Month: January 2024

I need to respond to the argument that House Study Bill 542 does not remove any services for students in special education. Although, on the surface, it looks like all special education funding and services will be maintained for districts, this is not entirely true. Certainly not the quality of services and definitely not the equity of services.

The assertion that special education will be more successful in Iowa if we focus all of the AEA services on special education and move the leadership and accountability to the DE is also filled with many fallacies. 

Let me provide you with some history. When I first started as an administrator in Newton in 2000 the DE and AEAs were very compliance driven and staff who were funded out of special education dollars were to work with special education staff and students only. With this model, special education funds and services were provided to those district programs which were paid out of special education dollars. Our achievement data for students with IEPs at Newton was very concerning and we dove in to build a more effective delivery system for our students. 

One of the things we did was to add a special education teacher to the Math team and we offered half of our grade level Math classes at the same time (5 sections of 7th grade Math one period, 5 sections another period, and the same for 8th grade). We ran an MTSS model where we had collaboration time for Math teachers every other day and students were grouped every three weeks based on data and instructional need. The special education teacher took the lowest performing students for each unit, which was a lot of students with Math goals but not all of the students were on IEPs. Depending on the data, some students with Math goals did not show the need for intensive instruction and were not served by the special education teacher for that unit.

Our achievement scores for students on IEPs were much improved in one year and overall Math scores improved by 10% on ITBS from one year to the next looking at cohort data. We were so excited and created a similar kind of plan for Reading using the KU Fusion program.

The response from the AEA? We could not use a special education teacher as a Core Math teacher (even though he was endorsed in Math) and call it specially designed instruction. They were very strict (as was the DE at the time) about using special education funds only for special education and IEP specially designed instruction had to take place in a special education room with a special education teacher and only students in special education. So, we had to dismantle a proven effective model because special education lived in a silo, a very ineffective silo.

Another example was when I went to the AEA and realized we had a middle school in our area who was showing enormous growth in reading. I went to visit the school and the Principal was super cagey, clearly not telling me what they were doing. It finally came out that they were using their special education teacher to deliver core instruction, much like we had at Newton. I thought, goodness, what is wrong with us that leaders have to hide the effective things they are doing because they are “breaking a rule that isn’t even a rule??”.

After that, the DE and AEAs collaborated and created the SDI Framework that clearly gives permission to provide specially designed instruction in a collaborative model, a regular education teacher can provide SDI, and a special education teacher can provide instruction to students who are not on IEPs. This was a huge game changer! To assert that the AEAs have moved away from special education is simply not true. What they have done is to embrace the proven fact that we improve achievement for students with disabilities by focusing on Core instruction being accessible and effective for all students in collaboration with special education teachers.

I am so, so afraid that this bill will take us back to the special education silo where we spend all our time and energy on compliance and special education teachers providing instruction to special education students in their special education classroom. We didn’t have good achievement then, and we won’t fix the achievement issues we have now by reverting back to what we already know doesn’t work.

Some additional key points:

• The funding that flows through to the AEAs by larger districts props up the services provided to smaller districts. This is a reality. There is not enough funding for a small, rural district to provide services for a student who resides in their district who has significant health issues, or very challenging behavior, is deaf or hard of hearing, etc. It is not a negative thing to gather together funding from a group of large and small districts so that all students, families, and teachers have access to the services that are needed. 
• If larger districts take their money and provide their own services, the small districts will not have the services which are required by law for them to serve every eligible student in their district. A small or even medium sized district will not be able to replicate what the AEA provides for special education by keeping their flow through funds. If big districts pull out of the AEA, there will absolutely be services that are currently available to all districts that will no longer be available.
• The idea that a district could provide everything the AEA provides in special education and then have money left over to hire additional special education teachers is ludicrous.
• It is an extreme challenge for AEAs to find the required staff that they need. I spent four years as the Special Education Director for Prairie Lakes AEA and spent all those years looking for a Deaf Education Teacher and never found one. SLPs are very difficult to find in rural areas, let alone BCBAs, OTs, PTs, School Psychs, Social Workers, and Special Education Consultants. 

Again, let’s take the time to figure out what is the root cause of our issues with achievement for students on IEPs and then address that root cause. The only way we can effectively determine root cause is by taking the time to thoroughly evaluate special education in Iowa at the AEA, DE, and district level and build a plan for reform based on what we learn.

Dear Legislator,

I am writing you to share my concerns about the dismantling of our AEA system in Iowa. I know you are getting many emails, calls, and letters about this and for efficiency I would invite you to read the two blogs I have written on this issue. I retired in 2022 from my position as Special Services Director for Cedar Rapids Schools but spent over 30 years in Iowa as a special education teacher in Des Moines and Burlington, an administrator at both the district and building level at West Central Valley, Newton, and Cedar Rapids, and as the Special Education Director for Prairie Lakes AEA. I feel I have a unique perspective due to my experience in both the AEA and public school settings.

Really Iowa, No AEAs?

Real Implications of Abolishing AEAs

I would like to take the time in this email to address a few key items that I am not sure you are aware of as I heard Representative Pat Grassley speak on Iowa Press last night and he appeared unaware of some of the details in the proposed bill on these items.

First, the area of the proposed bill that covers property currently owned by the AEA. This property will automatically go to the Department of Management and they can choose to sell the property. If they do choose to sell, the proceeds go to the general fund. These properties were purchased with tax funds that were designated to benefit education, and the majority of those funds were targeted to benefit students with disabilities. If these properties are sold, the money generated should go back to the AEAs to serve students, or at least returned to the districts who are served by that AEA to use those funds to benefit students. 

“The department of administrative services 

is responsible for providing real property and facilities to 

the area education agencies, as determined in consultation 

with the director of the department of education, pursuant to 

a management fee agreement. The area education agencies are 

responsible for the general maintenance and the grounds of the 

real property and facilities provided by the department of 

administrative services.”

“2.  a.  On or before July 1, 2024, all ownership interests 

that area education agencies have in real property and 

facilities attached to real property shall be transferred to 

the department of administrative services. Prior to July 

1, 2024, the area education agencies and the area education 

agency boards of directors shall collaborate with the director 

of the department of administrative services to arrange for 

the orderly conveyance of all ownership interests in real 

property from the area education agencies to the department 

of administrative services. The department of administrative 

services shall be responsible for all costs associated with 

the conveyance of real property pursuant to this paragraph and 

shall assume all encumbrances attached to such real property.”

“b.  Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the

contrary, the department of administrative services shall have 

the authority to dispose of all interests in real property 

conveyed to the department pursuant to paragraph “a”. Moneys 

generated by the sale of such interests in real property shall 

be deposited in the general fund of the state.”

“3.  Prior to July 1, 2024, all interests that area education 

agencies have in real property lease agreements shall be 

transferred to the department of administrative services.”

The AEAs currently possess a wealth of materials that teachers use, and many teachers use these materials consistently throughout the school year. The proposed bill says these items could stay at the AEA, but can only be used for special education. Of the remainder of the materials, they will go to the Department of Administrative Services and could go to a low performing district or they can sell the materials and put the funds generated in the general fund. These materials were bought with tax dollars generated by all of the districts in the AEA for the purpose of serving all of the students in the AEA. It is absolutely wrong to take those materials, sell them, and put the money in a place that will not be used for education. It is also wrong to not give access to those materials to the districts who paid for them. 

“The department of administrative services may dispose 

of media center and professional development equipment and 

property transferred to the department pursuant to paragraph 

“c”, with preference being given to lower-performing public 

schools in this state. Moneys generated from the sale of media 

center or professional development equipment or property shall 

be deposited in the general fund of the state.”

There is also a belief that the money currently funding educational services and media at the AEAs will be returned to districts. I am not a funding expert by any means, but when I look at the verbiage in the proposed bill, it appears to me that the state can determine that the funds returned to the district must first be used for property tax relief. 

“The school district management levy under Code section 298.4 

is authorized to be used for specified purposes, including 

unemployment benefit costs, insurance costs, costs of certain 

judgments, early retirement benefit costs, and mediation 

and arbitration costs. The bill provides that a school 

district’s management levy may be reduced by the department of 

management if the department determines that the reduction in 

the school district’s combined district cost as a result of 

the elimination of the area education agency media services 

categorical funding supplement and the area education agency 

educational services categorical funding supplement does not 

result in a corresponding reduction in the total amount of 

property taxes levied by the school district for the budget 

year. The bill allows the department of management to evaluate 

the amounts of property taxes levied by the school district and 

purposes for which such revenues are budgeted to determine the 

adequacy of the reduction in the school district’s total amount 

of property taxes.”

“a.  For the budget year beginning July 1, 1991, the 

department of management shall calculate for each district the 

difference between the sum of the revenues generated by the 

foundation property tax and the additional property tax in the 

district calculated under this chapter and the revenues that 

would have been generated by the foundation property tax and 

the additional property tax in that district for that budget 

year calculated under chapter 442, Code 1989, if chapter 442, 

Code 1989, were in effect, except that the revenues that 

would have been generated by the additional property tax levy 

under chapter 442, Code 1989, shall not include revenues 

generated for the school improvement program. However in 

making the calculation of the difference in revenues under 

this subsection, the department shall not include the revenues 

generated under section 257.37, Code 1989, and under chapter 

442, Code 1989, for funding media and educational services 

through the area education agencies. If the property tax 

revenues for a district calculated under this chapter exceed 

the property tax revenues for that district calculated under 

chapter 442, Code 1989, the department of management shall 

reduce the revenues raised by the additional property tax levy 

in that district under this chapter by that difference and 

the department of education shall pay property tax adjustment 

aid to the district equal to that difference from moneys 

appropriated for property tax adjustment aid.”

Another major area of concern for me is the plan to terminate all administrators at the AEA on July 1st (or sooner, if the DE chooses) to be replaced with a state appointed Executive Director (who has to have a special education background) and the rest of the administrative duties being done by the new staff hired by the DE. It is hard to tell if the new Executive Director can hire administrators. Keep in mind that administrators include HR Directors and Business Directors. How are people going to be hired and bills paid and a budget created when there are no administrators to do the work? Who will be meeting with districts to create a plan for next year around special education? Who will be hiring and evaluating staff? 

“5.  On July 1, 2024, the employment of all area education 

agency administrators employed pursuant to section 273.3, 

subsection 11, as amended in this division of this Act, is 

terminated, unless terminated earlier by the director of 

the department of education who, notwithstanding any other 

provision of law to the contrary, is authorized to terminate 

the employment of such area education agency administrators. 

The changes to chapter 273 constitute just cause for discharge 

of the area education administrators under section 279.25, 

and the provisions of section 279.24 shall not apply to the 

discharge of the area education administrators. The director 

of the department of education shall appoint an executive 

director for each area education agency pursuant to section 

273.4, as amended in this division of this Act. The director, 

or the director’s designee, may exercise the authority of an 

executive director until such appointment is made.”

As you can see from my blog posts, I am not against studying the AEA system to determine its effectiveness and definitely think we need to take a good, hard look at how we deliver special education services in our state. Unfortunately, this proposed bill allows for no evaluation of our current system and does not use the reliably available research that shows what works to reduce the gap. This is a step back to the dark ages where we focused only on special education funded staff and completely missed the boat that the key to improving student achievement for students on IEPs is to make sure that the Tier 1 Core Curriculum is accessible and beneficial to them and that Tier 2 and 3 are in place and successful BEFORE we put all our time, energy, and resources into special education only. Most students with IEPs spend a small portion of their day with a special education teacher in a special education room and the majority of their learning takes place in general education. 

Again, I strongly reccommend that you take the next year to do a comprehensive evaluation of the current AEA system, create a plan using available research, gain input form stakeholders on the proposed plan, and then create a reasonable implementation plan that can be delivered successfully. 

I am more than willing to chat further with you about this very important topic. 

Thank you for your time and attention. I appreciate the work that you do for our state. 

Wendy Parker

(641)417-8586

wendyparker9533@gmail.com

Here are some of the things that exemplify the impact of the proposed plan by Governor Reynolds to dismantle the current AEA system.

Districts work collaboratively with AEAs to design the services the district needs from the AEA. At this time of the school year, there is a lot of conversation about what the summer will look like as well as the beginning of school and for the upcoming school year. This not only includes AEA staff assignments but what AEA supported professional learning and other services and supports will look like in the district.

Many schools are on the targeted list for special education and are required to engage in AEA supported professional learning. This includes some training for all staff and even more training for special education teachers, coaches, and administrators. They are designing this professional learning NOW and will deliver it this spring, summer, and next school year. Perhaps, based on a thorough data review, they also determine they need professional learning for paras and professional learning around behavior. This is also being designed and a calendar is being created for this NOW. 

So, let’s say this proposed plan goes through by March 1st. All of the AEA administrators, educational services staff, and media staff are told they will not have jobs as of July 1st. A new Executive Director will be appointed by the state of Iowa and they will start sometime prior to July 1st?? The AEAs will need to meet with each district this spring to determine what services the district wants and it could be all of the special education services they are getting now, no AEA special education services, or part of the services they are currently getting. Until those decisions are made, the AEA will have no idea what budget they will have for next year. The state will also seize all property owned by the current AEAs, sell those properties, and give the funds to the General Fund, not for any educational expenses. The current funding that goes to AEAs for educational services and media will now go for property tax relief and will not go to school districts. To replace those services, schools will have to pay for those services out of existing funds.

In the meantime, the Iowa Department of Education will be hiring 139 positions to start July 1st and those folks who are being terminated from the AEA will be given preference. The DE (which has a skeleton staff right now) will then determine who is doing what, train all the new staff, and then send the staff out to work with school districts to collaboratively design the services needed prior to school starting???? I am a big dreamer, but even I can’t dream that big. This is an entity that struggles to post and hire a position even when one person leaves and everyone agrees the position needs to be replaced.

Many districts, in collaboration with their AEA, are moving, and have been moving, in a positive direction with the support of their AEA. There appears to be a false notion out there that the AEA determines what services the school will get when, in fact, the AEA designs their services to meet the needs of individual districts. For example, when I was at Cedar Rapids we used the AEA for mentoring of new teachers, literacy and other content area professional learning, PBIS training and coaching, mandatory trainings, library and digital resources, and much more. We constantly met with our Regional Administrators to design and adjust services based on our needs. It truly was a partnership. This was also the way it was when I was Special Education Director for Prairie Lakes AEA. Our Regional Administrators were part of the district team, not just there for special education only. Now it will be on schools to design all of these services outside of special education on their own with no additional funds.

This will paralyze our public educational system and kids will lose. If the impetus behind this decision is to improve student achievement for students with disabilities I can guarantee you that the gap will increase when general education loses so many supports. Students on IEPs do not spend all day in special education classes being served by special education teachers. One of the best ways to improve special education is to keep students from needing IEP services by successfully serving students before they need to be entitled and to ensure that students with IEPs have meaningful access to the general education curriculum.

Again, I am begging the legislature to go back to what was initially communicated. Spend the next 12 months studying the AEA system by looking at relevant data such as focus groups with AEA staff, school staff, parents, students, and community partners, including a root cause analysis of why there is such a gap in special education. The study should also include observations of AEA services, a thorough data review, and an analysis of best practices that have led to improvement in results for students with disabilities. Once this analysis is complete a plan for reform should be created, public input should be gathered around the plan, and then a thorough plan of implementation needs to be created. I would love to see a plan for how everything in this new legislation will be implemented so that required services, as well as services that benefit students, are sustained for the remainder of this school year and next.

The only way studying this for a year is a negative is if this plan is about punishing public school education even more and the need for that punishment being so great that it can’t wait a year to be inflicted upon them.