# ** Assessing Students With Disabilities: *IDEA* and *NCLB* Working Together**

# 

## 

## 

## **"What gets measured gets done."**

## *Margaret Spellings*

## Secretary of Education

# **Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) **

## The NPRM was published in the *Federal Register* on Dec. 15, 2005, and covered modified achievement standards for certain students with disabilities. ("2 percent flexibility")

## 

## The proposed regulations would:

##  Amend regulations implementing Title I of the *Elementary and Secondary Education Act* (*ESEA*), as amended by *No Child Left Behind* (*NCLB*).

## Amend regulations implementing the *Individuals with Disabilities Education Act* (*IDEA*) to ensure coordination and consistency between *NCLB* and *IDEA*.

# **What Changes Are Proposed?**

## The proposed regulations would allow states to develop modified achievement standards for a group of students with disabilities who can make significant progress but may not reach grade-level achievement standards within the same time frame as other students. 

# **Information in the NPRM**

## The NPRM:

## Describes modified achievement standards;

## Explains how states can develop modified achievement standards;

## Proposes criteria to determine the students who may be assessed based on modified achievement standards; and

## Proposes safeguards to ensure that students with disabilities are appropriately assessed.

# **Why Are These Proposed Changes Important?**

## The proposed changes would:

## Enable states to better measure the achievement of students with disabilities;

## Allow students to demonstrate what they know and what they can do;

## Provide meaningful information to teachers and parents about a student's progress;

## Provide teachers with information on how they can change their instruction to better meet student needs;

## 

## (*cont'd., next slide*)

# **Why Are These Proposed Changes Important?** 

## The proposed changes would: 

## Provide data to allow teachers to make evidence-based decisions; and

## Recognize the accomplishments of these students and teachers in annual yearly progress (AYP) determinations.

# **The Proposed Changes Are in Addition to The '1 Percent Regulation'**

## The requirements for alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards remain the same.

## States can continue to include the proficient and advanced scores of students with the most significant cognitive disabilities in measuring annual yearly progress (AYP), subject to a cap of 1 percent at the state and district levels.

# **Flexibility for Students With Disabilities**

## The majority of students with disabilities will take the regular assessment with or without accommodations.

## The "1 percent flexibility" covers students with the most significant cognitive disabilities.

## The "2 percent flexibility" is addressed in a proposed regulation covering students with disabilities who can make significant progress but may not reach grade-level achievement standards within the same time frame as other students.

# **Ways Students With Disabilities Can Participate in Assessments**

## There are several different ways students with disabilities can participate in assessments, including:

## Regular assessment

## Regular assessment with accommodations

## Alternate assessment based on grade-level achievement standards

## Alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards

## Assessment based on modified achievement standards (under the proposed rule)

# **Details About How the Assessment Decision Is Made**

## The student's Individualized Education Program (IEP) team, which includes the child's parents, decides how a student will participate

## The decision must be: 

### Individualized

### Based on the student's educational needs and

### Made annually

## 

## 

## 

## (*cont'd., next slide*)

# **Details About How the Assessment Decision Is Made **

## A student's disability must not determine which assessment the student will take. 

## There is no limit on the number of students taking any particular assessment.

## States must establish clear and appropriate guidelines for IEP teams.

## States must provide training for IEP teams.

# **Questions Parents Should Ask**

## What kinds of assessments are offered in my state?

## What kinds of responses does each assessment require (e.g., multiple choice, short answers)?

## What kind of instruction has my child had?

### Has my child received instruction in grade-level academic content?

### Was the instruction evidence-based and of high quality?

### Was instruction delivered by highly qualified teachers?

### 

### 

### (*cont'd., next slide*)

# **Questions Parents Should Ask**

## What accommodations are allowed in my state?

### What accommodations are approved, and what accommodations are not approved?

### What happens if my child is assessed using an accommodation that is not approved?

## Are the accommodations that my child will use in assessments a routine part of my child's instruction?

## Does the assessment affect my child's ability to meet graduation requirements? 

# **Similarities Between the 1 Percent and Proposed 2 Percent Options**

## Both apply only to students with disabilities served under *IDEA*.

## Neither are limited to students in a particular disability category.

## Under both options, alternate achievement standards and modified achievement standards must be developed using a documented and validated standard-setting process. 

## 

## 

## 

## 

## (*cont'd., next slide*)

## 

# **Similarities Between the 1 Percent and Proposed 2 Percent Options**

## In both cases,

### Assessments based on alternate or modified achievement standards must be valid and reliable and must be of high technical quality.

### Assessments must be linked to academic content standards for the grade in which the student is enrolled. 

### 

### 

### 

### 

## (*cont'd., next slide*)

### 

## 

# **Similarities Between the 1 Percent and Proposed 2 Percent Options**

## In both cases,

### Assessments based on alternate or modified achievement standards will be peer-reviewed along with the regular assessments under *NCLB*.

### Assessment results must be clearly explained to parents.

## 

# **Differences Between the 1 Percent and 2 Percent Options** **Students**

## **1 Percent Flexibility** 

## Includes students with the most significant cognitive disabilities.

## Includes students whose cognitive impairments may prevent them from attaining grade-level achievement standards, even with the best instruction.

## 

## 

## **Proposed 2 Percent Flexibility**

## Includes students with disabilities who can make significant progress but may not reach grade-level achievement standards in the same time frame as other students. 

## States that students must receive grade-level instruction.

## States that the student's IEP team must use objective evidence (e.g., from state assessments), based on multiple measures, and collected over a period of time to identify these students.

## (*cont'd., next slide*)

## 

## 

# **Differences Between the 1 Percent and 2 Percent Options** **Students**

## **1 Percent Flexibility**

## Utilizes alternate achievement standards.

## Provides access to the general curriculum.

## The alternate achievement standards differ in complexity from grade-level achievement standards.

## 

## 

## 

## **Proposed 2 Percent Flexibility**

## Utilizes modified achievement standards.

## Provides access to grade-level curriculum.

## Compared with grade-level achievement standards, modified achievement standards may reflect reduced breadth or depth of grade-level content.

## (*cont'd., next slide*)

## 

## 

## 

## 

# **Differences Between the 1 Percent and 2 Percent Options** **Students**

## **1 Percent Flexibility**

## May preclude students from earning a regular high school diploma in some states.

## No significant overlap between alternate achievement standards and grade-level achievement standards.

## 

## **Proposed 2 Percent Flexibility**

## May not preclude students from earning a regular high school diploma.

## Significant overlap between modified achievement standards and grade-level achievement standards.

## 

## 

## (*cont'd., next slide*)

## 

# **Differences Between the 1 Percent and 2 Percent Options** **Assessments**

## **1 Percent Flexibility**

## May be a performance assessment or portfolio assessment.

## Out-of-level assessments may be counted under the 1 percent cap if they: 

### Are aligned with academic content standards;

### Promote access to the general curriculum; and

### Reflect professional judgment of the highest achievement standards possible.

### 

## 

### 

## 

## **Proposed 2 Percent Flexibility**

## May modify an existing grade-level assessment or develop a new assessment.

## Out-of-level assessments may not be used.

## 

## 

## 

## 

## 

## (*cont'd., next slide*)

## 

## 

# **Differences Between the 1 Percent and 2 Percent Options (*continued*) AYP Calculations**

## **1 Percent Flexibility**

## 1 percent cap on the number of proficient and advanced scores that may be counted toward AYP at the state and district levels.

## Under the proposed rules, states would no longer be able to apply to the Department of Education for an exception to the 1 percent cap.

## 

## **Proposed 2 Percent Flexibility**

## 2 percent cap on the number of proficient and advanced scores that may be counted toward AYP at the state and district levels.

## States may not apply to the Department of Education for an exception to the 2 percent cap.

## 

## 

## 

# **When Would a State or District Be Able to Exceed the 1 Percent and 2 Percent Caps Under the Proposed Regulation?**

  ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------
                    **Alternate       **Modified        **Alternate and
                    achievement       achievement       modified
                    standards---\     standards---\     achievement
                    1 percent cap**   2 percent cap**   standards---\
                                                        3 percent cap**

  **State**         Never.            Only if state is  Never.
                                      below 1 percent   
                                      cap but cannot    
                                      exceed 3 percent  
                                      cap.              

  **District**      Only if granted   Only if local     Only if granted
                    an exception by   education agency  an exception to
                    the state         (LEA) is below 1  the 1 percent cap
                    education agency  percent cap. If   by the SEA and
                    (SEA).            not below 1       only by the
                                      percent cap,      amount of the
                                      never.            exception
  ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------

#  **Additional Topics Related to the Assessment of Students With Disabilities** 

## The NPRM re-proposes *IDEA* regulations related to assessment that were proposed in the June 21, 2005, NPRM. The re-proposed regulations would: 

## Align *IDEA* with *NCLB*.

## Permit states to develop modified achievement standards.

## Require states (or in the case of a district-wide assessment, districts) to develop guidelines for IEP teams that require: 

### Each child to be validly assessed, and 

### The identification of any accommodations that would result in an invalid score.

## Require a student to receive a valid score in order to be reported as a participant under *IDEA*.

# **Proposed Additional Flexibility for Students With Disabilities**

## The proposed additional flexibility for students with disabilities would:

## Allow states to continue for two years to count the scores of students with disabilities who exit special education. 

## Be similar to the existing flexibility for students with limited English proficiency. 

# **Other Proposed Changes**

## The proposed additional flexibility for students with disabilities would:

## No longer permit states to have different group sizes for different subgroups when calculating AYP.

### Currently, some states have a larger group size for the students with disabilities subgroup.

### If the number of students with disabilities in a school is less than the group size, AYP is not calculated for that subgroup at the school level.

#### This means that some schools are not held accountable for the performance of the students with disabilities subgroup.

#### This proposal would also apply to states with a larger group size for the students with limited English proficiency subgroup.

# **The Proposed Regulations Reinforce *IDEA* and *NCLB*'s Shared Goals**

## The proposed regulations reinforce *IDEA* and *NCLB*'s shared goals, including:

## High expectations for all students

## Holding all students to challenging standards and

## Accountability for all students.

# **Provide Your Comments By Feb. 28, 2006**

## Send e-mail comments to:

### TitleIrulemaking@ed.gov

### Include in the subject line: "Proposed 2 Percent Rule"

## Or

## Send written comments to:

###  Jacquelyn C. Jackson, Director

###  Student Achievement and Accountability Programs

###  Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE)

###  U.S. Department of Education

###  400 Maryland Ave., S.W.

###  Room 3C156, FB-6

###  Washington, DC 20202-6132