# Presentation: 457009

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

## 

“What gets measured gets done.”
Margaret Spellings
Secretary of Education

**“****What gets measured gets done.”**
*Margaret Spellings*
- Secretary of Education

## Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)

- The NPRM was published in the *Federal Register* on Dec. 15, 2005, and covered modified achievement standards for certain students with disabilities. (“2 percent flexibility”)
- The proposed regulations would:
-  Amend regulations implementing Title I of the *Elementary and Secondary Education Act* (*ESEA*), as amended by *No Child Left Behind* (*NCLB*).
- Amend regulations implementing the *Individuals with Disabilities Education Act* (*IDEA*) to ensure coordination and consistency between *NCLB* and *IDEA*.

## What Changes Are Proposed?

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

## Information in the NPRM

- The NPRM:
- Describes modified achievement standards;
- Explains how states can develop modified achievement standards;
- Proposes criteria to determine the students who may be assessed based on modified achievement standards; and
- Proposes safeguards to ensure that students with disabilities are appropriately assessed.

## Why Are These Proposed Changes Important?

- The proposed changes would:
- Enable states to better measure the achievement of students with disabilities;
- Allow students to demonstrate what they know and what they can do;
- Provide meaningful information to teachers and parents about a student’s progress;
- Provide teachers with information on how they can change their instruction to better meet student needs;
- (*cont’d., next slide*)

## Why Are These Proposed Changes Important? 

- The proposed changes would:
- Provide data to allow teachers to make evidence-based decisions; and
- Recognize the accomplishments of these students and teachers in annual yearly progress (AYP) determinations.

## The Proposed Changes Are in Addition to The ‘1 Percent Regulation’

- The requirements for alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards remain the same.
- States can continue to include the proficient and advanced scores of students with the most significant cognitive disabilities in measuring annual yearly progress (AYP), subject to a cap of 1 percent at the state and district levels.

## Flexibility forStudents With Disabilities

- The majority of students with disabilities will take the regular assessment with or without accommodations.
- The “1 percent flexibility” covers students with the most significant cognitive disabilities.
- The “2 percent flexibility” is addressed in a proposed regulation covering students with disabilities who can make significant progress but may not reach grade-level achievement standards within the same time frame as other students.

## Ways Students With Disabilities Can Participate in Assessments

- There are several different ways students with disabilities canparticipate in assessments, including:
- Regular assessment
- Regular assessment with accommodations
- Alternate assessment based on grade-level achievement standards
- Alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards
- Assessment based on modified achievement standards (under the proposed rule)

## Details About How the Assessment Decision Is Made

- The student’s Individualized Education Program (IEP) team, which includes the child’s parents, decides how a student will participate
- The decision must be:
- Individualized
- Based on the student’s educational needs and
- Made annually
- (*cont’d., next slide*)

## Details About How the Assessment Decision Is Made

- A student’s disability must not determine which assessment the student will take.
- There is no limit on the number of students taking any particular assessment.
- States must establish clear and appropriate guidelines for IEP teams.
- States must provide training for IEP teams.

## Questions Parents Should Ask

- What kinds of assessments are offered in my state?
- What kinds of responses does each assessment require (e.g., multiple choice, short answers)?
- What kind of instruction has my child had?
- Has my child received instruction in grade-level academic content?
- Was the instruction evidence-based and of high quality?
- Was instruction delivered by highly qualified teachers?
- (*cont’d., next slide*)

## Questions Parents Should Ask

- What accommodations are allowed in my state?
- What accommodations are approved, and what accommodations are not approved?
- What happens if my child is assessed using an accommodation that is not approved?
- Are the accommodations that my child will use in assessments a routine part of my child’s instruction?
- Does the assessment affect my child’s ability to meet graduation requirements?

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

- Both apply only to students with disabilities served under *IDEA*.
- Neither are limited to students in a particular disability category.
- Under both options, alternate achievement standards and modified achievement standards must be developed using a documented and validated standard-setting process.
- (*cont’d., next slide*)

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

- In both cases,
- Assessments based on alternate or modified achievement standards must be valid and reliable and must be of high technical quality.
- Assessments must be linked to academic content standards for the grade in which the student is enrolled.
- (*cont’d., next slide*)

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

- In both cases,
- Assessments based on alternate or modified achievement standards will be peer-reviewed along with the regular assessments under *NCLB*.
- Assessment results must be clearly explained to parents.

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

**1 Percent Flexibility**
- Includes students with the most significant cognitive disabilities.
- Includes students whose cognitive impairments may prevent them from attaining grade-level achievement standards, even with the best instruction.

**Proposed 2 Percent Flexibility**
- Includes students with disabilities who can make significant progress but may not reach grade-level achievement standards in the same time frame as other students.
- States that students must receive grade-level instruction.
- States that the student’s IEP team must use objective evidence (e.g., from state assessments), based on multiple measures, and collected over a period of time to identify these students.
- (*cont’d., next slide*)

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

**1 Percent Flexibility**
- Utilizes alternate achievement standards.
- Provides access to the general curriculum.
- The alternate achievement standards differ in complexity from grade-level achievement standards.

**Proposed 2 Percent Flexibility**
- Utilizes modified achievement standards.
- Provides access to grade-level curriculum.
- Compared with grade-level achievement standards, modified achievement standards may reflect reduced breadth or depth of grade-level content.
- (*cont’d., next slide*)

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

**1 Percent Flexibility**
- May preclude students from earning a regular high school diploma in some states.
- No significant overlap between alternate achievement standards and grade-level achievement standards.

**Proposed 2 Percent Flexibility**
- May not preclude students from earning a regular high school diploma.
- Significant overlap between modified achievement standards and grade-level achievement standards.
- (*cont’d., next slide*)

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

**1 Percent Flexibility**
- May be a performance assessment or portfolio assessment.
- Out-of-level assessments may be counted under the 1 percent cap if they:
- Are aligned with academic content standards;
- Promote access to the general curriculum; and
- Reflect professional judgment of the highest achievement standards possible.

**Proposed 2 Percent Flexibility**
- May modify an existing grade-level assessment or develop a new assessment.
- Out-of-level assessments may not be used.
- (*cont’d., next slide*)

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

**1 Percent Flexibility**
- 1 percent cap on the number of proficient and advanced scores that may be counted toward AYP at the state and district levels.
- Under the proposed rules, states would no longer be able to apply to the Department of Education for an exception to the 1 percent cap.

**Proposed 2 Percent Flexibility**
- 2 percent cap on the number of proficient and advanced scores that may be counted toward AYP at the state and district levels.
- States may not apply to the Department of Education for an exception to the 2 percent cap.

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

|  | Alternate achievement standards—1 percent cap | Modified achievement standards—2 percent cap | Alternate and modified achievement standards—3 percent cap |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| State | Never. | Only if state is below 1 percent cap but cannot exceed 3 percent cap. | Never. |
| District | Only if granted an exception by the state education agency (SEA). | Only if local education agency (LEA) is below 1 percent cap.  If not below 1 percent cap, never.
 | Only if granted an exception to the 1 percent cap by the SEA and only by the amount of the exception. |

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

- The NPRM re-proposes *IDEA* regulations related to assessment that were proposed in the June 21, 2005, NPRM.  The re-proposed regulations would:
- Align* IDEA *with *NCLB*.
- Permit states to develop modified achievement standards.
- Require states (or in the case of a district-wide assessment, districts) to develop guidelines for IEP teams that require:
- Each child to be validly assessed, and
- The identification of any accommodations that would result in an invalid score.
- Require a student to receive a valid score in order to be reported as a participant under *IDEA*.

## Proposed Additional Flexibility for Students With Disabilities

- The proposed additional flexibility for students with disabilities would:
- Allow states to continue for two years to count the scores of students with disabilities who exit special education.
- Be similar to the existing flexibility for students with limited English proficiency.

## Other Proposed Changes

- The proposed additional flexibility for students with disabilities would:
- No longer permit states to have different group sizes for different subgroups when calculating AYP.
- Currently, some states have a larger group size for the students with disabilities subgroup.
- If the number of students with disabilities in a school is less than the group size, AYP is not calculated for that subgroup at the school level.
- This means that some schools are not held accountable for the performance of the students with disabilities subgroup.
- This proposal would also apply to states with a larger group size for the students with limited English proficiency subgroup.

## The Proposed Regulations Reinforce IDEA and NCLB’s Shared Goals

- The proposed regulations reinforce *IDEA* and *NCLB*’s shared goals, including:
- High expectations for all students
- Holding all students to challenging standards and
- Accountability for all students.

## Provide Your CommentsBy Feb. 28, 2006

- Send e-mail comments to:
- TitleIrulemaking@ed.gov
- Include in the subject line:  “Proposed 2 Percent Rule”
- Or
- Send written comments to:
- 	Jacquelyn C. Jackson, Director
- 	Student Achievement and Accountability Programs
- 	Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE)
- 	U.S. Department of Education
- 	400 Maryland Ave., S.W.
- 	Room 3C156, FB-6
- 	Washington, DC 20202-6132