Fiscal impact reports (FIRs) are prepared by the Legislative Finance Committee (LFC) for standing finance
committees of the NM Legislature. The LFC does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of these reports
if they are used for other purposes.
Current FIRs (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) are a vailable on the NM Legislative Website (legis.state.nm.us).
Adobe PDF versions include all attachments, whereas HTML versions may not. Previously issued FIRs and
attachments may be obtained from the LFC in Suite 101 of the State Capitol Building North.
F I S C A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
SPONSOR Nava
ORIGINAL DATE
LAST UPDATED
1/17/08
2//8/08
HB
SHORT TITLE Monitor Response to Intervention Program
SJM 9
ANALYST Escudero
APPROPRIATION (dollars in thousands)
Appropriation
Recurring
or Non-Rec
Fund
Affected
FY08
FY09
NFI
(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
LFC Files
Responses Received From
Public Education Department (PED)
SUMMARY
Synopsis of Bill
This Joint Memorial requests The Public Education Department to Monitor Implementation of
The Response to Intervention Approach to Identifying Special Education Students and to
evaluate its effect on students' academic progress and identification rates in school districts.
•
Research indicates that special education should only be considered when a student's
performance shows a dual discrepancy, which is when the student performs significantly
below same-grade peers on measures of academic performance and also performs poorly
in response to carefully planned and precisely delivered instruction.
•
The federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 allows
school districts to use scientific, research-based interventions as an alternative method for
identifying students with specific learning disabilities and to expend up to fifteen percent
of the district's Part B funds for early intervention services for students not identified as
needing special education or related services.
•
In the response to intervention approach, a student with academic delays is given one or
more research-validated interventions and if the student fails to show significantly
improved academic skills despite the interventions, this failure to respond to intervention
may be viewed as evidence of an underlying learning disability.
pg_0002
Senate Joint Memorial 9 – Page
2
•
The response to intervention approach may reduce referrals to special education by
providing a means to distinguish between students who perform poorly in school due to
learning disabilities and those who perform poorly in school due to other factors, such as
reading problems.
•
The National Center for Education statistics indicates that New Mexico identifies
children as having learning disabilities at a rate of fifteen and eight-tenths percent, which
is two percent above the national average.
•
The Public Education Department has required districts to implement the response to
intervention approach as part of a dual discrepancy model for identifying children with
learning disabilities in kindergarten through grade three.
•
The department has extended the implementation deadline from July 1, 2007 to July 1,
2009.
•
Therefore, be it resolved by the Legislature of the State of New Mexico that the Public
Education Department be requested to monitor the implementation of the response to
intervention approach by school districts and to evaluate the impact that the approach has
on the academic progress of students and on the identification of students as needing
special education and related services.
•
The Public Education Department monitor the assessment instruments used by school
districts to help identify student needs and to measure response to interventions to ensure
that the assessments are both valid and appropriate for the purpose.
•
The Public Education Department provide periodic updates, including the number of
school districts that have fully implemented the response to intervention approach, and
report its findings and recommendations, if any, to the Legislative Education Study
Committee prior to the first session of the forty-ninth legislature.
•
A copy of this memorial be transmitted to the Secretary of Public Education.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
It is anticipated the PED can implement the provisions of this memorial with existing resources.
SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
•
The joint memorial requests that the PED monitor the implementation of the response to
intervention model (RtI) in the school districts and charter schools, and to evaluate the
impact of the process on student academic progress and the identification of students
needing special education and related services.
o
Current information about the implementation of RtI in New Mexico schools is
limited. In 2006, a panel of New Mexico educators, diagnosticians, school
administrators, and PED staff members developed and published an extensive
guidance document on a three-tiered conceptual model for implementing RtI in
New Mexico’s school districts. In 2006-2007, eight New Mexico schools were
selected to participate in an RtI implementation pilot project, but the pilot was not
implemented. It is not known if New Mexico schools have implemented the RtI
model, or are using elements of the model.
o
The PED will need to develop a plan for monitoring the implementation of RtI in
school districts. The plan will need to identify material and human resources for
implementing and evaluating RtI, strategies and goals for implementing and
pg_0003
Senate Joint Memorial 9 – Page
3
evaluating RtI, preparation of administrative code regarding RtI implementation
and monitoring requirements, specify procedures for collecting and evaluating
information about model implementation and impact, and establish a protocol for
reporting findings and recommendations.
o
The diversity of New Mexico’s student population, rural and urban school
districts, charter and state-supported schools, and the breadth of curricula,
represent a wide range of possibilities for implementing RtI. In order to address
these possibilities, the development and implementation of the monitoring process
will require the expertise of a multidisciplinary team comprised of representatives
from the PED’s Quality Assurance Bureau, Priority Schools Bureau, Assessment
and Evaluation Bureau, Special Education Bureau, Indian Education Division,
Bilingual Education Bureau, School Health Bureau, Title I Bureau, Charter
Schools Division, Rural Education Bureau and Career-Technical and Workforce
Education Bureau, and content area specialists in reading, mathematics, science,
social studies, and writing.
•
The joint memorial requests that the PED monitor the assessments that are used by school
districts and charter schools to identify student needs and measure the impact of
instructional interventions to ensure that assessments are valid and appropriate for those
purposes. The PED will identify a sample of districts and charter schools to begin this
process.
o
The Educational Plan for Student Success, a major part of the PED’s School
Improvement Framework, requires schools in improvement to use short-cycle
assessments to monitor student progress.
o
A diversity of short-cycle assessments is in use across the state. The state nor this
memorial does not mandate or recommend the use of certain short-cycle
assessments. The school districts and charter schools may purchase short-cycle
assessments from a testing company of their choice, or they may develop their
own. In 2006, a committee of PED staff members reviewed short-cycle
assessments available from testing companies and published a consumer guide,
summarizing the features of the assessments. That consumer guide has not been
updated.
o
The PED will need to evaluate the validity of short-cycle assessments proposed
for use by the school districts and charter schools for monitoring student progress
under the RtI model. The PED will also need to evaluate their reliability as
measures of student progress under the RtI model.
PERFORMANCE IMPLICATIONS
The Joint Memorial impacts the following Public School Support performance measures:
•
Percent of elementary school students who achieve the No Child Left Behind Act annual
measurable objective for proficiency or above on standards-based assessments in reading
and language arts.
•
Percent of elementary school students who achieve the No Child Left Behind Act annual
measurable objective for proficiency or above on standards-based assessments in
mathematics.
•
Percent of middle school students who achieve the No Child Left Behind Act annual
measurable objective for proficiency or above on standards-based assessments in reading
pg_0004
Senate Joint Memorial 9 – Page
4
and language arts.
•
Percent of middle school students who achieve the No Child Left Behind Act annual
measurable objective for proficiency or above on standards-based assessments in
mathematics.
ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS
The joint memorial request places additional responsibilities upon the PED to monitor RtI that
will necessitate the commitment of staff time to the activities of the multidisciplinary team. The
PED would sample school districts and charter schools during the study period and report on the
sample.
OTHER SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES
•
The joint memorial emphasizes statewide monitoring of RtI. Though this is an important
need, it is only one part of a greater need for the state to lead the statewide
implementation of RtI. A successful and comprehensive implementation of the RtI model
in New Mexico will require the development and delivery of professional development
resources and provision of technical assistance to the school districts on-site and by
telephone. A larger scope of responsibility than is specified by the joint memorial and
additional resources will be needed for the PED to lead the state implementation of RtI.
•
The language on page two, lines two through five, describes use of up to 15 percent of
IDEA Part B funds for early intervention services for students not identified as needing
special education or related services. This language does not specify the types of early
intervention services that are funded for students not needing special education and
related services. The language in the joint memorial is not aligned with specific
requirements of 34 CFR § 300.226, in which IDEA Part B funds shall be expended on
services to students “who are not currently identified as needing special education or
related services, but who need additional academic and behavioral support to succeed in a
general education environment."
•
The language on page 3, lines two through eight of the Joint Memorial, appears to
emphasize the “identification of students as needing special education and related
services," as one impact of RtI to be monitored by the PED. This affirmative emphasis on
identifying students needing special education services differs from the conceptual RtI
model, which provides school districts with a systematic process for identifying the
instructional needs of all students who are at risk of failure in core subject areas or are not
making significant gains to achieve proficiency in the New Mexico content standards and
benchmarks. The RtI model specifies that a number of factors, particularly a lack of
appropriate instruction, contribute to a lack of growth in academic skills. RtI provides a
process for selecting and implementing high-quality research-based instructional
interventions, including special education services, to meet student needs. An objective of
the RtI model is the reduction of referrals to special education services, which is implied
in the language on page 2, lines 17 through 20 of the joint memorial.
•
Seventy-one school districts in New Mexico are using vendor developed short-cycle
assessments in reading/language arts, mathematics, and science for kindergarten through
pg_0005
Senate Joint Memorial 9 – Page
5
eighth grade students. When implemented in fall of 2008, the Grade 9 Ready for High
School Assessments (RHSA) will provide formative information on student proficiency.
The PED is requesting FY09 funding from the Legislature to implement the RHSA at no
cost to school districts during the implementation year. The PED will need to determine
the appropriateness of using these assessments for evaluating RtI. The PED will need to
identify short-cycle assessments for students in grades 10 through 12.
o
It is anticipated that 10 districts that do not currently purchase vendor developed
short-cycle assessments will need funding for that purpose. Short-cycle
assessments cost an estimated $15 for four administrations per student per year.
Only those students that do not achieve proficiency on short-cycle assessments or
the New Mexico Standards Based Assessment will need to be tested.
WHAT WILL BE THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ENACTING THIS BILL
•
If the PED does not monitor the implementation of the response to intervention model
(RtI) in the school districts, the state will lack information about the extent to which RtI
has been implemented and the quality of the implementation. This information is
essential for evaluating needs and planning strategies and resources needed to
comprehensively implement RtI.
•
If the PED does not monitor the impact of the RtI process on student academic progress
and the identification of students needing special education and related services, the
school districts will lack guidance on implementing a systematic approach to evaluating
student progress in response to instructional interventions, and the state will lack
information about the effectiveness of RtI.
•
If the PED does not monitor the assessments that are used by school districts to identify
student needs and measure the impact of instructional interventions to ensure that
assessments are valid and appropriate for those purposes, the integrity of information
about the effectiveness of RtI will be questionable.
PME/bb