System Results
Heartland AEA, as a service organization, uses pragmatic data collection strategies to determine that agency practices are occurring as intended and achieving the desired outcomes. The purpose and rigor of data collection fits the demands and resources of a service agency. The sources of system results include changes in student performance, rates of identification for special education, and consumer satisfaction responses to the service delivery system.
Secondary Intervention in General Education (Tier 2). In the Heartland model, level II and III, are collectively considered secondary interventions. At level II, Building Assistance Teams (BATs) support teachers with tailored interventions in general education (Ikeda & Gustafson, 2002). At level III, Heartland professional staff are involved in designing interventions with more rigor applied to data collection procedures and intervention strategies. Level II data in Heartland schools has been collected and reported over multiple years (Ikeda, 2002). Table 6 shows the frequency of BAT activities and number of students receiving assistance.
Table 6. Secondary Intervention Data from Elementary Schools in Heartland AEA Across Multiple Years
| 1999-2000 | 2000-2001 | 2001-2002 | 2002-2003 | |
| Number of Schools | 15 | 29 | 28 | 19 |
| Number of Districts | 13 | 28 | 25 | 18 |
| Number of Students | 344 | 559 | 582 | 362 |
| Grade Levels: Most BAT Referrals | 1st & 2nd | 1st & 2nd | 1st & 2nd | 2nd & 3rd |
| Meetings with Parents Present | 41.00% | 45.90% | 54.30% | 72.20% |
Examples of secondary interventions outcomes for 15 elementary schools are shown in figure 14. A number of important results regarding secondary interventions are reflected in these data that represent assistance with 362 students. These student interventions were directed toward academic (69%) and behavioral (29%) improvement. Twenty-five percent (92) of these students, across all grades, had previous service through the BAT. Sixteen percent of the students' difficulties were resolved, one third (121) were staffed into special education, and 39% were continuing to receive intervention assistance at level II or level III at the end of the year.
Figure 14: Results of Building Assistance Teams in 15 Elementary Schools, 2002-03 School Year
The problem solving process applying secondary interventions directly supports Iowa's requirements for general education interventions that involve parents in decision making, providing goal directed educational interventions, and determine those students who demonstrate benefit from interventions in general education program and those whose needs are more intensive support. Secondary interventions provide for early engagement of students in individually designed interventions intended to enhance school success.
Number of students with disabilities. The educational system is responsible for providing instruction and demonstrating accountability for all students. A multi-tiered system is viewed as a framework for the identification of students who instructional needs can be addressed through differential instruction and supports. This process includes determining individuals who, because of their disability, require specially designed instruction. Heartland AEA professionals carry out this responsibility by determining those individuals who are entitled to services with an IEP by applying problem-solving methodology and making judgments based on student performance in response to educational interventions and other relevant data (Tilly, Reschly, & Grimes, 1999; Reschly, & Tilly, 1999).
The designation of disability categories, such as learning disabilities, is not required in federal law or Iowa. IDEA (2000) states in S300.125 that, "Nothing in this Act requires that children be classified by their disability ..." Iowa rules, similar to IDEA, do not require that children be designated by disability categories. In Iowa, the designation of entitled individual is applicable to any disability group (Reschly, & Tilly, 1999; Gresham, & Noell,1999). In Heartland AEA, individuals with IEPs are designated as eligibility individuals and provided special designed instruction intended to enhance student results.
At the request of the Office of Civil Rights, a study completed by the Iowa Department of Education in 2003 to determined the proportions of students by disability (Table 7). Approximately 60% of Iowa students with IEPs are individuals with learning disabilities.
Table 7. Disability Distribution from Statewide Sample, 2003
Learning Disability (Specific Learning) Disability) |
60.31% |
Mental Disability (Retardation) |
17.23% |
Behavioral Disorders (Emotional Disturbance) |
9.75% |
Hearing Impaired |
.71% |
Severe and Profound (Multiply Disabled) |
.56% |
Physical Disability (Orthopedically Impaired) |
1.13% |
Other Health Impairments |
.14% |
Autism |
1.13% |
Speech Language Disorders |
8.62% |
Head Injury |
.28% |
Visually Impaired |
.14% |
Deaf Blind Impairments |
0.00% |
The identification rate of students with disabilities in Iowa, like national trends, has increased gradually over time, as shown in Figure 15. To address this trend data, and ensure appropriate placement of student with disabilities, in 2003, Iowa implemented a statewide initiative to systematically address decision-making practices related to exiting special education (Powell-Smith & Ball, 2002; Shinn, Powell-Smith, Good, & Baker, S, 1997). Currently ongoing support is provided to all AEAs as they work with their professional staff on exist decision-making practices.
Figure 15: Percent of Students with Disabilities in Iowa
Describing the behaviors and students interventions is an alternative manner of considering the needs of individuals with learning disabilities (Lyon, 1996). A procedure for defining the population of individuals who receive specially designed instruction is by an analysis of the IEP goal. Iowa documents the purpose all IEP goals using a goal coding structure derived from a taxonomy developed by the National Center for Educational Outcomes (NCEO, 1994). Goal codes data are recorded in a statewide information management system. Table 8 shows the results of Heartland AEA data for 38,096 IEP goals. Eight-four percent of the goals in 2002-03 were designed to improve students' functional and academic literacy. The domain of functional and academic literacy includes demonstrating competence in reading, math, written expression, and communication skills, and problem solving.
Table 8. IEP Goals in Heartland by Domains, 2002-03 School Year
Domain |
% |
Physical Health |
<1% |
Responsibility and Independence |
8% |
Contribution and Citizenship |
2% |
Personal and Social Adjustment |
4% |
Academic and Functional Literacy |
84% |
Further refinement is found in the reading goals (see Table 9), a subsection of the academic and functional literacy domain. In Heartland schools, students IEP goals in reading were predominantly focused on fluency (50%) and comprehension (41.3%). By attending to the purpose of the IEP goal, educators can consider the content and results of instruction for students with IEPs. A goal coding process is an alternative framework for considering description of students with disabilities, rather than categorical designations as the descriptors.
Table 9. IEP Goals in Heartland in Reading, 2002-03 School Year
Reading Goal |
% |
Comprehension |
41.3% |
Decoding/Phonological awareness |
7.5% |
Fluency |
50.0% |
Print concepts |
1.2% |
Consumer satisfaction. Consumer acceptance of a service delivery system is a desirable feature. Each year Heartland AEA collected data from 20% of its school district during special education compliance reviews. During 2003-2003, surveys were completed general teachers across all grades (416), principals across all educational levels (46) and all special education teachers (126) in these ten districts. Table 9 shows 80 to 90% of agreement with the statements that problem process support teachers in improving student performance and that problem solving process is equally applicable in general and special education settings. These data reflect a high degree of consumer acceptance of the intervention focused problem-solving process.
Table 10. Consumer Perceptions of Heartland's Problem Solving Process (2003)
Question 1: The problem solving process supports teachers in improving the performance of students whose academic skills and behaviors are of concern. This includes the Building Assistance Team or other intervention supports.
| Rating Scale | Gen Ed Teachers N=416 |
Principals N=46 |
Sp Ed Teachers N=126 |
Agree |
90.3% |
97.1% |
86.6% |
Disagree |
9.4% |
2.2% |
12.7% |
Question 2: Problem solving process leading to educational interventions is equally applicable for helping students in general and special education.
| Rating Scale | Gen Ed Teachers N=416 |
Principals N=46 |
Sp Ed Teachers N=126 |
Agree |
86.8% |
97.1% |
86.8% |
Disagree |
12.7% |
2.2% |
12.7% |
Due process cases in Iowa. Another indication of consumer acceptance is the rate of due process occurrences. The Iowa maintains records of special education hearing conducted each year. Although the number of special education hearings inIowa has been infrequent, Figure 15 shows a decline following the adoption of Iowa's revised rules of special education in 1995 when state regulations introduced systematic problem solving, general education intervention, intervention-based services and the requirement for heightened parent involvement in intervention-based services. These data seem to support Iowa's move to a intervention-based service delivery model.
Figure 16. Special Education Hearing in Iowa Before and After Establishing Revised Rules Supporting Problem-Solving Practices
Previous Page | Next Page
(Implementation & Supports) | (Conclusion)
