U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

34–174 PDF 2007

HOW NCLB AFFECTS

STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EARLY CHILDHOOD, 

ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION 

COMMITTEE ON 

EDUCATION AND LABOR

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, MARCH 29, 2007

Serial No. 110–18

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor

(

Available on the Internet: 

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/education/index.html 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR 

GEORGE MILLER, California, Chairman

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan, Vice Chairman 

Donald M. Payne, New Jersey 

Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey 

Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Virginia 

Lynn C. Woolsey, California 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Carolyn McCarthy, New York 

John F. Tierney, Massachusetts 

Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio 

David Wu, Oregon 

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Danny K. Davis, Illinois 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Timothy H. Bishop, New York 

Linda T. Sa ́nchez, California 

John P. Sarbanes, Maryland 

Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania 

David Loebsack, Iowa 

Mazie Hirono, Hawaii 

Jason Altmire, Pennsylvania 

John A. Yarmuth, Kentucky 

Phil Hare, Illinois 

Yvette D. Clarke, New York 

Joe Courtney, Connecticut 

Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire 

Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon, California, 

Ranking Minority Member 

Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin 

Peter Hoekstra, Michigan 

Michael N. Castle, Delaware 

Mark E. Souder, Indiana 

Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan 

Judy Biggert, Illinois 

Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania 

Ric Keller, Florida 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina 

John Kline, Minnesota 

Bob Inglis, South Carolina 

Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington 

Kenny Marchant, Texas 

Tom Price, Georgia 

Luis G. Fortun ̃ o, Puerto Rico 

Charles W. Boustany, Jr., Louisiana 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

John R. ‘‘Randy’’ Kuhl, Jr., New York 

Rob Bishop, Utah 

David Davis, Tennessee 

Timothy Walberg, Michigan

Mark Zuckerman, Staff Director 

Vic Klatt, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EARLY CHILDHOOD,

ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION 

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan, Chairman

Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Virginia 

Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Danny K. Davis, Illinois 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Donald M. Payne, New Jersey 

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey 

Linda T. Sa ́nchez, California 

John P. Sarbanes, Maryland 

Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania 

David Loebsack, Iowa 

Mazie Hirono, Hawaii 

Phil Hare, Illinois 

Lynn C. Woolsey, California 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Michael N. Castle, Delaware, 

Ranking Minority Member 

Peter Hoekstra, Michigan 

Mark E. Souder, Indiana 

Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan 

Judy Biggert, Illinois 

Bob Inglis, South Carolina 

Luis G. Fortun ̃ o, Puerto Rico 

Rob Bishop, Utah 

Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania 

Ric Keller, Florida 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina 

Charles W. Boustany, Jr., Louisiana 

John R. ‘‘Randy’’ Kuhl, Jr., New York 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

Hearing held on March 29, 2007 ............................................................................ 1

Statement of Members: 

Boustany, Hon. Charles W., Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Louisiana ......................................................................................... 3

Davis, Hon. Susan A., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, question for the record ............................................................... 77

Fortun ̃ o, Hon. Luis G., a Resident Commissioner from the Territory of 

Puerto Rico, submissions for the record: 

Letter from Alpidio Rolo ́n, president, Puerto Rico chapter of the 

National Federation of the Blind ......................................................... 64

Letter from Maria Miranda, director of the technical assistance program, University of Puerto Rico ........................................................... 66

Hare, Hon. Phil, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, 

submissions for the record: 

Letter from Illinois Positive Behavior Intervention and Support Program (PBIS) ........................................................................................... 58

Letter from American Occupational Therapy Association (AOTA) ....... 62

Kildee, Hon. Dale E., Chairman, Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education .............................................................. 1

Letter from the National School Boards Association (NSBA) ............... 89

Statement of Witnesses: 

Cort, Dr. Rebecca H., deputy commissioner, Office of Vocational and 

Educational Services for Individuals with Disabilities (VESID), New 

York State Education Department .............................................................. 8

Prepared statement and NCLB Issue Briefs .......................................... 10

Hardman, Dr. Michael L., dean-designate, College of Education, University of Utah .................................................................................................... 44

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 47

Henderson, William, Ed.D., principal, the O’Hearn Elementary School ..... 51

Quenemoen, Rachael, senior research fellow, National Center on Education Outcomes, University of Minnesota ................................................. 23

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 26

Response to questions for the record ....................................................... 78

Rhyne, Jane, Ph.D., assistant superintendent, Programs for Exceptional 

Children of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools ......................................... 4

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 6

(1)

HOW NCLB AFFECTS

STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 

Thursday, March 29, 2007

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Early Childhood, 

Elementary and Secondary Education 

Committee on Education and Labor 

Washington, DC

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:30 a.m., in Room 

2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dale Kildee [chairman 

of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Kildee, Davis of California, Payne, Holt, 

Sarbanes, Sestak, Loebsack, Hare, Woolsey, Castle, Fortuno, 

Platts, and Boustany. 

Staff present: Aaron Albright, Press Secretary; Tylease Alli, 

Hearing Clerk; Alice Cain, Senior Education Policy Advisor (K-12); 

Alejandra Ceja, Senior Budget/Appropriations Analyst; Adrienne 

Dunbar, Legislative Fellow, Education; Amy Elverum, Legislative 

Fellow, Education; Denise Forte, Director of Education Policy; 

Lloyd Horwich, Policy Advisor for Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education; Lamont Ivey, Staff Assistant, Education; Ann-Frances Lambert, Administrative Assistant 

to Director of Education Policy; Jill Morningstar, Education Policy 

Advisor; Alex Nock, Deputy Staff Director; Joe Novotny, Chief 

Clerk; Lisette Partelow, Staff Assistant, Education; Rachel 

Racusen, Deputy Communications Director; Theda Zawaiza, Senior 

Disability Policy Advisor; James Bergeron, Minority Deputy Director of Education and Human Resources Policy; Robert Borden, Minority General Counsel; Steve Forde, Minority Communications Director; Jessica Gross, Minority Deputy Press Secretary; Taylor 

Hansen, Minority Legislative Assistant; Susan Ross, Minority Director of Education and Human Resources Policy; and Linda Stevens, Minority Chief Clerk/Assistant to the General Counsel. 

Chairman KILDEE [presiding]. A quorum being present, the hearing of the subcommittee will come to order. 

And Mr. Castle, my ranking minority member, understands why 

I am doing this, and I do it with his full concurrence. He will be 

here shortly—not only my ranking Republican member, but a very 

dear friend. 

Pursuant to committee rule 12(a), any member may submit an 

opening statement in writing which will be made part of the permanent record. 

2

I now recognize myself, to be followed by Ranking Member Castle, for an opening statement. 

I am pleased to welcome my fellow subcommittee members, Mr. 

Hare, who is here this morning, the public and particularly our 

witnesses on how the No Child Left Behind affects children with 

disabilities. 

The bottom line as we go through these hearings is: Does No 

Child Left Behind help, hurt or keep about the same what we have 

done for children with disabilities? And if you can help us on that, 

that will be extremely helpful to us. 

Dr. Boustany, good to see you. And I will call upon you in just 

a minute, and you can make the opening statement. 

Dr. BOUSTANY. Thank you. 

Chairman KILDEE. Providing for the education of children with 

disabilities has been a top priority for me for many years. During 

my 12 years in the Michigan legislature, I authored the state’s special education law even before Congress passed education for all 

handicapped children in 1975. And Michigan was ahead of that. 

The Education for all Handicapped Children Act, today we call 

it the Individuals with Disabilities Act, or IDEA, was a watershed 

for children with disabilities and their families. Before IDEA, more 

than 1 million children with disabilities were excluded entirely 

from our education system. And most of those who were not excluded had only very limited access. 

IDEA supporters—and it passed the House by a vote of 404 to 

7 back in those days—recognized that that situation was unconscionable and resolved that children with disabilities, like all children, deserve the dignity of an education. The government’s role is 

to promote, protect, defend and enhance human dignity. And IDEA 

certainly is part of that. 

Today’s hearing is about the No Child Left Behind Act, not IDEA 

itself, but they certainly overlap one another. The same principle, 

dignity, underlies the inclusion of children with disabilities in No 

Child Left Behind. 

Children with disabilities must overcome unique hurdles to get 

their education. But No Child Left Behind recognizes that in the 

vast majority of cases that doesn’t mean that these children can’t 

achieve what their non-disabled peers achieve, only that they may 

need special help to achieve it. 

Our witnesses today will give specific examples of how they have 

provided that help and what it has meant for children with disabilities. Unfortunately the President’s proposal to cut special education funding by $200 million is not the kind of help we need at 

this time, nor is the continued under-funding of No Child Left Behind. Cumulatively No Child Left Behind has been under-funded 

by over $70 billion. 

As we will hear from our witnesses, to improve special education 

programs, we must strengthen general education programs because 

that is where so many special education students are and where 

they belong. 

For the same reason, we will hear about the need to prepare all 

teachers to work with all students, not just general education or 

special education students. And we will hear many suggestions 

about how to improve No Child Left Behind to ensure that it acVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:13 Oct 31, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\DOCS\110TH\ECESE\110-18\34174.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
3

counts for the complexities that states, school districts, and schools 

must address in educating and assessing students with disabilities. 

I hope that today’s hearing will help us understand these issues 

better, which are some of the most difficult and important ones in 

the law. And I look forward to working together with my ranking 

member, Mr. Castle, Chairman Miller and Ranking Member 

McKeon and with all the members of the committee on a bipartisan 

reauthorization of No Child Left Behind. 

I now yield to my good friend, Congressman Boustany. 

Dr. BOUSTANY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ranking Member Castle was detained at this time. And I am 

hoping he will make it, but I will fill in in his absence. 

I would like to say good morning to all of you. 

I would like to thank my colleagues for joining me here today for 

the latest in our series of hearings on No Child Left Behind. 

I would also like to thank Chairman Kildee for his continued 

dedication to hearing from education leaders around the country, 

and all of you for being here today to testify. 

Today’s hearing will focus on how students with disabilities are 

excelling in public school. Additionally, I hope that we will examine 

how these students are evaluated, how effective those evaluation 

measures are, and whether or not there is enough flexibility granted to states and school districts by the Department of Education 

with regard to this student sub-group. 

First, let us not lose sight of the fact that No Child Left Behind 

was crafted under the guiding principle that all students can learn. 

Students with special needs are certainly no exception. 

Because of that, under No Child Left Behind, schools are held to 

higher standards and held accountable for the academic achievement of all the children, including special education. Indeed, the 

evaluation of this student sub-group is an essential component of 

our discussions on No Child Left Behind and a window into the effectiveness of our current systems of evaluation and accountability. 

With regard to students with disabilities, No Child Left Behind 

affirms our belief that a child should not be discounted simply because he or she doesn’t learn at the same rate or in the same manner as other students. 

Moreover, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which 

Congress renewed in 2004, also requires that all students with disabilities be appropriately assessed on state assessments and within 

the context of a student’s individualized education program and allowing for enhanced flexibility and personalization within the student’s learning experiences. 

I look forward to today’s testimony on accountability standards 

at the local and state level. But more importantly, I look forward 

to hearing about what is being done to meet the goals that we have 

set. I am certain that this hearing will build upon previous hearings in this series. 

And I am eager to hear the unique perspectives of our witnesses. 

And I extend a warm welcome to them. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you very much, Dr. Boustany. And I 

certainly appreciate personally your deep and abiding interest in 

this area of special education. 

4

Without objection, all members will have 7 calendar days to submit additional materials or questions for the hearing record. 

I would like now to introduce the very distinguished panel of witnesses here with us this morning. 

Dr. Jane Rhyne is the assistant superintendent for programs for 

exceptional children in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, a district with 129,000 students in North Carolina. Dr. Rhyne works 

with her general education colleagues to ensure that the district’s 

special education program is woven into every aspect of the school 

system. 

Dr. Rebecca Cort is a deputy commissioner of the New York 

State Education Department’s office of vocational and educational 

services for individuals with disabilities. Dr. Cort oversees special 

education services for more than 400,000 students. 

Rachel Quenemoen is a senior research fellow at the National 

Center on Educational Outcomes at the University of Minnesota. 

For the past 10 years, she has worked at the national and state 

levels on educational reform efforts concerning standards-based reforms and students with disabilities. 

Dr. Michael Hardman is chair of the University of Utah’s department of special education and recently was appointed dean of the 

university’s college of education. He also was past president for the 

Higher Education Consortium for Special Education and a member 

of the board of directors for the Council for Exceptional Children. 

Dr. William Henderson has been the principal of the Patrick 

O’Hearn Elementary School in Dorchester, Massachusetts since 

1989. He has received numerous awards during his career, including the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Outstanding Americans Award and the city of Boston’s Henry L. 

Shattuck Public Service Award. 

And I welcome all our witnesses. 

For those who may have not testified before this subcommittee, 

I would explain our lighting system. We have a 5-minute rule here. 

Everyone, including members, is limited to 5 minutes of presentation or questioning. The green light will be illuminated when you 

begin to speak. And when you see the yellow light, it means that 

you have 1 minute remaining. When you see the red light, it means 

that your time is expired; you need to conclude your testimony. 

There is no ejection seat, however, so we will let you finish your 

thought or your paragraph. [Laughter.] 

And, Dr. Henderson, if you wish, I will gently note when you 

have 1 minute left and when your time is expired. 

Please be certain as you testify to turn on and speak into the 

microphone in front of you and turn it off when you are finished. 

We will now hear from our first witness, Dr. Rhyne. 

STATEMENT OF JANE RHYNE, PH.D., ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT, PROGRAMS FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN, 

CHARLOTTE–MECKLENBURG SCHOOLS 

Ms. RHYNE. Good morning, Chairman Kildee, Ranking Member 

Castle and members of the subcommittee. I am Jane Rhyne, assistant superintendent for programs for exceptional children in the 

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, Charlotte, North Carolina. I am 

5

pleased to be here today to testify on behalf of our superintendent, 

Peter C. Gorman, and our board of education. 

CMS has about 129,000 students, and we are growing. Minority 

students are the majority. Almost half live in poverty. About a 

tenth speak English as a second language. And over a tenth are 

students with disabilities. 

CMS has been recognized in numerous ways as one of the highest achieving urban districts in America. For example, in the National Assessment of Educational Progress, CMS outperformed the 

nation and the state in three of four reading and math tests. And 

there is additional information about accolades about Charlotte in 

my written testimony. 

During the first year of NCLB, I had the privilege of appearing 

before this committee. I testified then that the instructional attention to students with disabilities had clearly increased with the 

new federal disaggregated accountability requirements. This is still 

true. Standards-based curriculum and instruction have been provided to a broader range of students with disabilities. Teachers are 

demonstrating that this group of children can make significant 

progress in the general curriculum if given the opportunity and effective teaching. 

The number of students with disabilities achieving in general 

education in CMS has definitely increased. So I support the basic 

concepts of NCLB and its attention to the performance of students 

with disabilities. However, I do have some concerns. 

States are allowed to ignore the academic performance of significant numbers of children through unnecessarily high sub-group 

minimums. This invites the manipulation of NCLB accountability 

and allows some districts to escape portions of sub-group accountability, particularly for students with disabilities. 

As an urban special educator, I believe equity for our students 

is extremely important. So is a level playing field for urban districts. In CMS, our students with disabilities continue to make 

progress in state assessments, as our written testimony shows. 

However, based on projections of current performance, I do not expect 100 percent of them to be proficient by 2014. 

For those students who have not attained proficiency, their 

progress within performance levels continues to be important and 

carefully monitored. There is almost universal agreement among 

educators that adding a growth model to NCLB will improve the 

act. North Carolina has been selected as a pilot to demonstrate 

this. 

I am concerned that significant progress below proficiency may 

not be recognized. I believe that acknowledging such progress 

would mute criticism of NCLB regarding the performance of students with disabilities as well as the questionable claims that this 

sub-group is responsible for the labeling of large percentages of 

schools as failing. 

In 2004, the Department of Education provided flexibility by allowing districts to deem as proficient up to 1 percent of students 

with significant cognizant disabilities using alternate standards 

and assessments. Recently additional flexibility was provided by allowing districts to deem as proficient up to 2 percent of other students with disabilities using regular standards and alternate asVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:13 Oct 31, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\DOCS\110TH\ECESE\110-18\34174.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
6

sessments. I think a better way to measure this success is through 

a growth or a progress model. 

NCLB emphasizes that quality teaching is key to student academic performance. A particular challenge, however, is the requirement that special education teachers be highly qualified. 

Sometimes this requires multiple certifications, which creates 

two problems. First, there is a national shortage of special education teachers. Second, special educators who teach content subjects must be certified in these areas. Finding special ed teachers 

with one certification has been difficult. Finding teachers with two 

or more has been almost impossible. There needs to be flexibility 

in these standards for them. 

At CMS we have addressed these certification issues partially 

through the use of inclusive practices where we team highly qualified general and special ed teachers in the classroom. Our data has 

shown that all students benefit, both students with disabilities and 

general ed students. I still believe that NCLB is focused on the 

right children. 

Further refinements to acknowledge student progress in the accountability and assessment system, to enhance focus and resources on effective instructional practices, and to allow flexibility 

with highly qualified provisions would help overcome many of the 

operational problems that attract so much attention at the local 

level. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Rhyne follows:]

Prepared Statement of Jane Rhyne, Ph.D., Assistant Superintendent, 

Programs for Exceptional Children of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools 

Good morning, Chairman Kildee, Ranking Member Castle and members of the 

subcommittee. 

I am Jane Rhyne, Assistant Superintendent for Exceptional Children in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools (CMS) in North Carolina. I am pleased to testify today 

on behalf of Superintendent Peter C. Gorman and the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board 

of Education. I will discuss how children with disabilities have been affected by the 

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act. 

I am responsible for the education of and support services for more than 14,000 

students with disabilities in Charlotte and Mecklenburg County. I oversee program 

planning, implementation and monitoring, curriculum and instruction, instructional 

interventions and student progress. 

Let me quickly describe our district for you. CMS has about 133,000 students prekindergarten through twelfth grade. We’re adding about 5,000 students each year. 

For this school year, the district has 42.4 percent African-American students, 36.2 

percent white, 13.6 percent Hispanic, 14.3 percent Asian and 3.5 percent multiracial 

or Native American students. Almost half—45.5 percent—of our students qualify for 

free or reduced-price lunch. Nearly 15,000 of our students come from homes where 

English is not the native language. And we have 14,502 students with disabilities. 

CMS has been recognized in numerous ways as one of the highest-achieving 

urban districts in America. Our student academic performance compares favorably 

with that of many urban districts: 86 percent of our fourth-graders are at or above 

grade level in reading in comparison to 85 percent of all fourth-graders statewide. 

For mathematics, 69 percent of all fifth-graders are at or above grade level compared with 64 percent across the state. We participate in the trial urban initiative 

of the National Assessment of Educational Progress—called the Nation’s Report 

Card -and have seen strong results there, too. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools outperformed the nation and North Carolina in three of four reading and math tests 

at grades four and eight and scored within two points in the other area. Nine percent of CMS students achieved at the advanced level on the NAEP test in grade 

four reading and math and grade eight math—more than the nation, more than 

North Carolina, and more than most states. 

7

More than half of our graduating students last year had taken one or more advanced courses in high school and Newsweek magazine in 2006 put three of our 

high schools on its list of the Top 100 high schools in America. And we were the 

first large county-wide school district to be accredited as a high quality district by 

the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. Fifty-seven percent of 2006 graduates completed at least one AP or IB course. The number of African-American students enrolling in AP courses increased from 341 students in l995-96 to 2,764 in 

2005-06. The average score for our students who ranked in the top 10 percent of 

scores on the SAT was 1207, higher than North Carolina (1179) and the nation 

(1184). 

In March of 2004, during the first full year of NCLB implementation, I had the 

privilege of appearing before this Committee. I testified then that I had seen firsthand in my school district and in visits to other districts that the instructional attention to students with disabilities had clearly increased with the new federal 

disaggregated accountability requirements. 

This is still true. Standards-based curriculum and instruction has been provided 

to a broader range of students with disabilities. Teachers and principals are demonstrating that this group of children can make significant progress in the general 

curriculum if given the opportunity and effective teaching. The number of students 

with disabilities being taught in general education classes in CMS has increased by 

10.25 percent since the 2004-2005 school year. Participation in regular pre-kindergarten programs for students age three to five has increased 21.5 percent since the 

2004-2005 school year. When we pair general and special education teachers in a 

classroom, the performance of all students rises. We have seen significant increases 

in performance on state reading and math tests for not only students with disabilities but for general education students as well. 

So I support the basic concepts of NCLB and its attention to the performance of 

students with disabilities. However, I also have some concerns. States are allowed 

to ignore the academic performance of significant numbers of children through unnecessarily high subgroup minimums or N-sizes. This state flexibility invites the 

manipulation of the NCLB accountability system and operationally allows some 

schools and some school districts to escape portions of subgroup accountability, particularly for students with disabilities. As an urban educator and a special educator, 

I believe equity for our students is extremely important. So is a level playing field 

for urban districts. 

In school year 2002-03, 34.6 percent of our students with disabilities in grades 3 

through 8 achieved proficiency on our state assessments, compared to 42.2% of students in grades 3 through 8 in the 2004-05 school year. On state high school tests, 

24.3 percent of students passed in 2002-03 compared to 35 percent in 2005-2006. 

So we are making progress. However, based on the current North Carolina academic 

standards and projections of current performance, I do not expect 100% of our students with disabilities to be proficient by 2014. For those students who have not 

attained proficiency, their progress within performance levels continues to be important and carefully monitored. 

There is almost universal agreement among educators that adding a growth or 

progress model to NCLB would improve the act. North Carolina is one of the pilot 

projects selected by the Department of Education to demonstrate such a growth 

model. But this pilot growth model, as I understand it, is tied to a student’s trajectory for attaining proficiency—and I am concerned that even significant progress 

below proficiency may not be recognized. I also believe that recognizing such 

progress would mute criticism of NCLB regarding the performance of students with 

disabilities, as well as the questionable claims that this subgroup is responsible for 

the labeling of large percentages of schools as failing. We should give schools proper 

credit for the academic progress of students with disabilities and other students. 

In March of 2004, then-Education Secretary Rod Paige had just announced the 

flexibility to assess one percent of students with significant cognitive disabilities 

against alternate standards and using alternate assessment. At that point, I estimated that there were at least 1.5 percent of students whose disabilities would prevent them from doing the same level of academic work as their age-mates. In recent 

years the Department of Education has proposed additional flexibility for another 

two percent of students to be assessed with modified tests. North Carolina has implemented this by allowing up to another two percent of students with disabilities 

to demonstrate proficiency with a modified assessment. In Charlotte-Mecklenburg 

Schools, only 14.3% of these students have done so on the North Carolina modified 

assessment. The one and two percent involve most of our students with mental retardation, multiple disabilities, autism and a few with other disabilities. 

Some students with disabilities will not make one year’s worth of academic 

growth by the end of the school year. These students will achieve, but they need 

8

more time and properly designed instruction. A better way to measure their success 

is through a growth or progress model. 

No Child Left Behind emphasizes that quality teaching is key to student academic 

progress. A particular challenge, however, is the NCLB requirement that special 

education teachers be highly qualified. In some instances, this requires multiple certifications. This situation creates two problems. First, there is a national shortage 

of special education teachers. Teachers who provide special education must now 

meet rigorous state certification standards to show that they are highly qualified to 

do so. Second, special education teachers who provide content instruction at the secondary level, such as math, must also be certified in the content area that they are 

teaching. Finding special education teachers with one certification has been difficult; 

finding teachers with dual certification has been almost impossible. This problem 

becomes even more complex with special education teachers who teach in self-contained classrooms. These teachers are required to have certification not only in special education but also in all the subjects taught in the classroom—math, English, 

science, social studies. There needs to be flexibility in the standards for these teachers. 

At CMS, we have addressed these certification issues partially through the use 

of inclusive practices. Highly qualified special and general education teachers team 

together to co-teach in general education classrooms that include both students with 

disabilities and their general education peers. The general education teacher has 

certification in the content area and the special education teacher has certification 

in special education. This teaching team provides the expertise of the special educator, a master at differentiated instruction, and the general educator, an expert in 

curriculum content. All students benefit. 

For example, in our district, students with disabilities who were co-taught performed at higher levels and made more progress in reading at grades three and four 

and in math at grades six, seven and eight, as measured by state tests. We have 

found that including students with disabilities in the classroom does not hinder the 

performance of non-disabled peers. For example, on the average, scores were higher 

and demonstrated improvement for non-disabled students in co-taught classrooms in 

reading for grades three, four, six and eight and in math for grades 3 through 8, 

as well as Algebra I and Geometry—as measured by state tests. 

I still believe that the No Child Left Behind Act is focused on the right children—

those in greatest need of instructional attention and additional resources. Further 

refinements and revisions in the act to acknowledge student progress in the accountability and assessment system, to enhance the level of focus and resources devoted to effective instructional practices, and to allow sufficient flexibility to align 

our teacher qualifications to the instructional needs of our students would help overcome many of the operational problems that attract so much attention at the local 

level. 

Thank you. 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Cort? 

STATEMENT OF REBECCA CORT, PH.D., DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, OFFICE FOR VOCATIONAL AND EDUCATIONAL SERVICES FOR 

INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES 

Ms. CORT. Good morning, Chairman Kildee and subcommittee 

members. And thank you for this valuable opportunity. I am Rebecca Cort. I serve as the State director for special education and 

adult vocational rehabilitation in New York State. 

I want to begin by affirming that the New York Board of Regents 

and the New York State Education Department are strong supporters of the high expectations for students and the accountability 

for schools and districts as set by NCLB. 

The board of regents remains committed to preparing all students to be educated and productive citizens in the 21st century. 

And we believe that NCLB can play an important role in achieving 

that goal for the children of New York State. We have seen steady 

9

progress in the outcomes for students with disabilities since the regents’ reform efforts began and NCLB was passed. But their performance continues to be unacceptably low. 

To improve these outcomes and to ensure that we rely on accurate data, there are several issues that require your attention. 

Most significantly, NCLB needs to acknowledge and accommodate 

the individual student differences that are at the core of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. We agree a large majority 

of students with disabilities should be receiving instruction on the 

general education learning standards and should be able to master 

these standards, given appropriate research-based instruction. 

However, students with disabilities represent a very broad continuum of cognitive functioning from profoundly developmentally 

delayed to gifted. I want to address today the 2 percent, or gap students, whose disabilities prevent them from mastering the general 

education learning standards at the same level or rate as their 

non-disabled peers, even when they receive appropriate instruction. 

We believe that this group includes two separate subsets of students that require different options under NCLB. 

The first subset consists of students who will be able to earn a 

regular diploma and learn the general education standards but who 

do it at slower and often inconsistent rates. These students don’t 

require modified standards or modified assessments. But they do 

require the time to learn and an opportunity to demonstrate that 

learning. 

We ask that NCLB clearly authorize the students whose individualized education program, IEP, recommends instruction at a 4thgrade level in math and 3rd-grade level in English language arts 

to be able to participate in assessments that correspond to these 

different levels. 

Currently in New York, if such a student is actually 5th grade 

chronological age, many of them are being required to take 5thgrade tests on content that they have never received instruction on. 

The IEP should indicate the appropriate instructional levels and 

assessments for each student with a disability. And that recommendation should be recognized and accepted under NCLB’s accountability system. 

The second subset of students within this 2 percent group are 

those whose disabilities are so severe that they cannot earn a regular New York state diploma but who are functioning higher than 

the 1 percent group appropriate for alternate assessments. For 

these students, states must be permitted to develop truly modified 

standards and modified assessments that will reflect substantively 

different content from the general education standards. 

The draft regulations issued by USED indicated that modified 

standards and modified assessments could reduce the depth and 

breadth of a state’s learning standards but they could not represent 

a reduction in the grade level or base content of the standards and 

they must provide access to a regular high school diploma. 

We believe that teaching a student half of algebra will not 

produce proficiency in algebra or prepare the student to move on 

to the subsequent grade’s course work. The modified standards instead need to be designed to maximize the functioning level of stuVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:13 Oct 31, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\110TH\ECESE\110-18\34174.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
10

dents who need to leave school prepared for employment and independence. 

Currently, districts and schools do not receive any recognition 

under NCLB for a student’s mastery of a career and vocational 

education program that is relevant, meaningful, and results in a 

pathway to competitive employment unless that student also receives a high school diploma. 

NCLB also anticipates the students will meet all of their graduation requirements within 4 years of entering grade 9. In New York 

many students with disabilities graduate after 5 or even 6 years. 

Schools that hold on to these students should be given credit, not 

penalized for their efforts and their success. For students with disabilities, again, it is the IEP that should indicate the anticipated 

time required to meet graduation requirements. And schools should 

be held accountable for that standard. 

Even if these changes are instituted, it is likely that we will still 

see a number of schools identified for not meeting AYP with this 

sub-group. Currently, regardless of the reason for identification, 

the consequences are uniform for all schools, even though required 

options such as school choice and supplemental services are often 

unavailable to students with disabilities. If only students with disabilities fail to meet AYP targets, we believe that funding should 

be targeted to this sub-group and allowed to be spent on interventions that will meet the unique needs of students with disabilities. 

Finally, we recommend that NCLB incorporate language from 

the IDEA regarding the use of response to intervention systems. 

RTI is not a method for helping a district identify students with 

disabilities as its primary purpose. Rather, it is a method for teaching and monitoring the progress of all students that must be driven 

first and foremost by general education teachers in a general education classroom with the support of strong building leadership and 

professional development. 

NCLB’s greatest potential benefit to students with disabilities 

may depend on its ability to ensure strong general education programs that eliminate inappropriate referrals and increase the opportunities for meaningful integration of students with disabilities 

into general ed environments. Incorporating RTI into NCLB would 

help accomplish that goal. 

Thank you. And I welcome your questions. 

[The statement of Ms. Cort follows:]

Prepared Statement of Dr. Rebecca H. Cort, Deputy Commissioner, Office 

of Vocational and Educational Services for Individuals with Disabilities 

(VESID), New York State Education Department 

I would like to thank the Chairman and members of the Subcommittee for this 

valuable opportunity to testify on How NCLB Affects Students with Disabilities. I 

am Rebecca Cort, Deputy Commissioner of the Office of Vocational and Education 

Services for Students with Disabilities (VESID) within the New York State Education Department. As such, I am in the unique position of being the state director 

for both preschool to Grade 12 special education services as well as for adult vocational rehabilitation. 

I am submitting with my testimony a number of detailed briefings that discuss 

New York State’s position regarding areas in NCLB where we believe there are significant opportunities for revision and improvement during the reauthorization process. However, I will focus here on several issues that have had the greatest impact 

on students with disabilities. 

11

The New York Board of Regents and the New York State Education Department 

have been strong supporters of the high expectations set by NCLB. This focus closely parallels initiatives undertaken in New York prior to the enactment of NCLB. 

The Regents recognized that, within many schools and districts, the expectations for 

students with disabilities were far too low and that they were not being provided 

with the same access to rigorous course work as their non-disabled peers. Even before NCLB, the New York State Board of Regents established requirements that all 

students must be prepared to meet the same high level learning standards and to 

participate in rigorous state assessments as a condition for graduating from high 

school with a regular high school diploma. New York’s Board of Regents remain 

committed to preparing all students to be educated and productive citizens in the 

21st century and we believe that NCLB can play an important role in achieving that 

goal for the children of New York State. 

However, there are a number of areas where NCLB has reduced the likelihood 

of meeting that goal and where it is having a disproportionately negative impact on 

students with disabilities. The first, and most significant, area concerns the lack of 

recognition of the extremely broad range of characteristics and developmental levels 

of students with disabilities. NCLB has not integrated into the law the elements 

needed to ensure consideration of those individual student differences that are at 

the core of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). This has led to 

the identification of districts as needing improvement as a result of the assessment 

outcomes for students with disabilities when, in fact, the current system does not 

allow an accurate measurement of districts’ and schools’ cumulative impact on their 

performance. In many instances, students with disabilities now must be tested on 

what they have never been taught instead of being allowed to demonstrate what 

they have learned. 

Assessments for the 2% ‘‘Gap’’ Students 

Students with disabilities represent a broad continuum of cognitive functioning 

from profoundly developmentally delayed to gifted. Those with severe to profound 

mental retardation have been accommodated under NCLB through the allowance for 

1% of students who can be counted as proficient based on an alternate assessment 

aligned to alternate achievement standards. In New York, our guidance to districts 

indicates that students participating in the alternate assessment must have a severe cognitive disability and significant deficits in communication/language and in 

adaptive behavior. Most of the students who meet the criteria for the alternate assessment do not achieve higher than a first grade level. New York agrees that, in 

general, these students should not exceed 1% of the school district population. 

However, the lack of options available for other students with disabilities is a significant problem. We welcomed the US Department of Education’s (USED) promise 

of increased flexibility for an additional 2% of students whose disabilities prevent 

them from mastering the general education learning standards at the same level 

and rate as their non-disabled peers. However, we believe that the proposed regulations that would guide the development of ‘‘modified standards’’ and ‘‘modified assessments’’ for this group of students were not sufficiently flexible. Further, they interpreted the law as requiring modified assessments to be aligned with the general 

education learning standards at the grade level of non-disabled chronological peers. 

While the regulations indicated that modified standards could represent reduced 

‘‘depth and breadth’’ of a state’s learning standards, they could not represent a reduction in the grade level of the content of the standards for any subject area to 

be measured. 

We agree that the large majority of students with disabilities should be receiving 

instruction based on the general education learning standards and should able to 

master these standards given appropriate research-based instruction. But there exists a band of students (the 2% or ‘‘gap’’ students) who are not able to master gradelevel standards at the rate and/or level of their non-disabled chronological peers 

even with appropriate instruction. We believe that this band includes two separate 

subsets of students with disabilities that require different options under NCLB. 

The first subset consists of students with disabilities who, while able to make 

progress toward a regular diploma, learn at a slower and often inconsistent rate. 

Many students with disabilities require and receive one level of instruction in reading and language arts and another in mathematics or other content areas as a result of the individualized education program (IEP) recommendations that drive special education service delivery. Students who do not have the language and vocabulary or critical thinking skills necessary to benefit from instruction at the level of 

their non-disabled peers should participate in curriculum appropriate to their developmental levels that they can master and that can provide them with the precursor 

skills necessary to move to the next level. 

12

Reducing the ‘‘depth and breadth’’ of 9th grade geometry or biology may appear 

to provide a meaningful option for some students but it will not result in the level 

of mastery needed to meet New York’s standards for course completion, nor the 

readiness to move on to the subsequent grade’s course work, nor the ability to successfully complete high stakes exit examinations. USED’s current interpretation is 

that any modified set of learning standards and participation in any modified assessment that measures this reduced level of instruction must still permit the 

awarding of a regular high school diploma. For states such as New York, that are 

not willing to compromise the rigorous standards that have been set to earn a high 

school diploma, there are no real options. 

We ask that NCLB clearly indicate that this subset of students be allowed to proceed at a slower but equally rigorous pace as their non-disabled peers. These students require neither modified standards nor modified assessments but they do require the time to learn and an opportunity to demonstrate that learning. NCLB 

must permit a student whose IEP recommends instruction in the general education 

curriculum at a fourth grade level in mathematics and third grade level in English 

language arts to participate in assessments that correspond to these different levels. 

A school will then be held accountable for that student’s learning on subject matter 

they have been taught rather than for the different subject matter that has been 

taught to the student’s chronological peers in the classroom down the hall. The IEP 

team should determine and clearly indicate on the IEP the appropriate instructional 

levels and assessments for each student with a disability. 

Any reauthorization of NCLB also must provide specific options for a second subset of students with disabilities within this 2% group. These students are those 

whose severe disabilities preclude them from meeting the high level of learning required to earn a regular New York State diploma but whose cognitive ability and 

developmental levels exceed the first grade level maximum designated for the 1% 

of students appropriate for the alternate learning standards and alternate assessment. They include those who exhibit mild to moderate mental retardation or some 

identified with autism spectrum disorders or severe traumatic brain injuries. 

States must be permitted to develop both these modified standards and the modified assessments that will measure proficiency on these standards. These modified 

standards will be substantively different from the general education standards but 

have a range that exceeds the current alternate standards. They need to be designed to maximize the functioning level of students who need an instructional program that will allow them to leave school prepared for employment and independence, even if they cannot earn a regular high school diploma. Many students with 

disabilities who now leave school without either a diploma or adequate work readiness skills are more likely to remain if they were to be offered a career and technical program that was relevant and meaningful and resulted in a pathway to competitive employment. Districts and schools now have little incentive to develop innovative programs based on modified standards as they are unable to receive any recognition under NCLB for a student’s mastery of such a modified curriculum, even 

if it reflects the annual goals and transition plans recommended on a student’s IEP. 

While I have not discussed the issue of growth models and value added assessments here, I have attached more detailed recommendations on this issue. We believe that all states should have the option of using these models as new assessments, including those based on modified standards, are developed. The capacity to 

capture the rate of growth will be especially useful in evaluating outcomes for students with disabilities who have very variable starting points. 

Four Year Graduation Standard 

While these comments reflect the changes required to address the needs of what 

should be a very limited percentage of students, an additional change is needed for 

what could be a larger number of students with disabilities. The current requirements under NCLB anticipate that students will meet all high school requirements 

and then receive a high school diploma within four years of entering 9th grade. This 

is not a realistic expectation for many students with disabilities and prevents recognition of the laudable efforts of districts and schools that encourage students to 

remain in school for a fifth and sixth year as they move toward the completion of 

all course work and required assessments. In New York, many more students with 

disabilities graduate after five years than after four years. 

States with rigorous graduation standards require an option that allows students 

extra time to receive the special education instruction and support services they 

need even though this may prohibit a full course load every semester. This option 

must acknowledge and award credit to districts and schools that are able to achieve 

success and meet NCLB’s goals after a student completes five or six years in high 

school. For students with disabilities, the IEP should indicate the anticipated time 

13

required to meet graduation requirements and schools should be held accountable 

for meeting that standard, based on individual student needs. 

Differential Consequences for Different Subgroups Identified 

Even with the addition of these critical elements to a reauthorized NCLB, there 

are schools and districts who will continue to struggle to adequately address the 

needs of the population of students with disabilities. We hope that the access to appropriate assessments will present a fairer measurement of schools’ performance 

and reduce inappropriate identification of those schools and districts that are being 

successful. However, we know that a very substantial number of schools are being 

identified as in need of improvement as a result of the failure of the subgroup of 

students with disabilities to make AYP. (Last year in New York, 31% of schools 

identified failed to make AYP only for the subgroup of students with disabilities on 

the grades 3-8 English Language Arts exams.) 

Yet the consequences of this identification are systemic and almost identical for 

all schools, regardless of the number or composition of the subgroups that are not 

achieving AYP. In fact, as currently implemented, many of the required options and 

reforms have the least impact on students with disabilities even if they are the only 

group triggering these actions. Options such as school choice are often unavailable 

to students with disabilities who are enrolled in unique programs that are not duplicated within other schools in the district. In addition, many supplemental educational services (SES) providers do not offer services that meet the needs of students with disabilities. 

States should not be required to impose uniform NCLB mandated sanctions such 

as school choice and supplemental educational services on schools or districts because of the failure of one or several subgroups of students to meet AYP targets. 

Schools should be able to target remediation or interventions based on the nature 

and extent of their failure to make AYP. If only students with disabilities fail to 

meet AYP targets, resources and remediation should be focused on those students. 

In these instances, funding should be allowed to be spent on creative, targeted alternatives to school choice and SES that will address the unique needs of students 

with disabilities. 

Alignment with IDEA 

Finally, an examination of whole group and subgroup performance data reveal a 

strong correlation between poor performance for students with disabilities and poor 

performance for students in general education. While the IDEA’s reauthorization included efforts to align it with NCLB, we now urge Congress to make a similar effort 

to align NCLB with IDEA. A number of critical elements within IDEA are more appropriately targeted to all students and should be incorporated into NCLB in order 

to ensure that struggling learners’ needs are met in general education settings and 

to reduce the inappropriate referral and over-identification of minority students. 

We especially recommend that NCLB incorporate language regarding the use of 

Response to Intervention (RtI) systems to ensure that struggling schools understand 

the importance and benefit of implementing high-quality instruction and interventions to meet the needs of all students. Its inclusion in IDEA is causing RtI to be 

viewed as having a primary purpose of helping a district identify students with disabilities. This is not true. Rather, RtI is a method for teaching and monitoring the 

progress of all students that must be driven first and foremost by general education 

teachers in the general education classroom with the support of school building leadership and strong professional development. 

NCLB’s greatest potential benefit to students with disabilities may depend on its 

ability to ensure strong general education programs that eliminate inappropriate referrals and increase the opportunities for meaningful integration of students with 

disabilities into productive general education environments staffed with highly 

qualified teachers who have the tools to meet the needs of all students. 

Attachments 

NCLB Issue Briefs: 

• Assessing Students with Disabilities 

• Growth Models for State Accountability 

• Highly Qualified Teachers 

• Single Accountability Designation for Adequate Yearly Progress 

• Targeted Interventions and Differentiated Consequences for Schools and Districts Identified as In Need of Improvement 

14

March 2007. 

NCLB ISSUE BRIEF 

Assessing Students With Disabilities 

CURRENT LAW

Title I, Part A, Section 1111(b)(3)—Academic Assessments 

• States are required to implement academic assessments in mathematics, reading or language arts and a third state selected indicator (in New York, science) to 

be used as the primary means of determining Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) (students’ continuous academic improvement toward 100 percent proficiency in 2014). • Alternate assessments may be used for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities, which 34 C.F.R. §200.13(c)(1)(ii) presently limits to 1 percent of 

all students in the grades assessed. 

RECOMMENDATIONS

Revise assessment systems and accountability practices for students with disabilities: • Allow states to develop modified assessments that measure the performance of 

a student with a disability toward modified state standards at the student’s appropriate instructional level, as designated by the Individualized Education Program 

(IEP) team. These assessments should be designed to show what students know and 

to measure their growth over time. • Allow certain students with disabilities to participate in general education assessments based on general education learning standards that align with their instructional levels rather than their chronological age. The assessment levels should 

be determined by the IEP team and may be different levels for different content 

areas. • Establish a lower expected threshold for improvement for students with disabilities or authorize states to establish their own realistic and appropriate benchmark 

targets for incremental performance improvement to be applied uniformly at the 

state, district and school levels. • Authorize states to establish a threshold for the percent of students with disabilities that should be scoring at the proficient and advanced levels on alternate 

and modified standard assessments as well as instructional-level assessments that 

are not aligned with students’ current grade level or with their chronological age. 

States should justify their decisions to the U.S. Department of Education (USED) 

when a threshold exceeds three percent of the total population tested. • Continue to allow states to include the proficient scores of students with the 

most significant cognitive disabilities based on alternate assessments in its calculations of AYP, provided that such scores do not exceed one percent of all students 

tested in the grades assessed in reading/language arts and in mathematics. • Direct USED to conduct research to identify the characteristics of the modified 

assessment population of students (e.g., the 2-3 percent) to ensure consistency of criteria across IEP teams, school districts and states. 

• Permit states to include as a third indicator of meeting AYP targets assessments that measure modified learning standards at the high school level reflecting 

postsecondary goals of competitive employment and independence when a regular 

high school diploma is not an appropriate outcome given the nature and severity 

of a student’s specific disability. 

RATIONALE

NCLB does not ensure appropriate assessment options for the range of instructional levels and abilities of students with disabilities. Subjecting students at specific chronological ages to grade-level assessments that are measuring skills well beyond their capabilities and that do not reflect content that they have actually been 

exposed to is not true participation and does not provide meaningful data to measure progress toward the standards. 

Holding schools and school districts accountable for inappropriate achievement 

standards does not recognize the true value of a student’s educational program and 

does not serve to challenge schools to improve results for students with disabilities. 

As a result, students with disabilities are tested on what they have never been 

taught instead of being able to demonstrate what they have learned. 

The U.S. Department of Education’s (USED) proposed regulatory language regarding a modified standards and assessment option for an additional 2 percent of 

students (above the 1 percent of the most cognitively disabled) is not responsive to 

15

this issue, as it requires an assessment based on grade-level content standards with 

reduced depth and breadth that leads toward a regular diploma. 

Students in special education have a wide range of instructional levels, including 

those who learn at variable rates but can achieve a regular diploma, and those 

whose developmental disabilities result in a cognitive range that exceeds the alternate assessment levels—the 1 percent of the most cognitively disabled—but does not 

equal their nondisabled peers. This latter group constitutes students who require 

modified standards that may focus on career and technical programs leading to competitive employment rather than modified grade-level content that leads to a regular 

diploma. 

If, as USED has indicated, modified learning standards and assessments must 

both simplify the required general education content and lead to a regular diploma, 

it is, in essence, requiring a reduction in states’ graduation criteria for a portion of 

the population. This exceeds the federal authority to dictate a state’s graduation 

standard. 

FACTS

• In the 2005-06 school year in New York, 7,205 students with significant cognitive disabilities participated in the alternate assessment at the elementary, middle and high school levels. This is 0.9 percent of all enrolled students tested on elementary level examinations and 0.8 percent of all students tested on middle level 

examinations. 

• New York assessment data shows that even in low and average need school districts where there is a higher level of expenditure per pupil, between 2 and 3 percent of the total population tested are students with disabilities with intellectual 

and cognitive disabilities that do not permit them to master the state’s general education learning standards even with appropriate instruction. The results in these 

high resource districts show a lack of performance at the proficient level and failure 

to graduate with a regular diploma at a rate that generally exceeds 3 percent of 

the population. 

RESEARCH

• On December 15, 2005, USED published in the Federal Register (Volume 70, 

Number 240) proposed rules to amend regulations under NCLB Title I regarding 

school accountability for students with disabilities beyond those students with significant cognitive disabilities (1 percent of the total population) identified for participation in the alternate assessment. The notice stated ‘‘* * * recent research indicates that there are other students, who, because of their disability, have significant 

difficulty achieving grade-level proficiency, even with the best instruction.’’ The proposed regulations would permit States to develop modified achievement standards 

and assessments to address the needs of this segment of students with disabilities. 

The federal notice further stated, ‘‘the best available research and data indicates 

that 2 percent, or approximately 20 percent of students with disabilities, is a reasonable cap.’’

March 2007. 

NCLB ISSUE BRIEF 

Growth Models for State Accountability 

CURRENT LAW

NCLB requires schools to show increases in the percentage of students reaching 

proficiency in reading and math toward the goal of having all students performing 

at their appropriate grade level by 2014. This is called making Adequate Yearly 

Progress (AYP). 

States must use a ‘‘status model’’ to measure students’ academic progress. A status model measures progress by tracking improvement in the same grade over time. 

For example, a status model might compare the performance of students in fourth 

grade in a school in 2006-07 against the performance of a different group of students 

in fourth grade in 2005-06. In contrast, a ‘‘growth model’’ measures the scores of 

the same students over time. So, a growth model might measure the percentage of 

fourth grade students in a school in 2006-07 who are proficient compared to the percentage of those same students who were proficient when they were third graders 

in 2005-06. A growth model would allow schools to determine which individual students need remediation help and target assistance to those students. 

16

Recognizing the potential of growth models for state accountability plans under 

NCLB, the U.S. Department of Education (USED) instituted a growth model pilot 

project in November 2005 under which it would approve up to 10 proposals. To date, 

Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, North Carolina and Tennessee have approved projects. 

RECOMMENDATIONS

• States should have the option of using a growth model, a status model, or a 

combination of both as they develop assessment and reporting systems that can support those options. • Use of a growth model should be permitted as an alternate to or an addition 

beyond the Safe Harbor provision of NCLB as a means to demonstrate Adequate 

Yearly Progress. Safe harbor allows a student subgroup to be considered as making 

AYP if it demonstrates at least a 10% reduction in the gap between having all students proficient and their performance in the prior year. Safe harbor saves schools 

from being designated as in need of improvement. 

• Growth models should be based on students demonstrating progress toward proficiency in English language arts (ELA) and mathematics for graduation. 

RATIONALE

• The status model, used currently, does not account for significant progress 

made by schools and districts with historically low levels of achievement. 

• The goals of a growth model are to: 

ensure that states, districts, and schools can measure the degree to which students are making progress at a sustained rate so that students will achieve academic proficiency by the time of graduation from high school; 

provide states, districts and schools with information so they can better target 

resources to the districts, schools, and groups of students within schools that 

are not on track towards proficiency within an acceptable timeframe and have 

the most need for remediation assistance; 

ensure that schools and districts in which students may be underperforming 

but are making appropriate progress towards proficiency are not categorized as 

poorly performing. 

By using both a status model and a growth model, states can better determine 

which districts and schools need targeted interventions and which can serve as models for moving the most challenged student groups towards proficiency. 

• Measuring the same group of students from one year to the next indicates how 

each individual student is performing and progressing academically. 

• USED should explore conducting a pilot project on ‘‘value-added’’ models for 

state accountability. A value-added model is a type of growth model that uses a student’s detailed background information and achievement data to predict growth and 

isolate the primary reason for a student’s academic progress or lack of progress. 

• Governor Eliot Spitzer has proposed that New York use a growth model by the 

2008-09 school year, subject to U.S. Department of Education approval. 

RESEARCH

There is no conclusive research at this time on this issue. Current practice appears to support these recommendations. Some of the research cited here discusses 

‘‘value- added’’ models. 

Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice. Winter 2005

Educational Measurement is the journal of the National Council on Measurement 

in Education. 

This special issue is devoted to empirical research on current accountability systems, i.e. their structure, their relationship to policy, and their impact on school reform movements. As the U.S. Department of Education did not approve growth accountability systems at the initial implementation of NCLB, this is the first cut of 

research on the impact of states’ status models and testing policies. It is important 

work as it highlights both strengths and weaknesses of the first set of accountability 

systems and informs thinking as policy-makers weigh movement to growth systems. 

Value Added Models in Education: Theory and Applications. Edited by Robert 

Lissitz (2005). 

This work contains 10 chapters authored by measurement professionals exploring 

the impact and structure of value-added modeling. The work is highly technical and 

all articles contain research as well as statistical models that value-added research 

may employ. Of particular note are articles on the design and implementation of differing value-added models for the Dallas School District and Tennessee’s experience. 

17

Longitudinal and Value Added Modeling of Student Performance. Edited by 

Robert Lissitz (2005). 

This work contains 14 chapters that research and discuss the statistical methodologies that can be employed in value-added modeling for accountability systems. 

The book presents a variety of chapters regarding the theory and application of longitudinal (growth) modeling and value-added determinations of student achievement. The researchers who contributed to this work are recognized measurement 

experts from universities and testing houses. 

Standards for Educational Accountability Systems. National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing. Robert Linn et. al. 

Policy Brief 5. Winter 2002

This policy brief highlights the components necessary for a fair accountability system as defined by measurement experts. 

Policymakers’ Guide to Growth Models for School Accountability: How Do Accountability Model Differ. Council of Chief State School Officers. October 

2005

This policy guide clearly articulates the differences between status and growth 

models and explains the conditions necessary to evolve systems towards growth. 

March 2007. 

NCLB ISSUE BRIEF 

Highly Qualified Teachers 

CURRENT LAW

NCLB, Title I, Part A, Section 1119—Qualifications for Teachers and Paraprofessionals 

• Local education agencies (LEAs), i.e. school districts, must hire only highly 

qualified teachers to teach core academic subjects in schools receiving Title I (Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged) funds starting in the fall 

of 2002. 

• LEAs and state education agencies (SEAs) must have plans in place to ensure 

that: 

• 100 percent of teachers of core academic subjects are highly qualified by the end 

of 2005-2006, although the U.S. Department of Education (USED) extended the 

deadline to the end of 2006-2007, and 

• Teachers receive high quality professional development to enable them to be 

highly qualified and successful classroom teachers, with professional development 

defined in section 9101(34). 

NCLB Title I, Part A, Section 1111—State Plans 

• SEAs must ensure that, through transfers, providing professional development, 

recruitment programs, or other effective strategies, low-income students and minority students are not taught by unqualified, out-of-field, or inexperienced teachers at 

higher rates than other students. 

Core Subjects. Core academic subjects include English, reading or language arts, 

mathematics, science, history, civics and government, geography, economics, the 

arts and foreign language. Teachers of students with disabilities and students who 

are English language learners (ELLs) must be highly qualified if they teach core 

academic subjects. 

Definition of Highly Qualified Teacher. Section 9101(23) requires highly qualified 

teachers to: (1) have a bachelor’s or higher degree; (2) be fully state certified, as defined by the state; and (3) demonstrate that they know the subject(s) they are teaching using one of the ways prescribed in section 9101(23). Teachers can demonstrate 

subject knowledge with college courses, state examinations or, in some cases, a 

‘‘high objective uniform state standard of evaluation’’ (HOUSSE). Each state can create its own HOUSSE based on coherent and objective information about a teacher’s 

teaching experience, college courses, professional development and evidence of subject knowledge. The HOUSSE is an option only for veteran teachers, new special 

education teachers and new teachers in rural LEAs. 

Accountability. Section 2141 of the NCLB establishes an accountability system for 

teacher qualifications that requires states to set predetermined targets, or Annual 

Measurable Objectives (AMOs) for LEAs and to intervene when an LEA fails to 

meet its AMOs and fails to meet Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for student 

18

achievement. States must impose sanctions on LEAs that do not meet AMOs and 

AYP, including collaborative planning and, at worst, restrictions on an LEA’s use 

of federal funds. 

RECOMMENDATIONS

• Feasible Targets. Set feasible targets for all teachers of core academic subjects 

to be highly qualified. Clarify that an SEA or an LEA will not face financial penalties or restrictions on its use of federal funds if it has 95 percent of core classes 

taught by highly qualified teachers and all teachers who are not highly qualified are 

on track to become highly qualified within three years. • HOUSSE. Clarify that SEAs and LEAs may continue to use HOUSSE for determining whether veteran teachers, new special education and new rural teachers are 

highly qualified. • Equitable Distribution of Teachers. Retain flexibility for states to define inequities in the distribution of highly qualified teachers as it applies to their state’s circumstances. • Teacher Effectiveness. Provide financial incentives for states to pilot different 

definitions of teacher effectiveness and to implement comprehensive approaches in 

high-need schools that include innovative teacher preparation and recruitment, better working conditions, professional time for planning and collaboration and instructional career ladders. • Innovation. Provide more funds for NCLB Title II, Part C programs for innovative teacher recruitment, such as Troops to Teachers and Transition to Teaching. 

Provide financial incentives to states to pilot definitions and accountability systems 

for effective school and district leaders. • Accountability. Preserve the flexibility that enables SEAs to work with LEAs 

that do not meet AMOs (Annual Measurable Objectives) and AYP (Adequate Yearly 

Progress) to develop credible plans for improvement in the context of each LEA’s 

needs and circumstances. Provide SEAs with more funds for interventions with 

LEAs and to develop comprehensive, longitudinal (growth model) data systems that 

track individual student academic performance over time. • Professional Development. When scientifically-based or evidence-based research, 

as defined by the U.S. Department of Education’s (USED) Institute for Education 

Sciences (IES), is not available for a specific professional development need, permit 

the highest level of available research to be used as the basis for the professional 

development. Provide additional funding to renew or develop online courses, with 

priorities for courses in high-need content areas (such as inclusive classrooms with 

general education and special education students and English language learners) 

and courses for paraprofessionals. Permit federal professional development funds to 

be used for Public Broadcasting System’s TeacherLine and Ready to Teach products • Funding Levels and Allocation Formulas. Fully fund Title I and Title II. Change 

the Title II, Part A allocation formula to enable SEAs to target funds to LEAs that 

are the farthest from meeting teacher quality goals. Retain factors for population 

and poverty, eliminate the ‘‘hold harmless’’ provision for funding, add a ‘‘rural’’ factor to target funds to sparsely populated areas that have difficulty recruiting and 

retaining teachers, and give SEAs flexibility to adjust the weights for each factor 

in the formula. • Evaluation. Revise the Higher Education Act Title II reporting requirements, 

which require states to report on teachers with ‘‘waivers’’ (those who are not certified) by subject area, so they match the NCLB reporting requirements, which require states to report on the number of core classes not taught by highly qualified 

teachers. 

RATIONALE

NCLB will be more effective at attaining its important student achievement and 

teacher quality goals if it sets feasible goals and provides more resources and flexibility for reaching them while continuing to hold states and school districts accountable. 

FACTS

Teacher Shortages. New York may not have enough qualified teachers in all subject areas and geographic regions to reach NCLB’s teacher quality goal by the end 

of school year 2006-2007. 

• In 2005-2006, teachers who did not meet the definition of highly qualified 

taught 5.5 percent of classes in core academic subjects in New York, compared to 

7.9 percent in the prior year. However, in 2005-2006, teachers who were not highly 

qualified taught 8.1 percent of core classes in high poverty elementary schools and 

19

17.4 percent of core classes in high poverty middle and secondary schools. Teachers 

in high poverty schools were less likely than other teachers to be highly qualified 

because they were less likely to be appropriately certified for what they were teaching, and, in New York City, were less likely to have had prior teaching experience. 

• In 2005-2006, there were shortages of certified teachers in many subjects, with 

the most prevalent core subjects being the arts, languages other than English, and 

mathematics. There were also severe shortages of teachers for students with disabilities in middle and secondary grades. New York City and two of the other large cities (Syracuse and Rochester) had the largest gaps, but there were some shortages 

in nearly every region. In some subjects, New York did not certify enough new 

teachers to fill vacancies for them. In addition, not every certified teacher is available to teach wherever there is a vacancy. 

• In 2005-2006, 43 percent of teachers in New York were age 45 or more, with 

17 percent of them over age 54. Demand for new teachers will persist as these baby 

boomers age out of the workforce and as new policies expand early childhood education, reduce class size and provide tutoring and other support to help every student succeed. 

Importance of Innovation. P-16 partnerships are effective in addressing teacher 

shortages. For example, a federally funded partnership of the State Education Department, the New York City Department of Education and independent colleges 

and universities in the New York City area yielded hundreds of new teachers in 

shortage areas for New York City. It is not known yet whether this model can be 

extended to other regions without needing funds to do it. 

New Approaches to Accountability. New York has comprehensive policies that promote teacher quality from preparation through certification, first year mentoring, 

professional development and annual professional performance reviews. In addition, 

Governor Eliot Spitzer has called for new approaches, such as Contracts for Excellence, new tenure standards and a review of the effectiveness of teacher preparation 

programs. Resources are needed to test and refine new approaches. 

RESEARCH

Why teacher quality resources should be targeted to schools and districts where 

they are needed most 

Nationwide, low-income and minority students are more likely than other students to be in high-need schools with fewer qualified, in-field and experienced teachers. (Peske and Haycock, 2006). Teachers continue to leave these schools at higher 

rates than teachers at any other type of school (Marvel 2006). In New York, three 

large cities with high percentages of low-income and minority students are more 

likely than other schools to have out-of-field teachers and, in the case of New York 

City, inexperienced teachers (New York State Education Department, forthcoming). 

NCLB must permit states to target teacher quality funds to the districts and schools 

where they are needed most. 

Why states need funds to develop comprehensive, longitudinal data systems 

The Data Quality Campaign is an organization supported and endorsed by dozens 

of educational and other national organizations. Its 2006 survey found that only one 

state, Florida, had an educational data system that met its national standards. 

Standards and survey results are at http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey—

results/. 

Why funds are needed to promote innovative approaches to teacher preparation 

and recruitment 

NCLB’s Transition-to-Teaching program has provided seed money in many states 

for dozens of projects that enable high-need districts recruit and retain highly qualified teachers through alternative teacher preparation and certification. Performance 

reports are at http://www.ed.gov/programs/transitionteach/performance.html. As 

alternative teacher preparation models gain the credibility and recognition they deserve, interest in them is increasing. For example, Governor Spitzer seeks to increase opportunities in them in New York. Seed money enables programs to start 

with enough strength so they can continue when external funding ends. 

REFERENCES

Marvel, J., Lyter, D.M., Peltola, P., Strizeh, G. A., and Morton, B.A. (2006). Teacher 

Attrition and Mobility: Results from the 2004-2005 Teacher Follow-Up Survey 

(NCES 2007-307). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education 

Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Table 2, page 9. 

http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2007307

20

New York State Education Department. Second Annual Report: Teacher Supply and 

Demand in 2005-2006. University of the State of New York: Albany, NY. Available upon request to NCLBNYS@mail.nysed.gov 

Peske, Heather and Haycock, Kati (2006). Teaching Inequality: How Poor and Minority Students Are Shortchanged on Teacher Quality. The Education Trust. 

http://www2.edtrust.org/EdTrust/Product+Catalog/subject+search (select 

Teacher Quality) 

March 2007. 

NCLB ISSUE BRIEF 

Single Accountability Designation for Adequate Yearly Progress 

CURRENT LAW

NCLB makes states responsible for continuous student academic improvement, 

known as ‘‘adequate yearly progress’’ (AYP). State education departments must (1) 

design and secure U.S. Department of Education approval for school and school district accountability plans based on academic standards that states develop; (2) ensure that schools, in turn, are held responsible for their students’ academic performance; and (3) publicly report test results and test data analyses. 

Schools are required to designate student subgroups and measure and report their 

academic progress. New York has designated these subgroups of students: all students; students with disabilities; economically disadvantaged; limited English proficient; white; American Indian/Alaskan; Asian; black; and Hispanic. A student may 

be classified as and their academic performance reported as part of more than one 

subgroup. Schools that fail to make AYP for poor academic performance for any one 

or more subgroups in any one subject (English language arts, mathematics, and a 

third, state designated subject) are treated under NCLB as if the entire school failed 

AYP achievement benchmarks. 

States are required to conduct and report publicly on several different measurements of accountability under NCLB and other federal programs. Currently, state 

education agencies (SEAs) are required to measure and designate: 

• Schools and districts In Need of Improvement for failing to make Adequate 

Yearly Progress (AYP) under Title I. (Adequate Yearly Progress is continuous improvement toward all students being academically proficient, i.e. performing at 

grade-level, by 2014. Title I mandates improving the academic achievement of disadvantaged students.) 

• Schools and districts that do not meet requirements for highly qualified teachers (HQT) under Title I and Title II(a). (NCLB requires 100% of teachers of core 

academic subjects—English, mathematics, science, history, civics, geography, economics, the arts, and foreign language—to be highly qualified by the end of 2006-

2007. To be highly qualified a teacher must have at least a bachelor’s degree, full 

state certification, and demonstrate knowledge of the subject they teach.) 

• Districts that do not meet the state’s Annual Measurable Achievement Objective (AMAO) under Title III. (Title III mandates language instruction for limited 

English proficient (LEP) and immigrant students (English language learners, or 

ELL). AMAO is the level of performance that LEP and ELL students must demonstrate for a district to be deemed to have achieved AYP. 

• Districts in Need of Assistance or Intervention under IDEA (Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Act, which governs special education). These determinations 

are made based on graduation rates, drop out rates and scores on 4th and 8th grade 

mathematics and English Language Arts (ELA) assessments. 

Often, schools and districts end up on more than one list and are sanctioned for 

poor performance in different ways, depending on which list they are on. Under 

NCLB the sanctions apply to the entire school or district, even though only one student subgroup may be underperforming academically in only one subject. 

RECOMMENDATIONS

• Use only Title I criteria to determine when a school or district is in need of improvement, not the other subgroup measurements under Title III (LEP and ELL 

students) or IDEA (students with disabilities). 

If a school district achieves Adequate Yearly Progress using Title I criteria 

for all its subgroups in all subjects—mathematics, English language arts and 

a third, state selected academic indicator (e.g. science or student attendance 

rate)—and meets the high school graduation rate, the district should not be 

21

sanctioned for its performance on any other measure under any other NCLB 

title or IDEA. 

Accountability measures under NCLB Title III and IDEA should be used only 

to determine how to meet the additional needs of ELL and LEP students and 

special education students 

Permit schools to report test scores to the public as letter grades that represent bands or ranges of scores rather than as precise numerical scores (e.g. 

scores ranging from 90.0-100.0 would equal an ‘‘A’’). Numerical scores would 

continue to be reported to the SEAs and the U.S. Department of Education. 

RATIONALE

• Using a single set of measures to determine students’ academic performance 

would promote comprehensive planning, allow for more targeted remediation (intervention), and encourage more coordinated use of school and district resources. Using 

one accountability measure of academic proficiency for students in English language 

arts and mathematics would make the system easier for the public to understand 

and avoid the ‘‘list fatigue’’ that occurs when multiple designations are released over 

the course of the school year. 

• Labeling an entire school in need of improvement and thus triggering schoolwide interventions when only one subgroup may be in need of additional assistance 

is a waste of staff and fiscal resources at the state, district and school levels. 

• Parents with school age children make decisions about where to live based on 

the academic performance of students in particular school districts. This, in turn, 

affects property values and the desirability of certain communities. Reporting scores 

to the public as letter grades would create a more equitable opportunity for communities to be selected as desirable places to live. 

FACTS

It is not clear that multiple measurements add additional value. School districts 

do not have the resources to devote to unnecessary remediation. In New York there 

is a large overlap in schools and districts placed on the various lists: 

• Of the school districts that failed to make AYP under NCLB Title I, 40% also 

failed to meet requirements for highly qualified teachers, 60% also failed to meet 

the adequate measurable achievement objective for LEP students and 54% also 

failed to meet IDEA goals. 

• Of the 828 schools that failed to make AYP in the 2005-2006 school year, 51% 

were designated in need of improvement due to the performance of only one subgroup, students with disabilities. 

RESEARCH

There is no conclusive research on this issue. However, the results of compliance 

with current law appear to support our recommendations. This is a sample of current research: 

Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice. Winter 2005

Educational Measurement is the journal of the National Council on Measurement 

in Education. This special issue is devoted to empirical research on current accountability systems, i.e. their structure, their relationship to policy, and their impact on 

school reform movements. 

Standards for Educational Accountability Systems. National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing. Robert Linn, et. 

al. Policy Brief 5. Winter 2002. 

This policy brief highlights the components necessary for a fair accountability system as defined by measurement experts. 

March 2007. 

NCLB ISSUE BRIEF 

Targeted Interventions and Differentiated Consequences for Schools and Districts 

Identified as in Need of Improvement 

CURRENT LAW

Under NCLB, states must use a school’s failure to make Adequate Yearly 

Progress (students’ continuous academic improvement) for two consecutive years as 

22

a determinant that the school is not on track to achieve universal proficiency by the 

2014 school year, and thus should be labeled ‘‘in need of improvement’’. Schools may 

be designated in need of improvement if one or more subgroups of students (e.g. 

Hispanic, students with disabilities, limited English proficient) do not meet targets 

for improved academic performance or if less than 95 percent of students in a subgroup take an assessment (this is called the participation rate). The participation 

rate requirement keeps schools from selectively eliminating students (e.g. students 

with disabilities or limited English proficient) from taking an assessment. 

States publicly identify schools in need of improvement. The schools are required 

to develop and submit a plan outlining a series of reforms designed to lead to improved academic performance. As the years pass, provisions of NCLB are triggered 

that initiate a series of mandated school choice options and school district interventions. During the first year of identification as in need of improvement (after a 

school’s second consecutive year of missing an AYP target), NCLB requires the district to offer students the option of transferring to another public school not identified as in need of improvement (this is called school choice). After the second year 

of a school’s being labeled in need of improvement (three consecutive years of failing 

to meet AYP), low income students must be offered free supplemental educational 

services (SES), such as tutoring, in addition to school choice. 

NCLB assumes all students in a school designated as in need of improvement 

need remedial help even though only one subgroup of students may have fallen 

short of the AYP target. School districts are required to set aside up to 20 percent 

of their Title I program funding to implement school choice and SES for low-income 

students. They do not have to offer SES or school choice beyond what can be supported by that 20 percent and funds that are set-aside, but not used, can be returned to the general education program. 

RECOMMENDATIONS

• States should not be required to impose NCLB mandated sanctions (school 

choice and supplemental educational services) on schools or districts because of the 

failure of one or several subgroups of students to meet Adequate Yearly Progress 

targets. • Schools should be able to target remediation, or interventions, based on the nature and extent of their failure to make Adequate Yearly Progress. • Schools and districts should have the flexibility to decide when and in which 

order to offer school choice and supplemental educational services. Schools should 

be allowed to work with parents to determine which option best meets family and 

student needs and when to implement it. • Additional, targeted funding should be provided to school districts for implementation of school choice and SES. 

RATIONALE

• Not all schools that fail to make AYP have systemic problems requiring schoolwide interventions. Interventions such as school choice and supplemental educational services should be given first to the students who are underperforming academically. For example, if students with disabilities fail to meet AYP targets, resources and remediation should be focused on those students. • Some school districts, particularly those in inner cities, which must offer school 

choice have only a few schools or no schools that are not also in need of improvement to which to send students. For example, most of New York’s smaller districts 

may have only one high school; if it is identified as in need of improvement there 

is no other place to send the students. Or a small city may have two middle schools; 

if one is identified, often the other is too. In New York City, there are too many 

students eligible for school choice and too few schools that are making Adequate 

Yearly Progress to accommodate them. It would be more efficient and effective to 

allow school districts to determine whether and how to implement school choice and 

SES, depending on their circumstances. 

• There is a distinction between a school district’s failing to make AYP for an inadequate participation rate and failing for students’ academic performance. If a district is cited for an inadequate participation rate, there is no way to determine from 

this how students are performing academically. Yet, NCLB requires that states impose school-wide interventions for failure to meet the 95 percent participation rate 

mandate. 

FACTS

• In New York, preliminary data show that for the 2005-06 school year, 37 percent of the schools identified as in need of improvement were so designated because 

23

of the underperformance of one subgroup: students with disabilities, and 51 percent 

were designated because a single subgroup, mostly, students with disabilities, 

underperformed on the grades 3-8 English Language Arts exams. 

RESEARCH

There is no conclusive research available on this issue. 

• In November 2003 the U.S. Department of Education awarded over $600,000 

to the Center for School Change at the University of Minnesota’s Hubert Humphrey 

Institute and the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices for a 

three-year project to help states develop the most effective and efficient ways to create and administer school choice systems that will produce improved student 

achievement. • In 2005 the U.S. Department of Education instituted a pilot program that allowed the Boston public schools and the Chicago public schools to become supplemental educational services providers. (NCLB does not allow schools in need of improvement to use its staff to provide SES.) • Also in 2005, USED allowed four school districts in Virginia to reverse the required order of offering school choice first, then SES by offering SES first. • USED invited all states to apply for the school choice/SES pilot program on behalf of their school districts for the 2006-07 school year. • USED has not yet published the results of these pilots. 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Quenemoen? 

STATEMENT OF RACHEL QUENEMOEN, SENIOR RESEARCH 

FELLOW, NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATION OUTCOMES, 

UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA 

Ms. QUENEMOEN. Thank you, Chairman Kildee and Ranking 

Member Castle and all the members of the subcommittee, for inviting me here to testify today. 

I work on several federally funded projects housed at the University of Minnesota. However, in my testimony this morning I am 

representing myself and not the multiple projects on which I work. 

Although you wouldn’t know it from the newspaper lately, the 

news is good on the increasing achievement of students with disabilities. Data from schools, states, and the National Assessment of 

Educational Progress show improved test scores, a closing of the 

gap. Not all schools are being successful. So researchers and policymakers are studying what makes a difference in successful schools. 

What they are finding is that successful schools ensure that all 

students are taught the challenging standards-based curriculum at 

grade level through effective instructional strategies, and all students are expected to learn it. That seems straightforward, but 

clearly, not all schools have figured that out. 

To understand the importance of high expectations, it is important to have a clear idea of who students with disabilities are. Most 

students with disabilities, 75 percent, have learning disabilities, 

speech language impairments or emotional behavioral disabilities. 

Add another 4 to 5 percent with physical, visual, hearing, and 

other health impairments, and you have 80 percent of students 

with disabilities who do not have intellectual impairments who 

with high quality curriculum and instruction can achieve proficiency on the grade level content by going around the effects of 

their disabilities. 

In addition, research suggests that many of the small percent of 

students with disabilities who do have intellectual impairments, 

less than 2 percent of the total population of all students, or 20 

24

percent of students with disabilities, can also achieve proficiency 

when they receive high quality instruction in the grade level content. In schools where all these children are expected to learn and 

given the services, supports and specialized instruction to do so, we 

are seeing data that shows students with disabilities can learn to 

very high levels. 

Why don’t all educators accept these high expectations? Some of 

it results from a misunderstanding of what standards-based testing 

is meant to measure. The tests that most of us experienced growing 

up were built on the measurement models of the 20th century, 

norm referenced tests, designed to sort us into bell-shaped curves 

in some kind of ability distribution. Garrison Keillor makes use of 

these misconceptions in his sign-off from Lake Wobegon, not far 

from my home, ‘‘where all the children are above average.’’

If students of idyllic Lake Wobegon are taking the norm referenced tests where half the students are above and half below average, that is very probably true for very complex reasons. However, if instead they are taking a high quality criterion reference 

test based on challenging content and achievement standards, then 

there is not an average to describe, only relative distance from the 

standard. If there is a widely accepted but erroneous assumption 

that there will always be students who do poorly on tests, then it 

is pretty tempting to predict which students will end up on the bottom. 

In contrast, on a good standards-based test, all students who are 

taught well should perform well. My written testimony describes 

what is being done to use the best research in teaching learning 

and assessment to help states design assessment systems that can 

promote student learning. It also describes the regular assessments, accommodations, and varied alternate assessment options 

available to ensure all students are tested well. And I welcome 

your questions about these options. 

The results of these assessments are used, of course, in accountability systems. There has been much attention in the press about 

how states have designed these systems. The technical difficulties 

of accountability systems are real, and states have an obligation to 

avoid both false positives and false negatives in identifying schools. 

In other words, although gaming of the system does exist, 

thoughtful, committed people are struggling with ensuring fairness 

all the way around. And sometimes it is hard to discern good intentions from bad. 

Growth models are seen as a logical solution by many. Pilots of 

the model are underway, which is good. And serious attention has 

been given to ensuring that all student groups are included, which 

is better. The states working on this thus far are in pilot phases 

and are required to carefully analyze the effects of these models. 

They are also required to build these models based on an absolute 

standard of proficiency for all students, which is extremely important. 

However, many special educators and the general public have 

seen the term growth as more generic, that any progress is acceptable and would relieve the pressure of proficiency as an absolute 

standard. There have been proposals that student IEPs could replace the regular accountability system, effectively excluding stuVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:13 Oct 31, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\110TH\ECESE\110-18\34174.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
25

dents from the benefits of standards-based reform. Others suggest 

that special education students should be held to separate standards that focus growth only on basic skills or suggest exemption 

from accountability completely. 

This would be disastrous and cause us to lose the tremendous 

progress we have made the past 6 years. It is important to step 

back to celebrate where we have come from and to clarify where 

we cannot go. Because of NCLB we now have a powerful level for 

reducing and eliminating the achievement gap of students with disabilities. 

Any adjustments to accountability systems should be made for 

all students, not just one sub-group, with consideration and careful 

monitoring of intended consequences and unintended consequences 

for students overall and for sub-groups. 

Thank you very much. 

[The statement of Ms. Quenemoen follows:]

26


quen-1.eps
27


quen-2.eps
28


quen-3.eps
29


quen-4.eps
30


quen-5.eps
31


quen-6.eps
32


quen-7.eps
33


quen-8.eps
34


quen-9.eps
35


quen-10.eps
36


quen-11.eps
37


quen-12.eps
38


quen-13.eps
39


quen-14.eps
40


quen-15.eps
41


quen-16.eps
42


quen-17.eps
43


quen-18.eps
44

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you. 

Dr. Hardman? 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL L. HARDMAN, PH.D., DEAN–

DESIGNATE, COLLEGE OF EDUCATION, UNIVERSITY OF UTAH 

Mr. HARDMAN. Chairman Kildee, Ranking Member Castle, members of the subcommittee, good morning. And thank you for the opportunity to testify on the reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act and its impact on teacher education in this country. 

As mentioned, I am Michael Hardman, the incoming dean of education at the University of Utah. And I am here in my role and capacity as a faculty member and an administrator at this university. 

In its report on the status of teachers in the United States, the 

National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future stated 

that what teachers know and can do really makes the crucial difVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:13 Oct 31, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\110TH\ECESE\110-18\34174.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK

quen-19.eps
45

ference in what children learn. Good teaching has never been more 

important than it is today. 

The obvious corollary to this statement is that good teacher preparation has never been more important. However, while we are 

much more knowledgeable about what constitutes good teacher 

preparation, many programs continue to prepare new teachers in 

a way that is completely inconsistent with today’s schools. 

These needs include the skills to teach a more diverse student 

population, an emphasis on standards and access to the general 

curriculum, and the call for both general and special education 

teachers to work together and be accountable to the improved performance of all students. 

In many parts of this nation, general and special education 

teachers are still being prepared in total isolation of one another. 

These isolated teacher education programs continue although more 

than 96 percent of students with disabilities spend at least a portion of their school day side by side with peers who are not disabled. Four of 10 students with disabilities spend more than 80 

percent of their day in an inclusive class. And nine of 10 general 

education teachers have an average of nearly four students with 

disabilities in their classrooms. 

The reality is that neither general nor special education alone 

has the capacity to respond to the complex educational needs of 

America’s children. Collaboration then becomes the key to raising 

expectations and increasing the performance of all students as 

mandated in NCLB and IDEA. 

At the University of Utah, we are undertaking a first-time major 

university-wide redesign of all teacher education programs from 

early childhood to secondary education. The entire new program is 

based on the concept of universal design for learning and requires 

a common core of knowledge and skills for every teacher candidate, 

whether they be general or special education. 

Universal design for learning focuses on preparing teachers with 

the tools to make data based decisions that will meet the individualized needs of every student in the classroom. It provides our 

teacher candidates the skills to create instructional programs that 

work for all students. And it makes curriculum and instruction accessible to every student regardless of their abilities or their learning styles. Student monitoring is then used to guide instruction 

and to increase parent involvement. 

Second, all teacher candidates at the University of Utah are 

taught together in courses and field experiences that are located in 

inclusive and diverse classrooms. A professional education core at 

the University of Utah develops a common understanding among 

general and special education teachers of the goals and purposes of 

schooling, the skills to meet the educational needs of every student, 

and how to work together in a school-wide support system, not in 

isolation. 

Our core includes instruction in areas such as safe schools, character education, professional ethics, effective instruction for students with disabilities and English language learners, meeting the 

needs of students with challenging behaviors, teaching reading, 

writing, and math, and effective use of technology in instruction. 

46

Implicit in the call by federal policy-makers to reform education 

and improve student achievement is the critical need for us to reexamine the preparation of our nation’s teachers. In doing so, to 

guide this effort, I have posed the following recommendations for 

the reauthorization of NCLB and the preparation of both general 

and special education teachers. 

First, federal policy under No Child Left Behind should ensure 

that every teacher who is deemed highly qualified has demonstrated the research-based teaching skills that are necessary to 

instruct students with disabilities and English language learners in 

inclusive settings. 

Teacher preparation must be based on an analysis of the skills 

that are needed for new teachers to improve student performance. 

These programs must be driven by content standards that define 

the specific skills that are expected of new teachers as well as performance standards describing how these new teachers will demonstrate mastery. 

Teacher education programs should require a common core of 

skills for every new teacher so they can demonstrate how to continuously assess student performance, adjust the learning environment as needed, modify instructional methods, use effective behavioral supports, and implement appropriate accommodations to meet 

the individual needs of their students. There is a critical need for 

Title II of No Child Left Behind to provide funding that will support universities in partnerships with schools to teach this set of 

core skills to both general and special education teachers. 

Teacher education must also include a balance of course work 

and field experiences consistent with teacher roles. I also recommend that teachers not be considered highly qualified until they 

have successfully completed their initial preparation program. Current federal regulations allow states to immediately deem teachers 

as highly qualified when they have enrolled in an alternative preparation program for 3 years but they have not completed all state 

requirements. 

Only teachers who have successfully completed these requirements and are fully certified by the state should be considered 

highly qualified. Teacher education programs, both university and 

alternative programs, must be held accountable for their graduates. 

And finally, NCLB must provide the resources needed to address 

the critical shortage of highly qualified teachers and the university 

faculty who prepare them. Title II funds must be targeted to addressing the critical shortage areas, including special education. 

The shortage of special education teachers has been pervasive and 

persistent for more than two decades. Approximately half of special 

education teachers are leaving this field within the first 3 to 5 

years of their preparation. 

Chairman KILDEE. Dr. Hardman, there is a vote taking place 

now in the House. So if you could wrap up, we will——

Mr. HARDMAN. This concludes my testimony. And I thank you 

very much for the opportunity. 

[The statement of Mr. Hardman follows:]

47

Prepared Statement of Dr. Michael L. Hardman, Dean-Designate, College of 

Education, University of Utah 

Collaboration within a School-Wide System of Support 

Chairman Kildee and Members of the Subcommittee, good morning and thank you 

for the opportunity to testify on the No Child Left Behind Act and its impact on 

teacher education in this country. I am Michael Hardman, incoming Dean of the 

College of Education and currently Chair of the Department of Teaching and Learning and the Department of Special Education at the University of Utah. I am also 

a member of the Board of Directors for the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) 

and a past-president of the Higher Education Consortium for Special Education 

(HECSE). Since the enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act and the Individuals 

with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, CEC and HECSE have worked closely 

together to ensure that the promise of every student succeeding in our nation’s 

schools becomes a reality. Although my testimony includes excerpts from the CEC 

Teacher Education Division and HECSE recommendations on the reauthorization of 

the No Child Left Behind Act, my role today is in the capacity of a faculty member 

and administrator representing the College of Education at the University of Utah. 

Background 

In its report on the status of teachers in the United States, the National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future stated that: ‘‘What teachers know and can 

do makes the crucial difference in what children learn * * * New courses, tests and 

curriculum reforms can be important starting points, but they are meaningless if 

teachers cannot use them well * * * Student learning in this country will improve 

only when we focus our efforts on improving teaching. Good teaching has never been 

more important than it is today.’’

The obvious corollary to this statement is that good teacher preparation has never 

been more important as well. However, while we are more knowledgeable about 

what constitutes good teacher education, many programs continue to prepare new 

teachers in a paradigm that is inconsistent with the needs of today’s schools. These 

needs include knowledge and skills to teach a more diverse student population; an 

increasing emphasis on standards and access to the general curriculum; and the call 

for both special and general educators to work together and be accountable for improved performance of all students. In many parts of this country, general and special education teachers are still being prepared in total isolation of one another. 

Consequently, many new teachers lack the necessary skills to work together. These 

isolated teacher preparation programs continue although more than 96% of all students with disabilities spend at least a portion of their school day side-by-side with 

their peers who are not disabled in an inclusive classroom setting. Four of ten students with disabilities spend more than 80% of their day in a general education 

class (U.S. Department of Education). According to the Study of Personnel Needs 

in Special Education (SPeNSE), nine of ten general education teachers currently 

have an average of 3.5 students with disabilities in their classroom. The reality is 

that neither general nor special education alone has the capacity to respond to the 

complex educational needs of America’s children. As suggested by Marlene Pugach 

from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, ‘‘the need to prepare all teachers to 

create classrooms that embrace students with disabilities and teach them is no 

longer contested.’’ Collaboration is the key to raising expectations and increasing the 

performance of all students as mandated in NCLB and IDEA. 

One University’s Vision for the Redesign of Teacher Education 

The University of Utah is presently undertaking a university-wide redesign of 

teacher education at every level from early childhood to secondary education. Several factors have led the faculty to rethink the University’s traditional approach to 

teacher education, including the increasing number of students in public education 

with unique educational needs who come from diverse cultural, linguistic, and socioeconomic backgrounds and are now learning together in inclusive classrooms. The 

critical shortages continue in the supply of teachers and the university faculty needed to prepare them, particularly in the areas of special education, math, and science. 

These shortages are fueled by inadequate salaries and high attrition rates in the 

first five years of employment. Finally, universities and colleges must find new and 

innovative ways to meet the challenge of preparing highly qualified teachers under 

the mandates of NCLB and IDEA 2004. 

The design of our new teacher education programs reflects the vision of the University of Utah to attract and retain a diverse faculty of the highest quality who 

have the desire and responsibility to provide both general and special education 

teachers with the mentoring, coursework, and field experiences that are rigorous 

48

and relevant for successful careers in today’s schools. Our program design is based 

on three critical elements: • Universal design for learning within the framework of a three-tier model for 

evidence-based instruction that provides teachers with the tools for data-based decisions. • An extensive professional education core of knowledge and skills that is required for every general and special education teacher candidate attending the university. • University courses directly linked to continuous field experiences in inclusive 

classrooms and schools. 

Universal Design for Learning (UDL). Teacher candidates at the University of 

Utah develop the skills to create instructional programs and environments that 

work for all students, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design. UDL, adapted from architecture where buildings are created from the beginning with diverse users in mind, is intended to make curriculum 

and instruction accessible and to every student, regardless of their abilities or learning styles. A range of options are available to each student that supports access to, 

and engagement with learning materials. (Rose & Meyer). 

In the teacher education program at the University of Utah, UDL is incorporated 

into a three-tier model of instruction and teacher candidates are provided with the 

progress monitoring tools that are needed for data-based decisions in terms of selecting, using, and adapting instruction. Data are used to guide instruction, appropriate intervention and practice, parent involvement, and other research-based practices. (Utah State Office of Education; Vaughn, Bos, & Schumm). Tier I focuses on 

core classroom instruction that is provided to all students using evidence-based 

practices to teach the critical elements within a core curriculum. The general education teacher and special education teacher in conjunction with a school-wide support team (such as speech language professional, paraeducators, and school psychologists) provide instruction to students who are at various levels of development 

in critical skills. Most students will demonstrate proficiency with effective Tier I instruction. These students are able to acquire skills through the core (standard) instruction provided by the teacher, whereas others require more intensive instruction 

in specific skill areas. Using universal design for learning, differentiated instruction, 

multi-level learning and targeting specific skills classroom teachers in conjunction 

with the school-wide support team are able to meet the needs of most students. 

Tier II provides supplemental targeted instruction in addition to evidence-based 

practices taught at the Tier I level. For some students, core classroom instruction 

in the general classroom is not enough for them to demonstrate proficiency. These 

students require targeted supplemental instruction in addition to the skills taught 

through core instruction. Tier II meets the needs of these students by giving them 

additional time for intensive small-group instruction daily. The goal is to support 

and reinforce skills being taught by the general and special education teachers as 

well as the school-wide support team at the Tier I level. At this level of intervention, 

data-based monitoring is used to ensure adequate progress is being made on target 

skills. The frequency, intensity, and duration of this instruction vary for each student depending on the assessment and progress monitoring data. 

A small number of students who receive targeted supplemental instruction (Tier 

II) continue to have difficulty becoming proficient in necessary content skills. Tier 

III provides intensive targeted instruction to the most at-risk learners who have not 

adequately responded to evidence-based practices. These students require instruction that is more explicit, more intensive, and specifically designed to meet their individual needs. Additional sessions of specialized one-to-one or small-group instruction are provided with progress monitoring of specific skills. 

The key components of the three-tier model are (1) the use of evidence-based instruction designed to meet the needs of students at each level, and (2) assessment 

and progress monitoring procedures that measure current skills and growth over 

time and that are used to provide new instruction to individual students. The threetier model provides a system that is responsive to students’ changing needs. 

A professional education core required for general and special education teacher 

candidates. Traditional teacher education programs reinforce student differences by 

separating teacher candidates into isolated preparation programs, each with their 

own unique perspective and curricula. Such a structure makes little sense in today’s 

schools where there is a need for a collaborative approach to teaching and every educator must have a core skill set of knowledge and skills to improve the performance of every student. The professional education core at the University of Utah is 

intended to develop a common understanding of the goals and purposes of schooling, 

knowledge and skills to meet the educational needs of all students, collaboration 

across educators in a school-wide support system, and the use of evidence-based inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:13 Oct 31, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\110TH\ECESE\110-18\34174.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
49

struction leading to advanced skills. Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC) calls for a cross-disciplinary core in which every teacher 

candidate develops understanding of content and content-specific pedagogy. Using 

the INTASC framework and its principles for student-centered learning, the program at the University of Utah prepares every new teacher with knowledge and 

skills the following content areas: 

• Child, Adolescent, and Human Development 

• Safe Schools, Character Education, and Professional Ethics 

• Ethnic Studies, Multicultural/Multilingual Education, and Effective Instructional Approaches for English Language Learners 

• Foundations of Exceptionality and Effective Instruction for Students with Disabilities in Inclusive Classrooms 

• Research and Inquiry in Education 

• Principles of Assessment and Data-Based Decision-Making 

• Positive Behavior Support 

• Communication and Language Development 

• Reading and Writing Foundations and Methods 

• Math Foundations and Methods 

• Integrated Curriculum Methods (Across Fine Arts, Health, and Physical Education) 

• Effectively Using Technology in Diverse Classrooms 

• Education Law and Policy for Classroom Teachers (NCLB and IDEA) 

• International Education 

Linking university coursework to continuous field experiences. Teacher candidates 

must continuously demonstrate the knowledge and skills learned in coursework in 

actual classroom and school settings. Field experiences are viewed as an extension 

of university courses in which students translate research and theory into practice. 

Faculty and school district/agency cooperating teachers regularly observe, evaluate, 

and provide feedback to teacher candidates regarding their classroom performance. 

Each candidate’s performance is evaluated in regard to (a) measurable gains in applying knowledge and skills from coursework, and (b) whether students with whom 

the candidate is working learn the content. 

Recommendations 

Implicit in the call by federal policymakers to reform education and improve student achievement is the critical need for effective and qualified general and special 

education teachers, as well as a re-examination of their preparation. To guide this 

effort in the future, recommendations are proposed for the preparation of general 

and special education teachers. 

Recommendation 1. Federal policy should ensure that any teacher who is deemed 

highly qualified has demonstrated evidence-based pedagogical skills necessary to 

teach students with disabilities and English language learners in inclusive classrooms. 

Effective teacher preparation is based on a careful analysis of the competencies 

needed for new teachers to improve student performance. The curriculum should include approaches, methods, and techniques that have been validated through research; are effective across students with diverse needs; and can be implemented 

successfully in a general education classroom and school setting. Teacher preparation programs must set content standards that describe the specific skill set expected of new teachers as well as performance standards describing how they will 

demonstrate mastery. Course work and field experiences are then structured to 

these content and performance standards. Fortunately, there is a robust research 

base on effective strategies to support student learning. Effective preparation programs must anchor their curriculum to these evidence-based practices and teacher 

candidates must be able to demonstrate that they can implement them successfully. 

Recommendation 2. Teacher education programs should require a professional 

education core for all their teacher candidates in order to ensure these individuals 

have demonstrated knowledge and skills to continuously assess student performance, adjust the learning environment as needed, modify instructional methods, 

adapt curricula, use positive behavior supports and interventions, and select and 

implement appropriate accommodations to meet the individual needs of students. 

Title II of No Child Left Behind can provide support to universities in partnership 

with public schools to develop this core. 

Through coursework and field experiences, teacher candidates acquire a common 

core of knowledge and skills designed to ensure educational programs and services 

are accessible and applicable to every student, regardless of ability, cultural background, or learning style. The core is grounded in the three-tier model of instrucVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:13 Oct 31, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\110TH\ECESE\110-18\34174.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
50

tion, universal design for learning and evidence-based practice as a foundation for 

further preparation in a teaching specialization. 

Recommendation 3. Teacher education must include a balance of coursework and 

field experiences that are consistent with teacher roles in inclusive general education schools and classrooms. 

Effective teacher education programs use field experiences as a tool to push teacher candidates to translate theory into practice and advance their learning to a higher level. In order to accomplish this task, teacher preparation programs must work 

with local schools to identify evidence-based instructional techniques. Schools must 

also be willing to collaborate with teacher preparation programs to create opportunities for candidates to receive the practice necessary to cumulatively develop essential instructional and classroom management skills across time. This is critical for 

new teachers who have to apply increasingly complex formats in order effectively 

teach students who require frequent and intense instruction. 

Recommendation 4 Teachers should not be considered highly qualified until they 

have successfully completed their initial preparation program. Following initial 

preparation, every teacher must have the opportunity to continuously participate in 

professional development and improvement. 

Current federal regulations allow states to immediately deem teachers as ‘‘highly 

qualified’’ when they have enrolled in an alternative preparation program for up to 

three years but have not completed all program requirements. Only teachers who 

have successfully completed approved preparation programs and are fully certificated by state agencies should be considered ‘‘highly-qualified’’ special education 

teachers. 

Additionally, our understanding of effective instruction has expanded dramatically 

in the last three decades. In order for new teachers to be successful, they must be 

able to keep pace with research-based developments in curriculum design, instruction, behavior support, and program management. They need to be taught how to 

be critical consumers of research and use it to inform their practice. Put simply, new 

teachers and the schools they teach in must have a commitment to career professional development. Teacher education programs and schools must nurture and reinforce this commitment as a critical component of their overall mission. 

Partnerships are fostered among teacher preparation programs and schools to 

support the professional development of newly prepared and career teachers of students with disabilities. Effective teacher preparation programs develop close partnerships with schools that are structured to improve the quality and effectiveness 

of their graduates. At the heart of these partnerships is the development of shared 

views about the design of educational services for students with disabilities and the 

importance of career teacher professional development. Teacher preparation programs and schools must work together to establish initiatives that focus on real 

challenges facing today’s schools, including innovative and efficient ways to prepare, 

mentor, and retain qualified teachers. Concurrently, schools must take advantage 

of teacher preparation program faculty expertise to promote research-based practices in the education of all students. 

Recommendation 5. Teacher education, including university and alternative preparation programs, must be held accountable for the performance of their graduates. 

Effective teacher preparation programs routinely evaluate the quality and impact 

of their graduates beyond measuring whether they demonstrate mastery of professional competencies at the time of program exit. Teacher preparation programs 

must be involved with the schools in a joint preparation, mentoring and evaluation 

process that begins at the time teacher candidates begin their initial preparation, 

continue during an induction period of no less than three years, and is maintained 

throughout their career. It is important to measure how effectively programs graduates successfully fill entry level roles and responsibilities through valid and reliable performance assessments. Preparation programs must also be accountable for 

how effectively they work with schools to mentor and support new teachers, as well 

as their efforts to systematically follow-up and evaluate their graduates’ performance over time. 

Recommendation 6. NCLB Title II funds need to address the critical shortage 

areas of highly qualified teachers and the university faculty who prepare them. 

Title II funds should be directly targeted to address critical shortage areas, including special education. The shortage has been persistent and pervasive for decades and the attrition of new special education teachers is of great concern. Approximately half of all new special education teachers leave the field within three years. 

Title II funds should support higher education partnerships with local school districts designed to address chronic shortages and support the preparation, induction, 

mentoring, and retention of highly qualified special education teachers. Additionally, 

while the national focus is on the critical shortages in special education teachers 

51

and related services personnel (and rightfully so), little attention has been paid to 

the shortage of special education faculty in higher education (Smith, Pion, Tyler, 

Sindelar, & Rosenberg) In the last two decades, special education doctoral degrees 

have decreased by 30%. In addition, one third of all vacancies for special education 

faculty remain unfilled every year. This exacerbates the special education teacher 

shortage, which has now become as critical as the shortages of math and science 

teachers (American Association for Employment in Education). 

REFERENCES

American Association for Employment in Education, (2000). Teacher supply and demand in the United States. Columbus, OH: American Association for Employment in Education. 

Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC) (2001, 

May). Model standards for licensing general and special education teachers of 

students with disabilities: A resource for state dialogue. Washington, D.C.: 

Council of Chief State School Officers. 

Pugach, M.C. (2005). Research on preparing general education teachers to work 

with students with disabilities. In M. Cochran-Smith & K.M. Zeichner, Studying 

teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education (pp. 549-590). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 

Smith, D.D., Pion, G., Tyler, N.C., Sindelar, P., & Rosenberg, M. (2001a). The shortage of special education faculty. Why it is happening, why it matters, and what 

we can do about it. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of 

Special Education Programs. 

Study of Personnel Needs in Special Education (SPeNSE, 2000). General education 

teachers’ role in special education (fact sheet). Retrieved 30 May, 2006, from 

http://ferdig.coe.ufl.edu/spense/

The National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. (1996). What matters 

most: Teaching for America’s future: Summary report. New York: Author. 

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs. (2004). Twenty-Sixth Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals 

with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: Author. 

Utah State Office of Education (2006). Three Tier Model of Reading Instruction. Salt 

Lake City, Utah: Author 

Vaughn, S., Bos, C.S., & Schumm, J.S. (2007). Teaching exceptional, diverse, and 

at-risk students: IDEA 2004 update edition. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. 

1Portions of this testimony were excerpted from Hardman, M., & McDonnell, J.M. 

(in press). Teachers, pedagogy, and curriculum. In L. Florian & M. McLaughlin 

(Eds.). Perspectives and Purposes of Disability Classification Systems in Research and Clinical Practice. London: Sage Publications and The Higher Education Consortium for Special Education and the Teacher Education Division of 

the Council for Exceptional Children. (2006). Recommendations to the NCLB 

Commission for the Reauthorization of No Child Left Behind. Washington, D.C: 

Author. 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you. Good. Right on time. 

We will take 5 minutes, though, to hear Dr. Henderson. And we 

will still be able to make it in time to vote and come back here. 

Dr. Henderson, you may proceed. 

Thank you, Dr. Hardman. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM HENDERSON, ED.D., PRINCIPAL, THE 

O’HEARN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 

Mr. HENDERSON. Chairman Kildee, Ranking Member Castle and 

members of the committee, it is a privilege to be here. I am principal of the O’Hearn School, which is in Boston, Massachusetts. 

Our students reflect the diversity of our community, approximately 45 percent African-American, 30 percent Caucasian. The remaining 25 percent come from countries all over the world. The 

majority of our students qualify for free and reduced lunch. 

The O’Hearn is an inclusive school. Thirty-three percent of our 

students have a disability. At the O’Hearn, students involved in 

52

general education, students with mild, moderate and very significant disabilities, and students considered talented and gifted learn 

together and from each other. 

We are a very popular school under the choice program in Boston. Overall, our students’ performance has been successful. For 

the first time, though, last year we did not make AYP. We need 

to do better, and we will. 

I would like to briefly highlight the situations of four students 

and then suggest some ways that NCLB has benefited and some 

ways that it could be more helpful to these children. I have 

changed their names and the details, but these situations are real. 

William came to the O’Hearn when he was 3 years old. He has 

autism. His pediatrician wanted him to attend a school with just 

autistic children. But the parents insisted that he be with his 

peers, although he certainly exhibited some social quirks and communication issues. And we worked with a behavioralist and a 

speech pathologist. He excelled academically. We have involved 

him in drama, both during and after school. And he is an outstanding student academically. 

Kaylo is a boy born to a mom who had some drug addiction, has 

some cognitive delays, emotional disorders, entered our school in 

kindergarten. We gave him some speech and O.T. services. He was 

behind academically, although up there physically, we retained him 

in kindergarten, did some early intervention, language-based programs and we also gave him universal design and access to books 

and cassettes. 

But as he got older, the skill level of the material became increasingly frustrating to him. And we had more behavior problems 

in class due to his frustration. Just last year his IEP team decided 

to modify his skill level. And he is now performing much better. He 

is also a great athlete and involved in the school store. 

Maria is a girl who was born blind. She started out in a substantially separate school for kids who are blind. Her mother wanted 

her to make more academic rigor, and transferred her to the 

O’Hearn. Like her principal, she is learning to use Braille mobility. 

She reads using a Kurzweil. She sings. And she is a very popular 

student at our school. 

And Carla is a student who came to us in kindergarten, very active physically, having some problems with letter recognition. We 

did a lot of phonetic awareness programs with her. For some kids, 

this makes a real impact and difference. For her, she is still struggling. We switched her to Kurzweil and assistive technology. She 

has been thriving, and is also a very great visual artist. 

How has NCLB helped these students? 

First, all of these children have access to highly qualified teachers, support staff who collaborate extensively and have very deep 

conversations now about what we can do and what strategy we can 

use to help them perform at higher levels. 

All of these children have access to universally designed curriculum with extensive accommodations to help them access text 

books and books, instruction, and current assessments. And all 

these children also have participated in additional instructional 

time and not sacrificed in the arts, which is so important to all 

53

children, particularly for kids—and physical education—for kids 

with disabilities. 

My recommendations for improving NCLB would be the following. 

First, considering asking states to conduct a federal review of the 

accommodations standards. We have to safeguard accommodations 

for our children with disabilities. I am very concerned that two of 

the children I mentioned and perhaps their principal could not get 

a high school diploma in some states, yet we could do fine and get 

degrees in colleges. 

Secondly, we want to make sure we don’t get involved in a testing frenzy. Nine days of testing is too much for our 5th-graders, 

value added. 

And finally, I wanted to say that parent involvement is critical, 

not just being involved in IEPs, but seeing what strategy is used 

to help children be successful, offering suggestions what parents 

can do, and reinforce these strategies at home. 

Thank you very much. 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you very much, Dr. Henderson. 

And we apologize. We will repair to the chambers to vote. I ask 

all members to vote at the door and run right back here. 

So you can take a break. But thank you very much. This is a day 

we are passing the budget, and ordinarily we don’t have hearings. 

But this hearing was so important we decided to go ahead with it 

even though we are passing the budget. 

So if you pray, pray that we pass a good budget over there. 

[Recess.] 

Chairman KILDEE. We have finished the vote on—I think we 

have four different budgets we are voting on today, at least four. 

So we have started one. We will probably have some time now for 

a while again. 

I have been here 30 years, but Dr. Boustany and I ran together 

back over here. Some of the other younger members are still making their way over here. 

I really appreciate the testimony. It has been excellent. 

I would like to ask a few questions. 

Dr. Rhyne, you testified about different states having different 

N-sizes. And that has kind of puzzled us a bit, too. I think Maryland has an N-size, except for these students, of five. It varies in 

Texas. It can go as high as 200. And I think California has 100. 

What should we do, and how does that wide disparity affect what 

is happening out there? 

Ms. RHYNE. With that wide disparity, a lot of students with disabilities are being left out of the accountability system. Over half 

of the states have N-sizes that are over 40. And if you look, for example, an elementary school, an average elementary school might 

be somewhere between 450 and 500 students. You are leaving out 

those children. 

We do have five states in the nation that have differentiated Nsizes. So the N-size for one sub-group of children is different from 

another sub-group of children. So I believe the Council of Great 

City Schools recommends that we have N-sizes of about 20 and, 

with a waiver, maybe 30. And then we would be catching and putVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:13 Oct 31, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\110TH\ECESE\110-18\34174.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
54

ting in all of the students with disabilities and being accountable 

for them. 

Chairman KILDEE. Do you think it would be prudent and wise 

for this committee to standardize that N-size, perhaps along the 

lines of the Great City Schools you mentioned? 

Ms. RHYNE. Absolutely, I do, absolutely. 

Chairman KILDEE. All right. Very good. 

Dr. Cort, with reference to the subset of the so-called 2 percent 

students who are able to progress toward their regular diploma, 

you testified that they ought to be allowed to proceed at a slower 

but equally rigorous pace. 

Since these students are generally starting at below grade level 

to begin with, how does this translate to progress toward that regular diploma? 

Ms. CORT. Well, I think the entire process is likely to take longer. 

And that is why under IDEA the ability to stay in school until you 

are 21 years old is of great benefit. I don’t think that all of these 

students will be able to master high school within the 4 years expected or that they will graduate at the same time as their nondisabled peers. And I think if we do move to some growth models, 

I think we will be able to see how fast we can have students make 

progress. 

With really intensive special education services, the hope would 

be that some students can actually gain more than a year in a 

year’s period of time. But those are the kinds of things we need to 

evaluate. 

Chairman KILDEE. Okay. Thank you very much. 

You know, when I wrote the law back in Michigan, I put the 

years 0 to 26 as the ages to be covered. And I remember the superintendents called me in in August just before the bill was to take 

effect begging me, first of all, to give them 1 more year, secondly, 

to change 0 to 5 and 26 to 18. But we retained the 0 through 26. 

The 0 was very important because certain disabilities require—

I used to think more simply in those days—just deafness would require that you break that communication barrier. But we know 

now that the very physical development of the brain requires that 

early stimulation. We have learned so much since the days that we 

first passed special education. 

But thank you for your input here. 

Dr. Henderson, in your written testimony you testified that in 

some states your blindness would prevent you from receiving a 

high school diploma. Could you elaborate on that? 

Mr. HENDERSON. Sure. Even in Massachusetts when the MCAS 

test was first administered for the English language arts section of 

the test one had to read it with their eyes and answer with a pencil 

and paper. Am I an illiterate principal because I can’t read the information the same way that most of the people here can? 

I think not only for blind children but also for children with significant learning disabilities we ought to have the opportunity to 

access information in multiple formats, whether it be with our 

eyes, our ears or our fingers, and to demonstrate our understanding and knowledge of that information, those rights and protections that were provided to me as a teacher who became blind 

55

and an administrator under section 504 and the ADA national safeguards. 

We need to look at national safeguards for accommodations for 

children who need access to the curriculum and to assessments. 

Chairman KILDEE. Certainly, we know that the nature of God 

gave us at least five senses. Right? I know we are able to use all 

those senses. And I appreciate your response. 

Dr. Boustany? 

Dr. BOUSTANY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Rhyne, you state that you support the growth models but 

that tying them to proficiency will not recognize growth that is 

achieved below that level. My concern is that we will recognize 

growth below proficiency without ever being accountable for ensuring that the child can perform commensurate with his or her grade 

ability or level. 

Do you have a recommendation for how a growth model could be 

established and would encourage growth toward a proficiency target and recognize growth below that level? 

Ms. RHYNE. Yes, I do. I think there are several ways that this 

could be addressed. For example, children who we could measure 

the growth in their scale score and compare that scale score to the 

scale score of the state, for example. We could look at movement 

from below proficient to the proficiency range. So that is one way 

to do that. 

Dr. BOUSTANY. I thank you. 

Dr. Cort, within the subset of the 2 percent population that you 

feel does not need modified standards but freedom to progress at 

a slower pace what kind of guidelines would need to be put into 

place to help IEP teams determine what level of instruction and assessment would be appropriate for each student? 

Ms. CORT. Well, there is a great deal of work that is done as you 

develop your annual review and the triennial evaluations are conducted under IDEA to determine the current and functioning levels 

of students with disabilities. 

I think this is an area, though, that really requires a good deal 

of intensive research identifying which is a true student who is 

learning at a slower pace because of their disability versus a student who looks similar in performance but it is because they 

haven’t gotten appropriate instruction that they are not making 

that progress is a tough distinction to make. 

And I think that we do have to help IEP teams understand different evaluation techniques to determine some of those things and 

also to be looking better at a record. I think if we move to some 

growth models and if we look at something like response to intervention, which is talking about good instruction and constant 

progress monitoring, then you can tell are students responding to 

instruction, should they be able to move more quickly or is it truly 

a result of their disability. 

So I do believe that we don’t have sufficient research or enough 

information here and that NCLB and IDEA could help contribute 

to that process by putting some dollars into that kind of research. 

Dr. BOUSTANY. I thank you. 

Ms. Quenemoen, you discussed the impact that high quality instruction can have on a student achievement for this sub-group. 

56

What is being done to share this information? And are states and 

school districts receptive to this approach? 

Ms. QUENEMOEN. Well, that is an interesting question, whether 

they are receptive or not. We are certainly seeing spotty patterns 

of where full states, in some cases, but certainly even within states 

where the leadership is systematically developing staff development rollouts, if you would, of these best practices. 

I think some of the concern is a centuries-old bias and assumption about what students with disabilities or what people with disabilities can and should be doing. So in some cases there is resistance that even administrators aren’t aware of. And that is very difficult. Attitudes are very, very difficult to change. 

However, I think Dr. Hardman’s testimony about an institution 

of higher education really rethinking the whole way they prepare 

teachers is probably our longest-term opportunity for really ensuring what we understand about effective instruction and high expectations is embedded in our teaching force. 

So I credit many states for systematic and long-term commitment to higher expectations and support through professional development. Ultimately I think our institutions of higher education 

bear a huge burden in order to get that fully institutionalized. 

Dr. BOUSTANY. Thank you. 

One last question, Mr. Chairman, if I might, for Dr. Hardman. 

You criticize the flexibility that the department has allowed for 

teachers going through alternative certification programs. States 

and school districts are telling us that alternative certification programs are an absolutely critical tool for meeting the demand for 

teachers in the classroom. 

Are you concerned that eliminating this flexibility would only exacerbate shortages that we are already seeing with teachers? 

Mr. HARDMAN. The concern about alternative preparation programs—first let me say that the range of quality alternative preparation programs varies considerably from state to state and from 

area to area, as does the range, by the way, of university programs. 

I think that the issue is that when you are preparing teachers, 

every teacher, every institution, every program should be held to 

the same high quality standards so that we have a consistent understanding that schools have a good, consistent knowledge that 

the teachers that they are receiving from wherever they are coming 

from, alternative or traditional university programs, meet those 

standards. 

When you allow teachers to move into classrooms who have not 

completed those standards and have up to 3 years to complete 

them, you have a different teaching force moving into the schools. 

And I also think that there are some concerns about higher attrition and documented evidence that indicates that you have a much 

greater chance of losing teachers who are not well-prepared, whether they be in a university or an alternative preparation program. 

Dr. BOUSTANY. Certainly. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you, Dr. Boustany. 

Mr. Hare? 

Mr. HARE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing 

today. 

57

And I have found that we seldom address or fully fund programs 

to support the population of people with disabilities. 

Over the February recess, I toured Roosevelt Junior High School 

in Monmouth, Illinois, which is in my congressional district, to see 

the successes the school has had with its positive behavior intervention and support programs, also known as PBIS. 

Through positive behavioral practices in which students were 

taught leadership, teamwork, and were rewarded for good decisions 

and good behavior, Roosevelt Junior High has seen a drastic decrease in disciplinary measures and increases in academic, social, 

and emotional function among its students. 

More amazing is the fact that the schools in Illinois that have 

implemented the PBIS have seen lower rates of special education 

testing and placement of students. 

And I ask for unanimous consent to submit the Illinois case 

study example into the record. 

Chairman KILDEE. Without objection. 

[The information follows:]

58


ilpbis-1.eps
59


ilpbis-2.eps
60


ilpbis-3.eps
61

Mr. HARE. And then, according to a statement by the American 

Occupational Therapy Association, which I also ask for unanimous 

consent to submit, early intervening services under IDEA provide 

school-wide targeted and individual interventions for children who 

are struggling academically and behaviorally. The implementation 

of school-wide support programs such as PBIS improves academic 

and behavioral outcomes for students with disabilities in both general and special education. 

Chairman KILDEE. Without objection to your second request. 

[The information follows:]


ilpbis-4.eps
62

Prepared Statement of the American Occupational Therapy Association 

(AOTA) 

The American Occupational Therapy Association (AOTA) submits this statement 

for the record of the March 29, 2007 hearing. We appreciate the opportunity to provide this information regarding the relationship of occupational therapy services to 

improving results for children with disabilities under the No Child Left Behind Act 

(NCLB). 

Occupational Therapy Services under IDEA and NCLB 

Occupational therapy is concerned with an individual’s ability to do everyday activities, or occupations, so that they can participate fully in school, at home, and 

in the community. Occupational therapy practitioners use purposeful activities as 

therapy to help children bridge the gap between their capacity to learn and full, successful participation in education, work, and play. 

Occupational therapy services in schools are intended to help children succeed 

academically and behaviorally. Intervention strategies focus on information-processing, academic skill development, social interactions and the ability to function in 

the school environment. For adolescents, occupational therapy focuses on preparation for work, life choices, improvement of social and work skills, and learning how 

to create or alter the environment to maximize productivity. 

The advent of early intervening services under IDEA 2004 provide for the funding 

of school-wide, targeted and individual interventions for children who are struggling 

academically and behaviorally. Implementation of models of school-wide support 

such as Response to Intervention (RtI) and Positive Behavioral Supports (PBS) are 

general education initiatives that have demonstrated the ability to improve academic and behavioral outcomes for students with disabilities in both general and 

special education. AOTA believes that early intervening funds support student 

achievement in a very similar way to how Title I funds support improvements of 

academic achievement for the disadvantaged and that Congress should designate a 

portion of Title I funds to expand early intervening services to provide additional 

tiered supports to struggling students at risk of failure or special education identification. 

How Occupational Therapy Helps Students with Disabilities 

Occupational therapy intervention for children and youth is planned in consultation with parents and families, teachers, and other professionals, and is directed toward achieving successful educational outcomes. Depending on the student’s age, 

the presence of learning difficulties or behavioral issues may have debilitating effects on his or her sense of accomplishment or social competence. Occupational therapy intervention for these students can address these stresses by identifying psychosocial problems and appropriate strength based coping strategies. 

Occupational therapy can have a significant supportive role in assessment of students with disabilities under NCLB. The occupational therapists’ expertise can help 

teachers and IEP Teams to identify appropriate accommodations needed to support 

the student’s skill level. This includes identification of and training in the use of 

assistive technology or other aids that will help the student to more successfully 

participate in state and district assessments. Occupational therapy expertise in 

function and performance can also contribute to the identification of children who 

need modified assessments in order to more effectively demonstrate their academic 

progress. 

AOTA believes that occupational therapy is an underutilized service that can 

meet and address children’s learning, social and behavioral needs. This limited access affects both IDEA-eligible students as well as students in general education. 

Often, this limitation is due to a lack of understanding about how occupational therapy can help or because of perceptions that therapists only address ‘‘motor’’ issues. 

Occupational therapy can be invaluable in helping parents and school staff to understand the relationship between the physical and psychosocial aspects of development 

and performance, and developing strategies to improve academic and behavioral 

outcomes for children with disabilities 

Again, we thank you for the opportunity to comment on the important issue 

raised by this hearing and look forward to continue working with the Committee 

to improve outcomes for all students 

Mr. HARE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

So, Dr. Hardman, if I could ask, you testified about the need to 

target Title II funds to address the shortage of special education 

63

teachers and special ed faculty shortages. However, secondary 

intervention systems have shown to lower the rates of special education testing and placement of students. 

So could programs like this PBIS solve the problems or help to 

solve the problems of teacher shortages by decreasing the population of students identified by IDEA? 

Mr. HARDMAN. I think, the first part of your question, the answer 

is yes, but for all the right reasons. And that is that these students 

are receiving appropriate education, whether they meet a general 

or special education program. And that is the issue. And the answer is yes. 

Our model universal design for learning and response to intervention all fit into that same model of prevention and allowing us 

to provide the kinds of services that will allow students to move 

forward and not need necessarily over time the intensity of instruction that has been associated with special education. 

Historically we are a field, special education, that waits for children to fail. We are now a field that is thinking much more about 

prevention. So the answer is absolutely yes. 

Mr. HARE. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Rhyne, you testified in support of the growth program and 

model for students with disabilities. Can you describe what that 

model might look like? 

Ms. RHYNE. Yes. Rather than students meeting absolute standards, we have many, many students with disabilities who teachers, 

principals, schools—they are getting no credit for the tremendous 

growth that individual students are showing. And there needs to 

be some way that schools and teachers can receive credit for that 

growth rather than meeting an absolute standard. 

And as I indicated before, something like growth and scale 

scores, for example, as compared to the growth at the state, some 

way to acknowledge that students are making progress. But as Dr. 

Cort has recommended and has testified, it is going to take longer 

for some students. 

Mr. HARE. Another question I have, Dr. Rhyne, is, do you have 

specific recommendations on how we can improve the recruitment 

and retention of special ed teachers? 

Ms. RHYNE. Yes, I do. 

Mr. HARE. I thought you might. [Laughter.] 

Ms. RHYNE. Yes, I do. 

You had mentioned PBIS in a question, your former question to 

Dr. Hardman. And the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools has embarked on a multi-year project of putting PBIS in our schools. 

And like the example that you gave, we have seen dramatic results in our schools. For example, when we looked at all elementary schools that were implementing PBIS during the 2005, 2006 

school year, I believe we had a 40 percent reduction in referrals to 

the office. 

We have done PBIS. We have got everybody in a school working 

on PBIS, from cafeteria workers to bus drivers to custodians. And 

a key to its success is that everybody is implementing it the same 

way and that the adults get together, agree and then are consistent. 

64

So that is a roundabout answer to one of the reasons that people 

leave the field, that have been indicated to our school district is 

over the area of discipline and behavior of all students in a school. 

And so, with a process like PBIS where teachers could be assured that there is a very systematic way of teaching children 

about behavior—when a child can’t read, what do we do? We teach 

him to read. When a child is going to learn to drive, we teach them 

to drive. But when a child can’t behave, we traditionally punish 

them. And so, PBIS is a teaching method. 

So I think programs like PBIS would be incredibly important for 

a school district to implement. I think anything that we can do 

where we provide comprehensive intervention, for example, comprehensive intervention in reading, so that we have more children 

performing on grade level. 

And I think for children with disabilities and for general ed children as well, what we have found in Charlotte-Mecklenburg to be 

extremely important and extremely successful is pairing general ed 

and special ed teachers to co-teach in a classroom. And we are influencing the success of not only the children with disabilities in 

that classroom, but also general ed children as well. 

So it is multiple things. 

Chairman KILDEE. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

The gentleman from Puerto Rico, Mr. Fortuno? 

Mr. FORTUNO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And again, I thank you 

for today’s hearing. I believe we are examining today a very important issue to the children of America, including those living in 

Puerto Rico. 

First today, I would like to share with you all some concerns that 

I do have with the Department of Education in Puerto Rico, which 

I believe is falling short in its oversight responsibilities by neglecting its students with disabilities. 

To illustrate this, I am sharing a letter to the committee addressed to Chairman Miller and Ranking Member McKeon from 

Mr. Alpidio Rolo ́n, who is the president of the Puerto Rico chapter 

of the National Federation of the Blind. In his letter he outlines 

important issues that deeply affect those with disabilities and details the shortcomings of the Puerto Rico Department of Education. 

Mr. Chairman, I am asking unanimous consent to include this 

letter as part of our record. 

Chairman KILDEE. Without objection. 

[The information follows:]

SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO, 

(Sent via email), March 28, 2007. 

Hon. GEORGE MILLER, Chairman, 

Hon. HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON, Ranking Member, 

House Committee on Education and Labor, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. 

CHAIRMAN MILLER AND RANKING MEMBER MCKEON: ‘‘No Child Left Behind.’’ 

Would that it were true for children in Puerto Rico. Especially for blind children. 

According to the Puerto Rico Department of Education’s 2005 ‘‘Child Count’’ data, 

673 students were classified as blind or visually impaired. Of these 35 received 

Braille books. The Department of Education states that 29 blind students ot of 439 

receive Braille books during 2006-2007. 

NCLB emphasizes that good reading and writing skills ensure the advancement 

in life. For blind children, learning to read and write Braille is the gateway to success. Dr. Ruby Ryles, Louisiana Tech University professor, has stated in her study 

65

‘‘The Impact of Braille Reading Skills on Employment, Income, Education, and 

Reading Habits’’, that there is a direct correlation between good reading and writing 

Braille skills and good gainful employment. In Puerto Rico, the Department of Education pays little or no importance to Braille. 

Two weeks ago, a teacher of blind children came to one of the Braille classes that 

NFB teaches at the Puerto Rico Regional Library for the Blind and Physically 

Handicapped. I say came to one class, because she never came back. The teacher 

who shall remain nameless, read Braille with her eyes and not her fingers as a 

blind person does. I should add that most sighted Braille teachers in Puerto Rico 

read Braille with their eyes. Obviously, they cannot transmit to blind students what 

NCLB states about establishing a relation between the grapheme and phoneme. 

Any child, whether blind or sighted, must learn to connect in his or her mind, the 

relation between form and sound. Most blind students in Puerto Rico are not getting 

that. Mind you, under section 614 (d) (3) (B) (iii) of IDEA, Braille is the fundamental 

system for teaching blind children how to read and write. On the other hand, Puerto 

Rico’s 2002 Public Law 240—Braille Literacy Act—states that Braille is the fundamental reading and writing method for blind children. It also establishes that 

Braille teachers should be certified by the National Library Service for the Blind 

and Physically Handicapped. Regretably, Article 9 of the law states that the law will 

enter into effect when the Department of Educacion requests funds for its implementation. It still has not seen fit to do so. 

Two weeks ago, a local bank announced the installation of speaking automatic 

teller machines for the blind. Present at the inauguration, were a group of blind 

children from the Instituto Loaı ́za Cordero, a school for blind children. One can only 

say they were there for show because their main contribution was to sing. According 

to people present at the inauguration, none of the children carried a cane. An indispensable instrument if a blind person hopes to be successful in life. Children at 

Loaı ́za Cordero—a deplorable excuse for a public school—are not given a real chance 

to succeed. They are not taught to use a cane from early childhood. Students with 

residual vision although legally blind are not taught Braille. Orientation and mobility as Braille, is one of the basic skills that all blind persons should learn if they 

wish to succeed. It is also established as a must have skill in IDEA. Blind children, 

if taught O and M, should be able to move from place to place independently. Too 

many times we see—even in regular schools—how blind children are moved from 

classroom to classroom by teachers or assistant. 

In 1980, MS Rosa Lydia Ve ́lez—mother of a disabled child—sued the Department 

of Education because it was not providing her daughter the necessary special education services. By 2003, the suit had become a class suit, and the Department of 

Education finally decided to enter into stipulations on how to remedy the abominable special education situation. Four years later, and millions of dollars paid in 

fines, the Department of Education has yet to settle the case. Obviously, the thousands of children for whom the Department of Education has not provided adequate 

services since 1980 have been left behind. 

Lastly, it seems to us that if NCLB’s basic principles—accountability for results, 

emphasizes on doing what works based on scientific research, expanded parental involvement and options, and expanded control and flexibility—are to work, there 

should be more stringent Federal regulations and supervision. As the old United 

Negro College Fund ad says: ‘‘A mind is a terrible thing to waste.’’

Hoping that my comments have in some way contributed to the reauthorization 

of NCLB process, I am, 

Respectfully, 

ALPIDIO ROLO ́ N, 

President. 

Mr. FORTUNO. Thank you. 

Actually, in his letter he states, for example, that, according to 

the Puerto Rico Department of Education 2005 child count data, 

673 students were classified as blind or visually impaired. Of this, 

only 35 received Braille books. The Department of Education states 

that 29 blind students out of the 439 received Braille books during 

2006 and 2007. More details are included in that letter. 

Actually, I should point out that in 1980 Ms. Rosa Lilavelez, the 

mother of a disabled child with whom I have met several times, 

sued the Puerto Rico Department of Education because it was not 

66

providing her daughter the necessary special education services. 

Ever since the 1980s on, what we have had is a bunch of lawyers 

becoming rich just handling what became a class action suit that 

to this day is not resolved. 

Another letter I would like to include for the record, if I may, Mr. 

Chairman—and for that I also ask unanimous consent—is a letter 

from Ms. Maria Miranda, who is the director of the technical assistance program at the University of Puerto Rico. 

Chairman KILDEE. Without objection. 

[The information follows:]


mirand-1.eps
67

Mr. FORTUNO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

In her letter, Ms. Miranda points to serious problems such as a 

lack of teacher training in the use of technology in the schools. 

Some of the funds diverted from these same programs in the last 

2 years would have actually addressed these issues. 

As I previously stated, it is a great disservice to those who need 

to benefit from the education the most, the children from my district—in this case, Puerto Rico—especially those with disabilities. 

I will ask the panel, if I may, if they know of any similar situations anywhere else in the country. And I have heard, actually, the 

passion which you all discussed different models and how you are 

handling these different challenging situations in your own districts. I would like for any insights that you may have regarding 

a very unique situation, as I see it, in my district. 


mirand-2.eps
68

So I open it up. And maybe, Dr. Rhyne, you may want to start. 

Ms. RHYNE. Yes, sir. I think in order to improve special education in a school district it is imperative that the importance of 

educating all students be communicated from the school board 

through the superintendent and down all levels of the organization. 

And I don’t believe you can make significant progress unless you 

have that. 

Additionally, I think it is incredibly important that general education, general educators receive more training and professional development on teaching students with disabilities. And I think our 

special education teachers need to become more adept at standard 

content. 

Our special ed teachers have traditionally been great at modifying and making adaptations in curriculum and instruction. And 

our general ed teachers have been masters at the specific content 

area. And so, if we can educate both groups and improve their 

skills or if we can do that through a co-teaching model, then all 

children benefit. 

Mr. FORTUNO. Thank you. 

Ms. CORT. I think that the importance of partnerships comes in 

here very strongly. And when we have schools that are under-performing or that don’t have the knowledge base that they need to 

provide the services, we have to look at the university system, the 

linkages with the mental health systems and other systems in the 

community and, of course, the communication with parents. 

I don’t think most teachers leave their institution of higher ed 

even with certification with all the skills or knowledge that they 

need to be good teachers. That happens as they are teachers and 

as they receive professional development and assistance from the 

leaders within those schools. So those are important pieces. 

And one of your first issues relative to Braille and services for 

students with severe physical disabilities, the technology now and 

the availability of adaptive equipment is just skyrocketing, given 

the systems that are going on technologically. But a lot of schools 

and families don’t know that these things exist. There are new requirements in IDEA, like now publishers have to begin submitting 

their texts in a format that can be converted. 

And I think we are going to see a great advancement in the 

availability of universal design for learning and of materials that 

are appropriate to the needs of students with disabilities. But everyone needs to be educated on what is available. Some of it is 

more easily accessed than others. And some of it is expensive. And 

so, the dollars and the training need to go into this. 

Chairman KILDEE. The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Payne? 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. 

In regard to the growth model, I know, Dr. Henderson, you testified in support of a growth model. And I was wondering and listening to Dr. Rhyne if you could describe what the model you would 

have in mind, what it would like. Are you for the growth model? 

Thank you. 

Mr. HENDERSON. Yes, particularly one example. In Boston this 

year on the front page of the Boston Globe, they highlighted two 

high schools, particularly where you see a lot of stratification of 

students. One of the high schools was an exam school and only stuVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:13 Oct 31, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\110TH\ECESE\110-18\34174.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
69

dents get in who score high on exams. And the other high school 

was one that serves students with significant behavior problems 

and many involved with the law. 

To compare these two schools’ performance on the same test is 

not fair. And for that school that has the students that have had 

difficulty throughout elementary and middle school years who are 

going to an alternative school—we are trying to keep them in 

school—dealing with a range of issues for the hope and sake of the 

hard working teachers and staff and children and families there, 

we have to be able to show some kind of growth, also in schools 

that are dealing with children with mild cognitive delays. 

We have got a little bit of a problem here. If children are truly 

cognitively delayed, are they truly ever going to become proficient? 

Now, there are many children who are classified as being cognitive 

delayed who are not. And it is important that we provide opportunities for rigorous standards and instruction so we can achieve as 

much as the potential as we can. But for those children with cognitive delays, it is important, again, for those children, their parents, their teachers, and schools that we can demonstrate the hard 

work and growth and strides that are taking place. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. 

While your microphone is on—or you can put it back on—you 

talk also about the importance of parental involvement. And I just 

wonder if you can describe your school’s effort in this area and any 

specific efforts targeted at parents of students with disabilities. 

Mr. HENDERSON. Yes, we are striving to show parents of kids 

with disabilities, who also need to be helped with high expectations, seeing their children successful in academics and the arts. So 

we have publishing parties where we invite parents and do outreach, and they see and hear their children reading their stories 

or using communication devices to share their stories. 

We have math family nights—and the new math instruction is 

hard for many families to understand—where we have math 

games. We are not just lecturing, but they experience, and they see 

their children in action. And we do performances, African-American 

history. There is a biography day going on in our 3rd-grade classroom today. 

Parents yearn to see their children successful. And they want to 

learn about strategies that they can use in their homes to enforce 

them. 

But we are also struggling, in addition to some of the techniques 

we use, to provide the resources. There is a digital divide. And 

some of the children at our school don’t have access to the computers at home. And even though we have the great federal law, 

we also have to have technology that can work. And we now have 

partnered with CVS and Easter Seals. 

And they are sending parents into the homes of children that do 

not have some of the same technology and same educational background. We are showing them what they can do to help their children with Braille instruction, with reading, with math problems. It 

takes a lot of energy, and we need all the partnerships we can to 

do a better job. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. 

70

Dr. Cort, you testified that many supplemental educational service providers do not provide services to students with disabilities. 

How difficult is it for students with disabilities to find these services? And why do so many providers not work with these students? 

Ms. CORT. Well, there currently isn’t any requirement that they 

work with these students. And I think that the needs of students 

with disabilities are more intensive, and some providers don’t believe that they have the capacity to do it and may not want to do 

it. Certainly, the amount of funding that is available for supplemental education services isn’t extensive. And even for those serving students who aren’t disabled there isn’t a requirement for 

teacher certification. 

Many of these programs use college students or tutors who are 

trained minimally. So I think that that is part of the reason why 

it is so difficult. There is a shortage of special education teachers 

even within the regular day in the classroom. And supplemental 

providers often don’t have access to the equipment, to the materials, don’t understand the needs of students with disabilities. 

And that is why, I think, we believe that having some alternative 

to how those dollars could be spent and focused and targeted on 

students with disabilities in some cases, during the school day and 

in other cases, by the school district before or after school, weekends, that that would be a more productive way to deal with an 

issue when it is the subset of students with disabilities who are not 

making AYP. 

Chairman KILDEE. The gentlelady from California, Ms. Davis? 

Mrs. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you to all of you for being here. I know we are all 

grappling with how we do this better. And I appreciate the fact 

that you have certainly been looking at this seriously. 

I wanted to turn to one of the issues about the accommodations 

that are considered acceptable under NCLB. We had a situation in 

one of the schools in San Diego where students whose IEP called 

for their opportunity to use calculators that was actually considered out of compliance as a result of that. 

And I wondered if you could discuss a little bit more—I think it 

was Dr.—who mentioned just the number of accommodations that 

you have looked at. 

Could you talk about these a little bit and how the Department 

of Education is assisting states in developing these accommodations, again, these allowable accommodations under IEPs and 

whether you think there has been a real inconsistency in the way 

states have dealt with it? 

Ms. QUENEMOEN. Determining the appropriateness of the use of 

accommodations on a particular assessment or portion of an assessment is a fairly complex technical challenge. The use of some 

change in administration in order to either take in or give back the 

content on the test can change what, in fact, is being tested. So 

states have an obligation to think very carefully what kind of content do we really want to hold as essential for all of our children 

and then on those tests represent that content well. 

If students take a test that, in fact, changes the content, then 

you have lowered the standard of accountability. On the other 

hand, if a student does not have access to any portion of the test, 

71

then you have a question of whether or not the student has really 

been able to show you what they do, in fact, know. 

Mrs. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Could you just—calculators, for example. 

Ms. QUENEMOEN. Calculators are a pretty common discussion 

these days. The use of a calculator on problem solving items, for 

example, may, in fact, be a very appropriate way for a student to 

demonstrate that they have, in fact, developed high order problem 

solving and thinking skills using mathematical concepts, even 

though they may not have mastered automatically adding, subtraction, multiplication, and division. 

There are students with math challenges based on their disabilities who do not do math timing tests well but, in fact, go around 

the affects of those disabilities to very complex mathematical content. So in many states, they have a portion of the mathematics 

test, especially at the lower grade levels, where they are measuring 

whether or not a student can do computation with automaticity, 

they call it, quickly and respond easily. 

And these children are not allowed to use calculators on those 

items. And no one is surprised when they don’t do well on those 

items. 

But if they are allowed to use calculators on the portions of the 

test that help them show the very complex and abstract problem 

solving that they have been taught, then very often in states that 

have designed their tests thoughtfully, those students can compensate for the inability to do the computation items. That is true 

in instruction as well. 

And the bad news is that we have found through surveys that 

many teachers don’t understand the difference between use of accommodations for instructing that interesting material that, in 

fact, prevents the student from learning other content as well. 

Mrs. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. As we think about a growth model, 

improvement model, I think one of the other things is that actually 

the number of districts that have been considered not qualifying 

under AYP is actually relatively small when it comes to some of 

these issues with the use of accommodations. 

But I am also wondering, as we move to a growth model, do you 

think that would change? 

Ms. QUENEMOEN. It is really important, using any kind of growth 

model, to make sure that the affects, positive and negative for all 

sub-groups of students, are carefully analyzed. Growth models are 

only as good as the underlying assessment on which they are 

based. Not all assessments may be up for the purpose of really 

showing what a variety of learners who take different paths. 

The example I used of a student who doesn’t do the computation 

pieces but has learned to do the abstract math—many growth models don’t pick that up. So we are very happy that the states in the 

growth model pilots are very carefully analyzing the affects of their 

growth models. We are also very interested in continued research 

on what growth really means in the academic domain and how a 

variety of students yield it. 

If growth is built on what historically a sub-group has done, students with disabilities and many of the other students that are on 

the bad side of the achievement gap could be held to a lower standVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:13 Oct 31, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\110TH\ECESE\110-18\34174.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
72

ard because we don’t really know, as Dr. Cort said, it is very difficult to discern between a student who is getting high quality instruction and moving very slowly versus a student who has not 

been getting instruction in the challenging content. So growth models are tricky. 

Chairman KILDEE. The gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes? 

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I wanted to follow up on the discussion relating to teacher preparation. And I spent 8 years working with the Baltimore city school 

system. And there were severe shortages there of special education 

teachers, as well as in the other subjects that you have mentioned. 

But I am trying to get my head around what I think I hear being 

described as a kind of new kind of teacher. And, I mean, 50 years 

from now, 25 years from now or 5 years from now are we talking 

about a teacher who, as part of their basic preparation in education, become so skilled—I mean, is this the desire—become so 

skilled in the delivery of differentiated instruction that their ability 

to handle all challenges within a classroom is such that the number of ‘‘special education’’ teachers that we need in the education 

system is going to go down or they are going to become reserved 

for just special circumstances? 

I mean, if you could just speak to that issue a little bit more. Because we may be standing sort of on the verge of a whole new concept of what the typical teacher is in our system. And if that is 

really what we are getting at, I think to say that explicitly is useful 

and to think about the implications of it. So if you could speak to 

that. 

Mr. HARDMAN. Well, I think that is an excellent question. 

First let me say that looking at teachers, whether they be general or special education, in isolation of a school-wide support system and their role within that system is what is really important. 

It is not going to be a decline in the number or the need for special 

education teachers. 

It is going to be role differentiation and how you work with children based upon their individual need. That is why RTI becomes 

so important. 

We are building our program off of the base that every teacher 

needs a core of knowledge. Every teacher, in order to work together, has to have a basic understanding, particularly now under 

No Child Left Behind in reading, math, and science, they need to 

understand. Historically special education, to be quite honest with 

you, was very good at collaborating with teachers but was often not 

meeting what general education teachers said they really needed, 

which was content. 

They need to understand how to work with children, both content 

and pedagogy, that is how to work with children who have reading 

difficulties in an inclusive classroom in which there are a variety 

of different learners that not only include students with disabilities, but include students from differing cultural and linguistic 

backgrounds, different socio-economic backgrounds. The classroom 

of today looks very, very, very different than it did even 10, 20 

years ago. 

And it is a very diverse range of learners which requires a support system in place, not a single teacher, but a system of support. 

73

And a big part of that support is provided by a special education 

teacher who had knowledge, pedagogical knowledge about how to 

adapt instruction, modify, support, positive behavior supports, how 

to work with students with challenging behaviors, how to work 

with children who require intense instruction. 

As a matter of fact, the hallmark of special education is individualization, intensive instruction, and explicit teaching of basic 

skills. That is what they bring into that school-wide support system. And that is how they help general education teachers who still 

are facing classrooms of 30, 40 in Utah, at least that many, children in the classroom in which there are diverse learners, in which 

the teacher really needs a support system. 

There won’t be a decline in special education teachers. There will 

be a role that they will definitely play as a part of that team. And 

that is what we are really trying to focus on, is that you cannot 

look at teachers in isolation of a school-wide support structure. 

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman KILDEE. The gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Loebsack? 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Actually, I don’t really have any questions as such. I apologize 

for being late. As a new member, I am finding out what all the veterans know, and that is that you have to be in four places at one 

time. So I was at another hearing. 

But I just want to briefly state that for the record and also to 

all of you on the panel I have been married for some time to a 

school teacher, elementary school teacher, who just retired after 

over 30 years of teaching at the elementary level. 

So I have heard a lot of stories, as you might imagine, about No 

Child Left Behind and its affects and the concerns. She expressed 

a lot of concerns and has over the years about students with disabilities being included in the classroom and not having enough resources to deal with it and not having been trained herself. 

Long ago, obviously to deal with these kinds of situations—and 

I have looked over some of your testimony. I really appreciate what 

all of you have had to say. 

And it is that I really don’t have a question, but I just want to 

state for the record to the chair and others here that we have got 

to do all we can, certainly on the funding front, for IDEA, No Child 

Left Behind. Whatever we end up doing, whether we adopt a 

growth model, for example, as well for AYP, we have got to devote 

more resources to this. 

Resources won’t solve the problem. But the problem won’t be 

solved without the resources. That is for sure, however we go about 

doing this. 

So, again, I don’t really have a question as such. But I do have 

some time left. I want to leave it up to any of you. If you have anything you haven’t been able to say yet up to this point, I want to 

yield my time to any of you on the panel if you want to respond 

to any questions that you haven’t had an opportunity to respond 

to. 

Ms. CORT. I would like to talk briefly about the second subset 

within the 2 percent that we haven’t really discussed at any length 

today, because I don’t want to be perceived as having much difVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:13 Oct 31, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\110TH\ECESE\110-18\34174.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
74

ference with my colleague here who was talking about high expectations for most students. 

And I think it is a small subset. But I do think that the issue 

of this group who falls between the 1 percent of very severely profoundly disabled group of students and those students who are able 

to get a high school diploma, which is by far the vast majority. And 

we must continue to have that as our high expectation. 

I think the issue of program development for this middle group—

and some of them have mild mental retardation. Some are on the 

autism spectrum, some traumatic brain injury, severe traumatic 

brain injury. There is a group there who need something distinctly 

different. And they need preparation for employment and for independence when they leave the system. 

And I think there has to be some incentives to schools to develop 

these occupational, technical, vocational programs that prepare students to leave school ready to be employed, even in states—and we 

don’t want the answer to be to lower the standards for a general 

education diploma, which has happened in some states. And so the 

focus on a program for a small band of students that gives districts 

credit for the development of programs that will lead to employment is very important. 

As the state director of both special ed and vocational rehabilitation, I see students exiting school and then needing to access the 

vocational rehabilitation system when their entitlement to service 

in the 21 years that they could have been serviced in their school 

districts hasn’t served them as well as it should. And this is involved in transition planning, in getting access to the kind of programs that offer work readiness in a way that we don’t have available for many students now. 

Ms. RHYNE. I would like to just comment on that, if I may. And 

that is in the state of North Carolina, there are four pathways to 

get a North Carolina diploma. One of those pathways is entitled 

the occupational course of study. This pathway was written specifically for the group of children that Dr. Cort has described. 

And it is as you get into high school, it is very focused on work. 

Students take occupational English, occupational math, science, social studies. And then they are required to spend 1,000 hours of 

work. Work starts out within your school. It goes out into the community with a job coach. And then there are 300 some hours of 

paid employment that you must finish. When all of those credits 

have been earned, the student receives a North Carolina diploma. 

And this has been incredibly good for this group of students. 

Chairman KILDEE. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. 

Sestak? 

Mr. SESTAK. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. And I apologize for coming 

in late. 

Can I ask you a question, ma’am? As I go around my district and 

go to the intervention units or pathway schools or Easter seals 

schools and all, I find there seems to be this dilemma about IDEA 

and NCLB feeling that neither of them really had a strategic plan 

for all the disabled. 

I am concerned about the 1 percent cap because this seems that 

IDEA has the focus primarily upon—excuse me if these questions 

have been asked already—primarily upon both the IDEA and 

75

NCLB primarily upon those most severely disabled. And the question I have, as we have shifted from more toward—an idea that potentially we should have—some said we should have stuck with 

IEP. 

My question comes back to what does the data show. I am curious—and you may have already spoken of this—is what is the research showing about student performance of the severely disabled. 

Has there been a measurable improvement? In short, what accommodations are actually working? And do we have that? 

Ms. QUENEMOEN. I am assuming that your comment is related 

to those students who the regulation described as having the most 

significant cognitive disabilities. These are really less than half a 

percent in terms of incidents in the population. 

Mr. SESTAK. Unless there is another way that we are measuring 

some other group somehow. And so, I am curious of those we have 

defined and those that are left out of the definition—do we have 

data? 

Ms. QUENEMOEN. We have data based on the student work in the 

states that have been, frankly, learning how to assess their learning. The field of severe disabilities has been in dramatic turmoil in 

the last 10 years similar to what it had gone through shortly after 

the passage of PL 94-142 back in 1975. At that point, there was 

an assumption that these students could only learn what was 

called the infant curriculum and that we would systematically 

move them through stages that we saw in other children much 

younger. 

And after a number of years, based on what parents, teachers, 

professionals knew that these students could do independently in 

other settings, they started characterizing that developmental curriculum as ready meant never. If you had to go through all the 

steps that other kids did to get to tying your shoes, you may never 

get there. 

So a number of researchers shifted to a functional curriculum. 

And that has served us very well in the area of severe disabilities 

to make sure that students were able to get through the course of 

the school day, interact with their peers somewhat, learn self-care 

skills. 

But in the last 10 years after alternative assessment was first required by IDEA 1997, states started having evidence of student 

works that these students could, in fact, thrive in and demonstrate, 

again, pieces and lower levels in a way of the academic curriculum 

in ways that they had never been taught and none of us ever expected. And we were seeing such dramatic evidence that researchers kicked in—the team at the University of North Carolina, Charlotte started tracking the instructional benefits of this method. 

That discussion is still active. 

Mr. SESTAK. The reason I am asking is, you know, it seems to 

me you can get the data for breaking down the barriers and access 

that would show NCLB has improved it from 55 to 62 percent, or 

whatever—I don’t have the exact numbers. 

My real question, then, is, because I am talking about data statistical analysis, are we, therefore, collecting the data now to determine the best accommodations? And I just don’t know. 

76

Ms. QUENEMOEN. Yes. And the term ‘‘accommodations’’—how 

these students interact with the grade level content is very, very 

complex. It is more than the typical accommodations. On the other 

hand, on the use of accommodations on the general assessment, we 

are gathering more and more data to understand the affects of 

these accommodations in instruction and then in assessment over 

time. 

So are we gathering data to understand now that we are actually 

assessing all kids well? Yes. Do we understand fully what works 

best for each individual student? I don’t think we are to that level 

yet. 

Mr. SESTAK. Yes, ma’am? 

Ms. CORT. The proof of success and of change comes really after 

the student exits school. And IDEA has now started to assess and 

gather data on where are students with disabilities a year after 

they exit. Are they employed? Are they in higher education? 

And we are certainly seeing in the vocational rehabilitation side 

the same kind of shift in expectations from the sheltered workshops to virtually everyone able to benefit from some kind of integrated employment. And as we have changed our expectation and 

the training program, we are seeing people in very different places 

than they were 10 and 20 years ago. 

But we do need to look at what happens after students leave. 

And the more data systems can be linked—there is so much data 

being collected it is so confusing. You want it to be accurate. 

If we can get a mesh between the NCLB data and the IDEA data 

so that people can concentrate on common measures that don’t 

sound almost the same but represent different numbers between 

the two laws, this will help us. And if we can get access to information and data on employment after students leave, I think it will 

be very helpful. 

Mr. SESTAK. My time is up. But that issue is exactly what I hear. 

It is the two different numbers. And if there is a beauty in NCLB, 

it is this data that all of a sudden you can shape. And however long 

that data has to be collected, and when you have two differing sets, 

it is so much more than anecdotal. It means so much more. 

Thank you. 

Ms. CORT. We are moving in New York state to an individual 

student record system. And we are now beginning the process of a 

P-16 system that will begin to integrate our city and state university system data into the same data systems so that we can see 

how are students doing when they move onto post-secondary, even 

if they graduated with a diploma were they ready. 

Mr. HARDMAN. May I just add just one very quick point to that 

alternative assessment issue? Because I want to concur very much 

with what has been said. But I also want to add that one of the 

things that we have really got to take a look at that the reauthorization of these alternate assessments is anchoring the assessment 

directly to value post-school outcomes. 

And what we have not done—the good news is these students are 

in the accountability system. The bad news is we are not measuring the right things at all relative to their independence, interdependence, employment, further education opportunities and so on 

77

as adults. That is where we need to be anchoring these alternate 

assessments. 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you very much. 

I want to thank the panel. This has been a great panel. Very 

often, two or three people on the panel get all the questions. All 

of you were asked questions here. And you all responded very specifically to the questions. And I want to first of all thank the panelists. You have been very, very helpful. 

And I want to thank also Lloyd Horwich of the majority staff and 

Brad Thomas of the Republican staff for doing a great job of assembling a great panel. It has been very, very good. And this is where 

Congress does its best work, when we operate in a bipartisan way. 

And it is people like you that bring us together in a bipartisan 

endeavor. And this bill passed with very strong bipartisan support. 

It is a very controversial bill. But it did pass in a bipartisan way. 

We need your continued input. And we will be calling upon you, 

I am sure, between now and the time we mark up the bill. 

But I very much appreciate the staff, the members who are here, 

and this panel. 

And we will have 7 days in which members may submit additional testimony or submit questions to the panelists. 

With that, we stand adjourned. 

[Questions for the record submitted to Ms. Quenemoen follow:]

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

Washington, DC, March 30, 2007. 

Rachel Quenemoen, Senior Research Fellow, 

National Center on Educational Outcomes, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, 

MN. 

DEAR MS. QUENEMOEN: Thank you for testifying at the March 29, 2007 hearing 

of the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education. 

Representative Susan Davis (D-CA), a Member of the Subcommittee, has asked 

that you respond in writing to the following questions: 

On Page 8 of your written testimony, you discuss the accommodations that allow 

special education students to understand and take assessments. What are some examples of accommodations that are widely considered as acceptable and examples 

of accommodations that are considered as unacceptable under NCLB? 

You also mention that states are working ‘‘hard’’ to develop accommodations that 

ensure standards are not lowered. How do allowable accommodations vary between 

the states under NCLB? 

How involved is the Department of Education in assisting the states in developing 

these accommodations to make sure they are acceptable under NCLB proficiency 

testing? 

You also mention that some states have defended sometimes ‘‘controversial’’ decisions regarding accommodations. What did these accommodations look like in these 

controversial cases and how did the Department of Education rule? 

You mention in your testimony that disabled students at a certain schools are 

making gains and achieving, based on formal and informal studies. These schools 

share certain traits, such as emphasis on inclusion and effective faculty recruitment. 

How many studies have been conducted in this area and are there efforts to replicate the successful traits in additional schools? That is, is this information being 

put to use? 

Sincerely, 

GEORGE MILLER, Chairman, 

Committee on Education and Labor. 

DALE E. KILDEE, Chairman, 

Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education. 

78

[Response to questions for the record from Ms. Quenemoen follow:]

Response to Questions From Mrs. Davis of California

by Rachel Quenemoen 

I am pleased to respond to the questions asked by Representative Susan Davis 

(D-CA), a member of the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education. I have answered the questions in narrative form below, citing 

and providing excerpts from the attached documents that provide additional information related to the questions. Neither of these papers is as yet released, so I have 

taken the liberty of attaching them for your reference purposes, with permission 

from the authors. 

The attachments include: 

Christensen, L.L., Lail, K.E., & Thurlow, M. L. (2007). Hints and tips for addressing accommodations issues for peer review. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. To be released in April, 2007. 

Thurlow, M. L. (2007). Research Impact on State Accommodation Policies for Students with Disabilities. Paper to be presented at the 2007 Annual Meeting of the 

American Educational Research Association, April, 2007

1. On Page 8 of your written testimony, you discuss the accommodations that 

allow special education students to understand and take assessments. What are 

some examples of accommodations that are widely considered as acceptable and examples of accommodations that are considered as unacceptable under NCLB? 

NCLB does not define which accommodations are acceptable or unacceptable, nor 

does Peer Review of state assessment systems make that determination. Instead, 

NCLB requires that states develop content and achievement standards, and then requires that states design their assessments to ensure that the results will show 

what students know compared to those state-developed standards. States use a variety of steps to ensure that the results of these assessments in fact reflect what their 

standards reflect. Peer Reviewers then review the state documentation of these 

steps to ensure that they have been done consistent with accepted professional practice. 

The development of thoughtful and defensible accommodations policies is one important step in ensuring the state assessments reflect what the state standards reflect, grade by grade. Since states have defined these standards in slightly or even 

considerably different ways, grade by grade, their assessments require slightly or 

even considerably different accommodations policies. That is up to the state to define, and to defend. I provide more information about what successful defense of 

state accommodations policies requires, based on a systematic review of Peer Review 

documentation and letters to states from the U.S. Department of Education, in question 3 below about how the Department of Education is interacting with states on 

these issues. 

There is a summary of the most commonly allowed accommodations in states in 

Table 6, followed by the most controversial accommodations in Table 7, taken from 

pages 8-9 of the attached paper. (Thurlow, M. L. (2007). Research Impact on State 

Accommodation Policies for Students with Disabilities. Paper to be presented at the 

2007 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April, 

2007.) 

Excerpt from Thurlow, 2007: 

Bolt and Thurlow (2004) reported on the research on the most commonly allowed 

accommodations in 1999 (Braille, dictated response, large print, extended time, sign 

language interpreter), and found that in the 36 identified studies on these, there 

was mixed support and nonsupport for the accommodations for students with disabilities. When Bolt and Thurlow selected accommodations to include in their study, 

they included accommodations both with and without limitations. 

In terms of continuing to examine research findings, it might be useful to make 

a distinction between those test changes that are allowed by states without restrictions and those test changes that are allowed with restrictions. The test changes 

that, according to state policies in 2003 and 2005, were the most often allowed without restrictions, are shown in Table 6. In this table, it is also indicated whether 

some states allowed the test change with restrictions and whether some states prohibited the test change. For some test changes, more than 5 states (10% of the 50 

states) altered their policies—so that the number of states in 2005 was different 

from the number in 2003. This occurred for Braille Edition (which increased in the 

number of states allowing without restrictions, and decreased in the number of 

states allowing with restrictions), separate room (which decreased in the number of 

79

states allowing without restrictions and also was mentioned by fewer states), and 

time beneficial to student (which increased in the number of states allowing without 

restrictions and also with restrictions—showing an increase in the total number of 

states mentioning the test change). Of interest is the fact that few studies during 

this time frame examined the accommodations where dramatic changes were made 

in policy. This is true even if one goes back to the research before the time period 

of the current policies—if one assumes that there is more of a lag between research 

and policy.

TABLE 6.—TEST CHANGES MOST OFTEN ALLOWED WITHOUT RESTRICTIONS*

Test Change 

States Allowing 

Without Restrictions 

States Allowing With 

Restrictions 

States Prohibiting 

2003 2005 2003 2005 2003 2005

Large Print .................................................................................... 47 48 2 0 0 0

Individualized Administration ....................................................... 46 45 0 0 0 0

Small Group Administration ......................................................... 47 45 0 0 0 0

Magnification ................................................................................ 41 42 0 0 0 0

Braille Edition ............................................................................... 38 46 11 2 0 0

Separate Room ............................................................................. 38 31 0 1 0 0

Write in Test Booklet .................................................................... 35 35 4 5 0 0

Time Beneficial to Student .......................................................... 35 41 0 4 0 0

*The 2003 information is from Clapper, Morse, Lazarus, Thompson, & Thurlow (2005). The 2005 information is from Lazarus, Thurlow, Lail, 

Eisenbraun, & Kato (2006). 

Another way to look at research on accommodations in the past five years is in 

terms of whether it has addressed those accommodations that are most frequently 

allowed with restrictions. These test changes tend to be the accommodations that 

are more controversial, and that need specifications placed on them (e.g., states 

allow them to be used in one situation but not another; states allow them to be used 

by some students but not other students). Table 7 shows the accommodations that 

are most often allowed with restrictions (also including an indication of the numbers 

of states that allow without restrictions and the numbers of states that prohibit). 

These are the accommodations that have received attention, either currently or in 

the past, and many of the changes reflect both a recognition of research findings 

and a policy push.

TABLE 7.—TEST CHANGES MOST OFTEN ALLOWED WITHOUT AND WITH RESTRICTIONS*

Test Change 

States Allowing 

Without Restrictions 

States Allowing With 

Restrictions 

States Prohibiting 

2003 2005 2003 2005 2003 2005

Oral Administration/Read Aloud ................................................... 3 8 44 37 0 0

Calculator ..................................................................................... 15 19 28 22 1 0

Proctor/Scribe ............................................................................... 32 37 17 11 0 0

Extended Time .............................................................................. 29 41 16 4 2 0

Sign Interpret Questions .............................................................. 13 8 29 25 0 0

*The 2003 information is from Clapper, Morse, Lazarus, Thompson, & Thurlow (2005). The 2005 information is from Lazarus, Thurlow, Lail, 

Eisenbraun, & Kato (2006). 

2. You also mention that states are working ‘‘hard’’ to develop accommodations 

that ensure standards are not lowered. How do allowable accommodations vary between the states under NCLB? 

A decade ago, when many states used norm-referenced testing (e.g., ITBS, SAT 

9, other large-scale ‘‘off-the-shelf’’ tests), the purpose was to compare how their students were doing in the general content of math or reading with students across 

the country. These tests were carefully ‘‘normed’’ using specific accommodations and 

forbidding use of others. In those days and on those tests, accommodations choices 

were typically made by the test publisher, and states simply followed the test publisher’s guidelines. 

NCLB, and the earlier IASA 1994, shifted testing away from comparing students 

to one another, and toward comparing what students know to well defined content 

and achievement standards. States have considerable flexibility to define these content and achievement standards, but once they have defined them, they have a responsibility under NCLB to ensure that their assessment system actually gives 

them data that reflects those standards. There are many steps in the development, 

80

administration, and analysis of assessments where the state has to ensure that the 

results of the test reflect their standards, including the test specifications—the design of each grade-level test. 

One of these steps is in determining what accommodations will be allowed on 

parts or all of each test. The key for states is to consider what their own content 

and achievement standards are supposed to include. If a proposed accommodation 

will result in the test results meaning something different from what their own 

standards and testing specifications represent, then they generally do not allow use 

of that accommodation. In the case of calculators, many states allow the use of the 

accommodation on parts of the test (e.g., problem-solving items), but do not allow 

it on other parts of the test (e.g., computation items), since it clearly does not 

change the intent of the item for some items, but clearly does change the intent of 

the item for others. 

Since every state has slightly or even substantially different content and achievement standards from the other states, all state accommodations policies differ somewhat. The attached paper provides a thorough review of how state policies have 

evolved over the period from IASA through NCLB. (Thurlow, M. L. (2007). Research 

Impact on State Accommodation Policies for Students with Disabilities. Paper to be 

presented at the 2007 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April, 2007.) 

Here is an excerpt from that paper that summarizes these shifts, taken from 

pages 9-11. 

Excerpt from Thurlow, 2007

There have been a number of shifts in accommodation policies over time. These 

include the steady but dramatic increase in the number of states with accommodation policies/guidance documents, from 21 in 1993 to 50 for the past several years 

(see Figure 1). 

FIGURE 1. NUMBER OF STATES WITH ACCOMMODATION POLICIES OVER TIME

(Number of States)

Nature of States? Accommodation Policies. States’ accommodation policies themselves have changed in several ways also. When NCEO first started studying states’ 

policies, we had to contact states to obtain copies of their documents, and even in 

1995, we were still able to reproduce all of the accommodation policies and guidance 

in one report that was less than 175 pages long. This report quoted all the relevant 

parts of the policies in all of the states that had them (Thurlow, Scott, & Ysseldyke, 

1995). Today, and for the past several years, states’ accommodation policies have 

blossomed. They are now available on the state’s Web site in nearly every state, and 

each one in several states is more than 175 pages long. 

Sophistication of Policies. State accommodation policies are much more complex 

than ever before. When NCEO first started summarizing accommodation policies, 

we simply indicated an X for a test change that was ‘‘allowed,’’ a blank for one that 

was not mentioned by the state, and a P for a prohibited test change. Each time 

or couple times we summarized policies an adjustment was made to better reflect 

the increasing complexity of the policies themselves. Table 8 reflects the coding 

changes that have occurred over time, and in turn provides a glimpse of the complexity and sophistication of the policies.


quef1.eps
81

TABLE 8.—NCEO CODING SYSTEMS FOR ACCOMMODATION POLICIES OVER TIME 

Year Coding System 

1993 X = allowed; O = prohibited 

1995 Lists of states with certain accommodations 

1997 X = allowed; O = prohibited 

1999 X = allowed; O = prohibited 

2001 X = allowed; X* = score not aggregated if used; O = prohibited 

2003 A = allowed; AC = allowed in certain circumstances; AI = allowed with implications for scoring and/or aggregation; P = prohibited 

2005, 2007 A = allowed; A* = allowed but called nonstandard (with no implications for scoring or aggregation); AC = 

allowed in certain circumstances; AI = allowed with implications for scoring and/or aggregation; P = prohibited 

Implications for Aggregation of Scores. The type of sophistication reflected in recent years indicates that states are attending to what happens to scores and the 

aggregation of scores (including the reporting of scores) when test changes have 

been introduced. Clarity about the effects of the test changes on the validity of test 

results clearly is of concern to states. This does not mean that all states are in 

agreement with respect to aggregation for many accommodations. 

NCEO introduced the code AI = allowed with implications for scoring and/or aggregation in 2003. This was a modification of the code used in 2001, which indicated 

a more rigid interpretation (score not aggregated if used). In fact, what is frequently 

observed is that the implications for scoring or aggregation may depend on specific 

circumstances, such as the content of the assessment or the assessment itself. Table 

9 shows several ‘‘allowed with implications for scoring and/or aggregation’’ circumstances from 2005—for the proctor/scribe accommodation—to give a sense of 

what the specifications are like.

TABLE 9.—PROCTOR/SCRIBE—IMPLICATIONS FOR SCORING AND/OR AGGREGATION (2005) 

State Specifications 

Arizona ................... Dictating to a scribe is considered a non-standard accommodation when used on the writing portion 

of Arizona’s instrument to Measure Standards (AIMS). 

California ............... Proctor/Scribe—allowed with implications for scoring if used on the CST, CAHSEE, or CELDT. 

Hawaii ................... Proctor/Scribe—Must be in an individual setting; Allowed with implications for scoring if used on any 

test. 

Massachusetts ...... Proctor/Scribe—Considered non-standard if used on the ELA Composition Test (may alter what the 

test measures). 

Oregon ................... Proctor/Scribe—Considered a modification if used on writing test (not considered part of standard 

administration; scores obtained under modified conditions do not allow students to meet content 

and achievement standards and the scores will not appear in school and district group statistics). 

Utah ....................... Proctor/Scribe—Considered a modification on all tests except for the Iowa tests. 

Vermont ................. Proctor/Scribe—Allowed with implications for scoring if used on the writing test. 

Thus, the notion of states’ policies moving forward with research is a practical reality. As indicated in Table 9, some states appear to be more tuned into variations 

in content that others. Previous research had not effectively isolated the effects of 

scribes (Elliott, Bielinski, Thurlow, DeVito, & Hedlund, 1999; Fuchs et al., 2000; 

Schulte, Elliott, & Kratochwill, 2001), but had suggested that some students who 

had used scribes had obtained improbably high scores (Koretz & Hamilton, 2000), 

a finding that had affected policy in the past. Moving forward, some states attempted to address policies through other means—controlling sources of variation 

in the administration of the accommodations themselves. 

3. How involved is the Department of Education in assisting the states in developing these accommodations to make sure they are acceptable under NCLB proficient testing? 

Specific aspects of the peer review guidance (U.S. Department of Education, 2004) 

that address accommodations for students with disabilities are: 

4.3 Has the State ensured that its assessment system is fair and accessible to all 

students, including students with disabilities and students with limited English proficiency, with respect to each of the following issues: 

(a) Has the State ensured that the assessments provide an appropriate variety of 

accommodations for students with disabilities? * * *

(d) Does the use of accommodations * * * yield meaningful scores? (p. 37, Peer 

Review Guidance) 

82

4.6 Has the State evaluated its use of accommodations? 

(a) How has the State ensured that appropriate accommodations are available to 

students with disabilities and that these accommodations are used in a manner that 

is consistent with instructional approaches for each student, as determined by a student’s IEP or 504 plan? 

(b) How has the State determined that scores for students with disabilities that 

are based on accommodated administration conditions will allow for valid inferences 

about these students’ knowledge and skills and can be combined meaningfully with 

scores from non-accommodated administration conditions? (p. 40, Peer Review Guidance) 

The Department of Education released the Peer Review Guidance in April, 2004. 

The Guidance outlined specific types of evidence that would be acceptable for peer 

review, including suggestions on accommodations policies and documentation. States 

used this guidance to prepare for submission of their materials for peer review. All 

states have been reviewed at least once at this point in time. 

The attached document (Christensen, L.L., Lail, K.E., & Thurlow, M. L. (2007). 

Hints and tips for addressing accommodations issues for peer review. Minneapolis, 

MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes) summarizes what states have submitted in the peer review process, and what the peer reviewers have found that met or did not meet the expectations for acceptable evidence. This document was completed with cooperation from the Department of Education, with direct partnership of Title I staff. This model of providing assistance 

to states is common for the Department of Education. That is, they work with Federally funded projects like NCEO to ensure that high quality technical assistance 

materials being developed by funded projects are consistent with statute, regulation, 

and guidance. 

NCEO staff completed the project in collaboration with the CCSSO state partnership, the ASES-SCASS, a group of 31 states that work to improve the quality of 

assessment systems for measuring the learning of students with disabilities. The attached summary shows the examples and non-examples of evidence provided in advance to states from the Department of Education Peer Review Guidance, followed 

by examples of what states actually submitted, both successful and not successful; 

followed by NCEO’s conclusions and recommendations for state practice. The document covers several topics (e.g., accommodations decision-making quality control, 

monitoring of use on testing day, training provided to key stakeholders), but the following excerpt specifically addresses the defense of state accommodations policies, 

from pages 12-13.

EXCERPT FROM CHRISTENSEN ET AL., 2007

What the Guidance Says about this Crit- ical Element Examples of Acceptable Evidence (Bold are from 

Peer Review Guidance) 

Examples of Insufficient Evidence (Bold are 

from Peer Review Guidance) 

4.3 Has the State ensured that its 

assessment system is fair and 

accessible to all students, including students with disabilities 

and students with limited 

English proficiency, with respect 

to each of the following issues: 

(d) Does the use of accommodations and/or alternate assessments yield meaningful scores? 

4.6 Has the State evaluated its use 

of accommodations? 

(b) How has the State determined 

that scores for students with disabilities that are based on accommodated administration conditions will allow for valid inferences about these students’ 

knowledge and skills and can be 

combined meaningfully with 

scores from nonaccommodated 

administration conditions? 

4.3 The State assessment system must 

be designed to be valid and accessible for use by the widest possible 

range of students..

4.6 The State provides for the use of 

appropriate accommodations and 

has conducted studies to ensure 

that scores based on accommodated 

administrations can be meaningfully 

combined with scores based on the 

standard administrations..

Selected acceptable examples from ACTUAL peer review comments:.

1. The accommodation guidelines indicate which accommodations can be 

aggregated for reporting and for the 

accountability system.

2. Accommodations selection documents 

state that accommodations that invalidate test scores are prohibited.

4.3 The State assessment system is not 

designed to be valid and accessible 

for use by the widest possible range 

of students. 

4.6 No analyses have been carried out 

to determine whether specific accommodations produce the effect intended. 

Selected insufficient examples from ACTUAL peer review comments: 

1. Evidence of meaningful scores not 

provided for all assessments 

2. Results not reported by accommodation type 

3. Information on accommodations and 

valid test scores is not provided for 

all state assessments 

4. Reliance on the belief that if accommodations are those typically provided, they allow for valid inferences 

5. Lack of evidence that scores from accommodated administrations are valid 

representations relative to standards 

83

NCEO Recommendations for Best Practices to Ensure that Accommodations Use 

Provides Meaningful Scores and Valid Inferences about Students’ Knowledge and 

Skills: • Provide a logical and rational argument that demonstrates why tests administered with specific accommodations that may be considered controversial do indeed 

produce scores that are comparable to nonaccommodated tests, given the standards 

being assessed. • Identify studies that have been conducted that demonstrate the comparability 

of scores obtained with the accommodated and nonaccommodated assessments. • Provide results by accommodations and modifications, to clearly distinguish 

those that are comparable and those that are noncomparable to results from students who received no accommodations. • Conduct studies in your states on the use of accommodations by specific groups 

of students (e.g., category of disability, ethnic groups, etc.). • Interview students about accommodations (access to, understanding of purpose, 

reactions of peers, etc.)—variable that will help you understand the validity of 

scores that result from their use during instruction and assessment. • Interview teachers to better understand the logistical constraints that impede 

the provision of accommodations, which in turn might reduce the validity of assessment results. • Interview decision-making teams to identify factors that produce a tendency too 

many accommodations for individual students, thereby resulting in the provision of 

unneeded accommodations; produce a form to aid decision making to avoid students 

receiving unneeded accommodations. 

• Consider further disaggregation of scores by type of accommodation. 

• Use established research on accommodations to inform state policies. 

In sum, many states have found that a review of the literature on the effects of 

accommodations on comparability of scores, along with a formal judgmental policy 

review involving curriculum, assessment, and special education experts, is an essential part of an acceptable defense for state accommodations decisions. Again, these 

decisions must be related to the state’s definition of their content and achievement 

standards, and the test specifications that define the specific content and achievement standards reflected on the grade-level tests. 

In addition, the Department of Education has made available another NCEOASES SCASS collaborative product on the OSEP Toolkit. It is a training package 

for states on use of accommodations. See Thompson, S.J., Morse, A.B., Sharpe, M., 

& Hall, S. (2005). Accommodations manual: How to select, administer, and evaluate 

use of accommodations for instruction and assessment of students with disabilities. 

Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers, ASES SCASS. Also available from OSEP toolkit at—http://www.osepideasthatwork.org/toolkit/accommodations—manual.asp 

Federal staff in the Title I office have also advised on a number of technical assistance materials for states. For example, I would highly recommend two briefs 

prepared to explain the NCLB assessment requirements for students with disabilities, and the accommodations decision-making process. Both are written by 

Candace Cortiella of the Advocacy Institute. The first is an NCEO product, and is 

on our NCEO Web site, NCLB and IDEA: What all parents of students with disabilities need to know and do, at http://education.umn.edu/nceo/OnlinePubs/Parents.pdf 

The second is on the National Council for Learning Disabilities (NCLD) Web site, 

at http://www.ncld.org/content/view/284/322/ and scroll down to the segment Introduction and Background information to find the link; OR go to the NCLD document through our NCEO Web link, at http://education.umn.edu/nceo/OnlinePubs/

NCLD/Accommodations.pdf No Child Left Behind: Determining appropriate assessment accommodations for students with disabilities. Both have been reviewed by 

Department of Education Title I staff for consistency with Title I requirements. Although they were written for the parent audience, they have been widely disseminated and used by states, parent organizations, and policy-makers. 

Recently proposed regulatory language has added to the challenge states are facing, however. 

Here is an excerpt from the attached paper that summarizes these shifts, taken 

from page 3: (Thurlow, M. L. (2007). Research Impact on State Accommodation Policies for Students with Disabilities. Paper to be presented at the 2007 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April, 2007.) 

Excerpt from Thurlow, 2007

The federal requirements have ratcheted up the need for states to attend to the 

research and to ensure that their students are using accommodations during assessVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:13 Oct 31, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\110TH\ECESE\110-18\34174.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
84

ments that are producing valid scores. In fact, during the proposal for new regulations in 2005, the Department of Education attempted to confirm in regulations 

practice that had been imposed through non-regulatory guidance—that being that 

any student who participated in assessments in a way that produced invalid test 

results (and this included using changes in testing procedures considered by the 

state to be modifications) would no longer be considered participants in the assessment. For No Child Left Behind Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) accountability purposes, which require that each subgroup have at least 95% participation for the 

school or district to be eligible for meeting AYP, this posed a serious threat. The 

specific words in the Notice of Proposed Rule-Making (December 15, 2005) were as 

follows:

Tests administered with accommodations that do not maintain test validity are not measuring academic achievement under the State’s assessment 

system. Under the reauthorized IDEA, each IEP now must indicate ‘‘appropriate accommodations that are necessary to measure the academic 

achievement and functional performance of the child on State and district 

wide assessments.’’ State and LEA guidelines thus need to identify, for IEP 

teams, those accommodations that will maintain test validity. Similarly, 

under Title I, the concept of ‘‘appropriate accommodations’’ in the context 

of assessments must be thought of as accommodations that are needed by 

the individual child and that maintain test validity. The Title I regulations 

would only consider a student to be a participant for AYP purposes if his 

or her assessment results in a valid score.

These developments suggest that there is a whole new set of pressures in place 

on research and on policy. They are in the works at the same time that research 

and policy are continuing to react to the need for more information to respond to 

what is a critically complex area of study and policy making. 

4. You also mention that some states have defended sometimes ‘‘controversial’’ decisions regarding accommodations. What did these accommodations look like in 

these controversial cases and how did the Department of Education rule? 

The most common ‘‘controversy’’ relates to the accommodation of reading aloud 

parts of the reading tests. At the 2006 CCSSO Large-scale assessment conference 

in San Francisco, two states with varying stances on this accommodation presented 

the key issues they have considered. Dan Wiener of the Massachusetts Department 

of Education, where they have successfully defended their decision to allow the 

read-aloud in some cases, made the following key points. First, he pointed out that 

state accommodations decisions must be made based on the need for: inclusion; fairness, equity, flexibility; accessibility; appropriateness for each student; and defensibility. Second, he stated that states have an obligation to ensure the read-aloud 

accommodation will be: used only by small number of students who need it; used 

as a last resort, when no other access to the test exists; used only when already 

used for routine instruction; used when necessary to allow participation in gradelevel tests, rather than alternate assessments. He emphasized the necessity of intensive training, materials, and support for IEP teams to ensure good decisions are 

being made, and read-aloud accommodations in instruction OR in assessment are 

not being used as an excuse not to teach students the underlying skills. He also emphasized that even with training in place, close monitoring of the decisions being 

made is essential. 

However, another key point was made by Mr. Wiener on the effects of use of this 

accommodation. He said that states have an obligation to explain use of this accommodation to the public. This includes an explanation of why this accommodation is 

allowed under certain conditions; who should be considered for this accommodation, 

including publicly defining the ‘‘threshold’’ for consideration. For example, ‘‘severely 

limited or prevented’’ from reading based on effects of disabilities does not mean 

simply reading below grade level. He points out that struggling readers need extended time, not read-aloud. He also emphasized that the state has an obligation 

to communicate clearly to the public (and to parents) what the results of a reading 

test mean when the read-aloud accommodation is used on the Language and Literature test, specifically that the test results do NOT say that the students who 

take the test with this accommodation can in fact read. 

Massachusetts’ accommodations policies (and their entire assessment system) 

have been approved through Peer Review. For more information on the Massachusetts’ accommodations policies see Accommodations Policy, Participation Requirements, AlternateAssessment on the web: www.doe.mass.edu/mcas or contact 

Dwiener@doe.mass.edu 

At the same conference session, Dr. Melodie Friedebach from Missouri explained 

the decision their state had made on the read-aloud accommodation in a presenVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:13 Oct 31, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\110TH\ECESE\110-18\34174.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
85

tation entitled To read or not to read—that was our question. The state had decided 

at one time to allow the read-aloud accommodation due to impact upon district accreditation, the high stakes environment, a push to have all students assessed, to 

acknowledge that time was needed to improve reading instruction for all students. 

Still, the decision was controversial—both in and out of the state Department of 

Education. 

In 2005, they reviewed this decision to allow the read-aloud accommodation, and 

were alarmed to see a very large number of students with disabilities taking the 

test with the accommodation. They found that at grade 3, approximately 50% of students with IEPs had the Communication Arts assessment (CA) read to them in 

years 1999-2005, and at grade 7, percent of students with IEPs that had test read 

to them grew from 50% in 1999, to 60% in 2005. The actual incidence of students 

who cannot learn to read well even with high quality instruction should be much 

smaller than this, and they worried that this accommodation had the unintended 

and negative consequence that many students were not expected to learn to read 

well. In addition, they found that in fact the use of this controversial accommodation 

by so many students did not result in significant numbers of children scoring at proficient or above, and had little impact on improving scores for accountability systems. 

In addition to this alarming data, they considered several other issues. Advice 

from their Technical Advisory Committee for assessment was to discontinue practice 

of reading the CA test, and given this technical advisor response, they were also 

concerned about gaining approval of State Assessment program through the U.S. 

Department of Education based on peer review of evidence of use of valid accommodations. They were also concerned about lowering expectations for students with 

IEPs and lack of focus on reading instruction for the students. Finally, they knew 

that NAEP and other large scale assessment measures of student achievement do 

not ‘‘count’’ reading accommodation as a valid accommodation when construct of 

reading is being assessed. 

Thus, in 2005, they decided to discontinue use of the read-aloud accommodation 

for their Communication Arts (CA) assessment beginning in Spring 2006, deciding 

that oral reading of the CA assessment will invalidate test for accountability purposes. All other assessments may be read to a student. Following that decision, Dr. 

Friedebach reported what she called some ‘‘fallout,’’ including letter writing campaigns from certain districts (those with unusually high rates of use of the oral 

reading accommodation), but there were no public negative comments from professional organizations. There was concern regarding the anxiety and stress created for 

students who can’t read at grade level, but that was balanced by evidence of greater 

interest in professional development regarding reading instruction for primary and 

middle school students with disabilities. There was also expressed interest in the 

development of additional assessments for 2%. Their ongoing state plans include to 

continue to invest in professional development focused on reading instruction (Reading First, DIBELS), share impact of Reading First instruction on students with 

IEPs, and develop a plan for additional assessments for 2% of the students with 

IEPs. 

5. You mention in your testimony that disabled students at certain schools are 

making gains and achieving, based on formal and informal studies. These schools 

share certain traits, such as emphasis on inclusion and effective faculty recruitment. 

How many studies have been conducted in this area and are there efforts to replicate the successful traits in additional schools? That is, is this information being 

put to use? 

Numerous research organizations have been studying the characteristics of successful schools for students who have been affected negatively by achievement gaps 

for the past 30 years. Unfortunately, many of these studies do not look at students 

with disabilities as a targeted subgroup for their study. The Donahue Institute at 

the University of Massachusetts and the ASCD study in Rhode Island cited in my 

testimony are two studies focused specifically on the students with disabilities subgroup. However, it is striking to compare the research being done on other lowachieving subgroups, since the findings are remarkably consistent, and suggest that 

successful traits in successful schools yield success for ALL students. 

NCEO hosted a teleconference in February of 2006 entitled ‘‘Making good decisions on special education flexibility options,’’ and we included a side-by-side review 

of the major studies looking at traits of schools where traditionally low-performing 

subgroups are succeeding. I have attached that side-by-side comparison, but the key 

findings of the 4 major studies we compared are provided here.

86

NCEO SIDE-BY-SIDE SUCCESS LITERATURE*

Donahue Institute October 2004 Ford Foundation February 2005 EdSource 2005 Ed Trust December 2005

TITLE and AUTHORS. A Study of MCAS Achievement and Promising Practices in Urban Special Education;.

Report of Field Research Findings; and .............Case Studies and Cross-Case Analysis of Promising Practices in Selected Urban Public 

School Districts in Massachusetts.

This report is available to download for free at: 

http://www.donahue.umassp.edu/docs/?item—id=12699.

Executive Summary: http://

www.donahue.umassp.edu/docs/?item—id=12695.

Inside the Black Box of High-Performing, 

High Poverty Schools: A report from the Prichard Committee for Academic Excellence.

Patricia J. Kannapel and Stephen K 

Clements with Diana Taylor and Terry Hbpshman with funding from the Ford Foundation.

This report is available to download for 

free at: http://www.prichardcommittee.org/Ford%20Study/FordReportJE.pdf.

Similar Students, Different Results: Why 

Do Some Schools Do Better?.

A large-scale survey of California elementary schools serving low-income students..Williams, T., Kirst, M., Haertel, E., et al. 

(2005). Mountain View, CA: EdSource..

This report is available to download for 

free at: http://edsource.org/pub—abs—simstu05.cfm.

Gaining Traction, Gaining Ground: How Some High Schools Accelerate Learning for Struggling Students This report is available to download for free at: 

http://www2.edtrust.org/NR/rdonlyres/6226B581-83C3-4447-9CE7-31C5694B9EF6/0/GainingTractionGainingGround.pdf 

Accompanying case studies: http://

www2.edtrust.org/NR/rdonlyres/012DC865-97CA-4C2F-8A04-9924E2F392F0/0/ThePowerToChange.pdf 

The Power to Change: High Schools that Help 

All Students Achieve—Karin Chenoweth 

87

FINDINGS .............. There is no single blueprint for advancing the 

achievement of students with special needs in socio-economically complex urban areas. However, to the extent that urban districts face a litany of common conditions and problems, the practices identified herein may be put to productive purpose in other districts, as well..

1. A Pervasive Emphasis on Curriculum Alignment with the MA Frameworks.2. ‘‘Effective Systems to Support Curriculum 

Alignment.

3. Emphasis on Inclusion and Access to the 

Curriculum.

4. Culture and Practices that Support High 

Standards and Student Achievement.

5. ‘‘A Well Disciplined Academic and Social Environment.6. Use of Student Assessment Data to Inform 

Decision-Making.

7. ‘‘Unified Practice Supported by Targeted Professional Development.8. ‘‘Access to Resources to Support Key Initiatives.9. Effective Staff Recruitment, Retention, and 

Deployment.

10. ‘‘Flexible Leaders and Staff that Work Effectively in a Dynamic Environment.11. Effective Leadership is Essential to Success 

The eight study schools generally received 

high ratings on the audit, scoring highest in the areas of school culture and student, family, and community support. When audit results were compared to those of low-performing, high-poverty schools, the eight study schools scored significantly higher on:.

1. Review and alignment of curriculum ....2. Individual student assessment and instruction tailored to individual student 

needs.

3. Caring, nurturing environment of high 

expectations for students.

4. 4. Ongoing professional development for 

staff that was connected to student achievement data.

5. Efficient use of resources and instructional time.

Extensive analysis of the survey findings 

used regression analysis to determine which activities more common at highperforming than at low-performing schools were correlated with higher API scores..

The practices found to be associated with 

high performance were:.

1. Prioritizing Student Achievement. ..........2. Implementing a Coherent, Standardsbased Curriculum and Instructional Program..3. Using Assessment Data to Improve Student Achievement and Instruction..4. Ensuring Availability of Instructional 

Resources..

5. Principal leadership in the context of 

accountability-driven reform is being redefined to focus on effective management of the school improvement process..

6. District leadership, accountability, and 

support appear to influence student achievement..

In high impact schools, these spheres are addressed (examples are provided from many 

subsphere information: 

Sphere 1: Culture For example, a clear focus in high-impact 

schools is on academics vs. on rules. 

Sphere 2: Academic Core For example, consistently higher expectations 

for all students, regardless of students’ prior academic performance 

Sphere 3: Support For example, administrators and teachers take 

responsibility for ensuring that struggling students get the additional help that they need 

Sphere 4: Teachers For example, more criteria than teacher preference to make teaching assignments * * * 

Teacher assignments are made to meet the needs of the students, rather than the desires of the teachers. 

Sphere 5: Time and Other Resources For example, a larger fraction of that time [of 

students in affected subgroups] is spent in grade-level or ‘‘college-prep’’ courses, while students in average-impact schools spend more time in ‘‘support’’ or ‘‘remedial’’ courses. 

*Full document online at http://education.umn.edu/nceo/Teleconferences/tele11/default.html scroll down to ‘‘Additional Resources’’

88

However, you have asked one of the most challenging questions we are facing in 

school reform at this time. That is the question of whether there are efforts to replicate the successful traits in additional schools? and That is, is this information 

being put to use? 

What is alarming is that many schools and districts have not committed to evidence-based practices in order to ensure the success of all the students. In my testimony, I answered a similar question of why have educational professionals so resisted actually teaching students with disabilities the challenging content, and expecting them to learn it. As stated there, part of the answer to this rests in centuries of fear and bias, or more recently, pity and caretaking toward people with 

disabilities, or for that matter, any people who are different from the typical. Given 

recent rhetoric and position statements on NCLB reauthorization among educational organizations, it seems to me that these attitudes are institutionalized in 

some professional organizations, even those representing special education. 

However, the literature on change processes suggests that even with a shift in attitudes and beliefs, we are facing huge challenges in changing practice in all public 

schools. States ultimately have the responsibility to provide leadership on reform 

strategies that result in high achievement for all students. NCEO does not focus on 

this type of reform question, so in response to your question I asked Dr. Margaret 

McLaughlin at the University of Maryland with whom we partner frequently on the 

overlap of assessment and standards-based reform issues, to comment. She said, via 

email,

The issue of ‘‘scaling up,’’ and sustaining progress in reform, is not well 

researched in either general or special education. It is an area where we 

need to look at what local education agencies (LEAs) know and can do to 

support more schools getting better. My own anecdotal observations, over 

about 15 LEAs and about that many years, is that good schools, that is 

those getting results for general education students, are also getting them 

for students with disabilities. Those schools that need help for multiple sub 

groups are turned around through sustained and focused district support, 

weekly if not more, in developing formative/curriculum based assessments 

and monitoring student progress; having a well sequenced standards-based 

curriculum, not just a bunch of textbooks; teachers—both general and special education licensed—who know how to teach that curriculum; and flexible arrangements and use of special education personnel. This usually 

means a school has an effective principal and very good teachers who can 

respond to the intensive professional development. Most of this really only 

happens in suburban or small better resourced districts. (Margaret 

McLaughlin [mjm@umd.edu])

In other words, actually shifting practice is labor intensive, complex work, and requires resources and leadership. I would also suggest it takes a long-term commitment to intensive and focused professional development, both preservice and inservice. Although NCEO is not charged with working on reform implementation in 

schools, we do work with change processes around assessment system design. In 

that work, we rely on a research based that suggests these components are essential 

to systematic, sustainable change: 

• access to a research-based knowledge base information infrastructure to support 

use of knowledge; 

• a coaching culture that recognizes natural leaders and stakeholders as resources; 

• access to peers, networks, and partners with knowledge and skills to be shared 

in a learning community , and 

• working partnerships across researchers, practitioners, parents, advocates, and 

students. 

[The prepared statement of the National School Boards Association (NSBA) follows:]

89


nsba-1.eps
90


nsba-2.eps
91

[Whereupon, at 12:21 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

Æ


nsba-3.eps