STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES
AND NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND REQUIREMENTS OF NCLB
The goal of No Child Left Behind Act, signed into law on January
8, 2002, is to have all children proficient in reading and math
by the 2013-14 school year. States set the standards, establish
tests to measure the standards, and determine the rate at which
they are moving towards that goal. Each subgroup in a school must
meet the state's Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) goal, which is based
on the results of state tests and one additional academic indicator,
such as graduation rate, or the school will be found in need of
improvement. However, a school can be considered to meet AYP if
- The school reduces the percentage of students failing to meet
state goal by at least 10% (the Safe Harbor Provision) and
- The school includes proficient scores (capped at 1% of the
total population tested) for students with significant cognitive
disabilities on alternate assessments based on alternate achievement
standards.
States are also allowed to set their "n" which is a number that
- would yield reliable data that can be compared from year to
year;
- is small enough to ensure that large numbers of students and
schools are not excluded from accountability; and
- ensures that individual students cannot be identified.
Some states currently have a larger "n" for students with disabilities
than for other subgroups, thus lowering the risk that a school could
be found in need of improvement. Currently 8 states have larger
"n's" for students with disabilities. Several other states have
applied for larger "n's".
OPPOSITION TO NCLB
As more schools were found to be in need of improvement, opposition
to the law increased. This opposition has been demonstrated by action
in various states, including legislation, a lawsuit by the NEA,
and proposed Congressional amendments to the law.
Specific examples include Connecticut, which is threatening to
sue the Department because NCLB is an "unfunded mandate" which requires
that children be tested annually in grades 3-5. Connecticut tests
in grades 3,5,and 7. Connecticut is unhappy because recently released
scores in the state show no overall improvement and continuing huge
gaps in achievement between its poor and non-poor children and between
white children and children of color. At the same time, Delaware,
Massachusetts, and New York have narrowed its gaps and raised achievement
levels for all children. Utah passed legislation which allows local
education agencies to use state education goals when there is a
conflict between those of the state and NCLB. Utah is unhappy because
NCLB data show that Latino students in the state are three grade
levels below White students in the state and below Latino students
in 33 states.
Texas is negotiating with the Department of Education over the
fact that 9% of students were tested using a state mixed grade-level
version of the state assessment. The Department ruled this is an
out-of-level test. The state has not developed a state alternate
assessment for students with significant cognitive disabilities.
This is left to the districts.
The National Education Association (NEA) filed a lawsuit on behalf
of 9 school districts and 10 NEA affiliates asking that school districts
be exempt from any requirements of NCLB that are not funded by the
federal government.
FEDERAL LEGISLATION AMENDING
NCLB
Although no federal action on NCLB is expected until it is due
to be reauthorized in 2007, a number of bills challenging the accountability
requirements of the law have been filed. The bills in the 109th
Congress In chronological order are:
- HR 224 Comprehensive Learning Investment for Students
and Schools (CLASS) Act (Jan. 4, 2005, Strickland, D,
OH) includes a provision which would permit the IEP team to allow
a student with disabilities whose instructional level in core
academic subjects is below the grade level in which the student
is enrolled to be assessed using the State assessment that most
closely responds to the student's instructional level.
- HR 1177 State and Local Flexibility Act of 2005
(Mar. 8, 2005,Terry, R NE) includes provisions to allow 1) a student
with a disability who graduates with a regular diploma in more
than four years to be counted as meeting the graduation requirements
of the law and 2) scores on curriculum modifications and assessments
based on the student's IEP to count as proficient in making AYP.
- S 724 No Child Left Behind Reform Act (Apr.
6, 2005,Dodd, D CT) (HR 1506 ) revises requirements for (1) adequate
yearly progress (AYP); (2) academic assessment and local educational
agency and school improvement; (3) school choice and supplemental
services options; and (4) teacher qualifications.
- HR 1722 To direct the Secretary of Education to Revise
Regulations to Increase the Percentage of Proficient and Advanced
Level Scores Based on Alternate Assessments and Alternate Achievement
(Apr. 20, 2005, Bradly, R-NH) would make it easier to reach adequate
yearly progress requirements by 1) increasing the percentage of
proficient scores based on alternate assessments and alternate
achievement standards for students with the most significant disabilities
and 2) decreasing from 10 to 7% the percentage of students who
meet or exceed the proficient level of academic achievement .
- S 901 Flexibility for Champion Schools Act
(Apr. 26, 2005, Allen, R-VA)(HR 1821) would waive certain requirements
of AYP for states that have high accountability standards. The
bill would also allow the state to determine the conditions under
which students with disabilities take state tests and alternate
assessments.
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
ANNOUNCEMENTS
FLEXIBILITY FOR STUDENTS WITH
DISABILITIES
On April 7, Education Secretary Margaret Spellings announced the
Department's willingness to allow new "flexibility" in meeting the
mandates of No Child Left Behind.
The first step in easing the burden on states is a new policy on
measuring adequate yearly progress (AYP) in reading and math for
students with "persistent academic disabilities" served under IDEA.
Students who score on a proficient level on a "separate assessment"
based on "modified academic achievement standards" in the area of
their disability can be counted as proficient in meeting the Adequate
Yearly Progress requirements of NCLB. "Persistent academic disabilities",
alternate assessments and modified achievement standards are not
defined. The policy applies to "students who are not likely to reach
grade-level achievement because of their disability in the same
time frame as all other students, but who can make significant progress".
The IEP team will describe which assessment the student should take
and justify why the student cannot participate in the regular assessment,
with appropriate accommodations, if necessary. Thus, the team may
decide that a student may be able to take the standard assessment
in grade level math but may need an alternate assessment based on
a modified achievement standard in reading. The IEP decisions must
be made about the student on an annual basis. Although there is
no limit on the number of students who may take the alternate assessments,
the scores are capped at 2% of all students taking the assessments
(20% of students with disabilities).
The Secretary emphasized that this 2% cap is in addition to, and
different from, the previously announced 1% cap (almost 10% of students
with disabilities) for students with severe cognitive disabilities.
According to the National Center on Educational Outcomes, only 10
states offer off-grade assessments for students with disabilities.
Thirty seven states have discontinued such testing because NCLB
did not recognize alternate assessments other than those for students
with severe cognitive impairments.
RESPONSE TO THE NEW POLICY
Although many educators welcome the new flexibility, most are waiting
to hear more details. The Education Task Force of the Consortium
for Citizens with Disabilities sent a letter to the Secretary expressing
concern that, unlike the policy for the 1% cap, the disability community
was not consulted before the 2% policy was announced. The letter
requested that
- The Department make it clear that this policy not be implemented
until final regulations are issued.
- The proposed time frame for implementing this policy be delayed
until the knowledge base to support it is in place.
- The Department recognize that the research and data cited for
this policy are based on studies of students not yet eligible
for special education (the response to intervention model) and
that recent research has documented that students can be provided
accommodations and universally-designed materials to overcome
barriers of poor decoding and/or computational skills, so that
they can be taught and master grade level skills.
- All states participate in implementing this policy
- The Department provide and disseminate acceptable and scientifically
validated assessment instruments; provide training and technical
assistance; and inform schools that nothing in this new policy
allows schools to limit access to the general curriculum.
- Teachers, parents and other IEP team members be trained to
make appropriate and responsible decisions about what type of
assessment is appropriate for each student.
- The term "persistent academic disabilities" be discarded.
- The Department give clear guidance about the length of time
a student will be assessed under modified achievement standards.
- The Department must clarify how states and districts will be
monitored to ensure that the policy is being administered appropriately.
DEPARTMENT'S GUIDELINES
On May 10, Education Secretary Spellings announced that eligible
states can adjust their 2005-06 school year AYP (adequate yearly
progress) goals based on 2004-05 NCLB if
- At least 95% of students with disabilities participate in statewide
tests for the purposes of calculating adequate yearly progress
(AYP).
- Appropriate accommodations are available for students with disabilities
- Alternate assessments in reading/language arts and mathematics
are available for students with disabilities who are unable to
participate in the regular assessment, even with accommodations,
and results from those assessments must be reported.
- The state's subgroup size for students with disabilities is
equal to that of other student groups. This option applies only
to schools or districts that did not make AYP based solely on
the scores of their students with disabilities. States interested
states in this flexibility must submit a statement of intention
to the Department by June 1.
While allowing flexibility for eligible states, the Department
is working on regulations to implement the new policy. A notice
of proposed rulemaking will be published for comments before the
final regulations are issued. The goal of the regulations is to:
- Ensure that states hold the 2 percent population to challenging,
though modified, achievement standards that enable them to approach,
and even meet, grade-level standards;
- Ensure access to the general curriculum to ensure students
are taught to the same high standards.
- Measure progress with high-quality alternate assessments so
parents are confident that their students are learning and achieving.
- Provide guidance and training to IEP teams to identify these
students properly.
- Provide professional development to regular and special education
teachers. States must continue to meet the requirements of NCLB
related to students with disabilities.
The Department will allocate $14 million to help states provide
rigorous assessment instruction, and accountability.
The guidelines can be downloaded from www.ed.gov
Headlines: New Special Ed Guidelines and Common Sense NCLB Policy.
While the term "persistent academic disabilities" is no longer used,
alternate assessments and modified achievement standards still are
not defined. In addition, in the guideline on "Adequate Yearly Progress
and Modified Achievement Standards: Interim State Policy Options",
Option #2 states that "Out-of level assessments do not qualify as
assessments based on modified achievement standards for this purpose."
It is not clear if this statement applies to out of level testing
in general or just eligibility for the states applying for relief
in the coming year.
BUDGET AND APPROPRIATIONS
BUDGET PASSES: Both the House and Senate
passed a Fiscal Year 2006 (FY06) Budget Resolution lays out congressional
spending priorities for the next fiscal year and includes the total
dollar amount available to the appropriations committees to spend
on whatever programs they decide. That dollar amount is $843 billion
for all discretionary spending, an overall cut of 1% in discretionary
spending accounts. Along with the total dollar amount, the Budget
Resolution also includes "reconciliation instructions" to various
committees. Reconciliation is a process whereby committees have
to make cuts in mandatory programs (e.g., Medicaid, Medicare, Social
Security, nutrition programs, and student loan programs) to reach
a certain number, the resulting savings going to deficit reduction.
Appropriators have been instructed to cut $34.7 billion over the
next 5 years. Instructions include a cut of $7 billion in student
loan programs and $10 billion from Medicaid.
Legislation to achieve these cuts must be reported out of the committees
of jurisdiction by Sept. 16, 2005. The Budget Resolution also includes
a 3-year cap on discretionary spending. In addition, there are special
reserve funds for the Pell Grant Program and for the Family Opportunity
Act. For Pell Grants, a reserve fund means that if a bill is reported
that eliminates the accumulated shortfall in the program, the Budget
Committee guarantees that the appropriate adjustment will be made
for this purpose. The same holds true for the Family Opportunity
Act. If the committees report legislation that expand Medicaid coverage
to children with special needs to permit their parents to purchase
coverage, funds will be made available to cover this purpose.
APPROPRIATIONS NEXT
Specific allocations are being given to each of the appropriations
subcommittees. These subcommittees decide how their allocations
will be distributed among the programs under their jurisdiction.
They have already been holding hearings to learn more about the
needs of various programs under their jurisdictions. Programs of
interest to LDA are under several subcommittees: Labor-Health and
Human Services-Education (education, health, social services); Commerce-Justice-State
(juvenile justice); and, Interior-Environment (environment). House
Appropriations Committee Chairman Jerry Lewis (R-CA) has circulated
subcommittee allocations for consideration by the Full Committee
next week. The allocations are not official until they have been
adopted by the Full Committee and are typically adjusted several
times throughout the year. The Chairman expressed the hope that
all the bills will move through the House by the July 4th break.
This will give the Senate ample time to move its bills and facilitate
the completion of our work on time and under budget."
OTHER LEGISLATION
REAUTHORIZATION OF THE CARL
PERKINS VOCATIONAL AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION ACT
Despite the Administration's opposition, both the
Senate and the House passed versions of the reauthorization (S 250,
HR 366). A conference committee to reconcile differences between
the two bills has not yet been named..
REAUTHORIZATION OF THE WORKFORCE
INVESTMENT ACT (WIA)
The House is waiting for action from the Senate. The HELP committee
is still working on introducing a bipartisan bill.
REAUTHORIZATION OF HEAD START
On May 11 the House Subcommittee on Education Reform passed H.R.
2123, the School Readiness Act of 2005. The Senate bill is expected
to be introduced before the Memorial Day recess.
REAUTHORIZATION OF TEMPORARY
AID TO NEEDY FAMILIES (TANF)
Action on the reauthorization seems to be stalled. Authorization
for the act expires on June 30.
CHILD MEDICATION SAFETY ACT
OF 2005 (HR 1790) to protect children and their parents
from being coerced into administering a controlled substance or
psychotropic drug in order to attend school was introduced on April
25, 2005
FEDERAL AGENCIES
OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION
PROGRAMS:
Proposed regulations for IDEA are expected by late Spring.
Dr. Troy Justesen will serve as Acting Director of the Office of
Special Education Programs (OSEP). He will also continue to serve
as Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary.
LDA News from Washington is a periodic publication of The
Learning Disabilities Assocation of America, Inc., 4156 Library
Road, Pittsburgh, PA 15234-1349, Phone: 412.341.1515, Fax: 412.344.0224
This is a bulletin containing news of interest to the volunteer
and administrative leadership of LDA National and its State and
Local Affiliates. Written by LDA's Washington Representative, Justine
Maloney; Kathy Lawson, Editor. LDA members wishing to be
added to the email list may contact Kathy Lawson, at klawson@ldaamerica.org.
|
