![](media/image1.png){width="8.522916666666667in" height="11.0in"}

![](media/image2.png){width="8.518055555555556in" height="11.0in"}

![](media/image3.wmf){width="0.3416666666666667in"
height="0.37777777777777777in"} National Council on Disability

*An independent federal agency making recommendations to the President
and Congress to enhance the quality of life for all Americans with
disabilities and their families.*

Letter of Transmittal

January 28, 2008

The President

The White House

Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

The National Council on Disability (NCD) is most pleased to present you
with a copy of a report entitled *The No Child Left Behind Act and the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: A Progress Report*. Thanks
to the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, with its push for improved
student outcomes, as well as the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (IDEA), educators across the United States are reexamining their
practices to find ways to close the achievement gaps between groups of
students. Students with disabilities are a focus of this attention as
schools and states work hard to improve their academic outcomes.
Policymakers are studying the ongoing implementation of both NCLB and
IDEA to determine the most effective means for serving students with
disabilities.

NCD commissioned this study to assist policy leaders and stakeholders in
assessing the impact of NCLB and IDEA on schools, including student
outcomes produced. This report provides a detailed analysis of such key
questions as (a) How has student achievement status changed since the
laws were (re)authorized? (b) What impact have the laws had on
assessment systems, accountability systems, and systems of personnel
development? and (c) Which barriers are impeding the achievement of
students with disabilities, and how can those barriers be overcome?

In our evaluation of NCLB and IDEA, students with disabilities appear to
be doing better academically, and they also appear to be graduating with
diplomas and certificates at higher rates than in prior years. Data
suggest, however, that there is still certainly concern about the
dropout levels of students in the states. Regardless of whether that
concern is definitional or real, we ultimately need to better understand
the manifestations of new rules and regulations on these students.
According to our analyses, one of the most important results of NCLB and
IDEA appears to be that students with disabilities are no longer
ignored. To that end, NCLB and IDEA have had a significant, positive
impact. Teachers, administrators, and the community are becoming aware
of what students with disabilities are capable of achieving if they
are held to the same high standards and expectations as their peers.

As our nation's policymakers continue their work on NCLB Act
reauthorization, it is important to recognize the complex interplay
among the federal law, state laws and regulations, and actual practice
at the district and school levels. Some of the requirements in NCLB have
had unintended consequences, and any proposed changes to the law should
be carefully considered to ensure that additional unintended
consequences are not created, especially for students with disabilities.

It is also important to provide flexibility with regard to student
performance while holding on to the idea of meeting a high standard.
High expectations with differentiated learning and instruction should be
the twin foundations for the law.

Thanks to your Administration's leadership on NCLB, we are confident
that the nation can continue to fight against low expectations for
students with disabilities, and can continue to win.

On behalf of all students with disabilities in America, NCD stands ready
to provide you and your Administration with whatever resources we have
to further implement these two vital federal public education laws.

Sincerely,

![](media/image4.png){width="1.7881944444444444in"
height="0.6708333333333333in"}

John R. Vaughn

Chairperson

(The same letter of transmittal was sent to the President Pro Tempore of
the U.S. Senate and the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives.)

Number range CHAPTERNational Council on Disability Members and Staff

Members

John R. Vaughn, Chairperson

Chad Colley, Vice Chair

Patricia Pound, Vice Chair

Milton Aponte, J.D.

Victoria Ray Carlson

Robert R. Davila, Ph.D.

Graham Hill

Marylyn Howe

Young Woo Kang, Ph.D.

Kathleen Martinez

Lisa Mattheiss

Lonnie Moore

Anne M. Rader

Cynthia Wainscott

Linda Wetters

Staff

Michael C. Collins, Executive Director

Martin Gould, Ed.D., Director of Research and Technology

Mark S. Quigley, Director of Communications

Julie Carroll, Senior Attorney Advisor

Joan M. Durocher, Senior Attorney Advisor

Sharon M. Lisa Grubb, Special Assistant to the Executive Director

Geraldine Drake Hawkins, Ph.D., Senior Program Analyst

Brenda Bratton, Executive Assistant

Stacey S. Brown, Staff Assistant

Carla Nelson, Secretary

Acknowledgments

NCD also wishes to express its sincere appreciation to Scott Swail of
the Educational Policy Institute (EPI) and Betsy Brand of the American
Youth Policy Forum (AYPF) for their incisive research in preparing this
report.

Table of Contents

[EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7](#__RefHeading___Toc184632924)

[INTRODUCTION 21](#__RefHeading___Toc184632925)

[PART I. ACADEMIC OUTCOMES FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES
25](#__RefHeading___Toc184632926)

[PART II. PERSPECTIVES OF STATE OFFICIALS
35](#__RefHeading___Toc184632927)

[Academic Achievement 36](#__RefHeading___Toc184632928)

[Assessment 38](#__RefHeading___Toc184632929)

[Accountability 40](#__RefHeading___Toc184632930)

[Data Collection and Quality 43](#__RefHeading___Toc184632931)

[Best Practices 46](#__RefHeading___Toc184632932)

[Conclusion 52](#__RefHeading___Toc184632933)

[PART III. PERSPECTIVES OF KEY STAKEHOLDERS
55](#__RefHeading___Toc184632934)

[The Current Environment 55](#__RefHeading___Toc184632935)

[Challenges and Issues 65](#__RefHeading___Toc184632936)

[PART IV. RECOMMENDATIONS 95](#__RefHeading___Toc184632937)

[APPENDIX 103](#__RefHeading___Toc184632938)

Additional resources are available at
<http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2007/publications.htm>

APPENDIX A. Terminology

APPENDIX B. Key Stakeholders Interviewed, March--May 2007

APPENDIX C. Accountability Issues in the 10 States

APPENDIX D. NCLB/IDEA Case Study Reports

APPENDIX E. State Data Tables

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc184632924 .anchor}EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report by the National Council on Disability (NCD) documents
changes in student outcomes, professional practices, and policy around
the country.

In 2004, NCD issued a report called *No Child Left Behind: Improving
Educational Outcomes for Students with Disabilities,* which examined the
impact of NCLB and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA) on improving educational outcomes for students with disabilities.
The report drew its conclusions and recommendations from interviews with
disability policy, education, and advocacy leaders and identified some
changing attitudes and behavioral shifts in K--12 education as a result
of the new legislation.

This report provides both a follow-up and a more detailed reporting of
the trends and attitudes about NCLB and IDEA over the past several
years. In this study we spoke to dozens of researchers, practitioners,
and state administrators from across the country about NCLB and IDEA. In
addition, we conducted a study of 10 of the largest states in the
nation, representing approximately half the U.S. general population.

This report is divided into four sections. Part I provides a brief
overview of trend data regarding students with disabilities. Part II
describes conversations with state administrators and representatives
about trends and issues related to NCLB and IDEA. Part III describes
similar conversations with advocates, federal officials, and
other stakeholders. Part IV provides recommendations based on our
findings.

### PART I. Academic Outcomes for Students with Disabilities {#part-i.-academic-outcomes-for-students-with-disabilities .ncd_PartHead}

Because of the relative lack of decent academic trend data since the
passage of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, there is no credible way
to connect academic trends and NCLB. Even the recent Center for
Education Policy (CEP) report strongly suggested caution in using the
data to suggest the impact of NCLB. Frederick Hess of the American
Enterprise Institute warned, "These findings should be treated very
cautiously... especially trying to link this to something as amorphous
as NCLB" (Hoff, June 5, 2007,
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2007/06/06/39cep.h26.html?print=1).

We relied on National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) data for
a discussion of trends in achievement. NAEP is commonly referred to as
the "nation's report card" and is a statistically significant test that
is conducted in all states.

Our findings suggest that students with disabilities are doing better in
terms of placement in various academic categories. By and large, fewer
students are scoring in the "below-basic" proficiency level, and more
students are scoring in the "proficient" or higher level in reading and
mathematics at the fourth- and eighth-grade levels. However, positive
change is greater at the fourth grade and dissipates by the eighth
grade. Again, caution should be noted: these findings across the 10
states studied by NCD are volatile, and the trend line is exceedingly
short by statistical standards.

Throughout the past several years, the number of students with
disabilities who have dropped out of school has increased, and the
number of students who are using special education services has
decreased. Graduation and certificate rates, conversely, rose since the
establishment of NCLB.

In summary, students with disabilities appear to be doing better
academically, and they also appear to be graduating with diplomas and
certificates at higher rates than in prior years. Data suggest, however,
that there is still certainly concern about the dropout levels of
students in the states. Regardless of whether that concern is
definitional or real, we ultimately need to better understand the
manifestations of new rules and regulations on these students.

### PART II. Perspectives of State Officials {#part-ii.-perspectives-of-state-officials .ncd_PartHead}

NCD interviewed state-level staff members from sectors of education that
were directly affected by NCLB and IDEA: assessment, data collection,
curriculum and instruction, and professional development. During these
interviews, staff discussed the changes that had been made at the state
level to comply with IDEA and NCLB regulations, the difficulties states
had in making those changes, and whether or not a discernible
improvement in the academic achievement of students with disabilities
had occurred as a result of NCLB and IDEA. Over the span of six months,
NCD spoke with more than 35 staff members from 10 states: California,
Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New
York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

From the interviews it was evident that state characteristics, such as
the demographic make-up, geographical distribution of the school-age
population, culture, and size and number of school districts, all had an
impact on each education department's ability to respond to NCLB and
IDEA mandates. Responsiveness was also affected by the sophistication of
each state's existing assessments and data collection systems and by how
much work needed to be done to comply with NCLB and IDEA reporting
requirements.

Implementing NCLB and IDEA at the state level has been no easy task.
However, despite the difficulties states have faced in complying with
the two laws, it was clear from our interviews with staff members that
some positive changes are taking place. The following is a brief summary
of the common themes that emerged from these conversations.

Academic Achievement

-   Most respondents felt that, overall, the academic achievement of
    students with disabilities had increased since the implementation of
    NCLB and IDEA, but they cautioned that an increase in test scores
    was not necessarily attributable to NCLB or IDEA alone.

Assessment

-   NCLB appears to have been effective in promoting the increased
    inclusion of students with disabilities on state assessments. Though
    IDEA '97 required states to develop an alternate assessment for
    students with severe cognitive disabilities, the real push for
    inclusion came with the NCLB rule that 95 percent of all students
    had to participate in state assessments.

-   A positive outcome of alternate assessments has been the increase in
    the participation rates of students with severe cognitive
    disabilities on state assessments. According to state staff members,
    this increase is a direct result of NCLB.

-   Including students with disabilities in general education classrooms
    and exposing them to the general education curriculum gives them the
    chance to perform better on assessments.

-   Most state staff members we spoke with viewed the increased
    inclusion of students with disabilities on state assessments as a
    positive outcome of NCLB and IDEA.

Accountability

-   Every state (in our study) has taken steps to develop an
    accountability system that meets NCLB and IDEA requirements. Our
    interviews revealed how different each state was in its approach to
    developing and maintaining its accountability system.

-   Though many improvements have been made since NCLB and IDEA began
    emphasizing accountability for all students, some staffers worried
    that some regulations could actually harm students with
    disabilities, such as the requirement to count as high school
    graduates only those students who received regular diplomas in the
    standard number of years.

-   Respondents complained that the U.S. Department of Education's
    changes in policies have made it difficult to stay within the policy
    guidelines of NCLB. Specifically, staffers pointed out that it is
    unfair of the Education Department (ED) to make changes to the
    regulations and expect states to comply, but then fail to provide
    guidance on what these changes entail.

-   Overall, state staff members believe accountability systems are a
    positive result of NCLB and IDEA. Schools and districts must now pay
    attention to the performance of all students, which means students
    with disabilities are getting attention they did not have before.

Data Collection and Quality

-   The quality and sophistication of data collection and management
    systems vary from state to state, and each state is at various
    stages of upgrading its data collection systems. It is not clear,
    however, whether those changes are the direct result of NCLB.

-   Training is expensive, and states do not have the people or the
    capacity to supply one-on-one support to every district and school.
    Therefore, states do what they can with the resources they have.

-   A number of data collection experts mentioned that the Office of
    Special Education Programs (OSEP) often did not give them sufficient
    time to implement changes to the system. Not only do states need
    time to make the appropriate changes to the data collection system
    to ensure they are collecting the proper data, but also districts
    need advance notification to train their employees on the new
    requirements.

-   Data experts expressed frustration with the overlap of reporting
    requirements among NCLB, IDEA, and the state. They suggested that
    collaboration, particularly between NCLB and IDEA, was needed to
    develop clear definitions for data collection that would result in
    gathering information truly useful to ED and the states.

According to our discussions, the most important result of NCLB and IDEA
appears to be that students with disabilities are no longer ignored. To
that end, NCLB and IDEA have had a significant, positive impact.
Teachers, administrators, and the community are becoming aware of what
students with disabilities are capable of achieving if they are held to
high standards and expectations.

### PART III. Perspectives of Key Stakeholders {#part-iii.-perspectives-of-key-stakeholders .ncd_PartHead}

Part III provides an assessment of how NCLB, after three more years of
implementation, has impacted students with disabilities; the assessment
is drawn from interviews with disability policy, education, and advocacy
leaders, as well as with students with disabilities and their parents.

Attitudes and Expectations

-   Since 2004 there has been a palpable and positive change in the
    overall attitude of educators toward educating students with
    disabilities. Educators expect students with disabilities to meet
    higher standards, and students with disabilities have increased
    access to highly qualified teachers and higher-level curricula.

-   Most individuals interviewed for this report believe that the
    culture of high expectations for students with disabilities---and,
    for that matter, for all students---is taking root. They credit
    these attitudinal changes to NCLB and to IDEA as reauthorized in
    1997 and 2004.

-   When asked whether students with disabilities are considered as
    general education students in the current environment, individuals
    who were interviewed said there is much more acceptance of students
    with disabilities in general education, but dividing lines still
    exist between the two groups.

-   Respondents indicated there has not been any serious backlash
    against students with disabilities within the accountability system.

Academic Achievement of Students with Disabilities

-   There is general agreement that NCLB has helped improve the academic
    performance of students on standardized tests. But many people
    caution that it is too early to tell whether NCLB has had an impact
    on increasing academic achievement and skills of students with
    disabilities.

-   Many interviewees did report that state performance reports indicate
    higher scores in math and English for elementary students with
    disabilities, but there is little improvement for students with
    disabilities at the high school level.

-   Interviewees all agreed that NCLB has had an impact on programs for
    students with disabilities and that much more attention has been
    focused on improving the academic performance of students with
    disabilities. But most felt it has not translated into actual
    academic improvements yet because it takes time to prepare teachers
    and to change instruction.

Reporting Disaggregated Outcome Data

-   Widespread acceptance of the importance and need to report outcome
    data disaggregated by subgroups now exists. When NCLB was first
    being implemented, there was some resistance to this provision, but
    three years later, almost without exception, policymakers,
    educators, advocates, and parents sing the praises of the
    disaggregated reporting requirements of the law.

More Supports Needed for Students with Disabilities

-   Educators are increasingly aware of the need to provide
    lower-performing students with extra supports to allow them to
    attain higher standards.

-   Since 2004 students with disabilities are, according to
    interviewees, gaining much more access to grade-level curricula.
    This move began with the reauthorization of IDEA in 1997, and NCLB
    has continued this press for students with disabilities. Students
    with disabilities are also increasingly expected to take high school
    exit exams in states where these exams are administered, which means
    these students must have access to the curricula.

-   If students with disabilities are going to access higher-level
    curricula, they need to have well-trained teachers, with strong
    content knowledge and pedagogical strategies, to make those
    curricula learnable. But the issue of the capacity of the teaching
    force was raised over and over again during the interviews.

-   Several interviewees also sounded a cautionary note about focusing
    too exclusively on grade-level standards to the point that the
    special education curriculum is ignored, which may prevent students
    with disabilities from learning necessary skills.

Schools Still Focusing on Compliance with NCLB

-   States, districts, and schools are still engaged to a large extent
    in compliance with the requirements of NCLB, which is preventing
    them from focusing their efforts on instructional change and teacher
    development.

-   States are still in the process of designing assessment systems
    (particularly the alternate and modified assessments), working to
    meet the highly qualified teacher requirements and to provide timely
    notification of testing results to schools, teachers, and parents.

-   Guidance from the U.S. Department of Education has often been
    inconsistent or slow in coming, which has slowed down the
    implementation at the state and district levels.

Culture and Belief Systems

-   Educators and policymakers increasingly believe that all students
    can learn to higher standards and that this perception is growing
    stronger all the time. However, when students with disabilities are
    considered, there is still some hesitation about the extent to which
    they can learn to grade-level proficiency standards.

-   Some students with disabilities are given assessments that can be
    less rigorous than the regular assessments; this reinforces the idea
    with the public that students with disabilities cannot perform to
    grade-level proficiency.

-   Because the issue of expectations drives so much instructional
    practice and classroom behavior, it is important to have clarity on
    what should be expected of students with disabilities.

Capacity Building

-   Without prompting, almost every interviewee raised the issue of
    highly qualified teachers (HQTs) as a key provision to help students
    with disabilities achieve to higher standards.

-   Several interviewees raised the issue of the role of higher
    education and teacher licensing; that is, higher education needs to
    revamp to meet current teaching demands.

-   Interviewees stressed the need for school principals to set the tone
    for the entire school, first to create the culture of high
    expectations for all students, especially students with
    disabilities, and then to serve as an instructional leader who can
    support differentiated learning strategies.

-   Interviewees also mentioned the importance of training school
    counselors to work with students with disabilities, to help them
    with both course selection and transition planning.

-   Capacity is desperately needed in the area of test development,
    especially in alternate and modified assessments. The federal
    government could provide development work in this area.

-   Educators also need access to information about what instructional
    strategies help lower-performing students succeed.

Ensuring Access to High-Quality Instruction and Services

-   Students with disabilities can achieve to higher standards if they
    have access to high-quality curricula aligned to high school exit
    exams. However, it is clear this is not always happening. Many
    students with disabilities have been placed in lower-level classes
    that do not prepare them for high school exit exams.

-   There is a concern about the quality of the high school diploma
    offered. In some states, only one diploma is available, and it
    applies to everyone. Other states offer various diplomas, but they
    are of lesser academic value, a clear signal that students are not
    being challenged.

-   While students with an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) are
    provided with additional instructional supports, little attention
    has been paid to how students with disabilities are being involved
    in after-school or supplemental learning opportunities. Clearly,
    students with disabilities are not getting the complete access they
    deserve and to which they are entitled.

Measuring Performance

-   Almost without exception, interviewees felt that as a result of NCLB
    there has been too much testing, and it is having unintended and
    negative consequences on students and schools alike.

-   It is clear that NCLB has put tremendous pressure on states and
    districts, and they are beginning to learn, through data, the full
    extent of how difficult it is to have every student learn to high
    standards.

-   The closer one gets to the classroom, the more negative are the
    comments made about NCLB's testing requirements. At the
    administrative level, on the other hand, there is a sense of the
    value of outcome data (that is, tests) across schools.

-   Interviewees shared numerous stories of states, districts, and
    schools that found ways to discount or hide students with
    disabilities in their accountability systems. It is hard to
    determine how widespread these practices are, but given the small
    number of educators interviewed for this project, these themes
    surfaced quite often. Interviewees told of other ways of gaming the
    system to ensure that students with disabilities were not counted or
    to prevent too many schools from being labeled as in need of
    improvement.

-   A number of interviewees raised the issue of which students were
    being placed in the 1 percent and 2 percent categories for alternate
    assessments and whether these categories met the needs of students
    with disabilities.

-   Interviewees also expressed three specific concerns about growth
    models: having clear definitions of growth models; ensuring
    consistency of growth models across schools, districts, and states;
    and guaranteeing that state education officials have the necessary
    resources to evaluate how growth models are being used.

Meeting the 100 Percent Proficiency Target

-   Of all the issues raised by NCLB, perhaps the most significant is
    having all students meet grade-level proficiency by the school year
    2013--2014. Yet, interestingly, many school-level educators and
    advocates did not raise it in their comments.

-   Most interviewees felt that education policy needs to recognize that
    some students will require more time to meet grade-level proficiency
    standards and that we are too bound by the traditional structure of
    education and the requirement to complete high school in four years.

Data and Reporting

-   Most interviewees who worked with data felt that there were various
    ways IDEA and NCLB could work more effectively together, from using
    common definitions and Web sites and forms to using common reporting
    infrastructures and data systems.

-   Another significant discrepancy between the two laws relates to how
    high school graduation is measured, which has an impact on whether
    schools do or do not meet the adequate yearly progress provisions in
    NCLB and on how students progress through high school. IDEA gives
    much more flexibility to students with disabilities in terms of the
    length of time it takes to complete high school or meet the goals of
    the particular IEP. This time-based approach runs headlong into the
    NCLB requirement for high school graduation within the traditional
    four-year time period.

-   Some interviewees felt that IDEA collected a level of detailed
    student data that allows for much richer analysis of instructional
    strategies than what is required by NCLB.

Parental Access to Information

-   Overall, most interviewees, including advocates, felt that the
    amount of information available to parents---and the public in
    general---had vastly increased and improved as a result both of NCLB
    and IDEA. Still, there was some concern about how useful some of
    this information is to parents.

Compatibility of NCLB and IDEA

-   The common opinion was that although the NCLB and IDEA complement
    and strengthen each other, they could be made more compatible. As
    suggested by one respondent, IDEA is a civil rights law and NCLB is
    a law to make people "mind." Several interviewees felt that because
    IDEA is a civil rights law, it should prevail over NCLB and that the
    U.S. Congress should make this clear.

### PART IV. Recommendations {#part-iv.-recommendations .ncd_PartHead}

In looking at changes to NCLB, it is important to understand that there
is a complex interplay among the federal law, state laws and
regulations, and actual practice at the district and school levels. Some
of the requirements in NCLB have had unintended consequences, and any
new changes to the law should be carefully considered to ensure that
additional unintended consequences are not created, especially for
students with disabilities. It is also important to provide flexibility
with regard to student performance while holding on to the idea of
meeting a high standard. High expectations with differentiated learning
and instruction should be the twin foundations for the law.

The following recommendations are based on the advice and comments of
the interviewees:

1.  **Maintain high expectations for students with disabilities and
    continue to disaggregate outcome data by subgroups**. The most
    important recommendation gathered from the interviews is to maintain
    high academic expectations for students with disabilities and to
    continue to report student outcome data by subgroup.

2.  **Develop the capacity of teachers to provide differentiated
    instruction and more rigorous curricula**. In order for students to
    benefit from higher-level curricula, teachers must have the content
    knowledge and pedagogical skills to work with a diverse group of
    learners, particularly students with disabilities.

3.  **Create incentives to attract, recruit, and retain special
    education teachers.** As special education teachers retire, more
    attention needs to be paid to how to develop the profession and to
    maintain adequate numbers of teachers with the skills and knowledge
    to work with students with disabilities.

4.  **Align NCLB and IDEA data systems and definitions**. NCLB and IDEA
    require data collection and reporting on various student outcomes
    and program characteristics, but the laws use different definitions
    and reporting formats, which should be brought into closer alignment
    so that states, districts, and schools are not duplicating data
    collection efforts. NCLB should also be amended to require that
    post-school outcomes be reported because such outcomes are a
    critical indicator of success for all students.

5.  **Ensure that students with disabilities are measured on more than
    just academic skills attainment.** The definition of what is
    assessed for students with disabilities should be broadened to
    include occupational, employability, and life skills.

6.  **Increase funding for special education.** Helping students with
    disabilities access higher-level curricula requires more support
    services, potentially more learning time, better-trained teachers,
    collaborative teaching, and new instructional approaches. The
    current requirement to spend 15 percent of IDEA on early
    intervention services for non--special education students diverts
    funding from an already needy population.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc184632925 .anchor}INTRODUCTION

When the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act was signed into law in January
2002, there was a sense of optimism that the legislation would finally
lead to the closing of the education achievement gap for various groups
of students. For students with disabilities, the assumption was made
that they would benefit by being held to higher expectations and exposed
to more rigorous curricula. NCLB has, indeed, had a significant impact
on the education system and students in our schools, and it has been
most successful, perhaps, in bringing to light various practices and
behaviors that were preventing many students from achieving at high
standards. However, there is evidence that the full promise of NCLB has
not yet been achieved.

In 2004, the National Council on Disability (NCD) released the report
*No Child Left Behind: Improving Educational Outcomes for Students with
Disabilities* that examined the impact of NCLB and the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) on improving educational outcomes for
students with disabilities. The report drew its conclusions and
recommendations from interviews with disability policy, education, and
advocacy leaders and identified some changing attitudes and behavioral
shifts in K--12 education as a result of the new legislation.

While NCLB was still a relatively new law and in the process of being
implemented, it was clear that the goal of the law to close the
achievement gap and help all students meet academic proficiency
resonated with policymakers, parents, the public, and advocacy groups.
Less enthusiastic, in some respects, were teachers and school leaders as
they faced the on-the-ground challenge of helping every student achieve
grade-level standards. Still, there was an overall feeling that the
focus on helping every student achieve was overdue and would result in
improved outcomes.

Many, perhaps, viewed the most dramatic and important changes to be the
section of the law requiring schools, school districts, and states to
report on the academic performance of student subgroups. Disaggregating
data based on student subgroups, while difficult, was becoming more
widely accepted by educators and strongly supported by politicians,
advocates, and parents by 2004. The individuals interviewed for the 2004
report unanimously agreed that reporting student outcomes by subgroup
was the most positive and important feature of NCLB and that exposing
the true performance data was essential in order to bring about
instructional changes. However, despite these positive attitudes toward
reporting data, many interviewees felt that the technical challenges of
creating student assessments and performance reports were a burden.

At the same time, educators were understandably fearful that they would
be blamed for the poor performance of students---particularly students
with disabilities and English language learners, or ELLs---under the new
system. A large number also believed that it was not possible for these
groups of students to meet high standards. Parents, advocates, and
policymakers, on the other hand, thought that holding these and other
low-performing students to high expectations was critical and that the
law would help change cultural beliefs.

Another fear commonly expressed in 2004 was that NCLB would focus too
much on testing and test preparation. Teachers and principals, in
particular, began to feel increasingly pressured to improve performance
on tests, limiting the time available for more creative types of
learning. Special education teachers felt an additional concern, namely,
that test preparation would crowd out the teaching of important life
skills.

The 2004 report also previewed several major challenges that
interviewees for this current study identified. First, the system lacks
the capacity to meet the instructional and assessment demands placed on
schools by NCLB. Second, school leaders and teachers who embrace the
culture of high expectations are an underpinning for success. Third,
schools need to be staffed with highly qualified teachers, especially in
light of impending retirements and teacher shortages. Fourth, how can
special education teachers be effectively trained to become content
experts, and is that really necessary? Fifth, how can educators develop
quality assessments in a timely fashion and create an effective feedback
loop for teachers and parents? Last, schools, districts, and states will
find technical ways to avoid being held accountable by the adequate
yearly progress provisions in NCLB.

How have things changed since the earlier report? States have been hard
at work since 2004 meeting the requirements of NCLB, from ensuring that
all teachers are highly qualified to developing data reporting systems.
While tremendous progress has been made in important areas, states and
districts are still in the early stages of certain aspects of NCLB
implementation, especially with regard to differentiated instruction,
ensuring access to rigorous curricula, and measuring performance through
alternate or modified assessments.

This Report

This report was prepared to document changes in student outcomes,
professional practices, and policy around the country. Because of the
sheer scope of this effort, we focused primarily on a subsection of 10
states: California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan,
New Jersey, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. These states were chosen
for several reasons. First, the populations of these states represent
about 137 million people, or roughly half of the overall U.S. population
(based on 2000 U.S. Census Bureau data). Thus, in 10 states, we can take
a snapshot of how a good portion of the country operates. Second, seeing
how the largest states have done in their NCLB and IDEA efforts has
value because they carry, for all intents and purposes, a larger burden
than other states. And third, several of the states studied over the
past year were highly recommended by experts in the field because of
their use of innovative practices to comply with NCLB and IDEA and to
change the way students with disabilities are educated. (Note: For those
readers wondering why Texas, our second largest state, was not involved,
it was simply because we could not gain access to the people necessary
to participate in this study in a timely manner.)

The study consisted of four separate components. The first component
involved the collection of data---NAEP data and other IDEA-based data
collected and held by the U.S. Department of Education---from each of
our participating states. These data are discussed in brief in the
Introduction and are provided by state in Appendix D*.* The second
component is a review of policy and procedures. We reviewed state
education department Web sites and other sources to document the
policies and practices in each of our 10 states. These are described in
detail in Appendix C. The third component involved multiple discussions
with state officials to discuss policy and practice issues related to
NCLB and IDEA. This component of the study is described in Part I. For
the fourth component, staff of the American Youth Policy Forum conducted
interviews of disability stakeholders at the national and regional
levels to ascertain their thoughts on the progress of policy and
practice. These discussions are synthesized in Part II. We conclude the
report with a series of recommendations for NCD and the disability
community at large.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc184632926 .anchor}PART I. ACADEMIC OUTCOMES FOR
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES

Calculating trends in academic achievement across states is a difficult
task, not least because there are two ways to look at academic
achievement. One method is to use assessment data from the states to
compare the proficiency levels of students; the other method is to use
data from NAEP. Although the former is the method used in the recent
Center on Education Policy report, *Answering the Question That Matters
Most*, it is extremely problematic because each state creates its own
test and also determines what its level of "proficiency" is. Critics of
such analysis suggest that test scores are inaccurate measures of
academic proficiency and are skewed by instructional practices (Hoff,
June 5, 2007,
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2007/06/06/39cep.h26.html?print=1).

There is concern that the states' use of adequate yearly progress (AYP)
data may be masking real---or the lack of---change in the public
schools. The setting of modest achievement goals to enable schools and
districts to meet AYP standards relatively easily early on could make
the future attainment of AYP very difficult (Hoff, June 18, 2007
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11152922).

Regardless of the statistical measures used to analyze students'
progress, what is known is that any specific trend in achievement is
difficult to attribute to NCLB or to IDEA. The Center for Education
Policy (CEP) reported that while test scores for students have gone up,
linking this to NCLB is delicate at best: "You have to be very careful,"
said Jack Jennings of CEP. "At the same time that NCLB was taking
effect, a whole slew of things \[was\] happening." More directly,
Jennings said that we "cannot draw a direct line between this increase
in achievement and NCLB." Frederick Hess of the American Enterprise
Institute similarly noted, "These findings should be treated very
cautiously, especially trying to link this to something as amorphous as
NCLB" (Hoff, June 5, 2007).

Another challenge of data analysis is the relative youth of NCLB and the
IDEA reauthorization of 2004. The CEP study notes that less than half
the states---22 to be exact---have sufficient trend data for analysis.
In our analysis of NAEP data for this report, we ran into similar
challenges. Only in the last couple of years have states started to
document the academic progress of all students, including those with
disabilities, making trend lines extraordinarily brief. Regardless, the
CEP study does provide us with data for discussion. Overall, the
conclusion from the study suggests that states are improving and more
students are becoming "proficient."

For our own analysis, we relied on NAEP data to discuss trends in
achievement. NAEP is commonly referred to as the "nation's report card,"
and it is a statistically significant test that is conducted in all
states. Although NAEP was not designed to be used as a diagnostic
instrument, it nevertheless does give us average measures of student
achievement across the country. Although NAEP has limitations, we
believe it is a more constant barometer of achievement in the states
than AYP proficiency levels.

Exhibits 1 through 4 that follow provide NAEP data for review. Exhibits
1 and 2 focus on fourth-grade outcomes in mathematics and reading for
students with disabilities. On average, the percentage of students with
disabilities who scored below a basic proficiency level in mathematics
declined by 6 percent in two years. Our 10-state sample ranged from a
decrease of just 1 point (New York) to 17 points (Florida). However, the
percentage of students with disabilities who scored below a basic level
in reading increased by 5 percent at the national level. Our 10-state
sample ranged from an increase of 8 percentage points (New Jersey) to a
decrease of 26 points (Ohio).

On the other end of the spectrum, the percentage of students who scored
at the proficient level on the NAEP mathematics and reading tests
increased, although moderately at best. In mathematics, the national
increase in students with disabilities scoring at the proficient level
increased 3 percent (from 11 to 14 percent), with California posting a
0-point increase and Ohio a 10-point increase. In reading, the national
score increased 1 percent, with New York posting a 2-point decrease and
Ohio, again, posting a 10-point increase.

These numbers, especially those below the basic proficiency level,
illustrate the volatility in data. For instance, is Ohio truly doing
that much better than the other nine states? Or is the improvement the
result of the method by which students with disabilities are tested? At
this point, we cannot infer much from the data due to the short trend
lines. However, over time, these data will begin to have more meaning as
testing standards, even within NAEP, begin to stabilize.

Exhibit 1. Percentage of Fourth-Grade Students with Disabilities Scoring
at the Below-Basic and Proficient Levels of the NAEP Mathematics Test,
2003 and 2005

  ------------------- ------------- ---------- ------- ----- ------------ ---------- -------
                      Below-Basic                            Proficient              

                      **2003**      **2005**   **∆**         **2003**     **2005**   **∆**

  *UNITED STATES*     *50*          *44*       *--6*   * *   *11*         *14*       *3*

  CALIFORNIA          59            56         --3           5            5          0

  FLORIDA             50            33         --17          12           19         7

  GEORGIA             57            46         --11          10           14         4

  ILLINOIS            49            43         --6           12           15         3

  MASSACHUSETTS       35            26         --9           18           21         3

  MICHIGAN            41            39         --2           12           19         7

  NEW JERSEY          51            43         --8           16           19         3

  NEW YORK            49            48         --1           11           10         --1

  OHIO                49            38         --11          9            19         10

  PENNSYLVANIA        58            48         --10          11           15         4
  ------------------- ------------- ---------- ------- ----- ------------ ---------- -------

Exhibit 2. Percentage of Fourth-Grade Students with Disabilities Scoring
at the Below-Basic and Proficient Levels of the NAEP Reading Test, 2003
and 2005

  ------------------- ------------- ---------- ------- ----- ------------ ---------- -------
                      Below-Basic                            Proficient              

                      **2003**      **2005**   **∆**         **2003**     **2005**   **∆**

  *UNITED STATES*     *71*          *76*       *5*     * *   *8*          *9*        *1*

  CALIFORNIA          78            79         1             4            5          1

  FLORIDA             72            62         --10          9            10         1

  GEORGIA             72            63         --9           9            13         4

  ILLINOIS            69            64         --5           10           12         2

  MASSACHUSETTS       59            47         --12          11           15         4

  MICHIGAN            70            61         --9           6            11         5

  NEW JERSEY          62            70         8             6            7          1

  NEW YORK            67            68         1             9            7          --2

  OHIO                80            54         --26          4            14         10

  PENNSYLVANIA        76            65         --11          7            11         4
  ------------------- ------------- ---------- ------- ----- ------------ ---------- -------

Exhibits 3 and 4 focus on eighth-grade NAEP achievement in mathematics
and reading. Our findings illustrate that, on average, the percentage of
students with disabilities who scored at the below-basic level in
mathematics and reading decreased by 2 and 1 percent, respectively.
Again, we see volatility between the states. In mathematics, the
percentage of students with disabilities who scored at the below-basic
level ranged from a decrease of 13 percent (Florida) to an increase of 2
percent (California/New Jersey). In reading, the percentage ranged from
a decrease of 11 percent (New Jersey) to an increase of 2 percent
(Illinois).

The percentage of students with disabilities who scored at the
proficient level was also very modest, with only a 1 percent increase at
the eighth-grade level in both mathematics and reading. Similarly, the
ranges in both areas were also much more modest than in our other
analyses.

Exhibit 3. Percentage of Eighth-Grade Students with Disabilities Scoring
at the Below-Basic and Proficient Levels of the NAEP Mathematics Test,
2003 and 2005

  ------------------ ------------- ---------- -------- ----- ------------ ---------- -------
                     Below-Basic                             Proficient              

                     **2003**      **2005**   **∆**          **2003**     **2005**   **∆**

  *UNITED STATES*    *71*          *69*       *--2*    * *   *5*          *6*        *1*

  CALIFORNIA         80            82         2              5            5          0

  FLORIDA            76            63         --13           5            10         5

  GEORGIA            76            71         --5            5            5          0

  ILLINOIS           72            69         --3            5            5          0

  MASSACHUSETTS      59            49         --10           8            14         6

  MICHIGAN           73            69         --4            5            4          --1

  NEW JERSEY         66            68         2              6            4          --2

  NEW YORK           68            63         --5            7            7          0

  OHIO               67            62         --5            5            8          3

  PENNSYLVANIA       73            68         --5            6            5          --1
  ------------------ ------------- ---------- -------- ----- ------------ ---------- -------

Exhibit 4. Percentage of Eighth-Grade Students with Disabilities Scoring
at the Below-Basic and Proficient Levels of the NAEP Reading Test, 2003
and 2005

  ------------------ ------------- ---------- -------- ----- ------------ ---------- -------
                     Below-Basic                             Proficient              

                     **2003**      **2005**   **∆**          **2003**     **2005**   **∆**

  *UNITED STATES*    *68*          *67*       *--1*    * *   *5*          *6*        *1*

  CALIFORNIA         80            79         --1            3            3          0

  FLORIDA            71            66         --5            4            8          4

  GEORGIA            78            68         --10           2            5          3

  ILLINOIS           60            62         2              5            7          2

  MASSACHUSETTS      56            47         --9            11           13         2

  MICHIGAN           63            62         --1            4            8          4

  NEW JERSEY         63            52         --11           5            8          3

  NEW YORK           67            64         --3            8            8          0

  OHIO               68            62         --6            4            6          2

  PENNSYLVANIA       69            65         --4            4            6          2
  ------------------ ------------- ---------- -------- ----- ------------ ---------- -------

With some exceptions, why do we see such changes and volatility at the
fourth-grade level and less dramatic changes and differences at the
eighth-grade level? This could be for a number of reasons, including how
the testing of students with disabilities is conducted in the states,
and who actually gets tested. But, certainly, academics at the
eighth-grade level are more complex than in the fourth grade, and making
valid leaps of achievement is more difficult work.

What this brief analysis illustrates is that we need to look much deeper
and along a longer trend line to have any real clue as to whether NCLB
has had an impact. As with the CEP report, the data, while interesting,
say little regarding the question of whether IDEA and NCLB are having an
impact on student achievement. What the data do clearly show is that,
taken together, IDEA and NCLB have had a large impact on "who" gets
tested and "what" gets tested. However, we will need to bide our time
for several more years of collecting data in order to form a significant
trend line.

Exhibits 5 through 8 focus on outcomes of students with disabilities,
including dropouts, those who received disability services, and
graduates. Because IDEA has required this information for several years,
we have longer trend data to review. For our purposes, we have reviewed
data on a two-year basis, since the trends do not change dramatically by
year.

Exhibit 5 focuses on the dropout percentages of students with
disabilities. In the prior exhibits, we noted that achievement has
generally risen, even if modestly, for these students. But clearly we
can see that the number of dropouts has also increased, in some cases
rather dramatically. For instance, California had the nation's lowest
dropout rate for students with disabilities, but that number has now
risen to be more than half of all students with disabilities who drop
out. But the dropout rates for students with disabilities in 2004--2005
were higher than in prior years for other states as well, with the
exception of Pennsylvania. Were more students with disabilities dropping
out because of new graduation policies? Were they forced out for the
same reasons? Or is this a policy blip that will evolve over time? The
answer could be yes to all three, but it is more likely that the
policies (and practices) need to evolve to better suit students with
disabilities.

Exhibit 5. Percentage of 14--22+-Year-Old Students with Disabilities Who
Dropped Out, 1998--1999 to 2004--2005

  --------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- --------------
  **State**       **1998--1999**   **2000--2001**   **2002--2003**   **2004--2005**   **1998--1999
                                                                                      to
                                                                                      2004--2005**

  California      4.5              6.7              4.9              58.3             53.9

  Florida         19.1             15.7             12.3             29.8             10.7

  Georgia         12.2             21.3             15.3             33.1             20.9

  Illinois        17.3             15.2             15.2             26.0             8.6

  Massachusetts   16.4             14.3             15.0             25.6             9.1

  Michigan        21.9             31.5             26.3             27.4             5.5

  New Jersey      15.1             15.5             13.1             25.6             10.5

  New York        13.8             21.4             17.5             32.2             18.4

  Ohio            11.4             12.4             9.9              17.6             6.1

  Pennsylvania    10.4             12.1             10.6             10.2             --0.1
  --------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- --------------

Exhibit 6 illustrates the percentage of 14--22+-year-olds with
disabilities who no longer receive special education services. This
chart also illustrates data inconsistencies of IDEA, as the 2004--2005
data are not available, or "NA," more than two years after the fact.
With exceptions, there is a definitive decline in services provided.
Again, we do not clearly understand the reason for this, as it could
pertain to (a) students who cannot find the services needed; (b)
students who have become ineligible under new laws and regulations for
services; (c) students who drop out may not be calculated in these data;
or (d) the term "no longer uses services" has been redefined. We are
unsure of the true reason, but the data tell us that fewer students are
using services.

Exhibit 6. Percentage of 14--22+-Year-Old Students with Disabilities Who
No Longer Receive Special Education Services, 1998--1999 to 2004--2005

  --------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- -----------
  **State**       **1998--1999**   **2000--2001**   **2002--2003**   **2004--2005**   **∆**

  California      16.1             13.6             11.6             NA               --4.5

  Florida         13.7             8.7              6.9              NA               --6.7

  Georgia         14.1             8.0              3.9              NA               --10.3

  Illinois        11.0             8.6              9.2              NA               --1.7

  Massachusetts   15.3             25.3             20.7             NA               5.4

  Michigan        14.5             15.0             10.4             NA               --4.0

  New Jersey      0.0              0.0              0.0              0.0              0.0

  New York        9.6              8.3              7.8              NA               --1.7

  Ohio            12.5             12.5             18.1             NA               5.6

  Pennsylvania    8.7              12.8             6.8              NA               --1.9
  --------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- -----------

Exhibit 7 focuses on graduation rates for students with disabilities.
These data clearly illustrate that students with disabilities are
graduating at much higher rates than they were before NCLB and the last
reauthorization of IDEA. With the exception of Ohio, which posted nearly
a 12-point decline, most states show a double-digit increase in
graduations, with Michigan (47 percent) and Pennsylvania (48 percent) at
the top of the group. These two states were also among those that
exhibited only a small increase in dropout rates. Thus, these data
clearly suggest that students with disabilities are graduating in much
higher percentages than before NCLB/IDEA reauthorization. If these are
data inconsistencies due to policy or definitions, all states are
equally implicated.

Exhibit 7. Percentage of 14--22+-Year-Old Students with Disabilities Who
Graduated, 1998--1999 to 2004--2005

  --------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- -----------
  **State**       **1998--1999**   **2000--2001**   **2002--2003**   **2004--2005**   **∆**

  California      16.1             23.8             27.8             34.9             18.8

  Florida         16.5             17.3             20.2             40.8             24.3

  Georgia         20.1             13.3             19.6             26.7             6.6

  Illinois        30.5             35.7             40.1             71.1             40.6

  Massachusetts   41.0             36.4             36.8             69.2             28.2

  Michigan        22.4             23.1             24.1             69.4             47.0

  New Jersey      45.6             51.3             51.8             72.4             26.8

  New York        29.5             22.9             26.3             46.1             16.7

  Ohio            46.7             43.6             46.5             35.0             --11.7

  Pennsylvania    40.5             37.9             51.1             88.3             47.8
  --------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- -----------

Exhibit 8 illustrates students who received a certificate rather than a
standard diploma. Although 2 of the 10 states did not post data, the
remaining states---with the exception of California---all posted some
increase in the rate of certificate completion. Combined with data from
Exhibit 7, this suggests that students with disabilities are completing
at much higher levels, in most cases, than before NCLB/IDEA
reauthorization.

Exhibit 8. Percentage of 14--22+-Year-Old Students with Disabilities Who
Received a Certificate, 1998--1999 to 2004--2005

  --------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- -----------
  **State**       **1998--1999**   **2000--2001**   **2002--2003**   **2004--2005**   **∆**

  California      7.6              5.2              3.5              4.8              --2.8

  Florida         13.2             16.4             15.8             28.9             15.7

  Georgia         25.7             15.8             24.2             39.8             14.1

  Illinois        0.7              1.0              0.9              1.1              0.4

  Massachusetts   0.0              0.0              1.5              NA               NA

  Michigan        2.2              2.6              4.4              2.5              0.3

  New Jersey      0.0              0.0              NA               NA               NA

  New York        10.3             10.6             10.9             19.7             9.4

  Ohio            0.0              0.0              NA               41.0             41.0

  Pennsylvania    0.0              0.1              0.1              0.2              0.2
  --------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- -----------

In summary, we can echo some of the positive comments of the CEP report
released in June 2007: Students with disabilities appear to be doing
better academically (using NAEP rather than AYP data), and they also
appear to be graduating with diplomas and certificates at higher rates
than in prior years. Data suggest, however, that there is still
certainly concern about the dropout levels of students in the states.
Regardless of whether that concern is definitional or real, we
ultimately need to better understand the manifestations of new rules and
regulations on these students.

As with all policy change, more time is needed to collect and bring data
into the trend analysis. The academic outcomes data are simply too short
with regard to trend analysis to bear any real weight. We strongly
advise caution in reading these and other data that suggest NCLB has or
has not pushed academic advances in the relatively short period since
its enactment in late 2001.

However, as we will see in the next two parts of this report, there are
indications that stakeholders across the country believe that NCLB has
pushed data collection and the generalization of services to students
with disabilities far further than previously existed, which would
support the theory of a rise in educational success for students with
disabilities.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc184632927 .anchor}PART II. PERSPECTIVES OF STATE
OFFICIALS

For this study, NCD interviewed state staff members from sectors of
education that were directly affected by NCLB and IDEA: assessment, data
collection, curriculum and instruction, and professional development.
During these interviews, staff discussed the changes that had been made
at the state level to comply with IDEA and NCLB regulations, the
difficulties states had in making those changes, and whether or not a
discernible improvement in the academic achievement of students with
disabilities had occurred as a result of NCLB and IDEA.

Over the span of six months, NCD spoke with more than 35 staff members
from 10 states: California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts,
Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. NCD contacted
each state's department of education by email with a request for the
contact information for staff responsible for data collection and
management, assessment, curriculum and instruction, and professional
development. If no response was received, NCD sent a letter to the head
of each state's department of special education. NCD did eventually
receive contact information for staff members from relevant areas from
each of the 10 states.

The interviews were conducted by contractual researchers and followed a
predetermined set of questions. The contractual researchers spoke with
staff ranging from division administrators, data managers, and analysts
to consultants, learning specialists, and bureau directors.

From the interviews it was evident that state characteristics, such as
the demographic make-up, geographical distribution of the school-age
population, culture, and size and number of school districts, all had an
impact on each education department's ability to respond to NCLB and
IDEA mandates. Responsiveness was also affected by the sophistication of
each state's existing assessments and data collection systems and by how
much work needed to be done to comply with NCLB and IDEA reporting
requirements.

Implementing NCLB and IDEA at the state level has been no easy task.
Despite the difficulties states have faced in complying with the two
laws, however, it was clear from our interviews with staff members that
some positive changes are taking place. The following is a brief summary
of the common themes that emerged from these conversations.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc184632928 .anchor}Academic Achievement

Has there been progress, and, if so, is it related to NCLB and IDEA?

Most staff members interviewed for this project felt that, overall, the
academic achievement of students with disabilities had increased since
the implementation of NCLB and IDEA. Staff members were careful to point
out, however, that increases in test scores are not necessarily
attributable to NCLB or IDEA alone. Because so many factors can
influence a student's academic performance, it is difficult to isolate
those that truly have an impact. As one interviewee warned:

Determining the causal link between a law and student achievement would
be a major undertaking. As we don't have a control group or any other
elements of experimental design, most likely any attempt to link the two
and show causality wouldn't pass a rigorous test of being
"scientifically based." ---Data Manager, Ohio Department of Education

Despite the fact that changes in student achievement cannot be directly
linked to the impact of the two laws, many staff members highlighted the
positive changes that had taken place since the implementation of NCLB
and IDEA. One of the most important results of NCLB and IDEA has been
the increased access students with disabilities have to the general
education curriculum. Since the two laws were enacted, a higher
percentage of students with disabilities have been placed in general
education classrooms or receive instruction based on the general
education curriculum in special education classrooms. According to one
educational professional from New York, whose observation was echoed by
many others, with the implementation of NCLB and IDEA,

Students with disabilities have access to the curriculum and are passing
the assessments. Before, there was no accountability \[for instruction\]
and you could teach students with disabilities whatever you wanted to.\
---Staff member, New York State Department of Education

Staff members applauded NCLB for pushing states to include students with
disabilities in general education classrooms and forcing administrators,
teachers, and the general community to recognize the academic ability of
these students. As one state staff member pointed out, students with
disabilities have a much better chance of doing well on assessments when
they are exposed to the general education curriculum.

As a result of the push for inclusion, there is much more interaction
between general and special education at the state, district, and school
levels. An interview with staff members from New Jersey revealed:

In the '90s, each department for each content area was developing
curriculum frameworks on their own with no collaboration with the
special education department. The department of special education
had a list or section in each one of the frameworks on what to do for
students with disabilities. Since then, the state has greatly increased
the level of collaboration between general and special education.\
---Multiple staff members, New Jersey Department of Education

None of the staff members interviewed for this project thought NCLB or
IDEA had a negative impact on student achievement. On the contrary,
every person interviewed commended the two laws for holding states
accountable for the academic performance of students with disabilities.
A few staff members pointed out that although IDEA '97 came before NCLB,
NCLB is the law that really began to push states into compliance with
IDEA's regulations.

There have been changes at the state level in the number of people
who care about students with disabilities. IDEA had no teeth. People
did not care about alternate assessments because there were no
real repercussions. After NCLB, people started paying attention.
Before NCLB, IDEA did not have as much prominence.\
---Coordinator, Michigan Department of Education

Other staffers mentioned that NCLB has given education departments the
extra push to make improvements they had already been contemplating. For
example, Florida had always promoted the inclusionary model for students
with disabilities. However, inclusion in the state's education system
got an even bigger push with the NCLB requirement that 95 percent of all
students take the general assessment.

Therefore, it seems to be the general opinion of state staff members
that the academic achievement of students with disabilities has
improved, even if only marginally. In a short period of time, states
have made major changes to their approach to educating students with
disabilities, and those changes have begun to make a difference. Many
educators and administrators hold out hope for continued improvement.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc184632929 .anchor}Assessment

Are students with disabilities being included in state assessments, and
what have the consequences been?

NCLB appears to have been effective in promoting the increased inclusion
of students with disabilities on state assessments. Though IDEA '97
required states to develop an alternate assessment for students with
severe cognitive disabilities, the real push for inclusion came with the
NCLB rule that 95 percent of all students had to participate in state
assessments.

Students with disabilities have a number of options when it comes to
taking the state assessment. They may take the general assessment, with
or without accommodations, or take the alternate assessment. States are
responsible for deciding which accommodations are acceptable for the
general assessment. Some states have standard and nonstandard
accommodations. If a student takes the general assessment with
nonstandard accommodations, his or her score may not be counted toward
the proficiency rating of the local education authority (LEA). It was
evident from our interviews that policy regarding standard and
nonstandard accommodations varies greatly from state to state.
Furthermore, the level of guidance related to the use of accommodations
ranged from a list of acceptable accommodations posted on the state's
department of education Web site to providing direct training to IEP
team members and assessment administrators.

States also offer an alternate assessment for students with severe
cognitive disabilities. States vary in the level of technical assistance
they provide to IEP teams that decide which test a student should take.
Some states, like Michigan, post their policies and list of acceptable
accommodations online. Technical assistance varies from state to state
for teachers and administrators in charge of administering and grading
the general assessment with accommodations and the alternate assessment.
Most states post a manual or training documents online. Some states send
representatives to districts that provide training. Michigan has posted
a podcast online to provide information to districts that administer the
alternate assessment.

A positive outcome of alternate assessments has been the increase in
participation rates in state assessments of students with severe
cognitive disabilities. According to some state staff members, this
increase is a direct result of NCLB.

\[The\] alternate assessment for students with severe cognitive
disability was required by IDEA prior to NCLB. It became a high priority
when NCLB was implemented because of the 95 percent participation
requirement. As far as participation goes, prior to NCLB, there was
little or no push at the local level to have students with severe
cognitive disability take the alternate assessment. So, that's a big
difference between then and now. ---Manager, California Department of
Education

As discussed in the previous section, because states are required to
include students with disabilities in state assessments, they are
gaining wider access to the general education curriculum. Their teachers
are experiencing favorable results from the inclusion model as well.
Special education teachers now have access to the general education
curriculum and are frequently included in development and planning
meetings with general education teachers.

When I was developing the alternate assessment, I was in the special
education department. When I would go out into the field and talk to
special education teachers about the state curriculum framework, they
would draw a blank. They were not included in that area. Now, more
people are familiar with the curriculum framework, and schools and
districts are finally including the special education teachers in
professional development activities. The same thing is happening
with assessments. In the past, schools would pull general education
teachers into a meeting to discuss the results of MAEP \[Michigan's
state assessment\] but \[would\] exclude the special education teachers.
Now, both general and special education teachers are included in those
types of meetings. ---Coordinator, Michigan Department of Education

Including students with disabilities in general education classrooms and
exposing them to the general education curriculum gives them the chance
to perform better on assessments. As one Florida staff member pointed
out,

The laws have emphasized the need for students with disabilities to be
included in general education. It's not just inclusion in general
education classes but exposing these kids to the general education
curriculum. They all have to take the assessment on grade level, so it
can only help them to have exposure to the curriculum. It gives them the
chance to do well on the assessment, whereas before, they may not have
ever seen some of the material included on the test. ---Section
Administrator, Florida Department of Education

Most state staff members we spoke with viewed the increased inclusion of
students with disabilities on state assessments as a positive outcome of
NCLB and IDEA. A few staffers mentioned concerns regarding over-testing
students and the fear that focusing too much on assessments can limit
creativity in the classroom. These concerns are not unique to the
special education population; however, they have been brought up on the
general education side as well.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc184632930 .anchor}Accountability

Are states complying with the laws, and where are they struggling with
the laws' requirements?

Every state we spoke with has taken steps to develop an accountability
system that meets NCLB and IDEA requirements. Accountability is a key
component of standards-based reform. According to NCLB and IDEA, states
must establish standards for student achievement, communicate those
standards to students and educators, measure student progress in
reference to the established standards, and apply consequences when
schools and districts do not meet those standards.[^1]

Our interviews with state staff members revealed how different each
state was in its approach to developing and maintaining its
accountability system. Some states, like Illinois, had developed
accountability systems prior to the implementation of NCLB. In order to
be in compliance with NCLB, Illinois had to make considerable changes
to its assessment system. One Illinois staffer pointed out that although
they made the necessary changes, those changes may not have been to the
benefit of the students.

Because we already had an assessment system, we were forced to go back
and revise what we had, unlike some states that did not have
accountability and assessment systems set up. That put more of our
schools in jeopardy. We have more grades participating in the
assessments. Previously, we had a writing assessment that was very
integral to the testing process, but our legislators looked at it and
said we couldn't afford to do it anymore. Teachers indicated that we
were testing too many content areas. It's had some curricular impact.\
---Division Administrator, Illinois State Board of Education

Many states must deal with specific issues, problem areas, or
populations of students that require targeted attention in order to
boost academic performance. For example, staff members in a few states
discussed the issue of disproportionality, which refers to the
disproportionate representation of minority students placed in special
education. NCLB and IDEA require states to track data on the number of
minority students identified as in need of special education. States
must monitor districts and schools and pinpoint those that overidentify
or under-identify certain populations for special education services.
States like Georgia send education department representatives to train
school teams to resolve their disproportionality issues. The trainings
are ongoing and aim to teach schools how to assist students without
labeling them disabled.

Though many improvements have been made since NCLB and IDEA began
emphasizing accountability for all students, some staffers worried that
some regulations could actually harm students with disabilities. Several
staff members expressed concern regarding rules for graduation
requirements included in NCLB. According to the law, a state may count
as high school graduates only those students who received regular
diplomas in the standard number of years. Some state staffers felt this
stipulation put students with disabilities at an unfair disadvantage,
since many states had created modified graduation standards or allowed
students to take longer than four years to complete their course
requirements. Under the new definition, schools do not receive credit
for students who graduate using modified standards or take longer than
four years to graduate, so there is no motivation to maintain these
alternate routes to graduation.

Florida is one state that had separate general and special education
diplomas before NCLB. Each diploma had different requirements. Because
NCLB prohibits the use of separate standards for general and special
education students, Florida eliminated its special education diploma. In
its place, the state developed a system that uses access points to focus
on a student's ability to function. Access points exist at each grade
level to show how students with disabilities can make contact with the
general education curriculum and retain the implications of the
material, but at a lower complexity level. Schools and districts that
struggle with the graduation issue receive targeted interventions and
technical assistance from the state. The state continues to provide
remediation for students with disabilities who do not pass the state
assessment on the first try. Additionally, a student's IEP team is
allowed to determine whether or not the graduation requirements have
been met even if the student failed the assessment required for
graduation.

One complaint that came up several times during our interviews was the
issue of timing in regard to when the Education Department makes changes
to regulations and when the states receive the guiding documents
necessary to implement those changes. As one staff member noted,

There are a few examples of ED issuing guidance documents after or
at the same time states are supposed to be implementing policies or
changes. Although states are always aware that new regulations or
changes to existing regulations are coming out, not having the guidance
documents can make things difficult. ---Coordinator, Michigan Department
of Education

Staffers pointed out that it is unfair of ED to make changes to the
regulations and expect states to comply, but then fail to provide
guidance on what these changes entail. Without guiding documents and a
short implementation time line, states are often left guessing what is
expected of them.

Overall, state staff members believe that accountability systems are a
positive result of NCLB and IDEA. Schools and districts must now pay
attention to the performance of all students, which means students with
disabilities now get attention they did not have before. This attention
is not always positive, however. Some schools and community members
worry that the performance of students with disabilities on assessments
may negatively affect the school's ability to meet AYP goals. In
general, however, holding schools accountable for students with
disabilities has made people more aware of how talented these students
are.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc184632931 .anchor}Data Collection and Quality

Standards-based educational reform requires the collection of data to
determine whether or not progress is being made. NCLB and IDEA therefore
require states to collect a substantial amount of data, which can be a
daunting and expensive task. In addition to the reporting requirements
imposed by NCLB and IDEA, a state must also collect data for reports to
the state legislature.

The quality and sophistication of data collection and management systems
vary from state to state. Some states, like Georgia, maintain separate
systems for general and special education data. Staff members explained
that this separation was necessary due to the extra reporting
requirements under IDEA and the different monitoring activities the
state performs with that data.

A number of factors affect data quality. These include the skill level
of local staff performing the actual collection; the interoperability
among school, district, and state data systems; and the data
verification. As a conference call with New Jersey staff members
revealed, states spend a significant amount of money and time training
staff and verifying data.

We offer training for districts on an annual basis for everyone at every
level of data collection. We give definitions and examples and help them
figure out how to code certain incidences. We walk them through the
system. Through our new Title IV data grant, we're working on an
instructional video to help in the training. We update the training
materials and presentations every year and post the PowerPoint
presentation on the Web. ---Multiple staff members, New Jersey
Department of Education

But, as more than one state staff member mentioned, training is
expensive, and states do not have people or the capacity to supply
one-on-one support to every district and school. Therefore, states do
what they can with the resources they have. Most try to cut costs by
posting training and technical assistance materials online. Some sponsor
a call center for districts and schools to contact for guidance.

Providing individualized training is a difficult and expensive task,
especially when most districts choose their own data collection systems
and come up with their own procedures for data entry. In addition, the
expertise of data collection staff at the local level can vary from
district to district. States also struggle to make sure that districts
understand the connection between the data they collect and the results
the states report to ED. Errors at the local level affect the accuracy
of state-level data.

The interview with New Jersey also revealed the importance of
collaboration among departments and divisions to guarantee data quality
throughout the entire collection process.

We work with the assessment officials and request information about
how they code certain answers. We give information to the grants office
when they do their consolidated applications so they can give districts
information about data collection. Every county has a data collection
specialist. ---Multiple staff members, New Jersey Department of
Education

A number of data collection experts we interviewed for this study
mentioned that OSEP often did not give them sufficient time to implement
changes to the system. As one expert explained,

In Florida we have a very sophisticated \[data collection\] system. We
are confident in our data quality. When we add a data element, it takes
about two or three years to implement the change. The Department of
Education does not give us enough time. The turnaround time is never
long enough. They want us to accomplish the changes in six months when
we know it takes longer than that to do it right. We had a situation
recently regarding the State Performance Plan \[that\] we submit for
IDEA, where we have to calculate data on \[the\] progress students have
made. ED changed the definitions and we'd already collected the data. In
the end, they're going to end up with something that they can't
disaggregate. ---Section Administrator, Florida Department of Education

Not only do states need time to make the appropriate changes to the data
collection system to ensure that they are collecting the proper data,
but also districts need advance notification to train their employees on
the new requirements. In Massachusetts, a state with a fairly
sophisticated data collection system, changes are made to the collection
system on an annual basis. The state gives districts six months' advance
notice when changes are coming and conducts training for the district
each year to prepare them for modifications to the system.

In multiple interviews, data experts mentioned the need to streamline
state and federal data collection requirements.

A negative impact is the complexity, time, and energy that go into
working out glitches in data and data that don't seem to mean anything.
There is a need for greater alignment. We've continued in New York to
look at requirements that we don't need. \[ED\] needs to do that as
well. We want to put more time and money into getting achievement levels
up, instead of collecting data twice. ---Multiple staff members, New
York State Department of Education

It is evident from our interviews that all 10 states are at various
stages of upgrading their data collection systems. It is not clear,
however, whether those changes are the direct result of NCLB. Some staff
members were careful to note that their state was already in the process
of updating their system when the law came out, while others thought
NCLB gave their state the extra push to make much-needed changes.
Ultimately, most states would like to track students from pre-K through
college. Massachusetts is one state that is already able to link the
secondary and college systems with a 95 percent match rate. As data
collection and tracking systems become more sophisticated, the range of
possible applications continues to expand. States may someday be able to
link student, teacher, and course data.

State staff members pointed out that data are useful only if people know
how to use them. States are aware of this fact and, consequently,
provide training and professional development to districts and schools
on how to use the data to identify areas where they can make
improvements. For example, teachers can use performance data to tailor
their instruction to the needs of individual students.

The data collection experts we spoke with often expressed their
frustration with the overlap of reporting requirements from NCLB, IDEA,
and the state. They suggested that collaboration, particularly between
NCLB and IDEA, was needed to develop clear definitions for data
collection that would result in gathering information truly useful to ED
and the states. It was clear from speaking with these experts that even
though states continue to struggle with data quality and reporting
requirements, they have nonetheless made significant progress in past
years. But, the data experts warned, only accurate data will show a real
picture of what educational systems are accomplishing.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc184632932 .anchor}Best Practices

What are states doing to increase the achievement of students with
disabilities and to ensure that they are in compliance with NCLB and
IDEA?

The end goal of NCLB and IDEA is to increase academic achievement. Our
conversations with staff members at the state level highlighted some
best practices that are being implemented in an attempt to achieve this
goal.

Data Collection

**Interoperability.** States are working toward comprehensive systems
that (1) are linked across schools and other agencies; (2) are from the
classroom level up to the federal level; and (3) are able to track
students from preschool through college. By creating data systems with
these linkages embedded in them, states can streamline test reporting,
reduce errors, and help identify problem areas.

**Accuracy.** Changes are constantly being made to state data systems as
state and federal indicators are added, taken away, or modified. Many
states have established verification processes that allow them to test
the accuracy of new elements added to the data collection system. The
verification process can take at least two years to complete. States
therefore need sufficient time from ED to make changes to the system in
order to properly train their local staff on the changes and test the
accuracy of the added element.

**Training.** States spend substantial amounts of time and money
training data collection staff on proper methods in order to guarantee
the accuracy of the data. States also spend a lot of time and money
training administrators and teachers on how to use that data to identify
problem areas and target interventions to correct those issues.

Collaboration

Collaboration is a key component of increasing the academic achievement
of students with disabilities. The difficulty lies in how to organize
the departments, divisions, districts, schools, teachers, parents, and
other stakeholders into a cohesive unit that ultimately leads to the
creation of positive and effective educational experience for the
student.

**State Level.** Collaboration at the state level can be difficult
depending on how the state education department is organized and what
duties and responsibilities are linked to specific departments or
divisions. Since NCLB, some states have undergone a reorganization to
promote collaboration between general and special education staff.
California, for example, made major changes to its standards and
assessments division to comply with NCLB and IDEA.

When the standards and assessment division realized they needed our
assessment, they moved the special education division not only on the
work chart, but also physically into the mainstream of curriculum and
instruction. Before, the special education division was in a separate
building. We were in a specialized programs branch and they weren't sure
what to do with us. We were isolated on the work chart and physically.
Now we actually see each other in the elevator. All of this change
happened at the same time that NCLB came out. ---Interagency Liaison,
California Department of Education

A specific example of how collaboration can be complicated at the state
level came from an interview with one of Georgia's data collection
experts. To track students from pre-K through 12th grade, the Office of
Standards, Instruction, and Assessment, located within the Georgia
Department of Education, had to work with the Department of Human
Resources, a separate department in Georgia's government structure.

Despite these challenges, states continue to promote collaboration from
all divisions. By working together, these divisions are able to create
more effective educational programs for students.

**District and Regional Levels.** Collaboration between the general and
special education sectors is also important at the district and regional
levels. Oftentimes, states provide similar services for general and
special education students through separate divisions or agencies. The
challenge, therefore, is to ensure that the activities of one agency
complement the work of others in the department. Some states sponsor
special education resource centers that offer training, professional
development, and technical assistance.

Ohio is one state that has used the regional resource center model to
support special education since the 1960s. Ohio's 16 Special Education
Regional Resource Centers (SERRCs) are a well-known network throughout
the state. The mission of the resource centers has evolved since the
1960s to become much more prescriptive in determining which activities
receive funding. The centers have begun to direct their professional
development toward principal-led teams to promote shared responsibility
at the building level for the performance of all students.

One problem for SERRCs, as one state staff member warned, is that the
name can be both a resource and a barrier in that some people think the
centers serve only special education providers. The Ohio state
legislature recently passed a bill to create the Educational Regional
Service System (ERSS) to align existing resources like SERRCs into a
coordinated regional service delivery system. The ERSS will unify
professional development and technical assistance activities to target
the individual needs of the state's districts.

Georgia is another state with a long history of providing training and
assistance to special education teachers through resource centers. As in
Ohio, the purpose of Georgia's Learning Resource Centers (GLRCs) has
evolved over their 30-year existence to focus more on coaching and
support-based activities for teachers and parents. The GLRCs mainly help
schools and districts meet NCLB and IDEA requirements through the
implementation of effective instructional strategies.

**Parents.** The parents of students with disabilities can be a valuable
resource, and states are beginning to take advantage of this fact. Some
states have started programs that train parents how to be advocates for
their children and make them aware of the resources that are out there
for them. Support for parents is available from various sources, from
resource centers like GLRCs to local or state advocacy organizations.

Other states are involving parents in the accountability of LEAs and
districts by letting them serve on accountability committees and in
other ways. Where parents were an external part of the accountability
process before NCLB and the 2004 reauthorization of IDEA, they are now
deeply involved in many states.

Professional Development

Ensuring that all students with disabilities receive instruction from a
highly qualified teacher is a goal for each of the 10 states whose
representatives we spoke with for this project.

**Preservice training.** Meeting that goal starts at the preservice
level, where state departments and boards of education must work with
local colleges and universities to create rigorous programs that
adequately prepare general and special education teachers for the
classroom. For example, Florida has created Professional Development
Plans based at universities that provide preservice training. A major
concern for educators and administrators is that new teachers enter
their first year of teaching with all the tools they need to succeed.
Florida allows students who majored in subject areas other than
education to obtain their teaching certificate by taking a test once
they have received their college degree. This is not an ideal situation,
however, as one staff member pointed out.

A worry is that the new generation of teachers are students who majored
in business and passed a test at the end of their college career to
certify that they are ready to teach special education classes. They do
not have the training or experience that our older teachers have. Even
if the new graduates are in a 35- or 65-hour program, they do not have
the depth of learning. It's a huge issue over who is going to be left
and what their knowledge level is. ---Principal Investigator, Florida
Department of Education

Co-teaching models and mentoring programs have also been widely
implemented across the nation. Veteran teachers are an important
resource for schools to use in providing support for new teachers.
One-on-one guidance from experienced teachers can help new teachers
develop their skills and techniques.

**Highly Qualified Teacher Requirement.** A significant problem for
districts and schools is NCLB's requirement that all students be taught
by highly qualified teachers. The highly qualified teacher (HQT)
requirement in NCLB comes at a time when most states are struggling with
massive teacher shortages, not just in the area of special education,
but in general education as well.

In many cases, veteran special education teachers have the skills but
not the certification. Therefore, many states have used alternative
approaches to ensure that all their special education teachers are
highly qualified. One popular approach for states was to use high,
objective, unified state standards of evaluation (otherwise known as
HOUSSE) to verify that experienced teachers had sufficient content area
knowledge to be considered highly qualified. Through the HOUSSE
procedure, teachers could use their years of experience and
participation in training workshops to meet NCLB's highly qualified
requirement. Critics of HOUSSE feared the process "watered down the
standard,"[^2] and in May 2006, ED requested states to submit plans for
phasing out their HOUSSE options.

The HQT requirement becomes a particularly difficult issue at the high
school level for special education teachers. A special education teacher
may be certified in one content area but may also teach other subjects.
This issue can be a challenge for schools to address for a number of
reasons. For example, as one staff member in Michigan pointed out,

The high school content is more challenging. One problem Michigan has
run into with special education teachers at the secondary level is that
their math skills are not high enough to effectively support students
with disabilities taking algebra. ---Consultant, Michigan Department of
Education

States have developed creative solutions to address the problem. One
issue is that LEAs do not have the funds to provide professional
development training for all their teachers. States, such as Florida,
have therefore stepped in to help LEAs with the professional development
piece.

The Florida Department of Education provides courses for special
education teachers preparing for certification exams. One staff member
mentioned that making the courses available online means that general
education teachers and administrators can access them as well.

**In-service training.** All states provide in-service training
opportunities for special education teachers. Many staff members
mentioned targeted professional development as a key component of the
state efforts to improve academic achievement and to address problem
areas.

States use a variety of methods to provide in-service professional
development opportunities to teachers. Most states have resource
centers, such as those mentioned above, to provide teachers with
technical assistance and resources. Some states have set up online
clearinghouses where teachers can easily access free materials. States
also sponsor message boards or listservs where teachers can exchange
ideas and discuss any difficulties they might be having.

States have been encouraging the use of schoolwide or team trainings to
increase the effectiveness of professional development activities. Team
trainings involve administrators, teachers, and other staff that play a
role in the students' education. These trainings can take place during
the summer and are often extended through the school year. Staffers
mentioned the importance of continuing training throughout the year and
requiring teachers and team members to assess their progress at
scheduled intervals to see where improvements can still be made.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc184632933 .anchor}Conclusion

Each state's experience with implementing NCLB and IDEA has been unique
and was affected by a variety of factors, including physical
characteristics, population, access to resources, and level of advance
preparation.

The most important result of NCLB and IDEA appears to be that students
with disabilities are no longer ignored or discounted. People must pay
attention to them now and work to make sure they have the same
opportunities as their nondisabled peers. To that end, NCLB and IDEA
have had a significant, positive impact. Teachers, administrators, and
the community are becoming aware of what students with disabilities are
capable of achieving if they are held to the same high standards and
expectations as general education students. Students with disabilities
have a wide range of talents, and it is up to the educational system to
make sure they are challenged and encouraged to develop their skills.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc184632934 .anchor}PART III. PERSPECTIVES OF KEY
STAKEHOLDERS

This section of the report provides an assessment of how NCLB, after
three more years of implementation, has impacted students with
disabilities. This section draws on interviews with disability policy,
education, and advocacy leaders, and with students with disabilities and
their parents.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc184632935 .anchor}The Current Environment

Attitudes and Expectations

We are in the middle of a dramatic change process, and we haven't
given it all the time it needs. Too many places are still in a
resistance mode. The possibility for change is great, and I would hate
to see it falter. ---Official

Since 2004 there has been a palpable and positive change in the overall
attitude of educators toward educating students with disabilities.
Educators expect students with disabilities to meet higher standards,
and students with disabilities have increased access to highly qualified
teachers and higher-level curricula. The full integration of students
with disabilities into general education is not complete, but progress
is very noticeable.

Most individuals interviewed for this report believe that the culture of
high expectations for students with disabilities---and, for that matter,
for all students---is taking root. They credit these attitudinal changes
to NCLB and to IDEA as reauthorized in 1997 and 2004. Interviewees
recognize that this is a momentous change and that the leadership from
both the president and the Congress and other national leaders has been
a key factor in making this social change. Even though outcome data from
standardized tests shows that certain subgroups (such as students with
disabilities and ELLs) do not always make AYP as required under NCLB,
more and more educators and policymakers are holding firm to the promise
of NCLB to ensure that every student is proficient at grade-level
standards. As one advocate said, "People teach what is tested and who is
tested---so now that students with disabilities are included in the
accountability system, they are being taught." This message seems to
have been internalized by educators over the past three years and has
also been very strongly embraced by the public, policymakers, and
advocates.

When asked whether students with disabilities are looked upon the same
way as general education students in the current environment,
individuals who were interviewed generally said there is much more
acceptance of students with disabilities in general education, but they
voiced some concerns nevertheless. A comment from one special educator
represented the opinion of many when she said:

Students with disabilities are still viewed as special education
students, but we have pushed hard to have them in general education. But
it takes some time for attitudes to change. Special education is not
being left out of the conversation on accountability any longer, which
is good. We are making progress in seeing students with disabilities as
general education students, but they still have special conditions which
require special services.

This tension between whether students with disabilities should be
considered as general education students or remain in the special
education system was expressed by several other interviewees.

There is a growing impression that students with disabilities are
considered to be part of general education classrooms, but they are
still considered separate and part of special education because of
their Individualized Education Plans. That is what sets them apart.\
---Special education teacher

One interviewee noted that differences in the type of disability can
result in differing perceptions of students' capabilities and, hence,
whether or not they are considered as general or special education
students.

Most people don't understand the differences between disability
categories and have in mind that all students with disabilities are
severely disabled. A lot of folks don't know much about learning
disabilities and therefore aren't aware that most learning-disabled kids
can be in general education and learn to high standards.
---Administrator

The seriousness of the disability also impacts how students with
disabilities are viewed vis-à-vis general education.

More students with disabilities are considered as general education
students, and there is a greater awareness of providing differentiated
curriculum for every student. But students with severe disabilities are
not viewed as general education students so much. The attitude of the
teacher is very important. Do they see the need for differentiated
education for all students, or do they see students with disabilities as
a separate group that has to be dealt with differently just because they
have a disability? We have to create more awareness of disabilities, and
we have to help teachers understand that by providing accommodations
it doesn't show preferential treatment. ---Administrator

Several other interviewees noted that there is a shift in thinking away
from seeing special education as a separate program and more as a
support to learning.

Students with disabilities are more often viewed as general education
students. Special education is a support system to help them succeed
in general education, rather than a special or separate program.\
---State official

One advocate expressed an opinion about the unique circumstances of
students with disabilities, however, that may prevent them from ever
completely being viewed as general education students.

Students with disabilities are not considered general education
students. Because you have to report on subgroups of students with
disabilities, they can't blend in, because the data are there on how
they do. The belief system hasn't really changed, although behavior and
actions are starting to change.

And from another advocate:

Students with disabilities are thought of as another group of students,
not general education students. But that is okay; they should always be
identified as special education students because they need special
services.

These comments demonstrate that there are still dividing lines between
students with disabilities and the general education population, but
those lines are becoming more blurred. However, by the nature of their
disability, some students will always need extra supports to allow them
access to the general education curriculum. Of course, students with
disabilities are not the only ones who need extra supports to access the
general education curriculum, and educators must recognize that
schooling should be intentionally structured to provide the necessary
supports for any student to succeed. Several interviewees acknowledged
that special education is by nature based on differentiated instruction,
which can help influence teaching strategies for all students.

Interviewees were asked how students with disabilities are viewed in the
overall accountability system and whether they were singled out because
the subgroup did not make AYP. Most indicated that there has not been
any serious backlash against students with disabilities, at least in
public. Comments from two administrators reflect this attitude:

We really haven't seen much backlash. We work to educate all our parents
about our situation, and our community is pretty supportive. We had two
middle schools that did not make AYP, but that wasn't because of
students with disabilities. There was a new math test that all students
had to take, and all students, not just students with disabilities, did
not do well on it.

We have had 30 years of inclusion, thanks to IDEA, and so inclusion is a
value that educators and the public care about, and schools have dealt
with it. Students with disabilities have a face and a name, and people
are accepting of students with disabilities, so I don't think there has
been a backlash against them.

Others expressed an opposite view, however, as represented by the
following comment:

Yes, there is a backlash. When you show students with disabilities in a
separate column, and it's very clear students with disabilities are the
reason for not making AYP, it puts pressure on families and students and
creates tension between students and teachers who are trying to improve
their scores. ---Advocate

Another advocate viewed the potential for backlash against students with
disabilities as an issue regarding the quality of the instruction and
the ability of the teacher to teach diverse students.

If the school is providing extra support for kids, and it helps them to
make progress, people know they are trying. But if teachers aren't
skilled to work with students with disabilities (or any student), they
may resent having special education students in their class. I'm not
sure kids get the backlash, unless you have very weak teachers who can't
help any students. Those teachers should not be in the classroom or need
to be given help so they can teach the kids. We have too many weak
teachers. Poor kids of color with disabilities---they are not treated
well at all. They are a subgroup that gets ignored, and they may suffer
from some backlash because they get identified as a failing category.

While there seems to be a perception among some that students with
disabilities (as well as ELLs) are holding schools back from making AYP,
the truth is quite different. A recent report from the Aspen Institute
showed that fewer-than-expected schools fail to meet AYP because of test
results for students with disabilities.

One common complaint of No Child Left Behind is that schools are not
making AYP solely because of children with disabilities or \[limited
English-proficient\] students. The analysis done for this report raises
questions about this claim due to the large numbers of schools in states
that do not have to report for these subgroups. Furthermore, even when
these subgroups do not meet their annual targets, they are very often
not the sole reason a school is identified as not making AYP.[^3]

Further analysis by the Aspen Institute reveals that of the 410 schools
in California that did not make AYP, only 28 failed solely because of
students with disabilities. In Michigan, only 54 of 436 schools that did
not make AYP failed solely because of students with disabilities. In
Florida, only 23 of a total of 3,106 schools that did not make AYP
failed solely because of students with disabilities.[^4] As similar data
become available, there seems to be a growing recognition that the
failure of schools to meet AYP is not solely due to the presence of
students with disabilities.

Academic Achievement of Students with Disabilities

There is general agreement that NCLB has helped improve the academic
performance of students on standardized tests. A recent report from the
Center for Education Policy states:

In most states with three or more years of comparable test data, student
achievement in reading and math has gone up since 2002, the year NCLB
was enacted. There is more evidence of achievement gaps between groups
of students narrowing since 2002 than of gaps widening. Still the
magnitude of the gaps is often substantial.[^5]

But many people caution that it is too early to tell whether or not NCLB
has had an impact on increasing academic achievement and skills of
students with disabilities. Because states are still developing and
implementing assessments and data reporting systems, instructional
frameworks, and curricula, as well as ensuring that all teachers are
highly qualified, it is, according to many interviewees, too soon to
judge the impact of all these changes on the academic performance of
students with disabilities. As one individual pointed out, "We need to
distinguish if students are getting smarter or getting smarter at taking
tests." Another interviewee carried that thought further.

It's way too soon to determine the impact of NCLB on academic
performance of students with disabilities. The implementation of the law
is so complex and is implemented across such a broad spectrum of schools
and communities \[that\] there is no way to say if NCLB has had an
impact. We need to ask a lot of questions about NCLB's impact on
students with disabilities---does it affect increased achievement or are
students benefiting from participating in the assessments, for example?
We don't know. We are only implementing the testing and accountability
structures of NCLB at this time. ---Advocate

According to the Center on Education Policy report,

Data for students with disabilities and limited English-proficient
students subgroups must be interpreted with caution because changes in
federal regulations and guidance and in state accountability plans may
have affected which students in these subgroups are tested for NCLB
accountability purposes, how they are tested, and when their test scores
are counted as proficient under NCLB. We do not believe the data are
reliable enough to be included in the national summary tables.[^6]

Many interviewees did report that state performance reports indicate
higher scores in math and English for elementary students with
disabilities but little improvement for students with disabilities at
the high school level. One state official from a state that had a
disaggregated accountability system in place before NCLB (and therefore
a longer period of time to track results) said:

Academic performance for students with disabilities has improved to some
extent. There is an increase in students with disabilities who are
scoring in the proficient range of tests more often.

Interviewees all agreed that NCLB has had an impact on programs for
students with disabilities and that there is much more attention focused
on improving the academic performance of students with disabilities. But
most felt it has not translated into actual academic improvements yet
because it takes time to prepare teachers and to change instruction.

NCLB has had an impact on programs for students with disabilities, but
it's not clear if it's had an impact on improvement of academic
outcomes. It's raised the profile of students with disabilities in terms
of expectations. They are now expected to achieve mastery. This has
probably had a positive affect on academic achievement, but the data are
not very clear. Not a lot has changed about the level of teacher ability
to deal with students with disabilities and to increase inclusion in
general education.\
---Advocate

Reporting Disaggregated Outcome Data

There is no question that the intent of NCLB is what it should be. By
disaggregating data by subgroup, we can finally see what is happening
to students, and . . . that has had an untold benefit for students with
disabilities. ---Administrator

Since 2004 there has been widespread acceptance of the importance and
need to report outcome data disaggregated by subgroups. When NCLB was
first being implemented, there was some resistance to this provision,
but three years later, almost without exception policymakers, educators,
advocates, and parents sing the praises of the disaggregated reporting
requirements of the law. That does not necessarily mean that all the
data are of high quality, are complete, or make sense to the general
public. Nevertheless, educators can no longer cover up the poor
performance of subgroups of students by reporting average test scores.

A common phrase used by many interviewees was "Accountability means
there is no place to hide." Schools now have to honestly account for the
performance of every student. The following quote represents the
attitude of many interviewees:

The biggest impact is that every building administrator knows the scores
of students with disabilities in their building, and they know they have
to do something about it. It brings it into the daylight. Scores allow
people to see what is happening, which is a good thing, but then they
have to act upon it.

More Supports Needed for Students with Disabilities

Educators are increasingly aware of the need to provide lower-performing
students with extra supports to allow them to learn to high standards.
Many educators refer to this as providing differentiated instruction
based on the needs of each student. This approach is very similar to the
development of an IEP for special education students, as it spells out
what type of instruction each particular student needs in order to
develop proficiency. With subgroup reporting, educators are much more
aware of the need to provide intensive instructional supports to certain
categories of students, including students with disabilities, English
language learners, and students reading below grade level.

One of the first steps to help students meet grade-level proficiency
standards is to provide them with access to a higher-level curriculum or
the grade-level curriculum, if they have not been taught at grade level.
Since 2004, students with disabilities are, according to interviewees,
gaining much more access to grade-level curriculum. This move began with
the reauthorization of IDEA in 1997, and NCLB has continued this press
for students with disabilities. Students with disabilities are also
increasingly being expected to take high school exit exams in states
that administer them, which means those students must have access to the
curriculum. As one advocate said,

If kids have had access to high-level curriculum, they probably did okay
on the high school exit exams, and if they didn't, it's a problem not
just for students with disabilities, but all poor kids. This is not
new---that kids were not passing the tests---it's just more visible.
Malpractice in schools has been going on long before NCLB, and it's
going on now.

Another advocate provided a broader perspective on making a higher-level
curriculum available to all students.

NCLB has had a major affect on students with disabilities because
schools were never held accountable for those students and now they are.
People don't like being held accountable but now they are. The
disability issue is really misunderstood by the general public and
educators as well. For example, many learning-disabled students never
learned to read. If they had been identified at an early age and given
the appropriate help, they would never be in special education. What we
need to do is focus on younger students and earlier identification of
their educational needs and reduce the numbers in special education and
get them the educational support so they can learn to read. I'm proud of
the disability community for hanging in there with regard to supporting
NCLB.

If students with disabilities are going to access a higher-level
curriculum, they need to have well-trained teachers---with strong
content knowledge and pedagogical strategies---to make that curriculum
learnable. One of the most common strategies for providing access to the
general education and higher-level curricula for students with
disabilities is to develop collaborative teaching relationships between
special and general education teachers. Most interviewees said this
collaborative approach is becoming much more common and that both sets
of teachers are benefiting from this closer contact.

There has been an impact on curriculum and instruction, both for special
education and general education. General education is now much more
aware of teaching students with disabilities and special education
pedagogical strategies, and special education is now much more aware of
standards and content. The two are working together to change the face
of education. Because students are assessed against the same standard,
all students are getting access to the same curriculum.\
---Official

The special education teachers do not have the freedom any longer to
ignore the general education curriculum, such as reading and math.
Regular education teachers have taken an affirmative role in working
with special education teachers to help them to better understand the
requirements of the general education curriculum. Regular education
teachers are directly involved in looking at the special education
curriculum and making sure it provides the necessary academic skills.\
---Administrator

But the issue of the capacity of the teaching force was raised over and
over again during the interviews.

We are moving more students with disabilities to general education and
getting them access to curriculum and testing requirements, which means
they have to get better teaching in order to pass the test. So we need
better teachers and better teaching in order for this to really work.
---Advocate

One researcher indicated that several states had been working to develop
the capacity of teachers and to provide guidance on teaching special
education students.

There have been some positive, organized efforts at the state level.
Massachusetts created a resource guide both for general and special
education teachers because all teachers need to learn how to work with
special education students. Ohio developed materials for principals to
help them become instructional leaders to deal with this issue. Ohio
also identified schools of promise that do well under NCLB with all the
subgroups, and they identified schools of distinction that do well with
students with disabilities, so other schools could learn from them.

Several interviewees also sounded a cautionary note about focusing too
exclusively on grade-level standards to the point that the special
education curriculum is ignored, which may prevent students with
disabilities from learning necessary skills.

There can be too much alignment of the special education curriculum with
the general education curriculum for students with severe disabilities.
They still need an individualized approach, and we can't ignore that.
---Administrator

Schools Still Focusing on Compliance with NCLB

States, districts, and schools are still engaged to a large extent in
compliance with the requirements of NCLB, which is preventing them from
focusing their efforts on instructional change and teacher development.
States are still in the process of designing assessment systems
(particularly the alternate and modified assessments); working to meet
the highly qualified teacher requirements; and providing timely
notification of testing results to schools, teachers, and parents.
Additionally, guidance from the U.S. Department of Education[^7] has
often been inconsistent or slow in coming, which has slowed down the
implementation at the state and district levels. Many of the
interviewees noted that the real work of instructional reform and
providing a high-level differentiated curriculum to every student is
just now beginning.

We have spent most of the last four years on compliance for NCLB.
Educators have not gotten deeply into changing curriculum and
instruction. There is more attention placed on curriculum, but not on
revising the curriculum to really make a difference. We need more time
and a sharper focus on changing curriculum. ---Policymaker

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc184632936 .anchor}Challenges and Issues

There is a sea change in education, but there is still much work to do.\
---Official

The following section of the report addresses various challenges and
issues that were identified by interviewees and hinted at in the
previous section.

Culture and Belief Systems

We learned from the interviews that, increasingly, educators and
policymakers believe all students can learn to higher standards and that
this perception is growing stronger all the time. However, when students
with disabilities are considered, there is still some hesitation about
the extent to which they can learn to grade-level proficiency standards.
The interviewees, all very familiar with various types of disabilities,
believe that every student with a disability can learn to higher
standards than previously expected, but they were also quick to point
out that the type of disability a student has can have a significant
impact on the level of learning. They also believed that the general
public has a monolithic perception of students with disabilities
(generally focusing on more severe disabilities) and assumes that
students with disabilities are incapable of learning to higher
standards. Because the public (and some teachers) does not understand
the various gradations of disability, they are often less willing to
believe that students with an IEP are capable of mastering a high-level
curriculum.

Several interviewees pointed out that it is critical to differentiate
between various types of disability category in order to keep the
pressure on to integrate special education students into general
education. This is particularly important for learning-disabled students
who most people agree can learn to grade-level standards if given more
time and supports.

There is so much lumping together of disabilities, and we need to
really differentiate them. NCLB should have more varied testing and
accountability standards for students with disabilities given the
differences in disabilities. NCLB should be more sophisticated in its
requirements for proficiency, not just one standard. ---Researcher

Because some districts allow students with disabilities to be given
assessments that can be less rigorous than the regular assessments, it
reinforces the idea with the public that students with disabilities
cannot perform to grade-level proficiency. Guidance on which students
with disabilities fall into the 1 percent and 2 percent categories for
alternate and modified assessments has been slow in coming from the U.S.
Department of Education, and therefore states are still in the process
of finalizing not only the actual assessments but also their processes
for determining which students fall into which category.

What group of students should be held at alternate standards? We don't
have a good evidentiary base of knowledge to make these decisions, and
teachers and staff don't know how to make these decisions. We need much
more teacher preparation/professional development on this issue.\
---Advocate

In addition to this confusion, there is the very real issue of accepting
the fact that some students with severe disabilities will never be able
to master grade-level or, in some cases, an academic curriculum. This
reality begs the question: How can these vastly competing visions be
reconciled?

There is an assumption that students with disabilities should be
expected to meet the standards, but many students with disabilities
cannot. However, we shouldn't just place these students into the 1
percent category. The 1 percent doesn't make sense to me and is a
completely arbitrary number---where did it come from? ---Administrator

We set expectations for students with disabilities to meet NCLB
standards, but some have real problems because of their disability, and
we negate the importance of their IEP and individualized learning
process because we are trying too hard to get them to pass the NCLB
tests. Even their parents know they will never pass the grade-level
test, and the parents just want them to learn some important life
skills. ---Administrator

The extreme alignment of special education instruction to the general
education curriculum for every student with disabilities can have
negative consequences. It's okay for the mild and moderately disabled
student to participate in the general education curriculum, but for
severely disabled students, having so much alignment with the general
education curriculum means they may not be getting the special
accommodations or instruction they really need. Some teachers are taking
it to the extreme. For a typical learning-disabled student, it's good to
look at the general education curriculum, but for severely disabled
students, it may be much more important for them to learn life skills
than math skills. We need to be cognizant of what the student needs and
is able to do. ---Administrator

Because the issue of expectations drives so much instructional practice
and classroom behavior, it is important to have clarity on what should
be expected of students with disabilities. Research on academic
achievement by students with various types of disabilities would be
helpful for educators as they set goals for students with disabilities
to learn to higher standards. This information would also help
distinguish between the capabilities of learning-disabled students and
those with more serious disabilities.

Capacity Building

Much of the discussion of helping all students achieve to high standards
comes down to the capacity of the system to deliver the appropriate
instruction and needed supports. And the number one issue is, of course,
the skill level of the classroom teachers that work not only with
students with disabilities but also with all students---be they
lower-performing, ELL, or gifted children. Without prompting, almost
every interviewee raised the issue of highly qualified teachers as a key
provision to help students with disabilities achieve to higher
standards.

First, there were a number of questions about what highly qualified
means for special education teachers and whether NCLB and IDEA defined
it appropriately.

What does highly qualified mean for a special education teacher? This is
a really interesting issue that confounds me. Under NCLB we ask special
education teachers to become expert in a content area so they can
instruct students with disabilities in that content area. But the
general education teacher, who already has the content expertise, has
tried to teach the student with disabilities the content and it didn't
work---which is why the student is in special education. We repeat the
content preparation that wasn't successful with the child before. So why
are we thinking that more content will make a difference with students
with disabilities, if it's just the same thing as what the general
education teachers did? \[Highly qualified\] for special education
teachers should mean more intensive reading or math instructional
skills, or knowing more about a certain disability or condition. Our
state is requiring special education teachers to take the Praxis,[^8]
and we offer training sessions, free content preparation courses, and
Web-based training. So we'll probably have more highly qualified special
education teachers on paper, but will it really help teach students with
disabilities what they need? Down the road, I don't think we will have
many special education teachers that are career professionals. They will
leave, and we are \[already\] seeing a revolving door for special
education teachers. ---Administrator

The following comment also relates to clarifying the role of the content
expert and the special education teacher:

Special education teachers are still in the best position to provide
access to students with disabilities to the curriculum. Special
education teachers are better prepared to know instructional strategies,
and we should not necessarily require all special education teachers to
be content experts. The content expert teacher should be the lead, and
the special education teacher should help provide access and break down
the content so students with disabilities can access it. Team teaching
is very important. We also have some concerns that special education
teachers will leave the profession in increasing numbers.
---Administrator

While it is clear that students with disabilities are getting increased
access to highly qualified teachers, there remain many challenges to
guarantee that teachers are actually having an impact on student
learning. When general and special education teachers are team teaching,
it appears to make the curriculum more accessible and learnable.
However, we know that not every school has an equitable distribution of
highly qualified teachers and students, and poorer schools and districts
suffer from this imbalance of skilled teachers.[^9]

NCLB will make a difference in improving the quality of the program, but
teacher preparation programs don't change overnight, and teachers don't
know how to meet the needs of students with disabilities. Not a lot has
changed about the level of teacher ability to deal with students with
disabilities and to increase inclusion in general education. Teacher
ability will ensure the success of students with disabilities in the
general education curriculum, but teacher education hasn't changed
enough yet, and teachers don't have those skills. ---Advocate

There was also concern about finding and retaining enough special
education teachers, especially in light of the highly qualified teacher
requirements under NCLB.

There is a huge cohort of special education teachers near retirement
age, and we are pushing them into retirement more quickly. Where are we
going to find warm bodies to replace them? We are driving out good
teachers, not just bad teachers. The mandates and processes of NCLB have
made it impossible for many teachers. There was an attempt in IDEA to
fix the issue of requiring teachers to have subject area competence, but
we didn't go far enough to fix it. There has to be a happy medium in
expecting highly qualified teachers in content and having them possess
the pedagogy to teach students with disabilities. ---Advocate

Several interviewees raised the role of higher education and teacher
licensing, but the conversations did not explore how these systems could
more strongly support the development of highly qualified special
education teachers. Rather, those conversations largely indicated that
higher education needs to be revamped to meet current teaching demands.
This is an area that should be reviewed more carefully.

Higher education \[teacher preparation programs\] has not been quick to
make changes and retool. General education teachers can get through four
years of college and never have to take classes on differentiated
teaching for students with disabilities, and special education teachers
don't have to learn content. After this many years of NCLB, you would
think we would be farther along. It's troubling that higher education is
so slow to change and professional development is such a big issue. We
need to tailor professional development to what teachers need \[in
order\] to help students with disabilities get access to the general
education curriculum and then figure out what works. ---Advocate

We should use computers to provide individual assessments and
instruction geared to each student's needs; have daily diagnostic
assessments that lead to accountability assessments and changes in
instruction. It's possible, but we haven't developed the infrastructure,
such as the training of teachers to use diagnostic, ongoing assessment
to influence instruction. But there is pressure on the system from NCLB
for greater accountability, and that is pushing the higher education
system to change. ---Researcher

The strongest focus on capacity building was, for obvious reasons, on
the teacher workforce, but interviewees also stressed the need for
school principals to set the tone for the school by first creating the
culture of high expectations for all students---especially students with
disabilities---and then serving as an instructional leader who could
support differentiated learning strategies. Interviewees also mentioned
the role of school counselors and their importance in being trained to
work with students with disabilities, both for course selection and with
transition planning. Several of those interviewed raised the issue of
textbooks and curricular materials. They hoped to move toward a
universal design for curriculum so all students could have access to the
material. As one administrator suggested:

> We need products to help all teachers teach all students. We need
> products that include differentiated instruction, and variability in
> material. We need variance, not deviance. We need to have curriculum
> that uses embedded assessments, multiple competencies, progress
> monitoring, response to intervention, and individualized strategies.

Capacity is also desperately needed in the area of test development.
Several interviewees indicated that it would be very timely and helpful
to have access to alternate and modified assessments to learn how to
best structure and design such tests. Having the federal government
provide development work in this area would be helpful, as tests are
expensive and time consuming to develop. And, given that most states
have not yet developed alternate assessments based on modified academic
achievement standards and alternate assessments based on alternative
academic achievement standards, many students with disabilities are not
even being assessed or counted.

Last, educators need access to information about which instructional
strategies help lower-performing students succeed. This is not just an
issue in teaching students with disabilities; it applies to teaching all
lower-performing students.

Title I directors are putting out more information on how to help these
populations. We identified that teaching English language learners and
students with disabilities would become a big issue under NCLB, and we
needed to help them figure it out. But the U.S. Department of Education
is not providing any information on how to serve these challenging
populations. The civil servants at the Department are scared to admit
there are problems in serving students under NCLB and therefore are not
sharing information. ---Administrator

Ensuring Access to High-Quality Instruction and Services

If one accepts that students with disabilities can achieve to higher
standards, it follows that they must have access to high-quality
education and services to meet those standards. Interviewees generally
agreed that if students had access to a high-quality
curriculum---aligned to high school exit exams, for example---then
students should pass the tests. However, it is clear that this is not
always happening, and more than just students with disabilities are
affected.

Opportunities need to be enhanced for students with disabilities to be
prepared to participate in high school exit exams, just not at the
expense of a well-rounded curriculum. This is true for all students. If
students aren't passing high school exit exams, this should raise the
question, why not? And then, it should lead to improving the quality of
instruction. ---Policymaker

Students with disabilities are not being prepared for high school exit
exams. It's not just students with significant impairments; it's also
learning-disabled kids with minor disabilities. ---Administrator

Minority and poor students with disabilities are much less prepared than
students from higher incomes or students with disabilities from
wealthier families. ---Advocate

For most students with disabilities, if they are getting a high-quality
education, they can pass high school exit exams. I'm a fan of high
school exit exams. It's not about the exams; it's about the quality of
education that all students are getting. ---Advocate

It was quite clear that many students with disabilities have been placed
in lower-level classes that do not prepare them for high school exit
exams. The requirement of NCLB to test all students is having the
desired impact of identifying groups of students who have been
previously unchallenged. An interesting comment about placing students
with disabilities into more demanding curriculum has resulted in
focusing attention on what was happening to students with disabilities
before NCLB.

No one has been honest about why students with disabilities are suddenly
being placed in classrooms with highly qualified teachers. Parents are
asking, "Why is my child being moved?" The schools are afraid to admit
that students with disabilities have been in classrooms with generically
certified special education teachers, who don't know the content, and
now they are required to have students taught by highly qualified
teachers, so they move them to a classroom with a teacher with content
knowledge. But what does that mean has been happening for the past
several years? It means that students with disabilities have been in
classrooms where they are not getting the content. It's hard to admit
that. ---Advocate

Another concern stated by several interviewees related to the quality of
the high school diploma offered. In some states, there is only one
diploma for everyone, but other states offer various diplomas that are
of lesser academic value, a clear signal that students are not being
challenged.

In our state, you can get a modified diploma that does not require you
to take core classes, so a student can take more electives. And there
aren't any end-of-course exams for most electives, so kids don't get
tested. We need to make sure that more students with disabilities are
placed in the core classes that have end-of-course exams, rather than
put them in classes where they don't have to take those tests. We need
to move more kids into the regular diploma track, not the modified
diploma track. ---Administrator

While students with IEPs are provided with additional instructional
supports, little attention has been paid to how students with
disabilities are being involved in after-school or supplemental learning
opportunities. NCLB requires schools that are in need of improvement to
offer Supplemental Education Services (SESs) to students in those
schools. SESs generally involve tutoring and remediation, but it is up
to the student and parent to access these services. While the school is
supposed to provide a list of SES providers, many parents---especially
those of students with disabilities---are not informed about the
availability of SESs. In addition, according to the Great Lakes Center
for Education Research & Practice:

Under current regulations, SES providers are not required to provide
services to students with disabilities or those learning English. One
study in a large urban school district reported that in fact, none of
the district's top eight \[SES\] providers served ELL or special
education students.[^10]

Clearly, students with disabilities are not getting the complete access
they deserve and to which they are entitled.

Several interviewees felt that some schools are being selective in
providing extra supports to students. For instance, if a school has
limited resources (in terms of time and teachers) and can focus merely
on a limited number of students to help them pass tests, interviewees
said that schools are deciding to work with the students who are only a
few points away from passing the test, rather than working with students
who have little chance of passing. While one can rationalize this type
of behavior given the deadlines and pressures to meet AYP, it clearly
goes against the fundamental purpose of NCLB and means that many
students are being left out of the press to increase access to more
rigorous instruction.

Measuring Performance

A report on NCLB would not be complete without a discussion of testing.
Almost without exception, interviewees felt that there was too much
testing as a result of NCLB and that it is having unintended and
negative consequences on both students and schools. There was also
discussion of how a number of states have postponed or delayed
implementation of certain testing requirements. It is clear that NCLB
has put tremendous pressure on states and districts, and they are
beginning to learn, through data, the full extent of how difficult it is
to have every student learn to high standards.

Measuring the performance of students with disabilities is one of the
largest challenges for states, and states are dealing with the challenge
in different ways. Alaska excluded students with disabilities from the
high school exit exam system. California delayed the high school exit
exam system to allow schools more time to prepare students. Other states
have elaborate systems for accommodating students with disabilities. In
states with established exam systems, you don't hear as many complaints,
so they may have worked out systems and processes to help students with
disabilities, after accommodation and alternative testing has been
developed, to help students meet exit exams. States are working to
develop alternative assessment methods, such as portfolios or creating
alternate routes to diplomas. But you're not always sure what standards
for alternative routes are being used and whether they are as high or
rigorous as the state exit exams. ---Researcher

The closer you get to the classroom, the more negative are the comments
made about NCLB's testing requirements. Teachers routinely say there is
too much testing, too much teaching to the test, and not enough time to
explore interesting and relevant curricula. Several reports have also
noted a decrease in the number of electives being taught.[^11]

Everything revolves around testing and the punitive nature of the
system. It pervades everything, and kids pick up on it. And then you
have the stress of the IEP. Teachers don't feel like they can just try
something creative or different to help meet the needs of students with
disabilities. There is no time to be creative---teachers are always
planning for tests. It is a constant struggle to try to figure out how
to make it work for kids when the curriculum is very rigid and what kids
need are flexibility and creativity and individualized approaches.
---Advocate

On the positive side, teachers are preparing students for what they know
will be on the test. The challenge is that teachers are so focused on
preparing students for tests and not being creative in ways that will
help students learn. It's "hurry up and teach to meet the test," and
there's only one way. Alternate means of education are going away, and
that scares me. I needed things taught to me in a different way, an
alternative way, and I needed to demonstrate my knowledge in different
ways, like classroom presentations or writing a response instead of
taking a multiple choice test, which was hard for me. Why can't we have
options like that? ---Advocate

Several comments were made about how the focus on making AYP has
prevented teachers from providing a rich curriculum that meets the
individual needs of each student.

The emphasis on AYP takes away from what might make sense for kids and
in providing a meaningful curriculum. Is getting a test score meaningful
education or a meaningful measurement? I would say not. Should we focus
on just a test score? No. This attitude affects all students but is more
pronounced for students with disabilities. We are very concerned about
the quality of the curriculum. NCLB is keeping us from providing the
best curriculum we can. ---Administrator

At the high school level, the focus is on getting kids ready for
college, but we need to prepare kids for what they will do after high
school, and we need better transition for students with disabilities and
all kids. For example, how do you fit in life-skills training when there
is so much focus on academic skills? The ability to address transition
skills is getting squeezed out by the focus on academic issues.
---Administrator

As you advance up the education bureaucracy ladder, there begins to be a
shift in feeling about tests. District- and state-level administrators
see the value of outcome data across schools because they can then drive
resources into lower-performing schools. Federal-level policymakers and
advocates are committed to measuring student performance through some
type of testing structure. As Congress debates the reauthorization of
the No Child Left Behind Act, there is an emerging position that NCLB's
process of measuring adequate yearly progress could be improved, but the
notion of testing students to see what they know is firmly embedded.

Despite the overall agreement that students need to be tested,
interviewees mentioned a host of concerns about the impact of testing on
students with disabilities and how the alternate and modified
assessments fit within the overall accountability system. Comments were
made regarding the stress placed on students with disabilities and how
some of them, particularly learning-disabled students, would be brought
to tears during testing time.

I've heard innumerable stories from legislators that students with
disabilities are being humiliated by having to take tests that they know
they can't do. Special education teachers say, "We didn't become special
education teachers to humiliate these students, to remind them they
can't do the work." The testing makes students with disabilities feel
like failures. ---Advocate

Given the pressures on educators to make AYP, interviewees shared
numerous stories of states, districts, and schools that found ways to
discount or hide students with disabilities in their accountability
systems. It is hard to determine how widespread these practices are, but
given the small number of educators interviewed for this project, these
themes surfaced quite often.

I've heard of the "enrolled grade game," where students are held back
during testing years---this is more relevant to younger grades, but also
affects high school students. For example, if the high school exit exam
is in grade 10, the students are held back in grade 9 and then just show
up later as an 11th-grade student that didn't take the test. One state
has a policy against this, so, clearly, people have been thinking of
this. There are loopholes and game playing. This is likely to affect the
students who are the lowest performing, which include students with
disabilities, but it's not just students with disabilities.
---Researcher

In years when NCLB tests are given, students with disabilities might be
held back prior to the testing year. This is evident in our research
because class size in one state doubled from what it was the year
before. ---Researcher

I heard of an instance where a superintendent was not identifying the
same numbers of students with disabilities as before because they are
burying them in general education, and then they don't count as a
subgroup. Some schools encourage students with disabilities to stay home
during testing. ---Official

In addition to these comments, interviewees had plenty to say about the
now-infamous "N-size" cohorts selected for subgroups. An N-size refers
to the state-determined size of the student subgroup for which reporting
of disaggregated data is required. For example, in California the N-size
for student subgroups is 50, which means that if a school does not have
50 students in a particular subgroup (students with disabilities in
grade 5, for instance), they would not have to report on the performance
of that group on the standardized tests. Therefore, a higher N-size
means fewer students are counted and fewer schools, presumably, are
found to be in need of improvement. Since states all have different
N-sizes, there is almost no way to compare states with regard to the
number of schools that make AYP.

Many states have set higher N-sizes than were warranted, perhaps, in
order to avoid reporting on the subgroups. One interviewee provided a
very practical rationale for this behavior. If more schools are
identified as in need of improvement because they did not meet AYP, then
the state or district has to find the money to pay for needed services
at many schools. By setting high N-size numbers, states will most likely
reduce the number of schools identified as in need of improvement,
therefore reducing the stress on the budget.

Interviewees generally felt that it would not be workable to have a
federal standard for the N-size; to them, it would make sense to "have a
range of N-sizes based on the size of the school." Some of those
interviewed, however, felt it was important to take into account such
characteristics as the type of students, the location of schools (rural
or urban), the population of states, and the numbers of students with
disabilities in the school.

We can't set a federal standard. There is always going to be an inequity
between urban and rural communities and schools because rural schools
are so small and their N-size is of no consequence. ---Official

One official suggested that as all schools begin to drill down deeper to
serve all students in their quest for 100 percent proficiency, the
N-size issue will eventually fade away.

The issue of N-size is perhaps an unnecessary discussion, because
everyone is going to get caught up in reporting on subgroups at some
point, regardless of what their N-size is. We are starting with urban
schools because they are getting identified sooner by their N-sizes. The
targets will catch up with everyone eventually as we keep drilling down.
In our state we set an N-size of 30 for purposes of NCLB, but then for
the state accreditation process, we required schools to use an N-size of
10.

Interviewees told of other ways of gaming the system to ensure either
that students with disabilities were not counted or to prevent too many
schools from being labeled as in need of improvement.

Our state created a special diploma for students with disabilities if
they can't meet the state testing requirements to earn the standard
diploma. These special diplomas don't get counted under NCBL. We're not
pushing kids to take that diploma, because it has reduced expectations,
but it exists. ---Administrator

In our state, if the only thing that keeps a school or district from
making AYP is the students with disabilities subgroup, then the school
or district can add 14 points for reading and 17 points for math (a
proxy) to their passing rate so they can usually make AYP.
---Administrator

Our state has an odd system. We got permission from the U.S. Department
of Education to grant waivers to schools that don't make AYP because of
the performance of students with disabilities. If a school does not make
AYP because of students with disabilities, the schools are allowed to
offer a modified assessment to them, because if the test were modified,
the assumption is that they would pass. However, the reality is that the
modified tests do not exist, so they are granting waivers even though
students with disabilities aren't being tested. The state department of
education is making this decision by looking at individual IEPs and how
schools have helped the students meet the standard. But since there is
no modified exam, it's just done by eyeball, and is very subjective.
What does accountability mean when you allow schools to avoid measuring
this way? What does it say to parents? ---Advocate

Another important question to ask is whether the system is actively
finding ways to keep students with disabilities out of the
accountability system, as was referenced in several comments stated
earlier.

Our state has already decided to delay the requirement for students
with disabilities and English language learners to 2011. Students with
disabilities are not being prepared and have not had adequate access
to the curriculum to be able to pass end-of-course exams. ---Advocate

After considering the issue of too much testing and the unintended
consequences of testing on students with disabilities, interviewees
provided some thoughts about what an accountability system should
measure. First, several interviewees felt it was more important to
measure school performance than individual student performance. They
recognized that individual student assessments are needed but that they
should inform instruction, not be used as part of an accountability
system. And there were various questions about what standardized tests
can really tell you about a student's ability to succeed in the world.
One individual asked, "What do standardized tests, high school
graduation rates, or dropout rates really tell you in terms of how
students with disabilities are prepared for life?"

Our state requires all kids to pass geometry, but does every kid need to
pass the test? There is no flexibility in the math
requirement---everyone has to pass geometry. But what if you take three
or four other high-level math courses---why do you have to take the
geometry test? A student with a spatial disability will have a very
difficult time passing this test, but could pass other high-level math.
The rigidity of the tests and the curriculum is a problem. We don't want
to dumb down the curriculum, but there should be more flexibility.
---Advocate

Most interviewees felt that the NCLB's academic focus on English
language arts and math was correct, because academics are the
underpinning for all other work. However, most individuals felt that
students with disabilities are being shortchanged by not measuring other
important outcomes. These professionals felt that accountability systems
need to measure occupational and technical skills, employability skills,
behavioral and attitudinal skills, and, particularly for students with
disabilities, life skills. One interviewee also suggested that parental
satisfaction should be measured as part of an accountability system.

We would like to see employability and life skills in an accountability
system. It's hard to meet the four-year graduation rate for some
students with disabilities, but they can still improve their skills. The
academic focus on NCLB has pushed out some career and technical
education classes, which is what some students with disabilities really
need. So it's hard for us in special education to provide students with
disabilities with appropriate classes in occupational training.
---Administrator

But the challenges of incorporating these other domains in
accountability and assessment systems are great. First, there are very
few good assessment tools for testing noncognitive skills, and some
skills are very difficult to measure. As we are seeing with the
development of the alternate and modified assessments, it is a
time-consuming process to develop effective, fair, and valid assessments
for all groups of students. An administrator made the following
excellent point about what we should expect a federal accountability
system to measure for students with disabilities:

In a federal accountability system, the focus should just be on
academics, as long as they are measured appropriately. It would be hard
to measure all the different things included in an IEP because there are
too many IEP goals. We have transition measures, for example, as part of
IEP, but we wouldn't want them included in a federal assessment system.

The use of alternate and modified assessments for students with
disabilities was frequently mentioned during interviews. Individuals at
various levels stressed the difficulty in developing quality
assessments, in determining which students should take them, and in
calibrating the alternate assessments to standardized tests in a way
that makes sense to the public.

Proficiency on an alternate assessment is not the equivalent of
proficiency on a regular assessment, and we are fooling ourselves if we
say \[it is\]. It undermines the credibility of the special education
system/teachers with the general public because the general public
thinks the two assessments are equivalent (because we're reporting them
as equivalent), but they aren't. The general public doesn't understand
how special education students could be proficient on standardized
tests. Parents of students with disabilities understand that the
alternate assessments are not equivalent because they know their kids,
but the general public is confused by this reporting. ---Advocate

A number of interviewees raised the issue of which students were being
placed in the 1 percent and 2 percent categories for alternate
assessments and whether these categories met the needs of students with
disabilities.

My biggest concern is that there is a group of kids that are still
falling through the cracks and that are struggling to meet the
standards. They are not in the 1 percent. They are gray-area kids, gap
kids. When the Department of Education came out with the 2 percent
regulations, we were hoping that would help deal with these kids. We
wanted to have the flexibility to change the test so that it did not
have to be on grade level. But the department said for the 2 percent
kids that the test could be made easier, but it still had to be on grade
level. These kids will probably do better than they have ever done
before, but they will never be proficient on our state test. They must
be tested on the same content as other students in their grade, and
while we can make the test easier, we don't think all kids will be able
to master that. It won't help with these gray-area kids.
---Administrator

Several interviewees also raised the issue of the cost of alternate
assessments, both in terms of development and the amount of time it
takes away from classroom teaching.

For the 1 percent kids, there will be an inevitable increase in the
costs of testing---how much does it cost to develop tests based on
modified standards and assessments? A lot. Teachers spend an inordinate
amount of time with each student to administer these tests. Example: It
takes 30 days to administer one test to a severely disabled student (one
who has cerebral palsy and is in a wheelchair). What is the cost to the
teacher, the cost to develop the assessments, the cost to administer the
test, and finally, does it really reflect student achievement at all?
---Administrator

For the 1 percent kids, the alternate test will consume a lot of their
day, and I'm not sure if it's good or bad. It's good that they are being
tested on more rigorous material, but what does the test really tell
you? We should be focused on post-school outcomes. Why require students
to take an 11th-grade math test, for example, when they really need to
learn skills for a job? We really need to focus on post-school outcomes
and put much less emphasis on testing. ---Advocate

Developing growth models as a way to measure academic performance
engendered some very thoughtful and interesting comments. While some
education leaders in the Congress seem to be leaning toward adopting a
growth model system, most of those interviewed for this project felt
that the knowledge based on growth models was too limited to allow for
wide-scale application and that they are much more complicated than the
rhetoric implies. Most interviewees also felt that growth models, while
extremely appropriate in many ways for students with disabilities, could
return practice to pre-NCLB days, when students with disabilities were
not held to a common standard. They felt this would be a negative step,
as students with disabilities have greatly benefited by being held to
higher expectations and being included in general accountability
systems.

While there is a natural tension between the growth model assessment and
measuring against a prescribed proficiency level, most interviewees felt
it was important to maintain some absolute standard.

Some combination of a growth model and absolute standard would be ideal.
Growth models without a standard won't be sufficient. If we start
changing the measurements, we'll muck it up. We should let states work
it out. Don't jettison AYP and replace it with a growth model or we'll
be having the same conversation in five years, just about a different
kind of assessment. ---Advocate

We need to have absolute standards because too many kids are getting by
without learning essential skills and knowledge. Too many "fake A's." We
have to have agreement on what counts because we are all in the same
labor market.

One advocate disagreed with holding students to an absolute standard;
she argued instead for a time-based proficiency assessment.

There should not be an absolute standard because then it's not a growth
model, unless we had open-ended time to meet the growth standard. If you
don't have the ability to set the starting point and if you can't extend
the time for learning, growth models can't really be done. A hybrid
growth model (growth model and absolute standards) is not the answer to
solve the problem of AYP. If growth models were real and we had
open-ended time frames and realistic expectations about what could be
achieved, it might work.

Under a growth model system, you will have to determine how much
progress is being made by students with disabilities. Some can make a
year's worth of progress in a year and others can't due to their
disability or because they have not had access to the curriculum or
because their IEP is so poorly designed that it doesn't take into
account the true educational needs of the student in order to meet
higher expectations. Based on the disability, that's one thing. Students
will progress, but if they progress at slower rates, is it because of
the profound disability or it is because the education they are getting
is so poor? That will be hard to sort out, and you definitely cannot
leave this to the IEP team to figure out because they might be making
bad placements or bad education decisions---mostly because they just
don't know and haven't been expected to make sure students with
disabilities have complete access and support to learn the general
education curriculum. ---Advocate

Another approach that some interviewees suggested was to allow the IEP
to serve as the standard for high school completion. One official even
suggested that the standard for passing should be when a student with a
disability fulfilled his or her IEP.

Valid accommodations that allow students to take the test to demonstrate
what they know should include extended time, such as five to six years
in high school. Also, when a student with disabilities fulfills his/her
IEP, then that should be the standard for passing high school.
---Official

Questions were also raised about how important it is to develop a body
of knowledge and research on how students with various categories of
disabilities perform and progress academically.

Students with disabilities, especially the 1 percent and 2 percent
groups, are a perfect place to start to build individual growth models
because each student is so different. One assessment is not enough for
all the 1 percent kids because they have such specific needs and they
are so different. We need to establish a realistic and challenging
trajectory of growth for each student. But this is easier said than
done. But we are beginning to see some of the research and data about
where students with disabilities are performing, what progress they can
make, and where we need to expect students to be in a year. This kind of
research can help inform the development of individual growth targets,
just like an IEP, for each student with disabilities. However, all
teachers need to be made aware of this information. We need to develop
realistic expectations based on the potential of each child. There are
confounding factors that make this difficult for each child, and they
need to be taken into consideration, but we need to challenge them to do
the work. Even with the 2 percent kids, which includes the severely
learning-disabled, they will probably not be able to meet the standard
in one year, but they can probably make it within a longer period of
time, and we need to determine what they can do. An absolute standard
for the majority of kids is on target, but for special education
students, they don't fit, and time is the issue. ---Official

A researcher posed a difficult question about how to incorporate into a
growth model scale those students with disabilities who are measured by
alternate assessments.

You can't have a growth model unless you also include students in
alternate assessment structures. So you have to add them onto the
regular growth model, but you don't want them to show up way at the
bottom of the growth model. You need to add them on somehow without
making them feel like they are off the chart because of their lower
performance. ---Researcher

Interviewees also expressed concern about having clear definitions of
growth models, of ensuring consistency of growth models across schools,
districts, and states, and ensuring that state education officials have
the necessary resources to evaluate how growth models are being used.

I like the concept of growth models, but it's very easy to manipulate
IEP goals so they become meaningless. I think the same thing could
happen with growth models. How would you assure that the goals are age
appropriate and important? There would be no way to measure
comparability of growth models across districts, because the state
office does not have the staff to monitor, train, or evaluate. There is
no one to check and make sure that the growth models would be working
right.\
---Advocate

Growth models are a generic phrase that appeals to people because they
like the idea of looking at an individual kid's performance year after
year. But how do you measure progress from fourth grade to make sure you
can reach an eighth-grade standard? How much does a student need to
progress in order to meet that trajectory? How do you develop predictive
models that are of high quality? We don't have any right now.
---Advocate

An official articulated the dilemma facing education policymakers as
they try to reconcile the difficulty of measuring every student against
one standard of proficiency while acknowledging that progress is
nonetheless being made.

Educators do want to get credit for making some growth and be recognized
for their progress, and we should do that. Growth models are helpful for
figuring out instructional needs and intervention strategies, as they
give you a good idea of where the students are and how they are making
progress. Growth models provide personal information on student
development, how students learn, but they should not dumb down
standards. Growth models, however, have different trajectories, which
don't match with the goal of having all students be proficient by 2014,
which is untouchable.

In all this the important question is "How do students with disabilities
fare under these performance measurement systems?" Generally, the
response varies based on the degree of severity of the disability. For
instance, students who are severely disabled and are counted as part of
the 1 percent cohort will be allowed special accommodations and modified
achievement standards, in recognition of their limitations.
Higher-performing students with disabilities (those with either physical
or cognitive impairments) are often completely capable of performing on
grade level as long as they are given the appropriate accommodations and
supports, such as more time and individualized classroom instruction.

The 1 percent with severe cognitive disabilities---NCLB is clear that we
have to try to serve those kids with various types of strategies and
modified achievement standards, which will produce higher outcomes. For
the mild to moderate students with disabilities, NCLB gets them back in
general education classes and focuses on grade-level content where they
may not have had access before. The challenge is the 2 percent
students---there is less common agreement on who these kids are and
whether it makes sense to teach them grade-level content.\
---Administrator

According to a researcher, one state has been proactive in helping
schools and districts determine the best way to serve students in the 2
percent category.

One state legislature recognized that they might need a test to deal
with the 2 percent students, and the state dept of education did a study
and found that the lowest 2 percent weren't always students with
disabilities and \[that\] the students with disabilities weren't always
getting the accommodations they needed to pass the test, so they changed
their strategy and actions. The states are problem solving, not just
reacting; that is the positive, and they are thinking of unintended
\[negative\] consequences and trying to address them up front.

Another impact of the testing requirements is that some schools that do
well with students with disabilities do not make AYP and look bad,
whereas other schools that do not do well with students with
disabilities and have a small percentage of them (because the public
knows they do not do well) have a better overall score on the
assessments.

In our state, if a school provides good accommodations for students with
disabilities, more students with disabilities want to come to that
school. Then, as a result, even though they provide good education,
their scores may go down, simply because they have a higher percentage
of students with disabilities. For the schools that don't do a good job
serving students with disabilities, where the students decided to leave,
their percentage of students with disabilities they serve goes down, and
their scores can be higher and they can "look better" than the schools
that are really serving students with disabilities better and in a more
individualized manner.\
---Administrator

Meeting the 100 Percent Proficiency Target

Some researchers have predicted that, by the 2013--2014 school year,
nearly all schools and school districts will not meet AYP requirements,
even many of America's highest-achieving schools in affluent areas.[^12]

Of all the issues raised by NCLB, perhaps the most significant is that
of having all students meet grade-level proficiency by school year
2013--2014. Yet, interestingly, many school-level educators and
advocates did not raise it in their comments. The reason may be that
they are buried in the other complexities of NCLB, such as training
highly qualified teachers, reporting on subgroups, meeting AYP, and
providing alternate and modified assessments. As one interviewee said:
"We are just thinking about next year. \[The year\] 2014 is too far away
for most people to think about." However, at the national level there is
a growing awareness that changes will have to be made to the 100 percent
proficiency target.

Professionals and advocates who work with individuals with disabilities
know there are certain categories of young people who will never be able
to meet grade-level proficiency, yet under current law, they are
expected to do so. Therefore, a difficult political question is
presented. Do lawmakers keep the pressure on regardless of the impact on
certain students with disabilities who will be made to feel like
failures? Or, do they recognize the academic limitations of the severely
disabled and allow limited exceptions---acknowledging that it is unfair
to ask such students, their teachers, their school, and their parents to
do the impossible? The comments that follow represent interviewees'
various attitudes regarding this issue:

As we get closer to 2014, there will have to be a federal policy shift
that recognizes that there are indeed some students who will not meet
proficiency. We cannot expect every student to meet proficiency. But
without NCLB, we would not have had the impetus to raise expectations.
---Administrator

Having an absolute standard is good, but 100 percent proficiency isn't
working---there are some students who are too severely disabled to ever
meet proficiency standards. The expectation is for every student and
school to meet proficiency, but they can't---it's just not reasonable.
We need to acknowledge that there is a subset of students who will never
be proficient. ---Administrator

Absolute standards are not realistic for all students with disabilities
because it depends on the disability. The 1 percent category probably
will never meet the standard. Students with learning disabilities can
usually meet proficiency standards as long as they are given more time
and a lot of additional instructional help. Time should be flexible in
terms of reaching proficiency. There is so much lumping together of
disabilities, and we need to really differentiate them. NCLB should have
more varied testing and accountability standards for students given the
differences in disabilities. NCLB should be more sophisticated in its
requirements for proficiency, not \[have\] just one standard.
---Researcher

Most interviewees voiced these two concerns: first, education policy
needs to recognize that some students will need more time to meet
grade-level proficiency standards, and second, we are too bound by the
traditional structure of education and the requirement to complete high
school in four years.

The challenge for policymakers is to define what proficiency really
means and who will be allowed to meet slightly lower levels of
proficiency. This is a true policy dilemma, in that we have learned
there is tremendous benefit in increasing standards and expectations for
students. But we must also recognize that some students may never meet
these high standards. Many individuals who were interviewed were unable
or unwilling to take on that question. Given that 2014 is still a number
of years away, we have time to engage in a thoughtful public
conversation about the best approach to this dilemma.

Data and Reporting

As with most issues discussed in this report, there are both positive
and negative outcomes from NCLB's requirements on data collection and
reporting, and the implementation of the law has raised a number of
pertinent questions.

Most interviewees who worked with data felt that IDEA and NCLB could
work more effectively together in various ways, from using common
definitions and Web sites and forms to common reporting infrastructures
and data systems. For example, IDEA uses the term "peer-reviewed
research and related services personnel," while NCLB uses the term
"scientifically based research and pupil services personnel" to mean
basically the same thing.

Another expressed concern was that the two laws should report on similar
outcomes. Whereas IDEA is concerned with a range of outcomes, including
post-school outcomes, NCLB has no language regarding post--high school
performance.

Data are very duplicative, and there are different definitions for the
same things. We have to report data for NCLB and then report it for IDEA
in two different formats, but it's basically all the same information.
It gets confusing for the public because there are two reports and they
have such different definitions. Why can't we have just one report card?
For instance, the graduation and dropout rate definitions are different.
We have to work twice as hard, and people don't understand when the
data are different. We spend so much time on reporting, it keeps us
from being out in the field helping schools. ---Administrator

Another significant discrepancy between the two laws relates to how high
school graduation is measured, which has an impact on whether schools do
or do not meet AYP and on how students progress through high school.
IDEA gives much more flexibility to students with disabilities in terms
of the length of time it takes to complete high school or meet the goals
of the IEP. This time-based approach runs headlong into the NCLB
requirement for high school graduation in the traditional four-year time
period.

One area that could be improved relates to high school graduation and
dropout rates. IDEA allows students with disabilities access to
education until age 21, but the NCLB graduation rate is based on a
9th-through-12th-grade cohort. So, if students with disabilities stayed
in school until age 19, 20, or 21 and completed, they are not counted as
a completer. Rather, they are counted as a non-completer. Older students
should be maintained in their original cohort. That is something that
should be changed in NCLB that would help data collection under both
laws.\
---Administrator

At the same time, some interviewees felt that IDEA collected a level of
detailed student data that allows for much richer analysis of
instructional strategies than what is required by NCLB. One individual
suggested that outcome data be disaggregated by the 13 definitions of
disability in IDEA so the public can really understand who is meeting
standards and who is not. In any case, several interviewees felt that
having these data is valuable to answer instructional outcomes in a way
that does not exist with NCLB's focus on subgroups.

There is a worry that if we lose some of the information from the Office
of Special Education Programs \[at the U.S. Department of Education\]
side that we'll lose some very important and fine detail on students
with disabilities. The data that we are really interested in is the
number of students with disabilities participating, what their
performance really is, but you must start from IEP enrollment data to
get that information. IDEA data are more specifically defined because
they are based on IEPs. ---Researcher

We think some data and indicators really matter to students with
disabilities, and we should focus on certain important outcomes, not
processes. For instance, the state performance indicator on post-school
outcomes required by IDEA is probably the most important indicator. We
should be held to reporting outcomes for that, rather than reporting on
processes like do you have a good transition planning process. Hold us
accountable to what the student actually did, then you could probably
tell that if students do well after high school, you did have a good
transition planning process in place. ---Administrator

According to several interviewees, a review of the two laws for
consistency in terms of definitions, reporting requirements, outcomes,
and data formats would save time and effort for districts and states.

Parental Access to Information

Overall, most interviewees---including advocates---felt that the amount
of information available to parents, and the public in general, had
vastly increased and improved as a result both of NCLB and IDEA. Some of
their positive comments include, among many others:

The availability of real, disaggregated data is a positive development,
and that's good for all of us. This information can help us make better
decisions about all kids. ---Administrator

I think our state education department has done a pretty good job of
making information available. It's pretty accessible, and there is a lot
of material for parents. ---Advocate

One advocate pointed out that being able to compare groups of students
with those from other schools or districts would be extremely valuable
for parents.

Parents want to know how their kids are doing compared to similar kids
in other schools/districts, so standards are helpful that way. Even with
severely disabled kids, it's helpful to be able to compare them to other
kids with similar disabilities, because it could demonstrate that one
school is doing a really poor job with such kids. That is very important
information for parents to have.

While most felt that it is positive that more data and more
disaggregated data are now available than ever before, concerns were
expressed about how useful some of these data are to parents. While
parents get information on the performance of the student subgroups and
the school, this information does not really tell them how their child
is doing. As one individual said, "NCLB doesn't measure what parents are
interested in because it measures groups of students and schools."

Other comments were made about the limitations of data in terms of
giving parents a more thorough understanding of the instructional needs
and accomplishments of each child.

There is a lot of info on the Web, but it's very superficial. Parents
have to deal with the complicated issue of what kind of assessment their
kid should take, but that is very hard to sort out. The top-level info
is pretty good, but the next level down is limited and hard to tell. The
U.S. Department of Education hasn't done a good job of providing
resources to parents. Aside from subgroup scores, we don't get
information about what's really going on with students with disabilities
in terms of classroom, curriculum, and instruction. ---Advocate

Parents are just as confused as the rest of us. The data that are made
available to the public do not provide information on each child and how
to change instruction, so those data are not really useful to parents.
The data provide information on how the school and groups of students
are doing. ---Policymaker

While access to information about student performance by subgroup has
vastly improved, much of the information is still unrelated to
individual student needs, which is of prime interest to parents.

Compatibility of NCLB and IDEA

Asking if NCLB and IDEA are compatible unleashed a torrent of comments,
from "Absolutely not!" to "Absolutely!" The most common opinion,
however, was that although the two laws complement and strengthen each
other, they could be made more compatible.

The following comment is an example of the first response, namely, that
the laws are not compatible:

They are entirely different laws with entirely different perspectives
and goals. IDEA is a civil rights law to protect and promote the rights
of students with disabilities and to provide a good education, free and
appropriate public education, and to monitor the procedures to ensure
equity. The strength of IDEA is the focus on and protection of
individual kids. NCLB is a law to make people "mind." ---Administrator

An example of a comment about their compatibility follows:

The two laws are very compatible. They have similar goals: the goal of
IDEA is how you help a child be successful; the goal of NCLB is how you
help schools and districts be successful. The words in the statute are
not a problem---they track very closely. ---Advocate

Some specific advice about how to make the two laws more compatible
focused on early intervention services.

Early intervention services are a good idea, but we need money to fund
that. This is really a general education issue, and general education
should be required to do this, but to ask that the money come from Part
B, IDEA, it's hard to pay for, given all the other needs we have in
special education. Early intervention services should be put into NCLB,
and funding should be included for it. Response to intervention is also
a general education intervention, and so it should be paid for with
general education funds, and general education teachers are the ones
that really need to be thinking about this. There should be a focus on
general education, and then everyone has to think about early
intervention services and response to intervention, not just special
education teachers. Because this is really where students can be
identified and determine what the appropriate educational intervention
is---which in many cases is not special education. Same with transition:
this should be something that everyone takes responsibility for, not
just special education teachers. ---Administrator

Perhaps the structure of IDEA and NCLB can best be summarized with the
following chart, which distinguishes major aspects of both laws:

  ---------------------- ---------------------- --------------------------
                         **IDEA**               **NCLB**

  **Orientation**        Process oriented       Outcomes oriented

  **Unit of Analysis**   Individual student     System or groups of
                                                students

  **What Is Measured?**  Range of skills        Core academic skills

  **Educational          Teach according to     Test according to grade
  Approach**             ability                

  **Type of Law**        Civil rights           Compliance
  ---------------------- ---------------------- --------------------------

Several interviewees felt that because IDEA is a civil rights law, it
should prevail over NCLB and that Congress should make this clear.
Interviewees also provided a number of suggestions on how to make IDEA
and NCLB more compatible, which are discussed in the recommendations
section.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc184632937 .anchor}PART IV. RECOMMENDATIONS

In looking at changes to NCLB, it is important to understand the complex
interplay among the federal law, state laws and regulations, and actual
practice at the district and school levels. Some of the requirements in
NCLB have had unintended consequences, and any new changes to the law
should be carefully considered to make certain that additional
unintended consequences are not created, especially for students with
disabilities. It is also important to provide flexibility with regard to
student performance while holding on to the idea of meeting a high
standard. High expectations with differentiated learning and instruction
should be the twin foundations for the law.

The following recommendations are based on the advice and comments of
the interviewees:

1.  **Maintain high expectations for students with disabilities and
    continue to disaggregate outcome data by subgroups**. The most
    important recommendation gathered from the interviews is to maintain
    high academic expectations for students with disabilities and
    continue to report student outcome data by subgroup. Not a single
    interviewee suggested that we return to pre-NCLB days, when students
    with disabilities were not included in academic accountability
    systems. Interviewees acknowledged that not every student with a
    disability can achieve to high standards, but they recommended
    holding firm to high expectations, continuing to report
    disaggregated data, and keeping the pressure on the system to
    deliver higher-level instruction. School leaders must create the
    environment of high expectations for all students and create
    supports and incentives for teachers to help all students reach
    higher levels of achievement.

2.  **Develop the capacity of teachers to provide differentiated
    instruction and a more rigorous curriculum**. In order for students
    to benefit from a higher-level curriculum, teachers must have the
    content knowledge and pedagogical skills to work with a diverse
    group of learners, particularly students with disabilities. All
    teachers must have strong academic content if they are the lead
    teacher, or be paired with a content expert if they bring strong
    pedagogical skills, as many special educators do. Teachers need to
    be trained in using benchmark assessments to influence how they
    provide instruction to each student.

> All teachers, especially general education teachers, must be trained
> to work with students with disabilities and other diverse students.
> Teachers should be trained to identify students with disabilities and
> know about various instructional approaches and universally designed
> curriculum. States should be held accountable for ensuring that
> teachers are trained to work with different types of students.

3.  **Create incentives to attract, recruit, and retain special
    education teachers.** As special education teachers retire and leave
    the profession, more attention needs to be paid to how to develop
    the profession and maintain adequate numbers of teachers with the
    skills and knowledge to work with students with disabilities.

> No Child Left Behind should be amended to include provisions such as
> early intervention services, response to intervention, individualized
> education plans for lower-performing students, and transition planning
> for needy students. These are key elements in IDEA, yet they affect
> all students, not just those with disabilities. All students would
> benefit from being provided early intervention and differentiated
> services, as well as a stronger focus on transition planning.
> Currently, 15 percent of IDEA funding can be used to support the early
> intervention activities for students who do not have IEPs. Because
> these students are not technically covered by IDEA, NCLB should cover
> the costs of these services.

4.  **Align NCLB and IDEA data systems and definitions**. NCLB and IDEA
    require data collection and reporting on various student outcomes
    and program characteristics, but the laws use different definitions
    and reporting formats, which should be brought into closer alignment
    so that states, districts, and schools are not duplicating data
    collection efforts. NCLB should also be amended to require that
    post-school outcomes be reported, as that is a critical indicator of
    success for all students.

> Redefine the proficiency target to recognize that a certain percentage
> of students, such as students with severe disabilities, will not meet
> grade-level proficiency. Options could include changing the 100
> percent target to a slightly lower number, allowing waivers for
> certain defined categories of students, allowing students with
> disabilities to be tested on out-of-grade-level material, extending
> the time to reach proficiency, or setting the goals of the IEP as the
> proficiency target for certain categories of students with
> disabilities.
>
> Change the four-year graduation requirement to allow students with
> disabilities a longer period of time to achieve high school
> completion. Because IDEA allows students with disabilities to stay in
> high school until age 21, NCLB must be amended to be consistent with
> IDEA and prevent students with disabilities from appearing as
> non-completers if they do not graduate in four years.
>
> Continue to require states to meet AYP, but balance it with credit for
> improved academic performance for lower-performing subgroups. States
> and schools should ensure that their students are making progress
> toward proficiency, but they should have more flexibility in
> determining AYP and should be recognized for improving academic
> performance and for closing achievement gaps.

5.  **Ensure that students with disabilities are measured on more than
    just academic skills attainment.** The definition of what is
    assessed for students with disabilities should be broadened to
    include occupational, employability, and life skills.

6.  **Increase funding for special education.** Helping students with
    disabilities access a higher-level curriculum requires more support
    services, potentially more learning time, better-trained teachers,
    collaborative teaching, and new instructional approaches. The
    current requirement to spend 15 percent of IDEA on early
    intervention services on non--special education students diverts
    funding from an already needy population.

# ACRONYMS

AMO annual measurable objective

APA Alternate Proficiency Assessment

API Academic Performance Index

ASK Assessment of Skills and Knowledge

ASPIRE Alliance for School-Based Problem-Solving and Intervention
Resources in Education

AYP adequate yearly progress

AYPF American Youth Policy Forum

BEESS Bureau of Exceptional Education and Student Services

BSE Bureau of Special Education

CAHSEE California High School Exit Exam

CALPADS California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement System

CalSTAT California Services for Technical Assistance and Training

CAPA California Alternate Performance Assessment

CASEMIS California Special Education Management Information System

CCCS Core Curriculum Content Standards

CDDRE Center for Data-Driven Reform in Education

CDE California Department of Education

CEP Center for Education Policy

CIMS Continuous Improvement and Monitoring System

CMCI Compliance Monitoring for Continuous Improvement

CSIS California School of Information Services

CSPD Comprehensive System of Personnel Development

CST California Standards Test

DES Division for Exceptional Students

DRA disability rights advocate

EC Education Code

ED U.S. Department of Education

EDEN U.S. Department of Education's data system

E-GHSGT Enhanced Georgia High School Graduation Test

ELA English/language arts

ELL English language learner

EPI Educational Policy Institute

ERSS Educational Regional Service System

ESPA Elementary School Proficiency Assessment

EWT Early Warning Test

FAAR Florida Alternate Assessment Report

FCAT Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test

FIN Florida Inclusion Network

FLDOE Florida Department of Education

GAA Georgia's Alternate Assessment

GCIMP Georgia Continuous Improvement Monitoring Process

GDOE Georgia Department of Education

GEPA Grade Eight Performance Assessment

GHSWT Georgia High School Writing Test

GLRC Georgia's Learning Resource Center

HOUSSE high, objective, unified state standards of evaluation 

HQT highly qualified teacher

HSPA High School Proficiency Assessment

HSPT High School Proficiency Test

IAA Illinois Alternate Assessment

IDEA Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

IEP Individualized Education Plan

IS intervention specialist

ISAT Illinois Standards Achievement Test

ISBE Illinois State Board of Education

IU intermediate unit

KPI key performance indicator

KPISC Key Performance Indicator Stakeholder Committee

LEA local education authority

LEP limited English proficient

LRC Learning Resource Center

LRE least restrictive environment

MBS Minimum Basic Skills

MCAS Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System

MDOE Massachusetts Department of Education

MEAP Michigan Educational Assessment Program

MI-CIS Michigan Compliance Information System

MI-DOE Michigan Department of Education

NAEP National Assessment of Educational Progress

NCD National Council on Disability

NCLB Act No Child Left Behind Act

NJDOE New Jersey Department of Education

NJOSEP New Jersey Office of Special Education Programs

NYSED New York State Education Department

OAT Ohio Achievement Test

ODE Ohio Department of Education

OEC Office for Exceptional Children

OGT Ohio Graduation Test

OISM Ohio Integrated Systems Model

OSA Office of Student Achievement

OSE/EIS Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services

OSEP Office of Special Education Programs

PASA Pennsylvania Alternate System of Assessment

PaTTAN Pennsylvania Training and Technical Assistance Network

PCSE Partnership Committee on Special Education

PDE Pennsylvania Department of Education

PEN Parent Education Network

PI program improvement

PQA Program Quality Assurance

PSAE Prairie State Achievement Examination

PSC Professional Standards Commission

PSSA Pennsylvania System of School Assessment

PVAAS Pennsylvania Value-Added Assessment System

SAP State Advisory Panel

SARC State Accountability Report Card

SEDCAR Strategic Evaluation Data Collection, Analysis, and Reporting

SELPA special education local plan areas

SEQA Special Education Quality Assurance

SERRC Special Education Regional Resource Center

SES Supplemental Education Service

SETRC Special Education Training and Resource Center

SID student identifier

SIG state improvement grant

SIMS Student Information Management Services

SIS student information system

SOP state-operated program

SPPDP State Performance and Personnel Development Plan

SPSR Service Provider Self-Review

SRA Special Review Assessment

SRSD Single Record Student Database

SSID Statewide Student Identifier

STAR Standardized Testing and Reporting

START Statewide Technical Assistance Resource Team

TQ Teacher Quality

UIC unique identification code

USI unique student identifier

VESID Vocational and Educational Services for Individuals with
Disabilities

Number range CHAPTER[]{#__RefHeading___Toc184632938 .anchor}APPENDIX

Mission of the National Council on Disability

Overview and purpose

The National Council on Disability (NCD) is an independent federal
agency with 15 members appointed by the President of the United States
and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. The purpose of NCD is to promote
policies, programs, practices, and procedures that guarantee equal
opportunity for all individuals with disabilities regardless of the
nature or significance of the disability and to empower individuals
with disabilities to achieve economic self-sufficiency, independent
living, and inclusion and integration into all aspects of society.

Specific duties

The current statutory mandate of NCD includes the following:

-   Reviewing and evaluating, on a continuing basis, policies, programs,
    practices, and procedures concerning individuals with disabilities
    conducted or assisted by federal departments and agencies, including
    programs established or assisted under the Rehabilitation Act of
    1973, as amended, or under the Developmental Disabilities Assistance
    and Bill of Rights Act, as well as all statutes and regulations
    pertaining to federal programs that assist such individuals with
    disabilities, to assess the effectiveness of such policies,
    programs, practices, procedures, statutes, and regulations in
    meeting the needs of individuals with disabilities.

-   Reviewing and evaluating, on a continuing basis, new and emerging
    disability policy issues affecting individuals with disabilities in
    the Federal Government, at the state and local government levels,
    and in the private sector, including the need for and coordination
    of adult services, access to personal assistance services, school
    reform efforts and the impact of such efforts on individuals with
    disabilities, access to health care, and policies that act as
    disincentives for individuals to seek and retain employment.

-   Making recommendations to the President, Congress, the Secretary of
    Education, the director of the National Institute on Disability and
    Rehabilitation Research, and other officials of federal agencies
    about ways to better promote equal opportunity, economic
    self-sufficiency, independent living, and inclusion and integration
    into all aspects of society for Americans with disabilities.

-   Providing Congress, on a continuing basis, with advice,
    recommendations, legislative proposals, and any additional
    information that NCD or Congress deems appropriate.

-   Gathering information about the implementation, effectiveness, and
    impact of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) (42
    U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.).

-   Advising the President, Congress, the commissioner of the
    Rehabilitation Services Administration, the assistant secretary for
    Special Education and Rehabilitative Services within the Department
    of Education, and the director of the National Institute on
    Disability and Rehabilitation Research on the development of the
    programs to be carried out under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as
    amended.

-   Providing advice to the commissioner of the Rehabilitation Services
    Administration with respect to the policies and conduct of the
    administration.

-   Making recommendations to the director of the National Institute on
    Disability and Rehabilitation Research on ways to improve research,
    service, administration, and the collection, dissemination, and
    implementation of research findings affecting people with
    disabilities.

-   Providing advice regarding priorities for the activities of the
    Interagency Disability Coordinating Council and reviewing the
    recommendations of this council for legislative and administrative
    changes to ensure that such recommendations are consistent with
    NCD's purpose of promoting the full integration, independence, and
    productivity of individuals with disabilities.

-   Preparing and submitting to the President and Congress an annual
    report titled *National Disability Policy: A Progress Report*.

International

In 1995, NCD was designated by the Department of State to be the U.S.
government's official contact point for disability issues. Specifically,
NCD interacts with the special rapporteur of the United Nations
Commission for Social Development on disability matters.

Consumers served and current activities

Although many government agencies deal with issues and programs
affecting people with disabilities, NCD is the only federal agency
charged with addressing, analyzing, and making recommendations on issues
of public policy that affect people with disabilities regardless of age,
disability type, perceived employment potential, economic need, specific
functional ability, veteran status, or other individual circumstance.
NCD recognizes its unique opportunity to facilitate independent living,
community integration, and employment opportunities for people with
disabilities by ensuring an informed and coordinated approach to
addressing the concerns of people with disabilities and eliminating
barriers to their active participation in community and family life.

NCD plays a major role in developing disability policy in America. In
fact, NCD originally proposed what eventually became ADA. NCD's present
list of key issues includes improving personal assistance services,
promoting health care reform, including students with disabilities in
high-quality programs in typical neighborhood schools, promoting equal
employment and community housing opportunities, monitoring the
implementation of ADA, improving assistive technology, and ensuring that
people with disabilities who are members of diverse cultures fully
participate in society.

Statutory history

NCD was established in 1978 as an advisory board within the Department
of Education (P.L. 95-602). The Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1984
(P.L. 98-221) transformed NCD into an independent agency.

# END NOTES

[^1]: C. Lehr and M. Thurlow, "*Putting It All Together: Including
    Students with Disabilities in Assessment and Accountability
    Systems," Policy Directions No. 16* (Minneapolis, MN: University of
    Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes, 2003). Retrieved
    June 28, 2007, from
    http://www.education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Policy16.htm.

[^2]: B. Keller, "Ed. Dept. Won't Force HOUSSE Closure Now," *Education
    Week,* *26, 28, 30.* Retrieved June 15, 2007, from
    http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2006/09/20/\
    04hqt.h26.html?qs=HOUSSE.

[^3]: Commission on No Child Left Behind, *Commission Staff Research
    Report, Children with Disabilities and LEP Students: Their Impact on
    the AYP Determinations of Schools* (Washington, DC: Aspen Institute,
    2006).

[^4]: Ibid.

[^5]: Center for Education Policy, *Answering the Question That Matters
    Most: Has Student Achievement Increased Since No Child Left Behind?*
    (Washington, DC: Center for Education Policy, 2007).

[^6]: Ibid.

[^7]: By regulation, states are allowed to provide alternate assessments
    to certain categories of students with disabilities. Title I
    regulations permit a state to develop alternate academic achievement
    standards for students with the most significant cognitive
    disabilities and to include those students' proficient and advanced
    scores on alternate assessments based on alternative academic
    achievement standards in measuring AYP subject to a cap of 1 percent
    of all students assessed (about 10 percent of students with
    disabilities). Additional regulatory guidance from the U.S.
    Department of Education now permits states to provide assessments
    based on modified academic achievement standards that cover the same
    grade-level content as the general assessment. The expectations of
    content mastery are modified, not the grade-level contents
    themselves. Up to 2 percent of all students assessed in a grade
    (about 20 percent of students with disabilities) may be assessed
    with assessments based on modified academic achievement standards.
    U.S. Department of Education, *Modified Academic Achievement
    Standards: Non-Regulatory Guidance Draft* (Washington, DC: U.S.
    Department of Education, 2007).

[^8]: Praxis Series™ Assessments provide educational tests and other
    services that states use as part of their teaching licensing
    certification process. Retrieved June 14, 2007, from
    <http://www.ets.org/portal/site/ets/menuitem.fab2360b1645a1de9b3a0779f1751509/?vgnextoid=48c05ee3d74f4010VgnVCM10000022f95190RCRD>.

[^9]: H.G. Peske and K. Haycock, *Teaching Inequality: How Poor and
    Minority Students Are Shortchanged on Teacher Quality* (Washington,
    DC: Education Trust, 2006).

[^10]: P. Burch, *Supplemental Education Services under NCLB: Emerging
    Evidence and Policy Issues* (East Lansing, MI: Great Lakes Center
    for Education Research & Practice, University of Wisconsin-Madison,
    2007).

[^11]: Center for Education Policy, *NCLB: Narrowing the Curriculum?*
    (Washington, DC: Center for Education Policy, 2005).

[^12]: P. Goldschmidt, *Practical Considerations for Choosing an
    Accountability Model*, paper presented at the April 2006 annual
    meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San
    Francisco, CA; and R.L. Linn, *Test-based Educational Accountability
    in the Era of No Child Left Behind* (CSE Report No. 651) (Los
    Angeles: University of California, Center for Research on
    Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing, 2005).