students with disabilities and their attitudes toward inclusion (National Association of State Boards of Education, 1996).
The state should focus on infusing successful professional development programs and practices into the emerging professional development infrastructure. Fortunately, there is a research literature that documents the best practices for successfully including students with disabilities into the general education program. This includes, structured environments and predictable routines (Vail & Harrington, 1993); thematic curriculum (Mandelbaum, 1989); phonemic instruction (Blachman, 1994; Lovitt & Hurlburt, 1974; Ramsey, 1995; Singh & Singh, 1988); teaching students how to learn (Harris, Grahm & Pressley, 1992; Larson & Gerber, 1992; Palinesar, 1986; Wong, 1979); teaching in cooperative learning groups (Dugan, et al, 1995); teaching to students' different learning styles (Dunn, 1996; Gardner, 1983; and Sternberg, 1994); utilizing collaborative teacher consultation models (Giangreco et al., 1993; Florida Department of Education, 1989, 1990; Peck, Killen & Baumgart, 1989; Adamson, Cox & Schuller, 1989); and coteaching (Walter-Thomas, 1997). These practices are also documented to enhance the performance of low-achieving students and diverse student populations.
Infusing "what works" into professional development and the professional development infrastructure in Georgia, requires systematic review of discretionary-funded projects, i.e., those special projects funded by the state, either through the Developmental Disabilities Council, the Georgia Department of Education, or Georgia universities and
31

colleges. Projects that employ best practices and are successful in supporting students with disabilities such as WINS and WINNING TEAM should be moved into the emerging statewide RESA structure. In this way, the projects can train RESA staff to implement the programs in their member districts, districts across the state can get equal exposure to the projects that have been successful, and these projects can be better coordinated with other improvement efforts directed by the RESAs.
32

Conclusion
As has been noted throughout this report, Georgia is in the midst of a very ambitious reform aimed at improving the achievement of all students in the state, including those with disabilities. This reform holds a great deal of promise for students with disabilities as there is now specific state policy that holds districts and schools accountable for ensuring that the majority of students with disabilities have access to the general curriculum and show progress on mastery of that curriculum. Furthermore, the consistent support that state policymakers are giving this reform provides hope that Georgia will, indeed, see long-term gains in student achievement. While Georgia has the foundation set, for students with disabilities, the key will be to develop a curriculum and professional capacity throughout the state to provide a quality education in the general program. It is our opinion, based on this study, that while there are pockets of excellence throughout the state, a statewide capacity to support students with disabilities in this reform does not yet exist. The state has invested heavily in professional development programs that have documented successes in including students with disabilities in educational reform. However, the research literature suggests that sustaining these programs will be problematic without systemic change (Fullan, 1994; Fullan & Stiegelbauer, 1991). By reforming the curriculum, standardizing the alternate assessment, coordinating special education accountability with general education accountability, revising the special education funding formula, and focusing on the capacity of all teachers to teach all students, we feel that the state will have created the conditions conducive to enhancing and sustaining the achievement of students with disabilities.
33