The Houston Chronicle first requested an interview with the Texas Education Agency about the state’s special education enrollment benchmark in May of 2016. Over the next four months, several more requests followed. As publication of the investigation neared, the Chronicle submitted another request along with a list of the newspaper’s findings. Later, at the TEA’s request, the Chronicle submitted a separate list of specific questions. Below is the complete, verbatim text of TEA’s written statement, which includes responses to the findings and to the questions. The Chronicle’s Finding The TEA’s Response In 2004, the Texas Education Agency created a school district monitoring system called the Performance-Based Monitoring Analysis System. TEA agrees. The system included a section that deducted points from school districts that gave special education services to more than 8.5% of their students. TEA disagrees. PBMAS is a district-level, data driven monitoring system. It is designed to indicate if a particular category falls outside of a particular range. Districts that have lost a lot of points have been audited and required to write Corrective Action Plans detailing how they would rectify the issue. TEA disagrees. Districts do not “lose points” in PBMAS. In addition, districts are not required to write corrective action plans “detailing how they would rectify” their special education representation rates. Districts that are assigned PL 3 (rates that are greater than 15%) are required to conduct a data analysis to examine root cause factors that contribute to the rates. The policy was not approved by the Texas Legislature or State Board of Education. This is a misleading statement. Special education program monitoring is under the commissioner of education’s authority. See Texas Education Code §7.021. PBMAS is adopted in commissioner rule 19 TAC §97.1005. PBMAS performance levels and cut-points are adopted annually. This process includes a 30-day public comment period. No other state has ever set a target special education percentage. PBMAS does not set a “target” for special education representation. As stated above, PBMAS includes an indicator that reports the percentage of students with disabilities in a district. Under PBMAS, a district is obligated to identify and provide a FAPE to all students with disabilities who require special education services. There is no research saying that 8.5% is the ideal percentage of students in special ed. TEA agrees. In response to the policy, Texas schools have adopted a variety of tactics that have made special education harder to access. TEA has no evidence of this. Check with your local school district. Many districts that establishing [sic] policies requiring teachers to try Response to Intervention before requesting a special education evaluation - an approach that has been specifically prohibited by the federal government. TEA has no evidence of this. Check with your local school district. At the time of the policy's implementation, nearly 12% of Texas students were receiving special education services. Today, the percentage has dropped to exactly 8.5%. Because of that decline, more than 150,000 kids are not receiving services who would have in 2004. TEA disagrees. TEA has no evidence that 150,000 eligible students are not receiving special education services. The state’s population, student challenges, and targeted instruction all play a role in student services and special education identification. Please provide us the basis for your statement. No similar decline has taken place anywhere else in the United States over that time. State comparisons are not appropriate or valid given the significant differences among states in how eligibility criteria and required federal reporting specifications are defined, and when state child counts are determined. The decline has taken place across disability types Texas schools now serve 46% fewer kids with learning disabilities, 42% fewer kids with mental illnesses, 39% fewer kids with orthopedic impairnents, 27% fewer kids with speech impediments, 20% fewer kids with traumatic brain injuries, 15% fewer kids with hearing defects and 8'% fewer kids with visual problems. PBMAS does not report by disability type. The federal government created the disability categories. A side note: Mental illness is not a “category” as defined by the federal government. The decline has taken place most starkly in big cities such as Houston and Dallas. TEA disagrees. Individual district special education rates have increased, decreased, and remained constant under 10 plus years of PBMAS. In 2004 Houston ISD’s PBMAS special education representation rate was 9.9% and in 2015, it was 7.4%. In 2004 Dallas ISD’s PBMAS special education representation rate was 7.7% and in 2015, it was 6.9%. The decline has taken place most starkly among English Language Learners, who are now three times more underrepresented in special ed than when the policy began. TEA disagrees. The statewide rate of ELL representation increased slightly, and the SPED/ELL representation remained constant. In 2006 (first year of reported PBMAS statewide data for SPED/ELL representation) the statewide ELL representation rate was 15.8%, and 2015 it was 18.2%. In 2006, the statewide SPED/ELL representation rate was 15.8%, and in 2015 it was also 15.8%. The decline has exacerbated the over-identification of African Americans in special ed. TEA disagrees. The statewide rate of African American representation decreased slightly, and the SPED/African American representation rate decreased slightly. In 2006 (first year or reported PBMAS statewide data for SPED/African American representation) the statewide African American rate was 14.7%, and 2015 it was 13.8%. In 2006 the statewide SPED/African American rate was 18.2%, and in 2015 it was 17.2%. The PBMAS is the reason for the decline. TEA disagrees. See comments above. Over the past I0 years, the TEA has avoided discussing the target. TEA disagrees. The PBMAS manual is reviewed and posted for public comment. The 2004 PBMAS was developed with the participation of numerous diverse stakeholder groups. Each subsequent PBMAS has undergone the public rule adoption process. All comments on the PBMAS, along with TEA responses, were made available publicly. In addition, TEA has had multiple discussions with representatives from the advocacy community regarding the special education representation indicator. As noted above, PBMAS does not set a “target” for special education representation. When asked about the decline, the agency has claimed it is due to improved instruction. There is no evidence of that being true. Experts say it probably is not true. TEA maintains there are a variety of factors that have contributed to special education representation rates over time. The TEA has ignored complaints about the target. The Chronicle’s Question TEA disagrees. As noted above, PBMAS does not set a “target” for special education representation. To the extent that the term “complaints” refers to formal special education complaints, only one complaint relating to the special education representation indicator in PBMAS has been filed with TEA, and it was processed in accordance with complaint procedures. To the extent that the term “complaints” refers to general concerns about the special education representation indicator, TEA maintains that it has provided opportunities for discussion. The TEA’s Response 1. Why has your agency refused to discuss or even answer background questions about your special education policies until now? TEA has responded to all background questions and more than 60 public information requests submitted by Mr. Rosenthal. 2. Why did the Texas Education Agency set a target percentage for how many students should be in special education? TEA has not set a “target percentage” for how many students should be in special education. See table with responses to Mr. Rosenthal’s findings. 3. Was the TEA following any research or any model policies when it implemented that policy? If so, what research or what model policy? Beginning in the fall of 2003, TEA worked closely with multiple focus groups (comprised of teachers, administrators, curriculum staff, program directors, education service center (ESC) personnel, and representatives from educational and advocacy organizations) to develop the PBMAS framework. The special education representation indicator in PBMAS and the range of performance levels (PLs) for the indicator were based on focus group and stakeholder recommendations as well as principles in IDEA relating to over-identification and disproportionality. 4. Why did the TEA choose 8.5 percent as the target? As stated above, the special education representation indicator in PBMAS as well as the range of PLs for the indicator were originally based on focus group recommendations. PBMAS continues to be informed by public input received through meetings with school districts and ESCs and the public comment period included in the annual rule adoption of PBMAS manuals. 5. Was the TEA following any research or any model policies when it chose that number? If so, what research or what model policy? All PBMAS PL ranges are proposed based on a comprehensive analysis of district-level, region-level, and state-level impact data. This process is similar to the development process TEA undertakes for its state and federal accountability systems. See also responses to questions 3 and 4. 6. Why did the TEA put the target percentage into the PBMAS system? There are no “target percentages” in the PBMAS. With the participation of numerous diverse stakeholders, the PBMAS indicators for the special education program and three other programs were selected to improve student performance and to evaluate program effectiveness. Performance level ranges for each indicator were also established as part of this collaborative process. One of the program effectiveness considerations identified was whether a district’s special education program identifies students for special education services based on the student’s disability not the student’s English language proficiency or the student’s race/ethnicity. In other words, an effective program would never place a child in special education who did not have a disability. 7. Why did the TEA not get the federal government’s permission before setting this policy? TEA was not required to obtain permission from the U.S. Department of Education in order to develop and implement PBMAS. Nevertheless, U.S. Department of Education monitors have routinely evaluated TEA’s special education monitoring system and have not issued any findings related to PBMAS since its inception. PBMAS is fundamentally consistent with the provisions of IDEA with regard to determination of eligibility, analyses of over-identification and disproportionality, and state monitoring priorities that have a particular emphasis on quantifiable indicators to improve educational results for all children with disabilities. 8. Why has the TEA ignored complaints about the policy? It hasn’t. See table with responses to Mr. Rosenthal’s findings. 9. Why have you never studied the impact of the policy? TEA has. TEA analyzes all PBMAS data and results annually and proposes modifications as appropriate. TEA also publicly reports all PBMAS data annually, considers public comments on those data annually, and regularly incorporates improvements to PBMAS as appropriate. 10. What do you believe is the reason for the dramatic decline in special education in Texas? There are a variety of factors that may be responsible for fluctuations in individual school districts’ special education representation rates over the 12 years that PBMAS has been in place. For example, IDEA 2004 changed the landscape for students undergoing evaluation for learning disabilities by encouraging states and school districts to take advantage of a growing body of scientific research supports methods, including response to intervention (RTI), that more accurately distinguish between children who truly have a specific learning disability from those whose academic challenges could be resolved with scientifically based, general education interventions. Furthermore, Texas’s decreases in special education child count rates correspond to decreases in the national special education child count rates between 2004 and 2011. Other factors that may have contributed to individual districts’ special education representation rates include state initiatives designed to help struggling students and ensure the implementation of early interventions and positive behavioral supports; professional development; changes to state and federal accountability and assessment systems related to inclusion of students with disabilities; and improved policy and practice at the district-level, particularly in terms of understanding the basis for eligibility. In addition, the state’s student population 12 years ago is not the same as today’s. 11. If you do not believe the decline is due to the PBMAS, do you find it strange that the percentage has dropped to exactly 8.5 percent? The PBMAS statewide special education representation rate for 2016 is 8.6%. As stated previously, there are a variety of factors that have contributed to special education representation rates over time. 12. Do you expect the decline to continue? Why or why not? As stated previously, the PBMAS statewide special education representation rate increased slightly in 2016. We anticipate that individual district special education rates will continue to vary, and statewide results will reflect these variances. 13. Why has the TEA claimed that the decline is due to improved instruction? Improved instruction is one of the factors that contributed to decreases in special education representation rates from 2004 to 2013. As explained previously, a variety of other factors contributed to the decreases as well. 14. What evidence do you have that the decline has been due to improved instruction? There are a variety of factors that have contributed to special education representation rates over time, including improved instruction. The issues are complex and interrelated, and it’s not possible to measure how much of a decline at a particular point in time is due to each of the factors listed in the response to Question 10. 15. If the decline is due to improved instruction, why have Texas test scores on the NAEP declined? Improved instruction, whether for all students or students with disabilities, may or may not be immediately reflected in test scores on a particular assessment (including the NAEP) depending on a variety of factors. There are a number of factors that contribute to NAEP performance over time. NAEP results are not representative of all students’ performance since it utilizes sampling to determine who is administered the test and allows for certain student exclusions. There are no data available to evaluate NAEP performance of students formerly served in special education. However, under PBMAS, the 2016 passing rate of these formerlyserved students on the STAAR 3-8 mathematics and reading tests was 74.6% and 75.3%, respectively.