NCLB Recommendations #14, #15, and #16
SUBJECT
Students with Disabilities
P.L. 107-110 PROVISIONS
TITLE I PART A SUBPART 1 SEC. 1111 and SEC. 1111(b)(2)
NSBA RECOMMENDATIONS
#14: The IEP team should determine whether alternate assessments are appropriate for individual students (with parents’ consent).
#15: Test scores from alternate assessments – including growth-based measures and out-of-level testing -- should be counted as proficient toward AYP so long as the number of students counted this way does not exceed 3 percent of all test takers.
#16: States should be able to count former students with disabilities in the subgroup’s AYP for up to three years after they exited the special education program.
RATIONALE
The IEP team has the authority and expertise to determine the academic requirements for the students, and NCLB should not preempt an IEP team’s determination of the needs of the child – as agreed by the parent.
PROPOSED BILL LANGUAGE
Section 1111 (20 U.S.C. 6311) is further amended in subsection (b)(2) by adding at the end the following:
“(P)* Student With Disabilities Requiring Alternate Assessments – Consistent with paragraph (3), a State may implement the amendments made to part 200 of title 34, Code of Federal Regulations, on December 9, 2003 (68 Fed. Reg. 68698) (related to achievement of students with significant cognitive disabilities) as if such amendments—
“(i) permitted 3 percent of such students to be counted for the purposes of determining adequate yearly progress, except that—
“(I) any assessment given to any such student for the purposes of determining such adequate yearly progress must be required by the individualized education plan of such student;
“(II) the individualized education plan must reflect the need for any such alternate assessment based on the evaluation of such student and the services provided such student under section 614 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (42 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.); and
“(III) the individualized education plan must include written consent from the parent of such student prior to such alternate assessment being administered;
“(ii) used the term ‘students requiring alternate assessments’ in lieu of the term ‘students with the most significant cognitive disabilities’; and
“(iii) permitted the eligibility of such students to be determined by the State educational agency, except that such eligibility shall, at a minimum, include—
“(I) students who are receiving services pursuant to a plan required under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and part 104 of title 34, Code of Federal Regulations;
“(II) students who are assessed at grade level below the grade level in which they are enrolled (out of level assessments); and
“(III) include students considered students with the most significant cognitive disabilities, as defined by the state educational agency, prior to the enactment of the No Child Left Behind Improvements Act of 2007.”.
Section 1111 (20 U.S.C. 6311) is further amended by adding at the end of (o)*(1) the following:
“(2) Issuance Of Regulations Affecting Children With Disabilities.—The Secretary shall issue regulations not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of the No Child Left Behind Improvements Act of 2007 regarding the participation of children with disabilities under this part. Such regulations shall permit a State to include, for up to three years, students who were children with disabilities as part of the group described under section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II)(cc) but who are no longer identified as children with disabilities. Students with disabilities may be provided an alternate assessment, including an out of level assessment, if deemed appropriate by the individual education plan team for that student and included within the written individual education plan for that students.”
*Notes: (P) is a newly proposed sub paragraph, its letter may vary in the final bill. (o)(1) is a newly proposed subsection, its letter and number may vary in the final bill.
IMPACT OF CURRENT LAW
Under current regulations IEP teams must fit students into highly restrictive categories in order to count their test scores on alternate assessments toward AYP. This narrow concept is driven by two testing caps allowed by the U.S. Department of Education that classify students either as having “the most significant cognitive disabilities” or “persistent academic disabilities.” These two definitions restrict the ability of IEP teams to determine the most appropriate way of assessing the achievement of these students. Students with disabilities are a diverse group with many unique needs and challenges. Since research showed that about three percent of students need some type of alternate assessments to measure their performance, NSBA’s recommendations will free IEP teams from making restrictive testing decisions that do not consider students’ individual needs, and at the same time ensure that only students who truly need alternate assessments use them for AYP purposes. In addition, ED has proposed to allow states to count former students with disabilities in the subgroup AYP for up to three years after they exited the program. This policy should be incorporated in the law.
NSBA CONTACT
Reggie Felton, director of federal relations, 703-838-6782 or rfelton@nsba.org.