Disabilities Education Act: 

A Progress Report 

National Council on Disability 

January 28, 2008 
National Council on Disability 

1331 F Street, NW, Suite 850 

Washington, DC 20004 

The No Child Left Behind Act and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Ac

A Progress Report

This report is also available in alternative formats and on the award-winning Nationa

Council on Disability (NCD) Web site (www.ncd.gov). 

Publication date: January 28, 2008 

202-272-2004 Voice 

202-272-2074 TTY 

202-272-2022 Fax 

The views contained in this report do not necessarily represent those of the 

Administration as this and all NCD documents are not subject to the A-19 Executive 

Branch review process. 
 National Council on Disability 

An independent federal agency making recommendations to the President and Congress 

to enhance the quality of life for all Americans with disabilities and their families. 

Letter of Transmittal 

January 28, 2008 

The President 

The White House 

Washington, DC 20500 

Dear Mr. President: 

The National Council on Disability (NCD) is most pleased to present you with a copy 

of a report entitled The No Child Left Behind Act and the Individuals with Disabilities 

Education Act: A Progress Report. Thanks to the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, 

with its push for improved student outcomes, as well as the Individuals with Disabilities 

Education Act (IDEA), educators across the United States are reexamining their 

practices to find ways to close the achievement gaps between groups of students. 

Students with disabilities are a focus of this attention as schools and states work 

hard to improve their academic outcomes. Policymakers are studying the ongoing 

implementation of both NCLB and IDEA to determine the most effective means for 

serving students with disabilities. 

NCD commissioned this study to assist policy leaders and stakeholders in assessing 

the impact of NCLB and IDEA on schools, including student outcomes produced. 

This report provides a detailed analysis of such key questions as (a) How has student 

achievement status changed since the laws were (re)authorized? (b) What impact 

have the laws had on assessment systems, accountability systems, and systems of 

personnel development? and (c) Which barriers are impeding the achievement of 

students with disabilities, and how can those barriers be overcome? 

In our evaluation of NCLB and IDEA, students with disabilities appear to be doing 

better academically, and they also appear to be graduating with diplomas and 

certificates at higher rates than in prior years. Data suggest, however, that there is 

still certainly concern about the dropout levels of students in the states. Regardless 

of whether that concern is definitional or real, we ultimately need to better understand 

the manifestations of new rules and regulations on these students. According to our 

analyses, one of the most important results of NCLB and IDEA appears to be that 

students with disabilities are no longer ignored. To that end, NCLB and IDEA have 

had a significant, positive impact. Teachers, administrators, and the community are 

becoming aware of what students with disabilities are capable of achieving if they 

are held to the same high standards and expectations as their peers. 

1 
As our nation’s policymakers continue their work on NCLB Act reauthorization, it is 

important to recognize the complex interplay among the federal law, state laws 

and regulations, and actual practice at the district and school levels. Some of the 

requirements in NCLB have had unintended consequences, and any proposed 

changes to the law should be carefully considered to ensure that additional unintended 

consequences are not created, especially for students with disabilities. 

It is also important to provide flexibility with regard to student performance while holding 

on to the idea of meeting a high standard. High expectations with differentiated learning 

and instruction should be the twin foundations for the law. 

Thanks to your Administration’s leadership on NCLB, we are confident that the nation 

can continue to fight against low expectations for students with disabilities, and can 

continue to win. 

On behalf of all students with disabilities in America, NCD stands ready to provide you 

and your Administration with whatever resources we have to further implement these 

two vital federal public education laws. 

Sincerely, 

John R. Vaughn 

Chairperson 

(The same letter of transmittal was sent to the President Pro Tempore of the 

U.S. Senate and the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives.) 

2 
National Council on Disability Members and Staff 

Members 

John R. Vaughn, Chairperson 

Chad Colley, Vice Chair 

Patricia Pound, Vice Chair 

Milton Aponte, J.D. 

Victoria Ray Carlson 

Robert R. Davila, Ph.D. 

Graham Hill 

Marylyn Howe 

Young Woo Kang, Ph.D. 

Kathleen Martinez 

Lisa Mattheiss 

Lonnie Moore 

Anne M. Rader 

Cynthia Wainscott 

Linda Wetters 

Staff 

Michael C. Collins, Executive Director 

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

Mark S. Quigley, Director of Communications 

Julie Carroll, Senior Attorney Advisor 

Joan M. Durocher, Senior Attorney Advisor

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

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

Brenda Bratton, Executive Assistant 

Stacey S. Brown, Staff Assistant 

Carla Nelson, Secretary 

3 
Acknowledgments 

NCD also wishes to express its sincere appreciation to Scott Swail of the Educational 

Policy Institute (EPI) and Betsy Brand of the American Youth Policy Forum (AYPF) for 

their incisive research in preparing this report. 

4 
Table of Contents 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................. 7

INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................... 21

PART I. ACADEMIC OUTCOMES FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES.................. 25

PART II. PERSPECTIVES OF STATE OFFICIALS ...................................................... 35

Academic Achievement...............................................................................................................................36

Assessment.................................................................................................................................................38

Accountability ..............................................................................................................................................40

Data Collection and Quality.........................................................................................................................43

Best Practices .............................................................................................................................................46

Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................................52

PART III. PERSPECTIVES OF KEY STAKEHOLDERS ............................................... 55

The Current Environment............................................................................................................................55

Challenges and Issues................................................................................................................................65

PART IV. RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................. 95

APPENDIX .................................................................................................................. 103

Additional resources are available at 

http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2007/publications.htm 

APPENDIX A. Terminology 

APPENDIX B. Key Stakeholders Interviewed, March–May 2007 

APPENDIX C. Accountability Issues in the 10 States 

APPENDIX D. NCLB/IDEA Case Study Reports 

APPENDIX E. State Data Tables

5 
6 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

This report by the National Council on Disability (NCD) documents changes in student 

outcomes, professional practices, and policy around the country. 

In 2004, NCD issued a report called No Child Left Behind: Improving Educational 

Outcomes for Students with Disabilities, which examined the impact of NCLB and the 

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) on improving educational outcomes 

for students with disabilities. The report drew its conclusions and recommendations 

from interviews with disability policy, education, and advocacy leaders and identified 

some changing attitudes and behavioral shifts in K–12 education as a result of the new 

legislation. 

This report provides both a follow-up and a more detailed reporting of the trends and 

attitudes about NCLB and IDEA over the past several years. In this study we spoke to 

dozens of researchers, practitioners, and state administrators from across the country 

about NCLB and IDEA. In addition, we conducted a study of 10 of the largest states in 

the nation, representing approximately half the U.S. general population. 

 This report is divided into four sections. Part I provides a brief overview of trend data 

regarding students with disabilities. Part II describes conversations with state 

administrators and representatives about trends and issues related to NCLB and 

IDEA. Part III describes similar conversations with advocates, federal officials, and 

other stakeholders. Part IV provides recommendations based on our findings. 

PART I. Academic Outcomes for Students with Disabilities 

Because of the relative lack of decent academic trend data since the passage of the 

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, there is no credible way to connect academic trends 

and NCLB. Even the recent Center for Education Policy (CEP) report strongly 

suggested caution in using the data to suggest the impact of NCLB. Frederick Hess 

of the American Enterprise Institute warned, “These findings should be treated very 

7 
cautiously... especially trying to link this to something as amorphous as NCLB” (Hoff, 

June 5, 2007, http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2007/06/06/39cep.h26.html?print=1). 

We relied on National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) data for a 

discussion of trends in achievement. NAEP is commonly referred to as the “nation’s 

report card” and is a statistically significant test that is conducted in all states. 

Our findings suggest that students with disabilities are doing better in terms of 

placement in various academic categories. By and large, fewer students are scoring 

in the “below-basic” proficiency level, and more students are scoring in the “proficient” 

or higher level in reading and mathematics at the fourth- and eighth-grade levels. 

However, positive change is greater at the fourth grade and dissipates by the eighth 

grade. Again, caution should be noted: these findings across the 10 states studied by 

NCD are volatile, and the trend line is exceedingly short by statistical standards. 

Throughout the past several years, the number of students with disabilities who have 

dropped out of school has increased, and the number of students who are using special 

education services has decreased. Graduation and certificate rates, conversely, rose 

since the establishment of NCLB. 

In summary, students with disabilities appear to be doing better academically, and they 

also appear to be graduating with diplomas and certificates at higher rates than in prior 

years. Data suggest, however, that there is still certainly concern about the dropout 

levels of students in the states. Regardless of whether that concern is definitional or 

real, we ultimately need to better understand the manifestations of new rules and 

regulations on these students. 

PART II. Perspectives of State Officials 

NCD interviewed state-level staff members from sectors of education that were directly 

affected by NCLB and IDEA: assessment, data collection, curriculum and instruction, 

and professional development. During these interviews, staff discussed the changes 

8 
that had been made at the state level to comply with IDEA and NCLB regulations, the 

difficulties states had in making those changes, and whether or not a discernible 

improvement in the academic achievement of students with disabilities had occurred as 

a result of NCLB and IDEA. Over the span of six months, NCD spoke with more than 

35 staff members from 10 states: California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, 

Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. 

From the interviews it was evident that state characteristics, such as the demographic 

make-up, geographical distribution of the school-age population, culture, and size and 

number of school districts, all had an impact on each education department’s ability to 

respond to NCLB and IDEA mandates. Responsiveness was also affected by the 

sophistication of each state’s existing assessments and data collection systems and 

by how much work needed to be done to comply with NCLB and IDEA reporting 

requirements. 

Implementing NCLB and IDEA at the state level has been no easy task. However, 

despite the difficulties states have faced in complying with the two laws, it was clear 

from our interviews with staff members that some positive changes are taking place. 

The following is a brief summary of the common themes that emerged from these 

conversations. 

Academic Achievement 

• Most respondents felt that, overall, the academic achievement of students with 

disabilities had increased since the implementation of NCLB and IDEA, but they 

cautioned that an increase in test scores was not necessarily attributable to NCLB or 

IDEA alone. 

Assessment 

• NCLB appears to have been effective in promoting the increased inclusion of 

students with disabilities on state assessments. Though IDEA ’97 required states to 

develop an alternate assessment for students with severe cognitive disabilities, the 

9 
real push for inclusion came with the NCLB rule that 95 percent of all students had 

to participate in state assessments. 

• A positive outcome of alternate assessments has been the increase in the 

participation rates of students with severe cognitive disabilities on state 

assessments. According to state staff members, this increase is a direct result of 

NCLB. 

• Including students with disabilities in general education classrooms and exposing 

them to the general education curriculum gives them the chance to perform better on 

assessments. 

• Most state staff members we spoke with viewed the increased inclusion of students 

with disabilities on state assessments as a positive outcome of NCLB and IDEA. 

Accountability 

• Every state (in our study) has taken steps to develop an accountability system that 

meets NCLB and IDEA requirements. Our interviews revealed how different each 

state was in its approach to developing and maintaining its accountability system. 

• Though many improvements have been made since NCLB and IDEA began 

emphasizing accountability for all students, some staffers worried that some 

regulations could actually harm students with disabilities, such as the requirement to 

count as high school graduates only those students who received regular diplomas 

in the standard number of years. 

• Respondents complained that the U.S. Department of Education’s changes in 

policies have made it difficult to stay within the policy guidelines of NCLB. 

Specifically, staffers pointed out that it is unfair of the Education Department (ED) to 

make changes to the regulations and expect states to comply, but then fail to 

provide guidance on what these changes entail. 

10 
• Overall, state staff members believe accountability systems are a positive result of 

NCLB and IDEA. Schools and districts must now pay attention to the performance of 

all students, which means students with disabilities are getting attention they did not 

have before. 

Data Collection and Quality 

• The quality and sophistication of data collection and management systems vary from 

state to state, and each state is at various stages of upgrading its data collection 

systems. It is not clear, however, whether those changes are the direct result of 

NCLB. 

• Training is expensive, and states do not have the people or the capacity to supply 

one-on-one support to every district and school. Therefore, states do what they can 

with the resources they have. 

• A number of data collection experts mentioned that the Office of Special Education 

Programs (OSEP) often did not give them sufficient time to implement changes to 

the system. Not only do states need time to make the appropriate changes to the 

data collection system to ensure they are collecting the proper data, but also districts 

need advance notification to train their employees on the new requirements. 

• Data experts expressed frustration with the overlap of reporting requirements among 

NCLB, IDEA, and the state. They suggested that collaboration, particularly between 

NCLB and IDEA, was needed to develop clear definitions for data collection that 

would result in gathering information truly useful to ED and the states. 

According to our discussions, the most important result of NCLB and IDEA appears to 

be that students with disabilities are no longer ignored. To that end, NCLB and IDEA 

have had a significant, positive impact. Teachers, administrators, and the community 

are becoming aware of what students with disabilities are capable of achieving if they 

are held to high standards and expectations. 

11 
PART III. Perspectives of Key Stakeholders 

Part III provides an assessment of how NCLB, after three more years of 

implementation, has impacted students with disabilities; the assessment is drawn from 

interviews with disability policy, education, and advocacy leaders, as well as with 

students with disabilities and their parents. 

Attitudes and Expectations 

• Since 2004 there has been a palpable and positive change in the overall attitude of 

educators toward educating students with disabilities. Educators expect students 

with disabilities to meet higher standards, and students with disabilities have 

increased access to highly qualified teachers and higher-level curricula. 

• Most individuals interviewed for this report believe that the culture of high 

expectations for students with disabilities—and, for that matter, for all students—is 

taking root. They credit these attitudinal changes to NCLB and to IDEA as 

reauthorized in 1997 and 2004. 

• When asked whether students with disabilities are considered as general education 

students in the current environment, individuals who were interviewed said there is 

much more acceptance of students with disabilities in general education, but dividing 

lines still exist between the two groups. 

• Respondents indicated there has not been any serious backlash against students 

with disabilities within the accountability system. 

Academic Achievement of Students with Disabilities 

• There is general agreement that NCLB has helped improve the academic 

performance of students on standardized tests. But many people caution that it is 

too early to tell whether NCLB has had an impact on increasing academic 

achievement and skills of students with disabilities. 

12 
• Many interviewees did report that state performance reports indicate higher scores 

in math and English for elementary students with disabilities, but there is little 

improvement for students with disabilities at the high school level. 

• Interviewees all agreed that NCLB has had an impact on programs for students with 

disabilities and that much more attention has been focused on improving the 

academic performance of students with disabilities. But most felt it has not translated 

into actual academic improvements yet because it takes time to prepare teachers 

and to change instruction. 

Reporting Disaggregated Outcome Data 

• Widespread acceptance of the importance and need to report outcome data 

disaggregated by subgroups now exists. When NCLB was first being implemented, 

there was some resistance to this provision, but three years later, almost without 

exception, policymakers, educators, advocates, and parents sing the praises of the 

disaggregated reporting requirements of the law. 

More Supports Needed for Students with Disabilities 

• Educators are increasingly aware of the need to provide lower-performing students 

with extra supports to allow them to attain higher standards. 

• Since 2004 students with disabilities are, according to interviewees, gaining much 

more access to grade-level curricula. This move began with the reauthorization of 

IDEA in 1997, and NCLB has continued this press for students with disabilities. 

Students with disabilities are also increasingly expected to take high school exit 

exams in states where these exams are administered, which means these students 

must have access to the curricula. 

• If students with disabilities are going to access higher-level curricula, they need to 

have well-trained teachers, with strong content knowledge and pedagogical 

strategies, to make those curricula learnable. But the issue of the capacity of the 

teaching force was raised over and over again during the interviews. 

13 
• Several interviewees also sounded a cautionary note about focusing too exclusively 

on grade-level standards to the point that the special education curriculum is 

ignored, which may prevent students with disabilities from learning necessary skills. 

Schools Still Focusing on Compliance with NCLB 

• States, districts, and schools are still engaged to a large extent in compliance with 

the requirements of NCLB, which is preventing them from focusing their efforts on 

instructional change and teacher development. 

• States are still in the process of designing assessment systems (particularly the 

alternate and modified assessments), working to meet the highly qualified teacher 

requirements and to provide timely notification of testing results to schools, teachers, 

and parents. 

• Guidance from the U.S. Department of Education has often been inconsistent or 

slow in coming, which has slowed down the implementation at the state and district 

levels. 

Culture and Belief Systems 

• Educators and policymakers increasingly believe that all students can learn to higher 

standards and that this perception is growing stronger all the time. However, when 

students with disabilities are considered, there is still some hesitation about the 

extent to which they can learn to grade-level proficiency standards. 

• Some students with disabilities are given assessments that can be less rigorous 

than the regular assessments; this reinforces the idea with the public that students 

with disabilities cannot perform to grade-level proficiency. 

• Because the issue of expectations drives so much instructional practice and 

classroom behavior, it is important to have clarity on what should be expected of 

students with disabilities. 

14 
Capacity Building 

• Without prompting, almost every interviewee raised the issue of highly qualified 

teachers (HQTs) as a key provision to help students with disabilities achieve to 

higher standards. 

• Several interviewees raised the issue of the role of higher education and teacher 

licensing; that is, higher education needs to revamp to meet current teaching 

demands. 

• Interviewees stressed the need for school principals to set the tone for the entire 

school, first to create the culture of high expectations for all students, especially 

students with disabilities, and then to serve as an instructional leader who can 

support differentiated learning strategies. 

• Interviewees also mentioned the importance of training school counselors to work 

with students with disabilities, to help them with both course selection and transition 

planning. 

• Capacity is desperately needed in the area of test development, especially in 

alternate and modified assessments. The federal government could provide 

development work in this area. 

• Educators also need access to information about what instructional strategies help 

lower-performing students succeed. 

Ensuring Access to High-Quality Instruction and Services 

• Students with disabilities can achieve to higher standards if they have access to 

high-quality curricula aligned to high school exit exams. However, it is clear this is 

not always happening. Many students with disabilities have been placed in lowerlevel classes that do not prepare them for high school exit exams. 

• There is a concern about the quality of the high school diploma offered. In some 

states, only one diploma is available, and it applies to everyone. Other states offer 

various diplomas, but they are of lesser academic value, a clear signal that students 

are not being challenged. 

15 
• While students with an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) are provided with 

additional instructional supports, little attention has been paid to how students with 

disabilities are being involved in after-school or supplemental learning opportunities. 

Clearly, students with disabilities are not getting the complete access they deserve 

and to which they are entitled. 

Measuring Performance 

• Almost without exception, interviewees felt that as a result of NCLB there has been 

too much testing, and it is having unintended and negative consequences on 

students and schools alike. 

• It is clear that NCLB has put tremendous pressure on states and districts, and they 

are beginning to learn, through data, the full extent of how difficult it is to have every 

student learn to high standards. 

• The closer one gets to the classroom, the more negative are the comments made 

about NCLB’s testing requirements. At the administrative level, on the other hand, 

there is a sense of the value of outcome data (that is, tests) across schools. 

• Interviewees shared numerous stories of states, districts, and schools that found 

ways to discount or hide students with disabilities in their accountability systems. It is 

hard to determine how widespread these practices are, but given the small number 

of educators interviewed for this project, these themes surfaced quite often. 

Interviewees told of other ways of gaming the system to ensure that students with 

disabilities were not counted or to prevent too many schools from being labeled as in 

need of improvement. 

• A number of interviewees raised the issue of which students were being placed in 

the 1 percent and 2 percent categories for alternate assessments and whether these 

categories met the needs of students with disabilities. 

• Interviewees also expressed three specific concerns about growth models: having 

clear definitions of growth models; ensuring consistency of growth models across 

16 
schools, districts, and states; and guaranteeing that state education officials have 

the necessary resources to evaluate how growth models are being used. 

Meeting the 100 Percent Proficiency Target 

• Of all the issues raised by NCLB, perhaps the most significant is having all students 

meet grade-level proficiency by the school year 2013–2014. Yet, interestingly, many 

school-level educators and advocates did not raise it in their comments. 

• Most interviewees felt that education policy needs to recognize that some students 

will require more time to meet grade-level proficiency standards and that we are too 

bound by the traditional structure of education and the requirement to complete high 

school in four years. 

Data and Reporting 

• Most interviewees who worked with data felt that there were various ways IDEA and 

NCLB could work more effectively together, from using common definitions and Web 

sites and forms to using common reporting infrastructures and data systems. 

• Another significant discrepancy between the two laws relates to how high school 

graduation is measured, which has an impact on whether schools do or do not meet 

the adequate yearly progress provisions in NCLB and on how students progress 

through high school. IDEA gives much more flexibility to students with disabilities in 

terms of the length of time it takes to complete high school or meet the goals of the 

particular IEP. This time-based approach runs headlong into the NCLB requirement 

for high school graduation within the traditional four-year time period. 

• Some interviewees felt that IDEA collected a level of detailed student data that 

allows for much richer analysis of instructional strategies than what is required by 

NCLB. 

Parental Access to Information 

• Overall, most interviewees, including advocates, felt that the amount of information 

available to parents—and the public in general—had vastly increased and improved 

17 
as a result both of NCLB and IDEA. Still, there was some concern about how useful 

some of this information is to parents. 

Compatibility of NCLB and IDEA 

• The common opinion was that although the NCLB and IDEA complement and 

strengthen each other, they could be made more compatible. As suggested by one 

respondent, IDEA is a civil rights law and NCLB is a law to make people “mind.” 

Several interviewees felt that because IDEA is a civil rights law, it should prevail over 

NCLB and that the U.S. Congress should make this clear. 

PART IV. Recommendations 

In looking at changes to NCLB, it is important to understand that there is a complex 

interplay among the federal law, state laws and regulations, and actual practice at the 

district and school levels. Some of the requirements in NCLB have had unintended 

consequences, and any new changes to the law should be carefully considered to 

ensure that additional unintended consequences are not created, especially for students 

with disabilities. It is also important to provide flexibility with regard to student 

performance while holding on to the idea of meeting a high standard. High expectations 

with differentiated learning and instruction should be the twin foundations for the law. 

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

interviewees: 

1. Maintain high expectations for students with disabilities and continue to 

disaggregate outcome data by subgroups. The most important recommendation 

gathered from the interviews is to maintain high academic expectations for students 

with disabilities and to continue to report student outcome data by subgroup. 

2. Develop the capacity of teachers to provide differentiated instruction and 

more rigorous curricula. In order for students to benefit from higher-level curricula, 

teachers must have the content knowledge and pedagogical skills to work with a 

diverse group of learners, particularly students with disabilities. 

18 
3. Create incentives to attract, recruit, and retain special education teachers. As 

special education teachers retire, more attention needs to be paid to how to develop 

the profession and to maintain adequate numbers of teachers with the skills and 

knowledge to work with students with disabilities. 

4. Align NCLB and IDEA data systems and definitions. NCLB and IDEA require 

data collection and reporting on various student outcomes and program 

characteristics, but the laws use different definitions and reporting formats, which 

should be brought into closer alignment so that states, districts, and schools are not 

duplicating data collection efforts. NCLB should also be amended to require that 

post-school outcomes be reported because such outcomes are a critical indicator of 

success for all students. 

5. Ensure that students with disabilities are measured on more than just 

academic skills attainment. The definition of what is assessed for students with 

disabilities should be broadened to include occupational, employability, and life 

skills. 

6. Increase funding for special education. Helping students with disabilities access 

higher-level curricula requires more support services, potentially more learning time, 

better-trained teachers, collaborative teaching, and new instructional approaches. 

The current requirement to spend 15 percent of IDEA on early intervention services 

for non–special education students diverts funding from an already 

needy population. 

19 
20 
INTRODUCTION 

When the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act was signed into law in January 2002, there 

was a sense of optimism that the legislation would finally lead to the closing of the 

education achievement gap for various groups of students. For students with 

disabilities, the assumption was made that they would benefit by being held to higher 

expectations and exposed to more rigorous curricula. NCLB has, indeed, had a 

significant impact on the education system and students in our schools, and it has been 

most successful, perhaps, in bringing to light various practices and behaviors that were 

preventing many students from achieving at high standards. However, there is evidence 

that the full promise of NCLB has not yet been achieved. 

In 2004, the National Council on Disability (NCD) released the report No Child Left 

Behind: Improving Educational Outcomes for Students with Disabilities that examined 

the impact of NCLB and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) on 

improving educational outcomes for students with disabilities. The report drew its 

conclusions and recommendations from interviews with disability policy, education, and 

advocacy leaders and identified some changing attitudes and behavioral shifts in K–12 

education as a result of the new legislation. 

While NCLB was still a relatively new law and in the process of being implemented, it 

was clear that the goal of the law to close the achievement gap and help all students 

meet academic proficiency resonated with policymakers, parents, the public, and 

advocacy groups. Less enthusiastic, in some respects, were teachers and school 

leaders as they faced the on-the-ground challenge of helping every student achieve 

grade-level standards. Still, there was an overall feeling that the focus on helping every 

student achieve was overdue and would result in improved outcomes. 

Many, perhaps, viewed the most dramatic and important changes to be the section of 

the law requiring schools, school districts, and states to report on the academic 

performance of student subgroups. Disaggregating data based on student subgroups, 

while difficult, was becoming more widely accepted by educators and strongly 

21 
supported by politicians, advocates, and parents by 2004. The individuals interviewed 

for the 2004 report unanimously agreed that reporting student outcomes by subgroup 

was the most positive and important feature of NCLB and that exposing the true 

performance data was essential in order to bring about instructional changes. However, 

despite these positive attitudes toward reporting data, many interviewees felt that the 

technical challenges of creating student assessments and performance reports were a 

burden. 

At the same time, educators were understandably fearful that they would be blamed for 

the poor performance of students—particularly students with disabilities and English 

language learners, or ELLs—under the new system. A large number also believed that 

it was not possible for these groups of students to meet high standards. Parents, 

advocates, and policymakers, on the other hand, thought that holding these and other 

low-performing students to high expectations was critical and that the law would help 

change cultural beliefs. 

Another fear commonly expressed in 2004 was that NCLB would focus too much on 

testing and test preparation. Teachers and principals, in particular, began to feel 

increasingly pressured to improve performance on tests, limiting the time available for 

more creative types of learning. Special education teachers felt an additional concern, 

namely, that test preparation would crowd out the teaching of important life skills. 

The 2004 report also previewed several major challenges that interviewees for this 

current study identified. First, the system lacks the capacity to meet the instructional and 

assessment demands placed on schools by NCLB. Second, school leaders and 

teachers who embrace the culture of high expectations are an underpinning for 

success. Third, schools need to be staffed with highly qualified teachers, especially in 

light of impending retirements and teacher shortages. Fourth, how can special 

education teachers be effectively trained to become content experts, and is that really 

necessary? Fifth, how can educators develop quality assessments in a timely fashion 

and create an effective feedback loop for teachers and parents? Last, schools, districts, 

22 
and states will find technical ways to avoid being held accountable by the adequate 

yearly progress provisions in NCLB. 

How have things changed since the earlier report? States have been hard at work since 

2004 meeting the requirements of NCLB, from ensuring that all teachers are highly 

qualified to developing data reporting systems. While tremendous progress has been 

made in important areas, states and districts are still in the early stages of certain 

aspects of NCLB implementation, especially with regard to differentiated instruction, 

ensuring access to rigorous curricula, and measuring performance through alternate or 

modified assessments. 

This Report 

This report was prepared to document changes in student outcomes, professional 

practices, and policy around the country. Because of the sheer scope of this effort, we 

focused primarily on a subsection of 10 states: California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, 

Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. These 

states were chosen for several reasons. First, the populations of these states represent 

about 137 million people, or roughly half of the overall U.S. population (based on 2000 

U.S. Census Bureau data). Thus, in 10 states, we can take a snapshot of how a good 

portion of the country operates. Second, seeing how the largest states have done in 

their NCLB and IDEA efforts has value because they carry, for all intents and purposes, 

a larger burden than other states. And third, several of the states studied over the past 

year were highly recommended by experts in the field because of their use of innovative 

practices to comply with NCLB and IDEA and to change the way students with 

disabilities are educated. (Note: For those readers wondering why Texas, our second 

largest state, was not involved, it was simply because we could not gain access to the 

people necessary to participate in this study in a timely manner.) 

The study consisted of four separate components. The first component involved the 

collection of data—NAEP data and other IDEA-based data collected and held by the 

U.S. Department of Education—from each of our participating states. These data are 

23 
discussed in brief in the Introduction and are provided by state in Appendix D. The 

second component is a review of policy and procedures. We reviewed state education 

department Web sites and other sources to document the policies and practices in each 

of our 10 states. These are described in detail in Appendix C. The third component 

involved multiple discussions with state officials to discuss policy and practice issues 

related to NCLB and IDEA. This component of the study is described in Part I. For the 

fourth component, staff of the American Youth Policy Forum conducted interviews of 

disability stakeholders at the national and regional levels to ascertain their thoughts on 

the progress of policy and practice. These discussions are synthesized in Part II. We 

conclude the report with a series of recommendations for NCD and the disability 

community at large. 

24 
PART I. ACADEMIC OUTCOMES FOR STUDENTS WITH 

DISABILITIES 

Calculating trends in academic achievement across states is a difficult task, not least 

because there are two ways to look at academic achievement. One method is to use 

assessment data from the states to compare the proficiency levels of students; the other 

method is to use data from NAEP. Although the former is the method used in the recent 

Center on Education Policy report, Answering the Question That Matters Most, it is 

extremely problematic because each state creates its own test and also determines what 

its level of “proficiency” is. Critics of such analysis suggest that test scores are inaccurate 

measures of academic proficiency and are skewed by instructional practices (Hoff, June 

5, 2007, http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2007/06/06/39cep.h26.html?print=1). 

There is concern that the states’ use of adequate yearly progress (AYP) data may be 

masking real—or the lack of—change in the public schools. The setting of modest 

achievement goals to enable schools and districts to meet AYP standards relatively 

easily early on could make the future attainment of AYP very difficult (Hoff, June 18, 

2007 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11152922). 

Regardless of the statistical measures used to analyze students’ progress, what is 

known is that any specific trend in achievement is difficult to attribute to NCLB or to 

IDEA. The Center for Education Policy (CEP) reported that while test scores for 

students have gone up, linking this to NCLB is delicate at best: “You have to be very 

careful,” said Jack Jennings of CEP. “At the same time that NCLB was taking effect, a 

whole slew of things [was] happening.” More directly, Jennings said that we “cannot 

draw a direct line between this increase in achievement and NCLB.” Frederick Hess of 

the American Enterprise Institute similarly noted, “These findings should be treated very 

cautiously, especially trying to link this to something as amorphous as NCLB” (Hoff, 

June 5, 2007). 

Another challenge of data analysis is the relative youth of NCLB and the IDEA 

reauthorization of 2004. The CEP study notes that less than half the states—22 to be 

25 
exact—have sufficient trend data for analysis. In our analysis of NAEP data for this 

report, we ran into similar challenges. Only in the last couple of years have states 

started to document the academic progress of all students, including those with 

disabilities, making trend lines extraordinarily brief. Regardless, the CEP study does 

provide us with data for discussion. Overall, the conclusion from the study suggests that 

states are improving and more students are becoming “proficient.” 

For our own analysis, we relied on NAEP data to discuss trends in achievement. NAEP 

is commonly referred to as the “nation’s report card,” and it is a statistically significant 

test that is conducted in all states. Although NAEP was not designed to be used as a 

diagnostic instrument, it nevertheless does give us average measures of student 

achievement across the country. Although NAEP has limitations, we believe it is a more 

constant barometer of achievement in the states than AYP proficiency levels. 

Exhibits 1 through 4 that follow provide NAEP data for review. Exhibits 1 and 2 focus on 

fourth-grade outcomes in mathematics and reading for students with disabilities. On 

average, the percentage of students with disabilities who scored below a basic 

proficiency level in mathematics declined by 6 percent in two years. Our 10-state 

sample ranged from a decrease of just 1 point (New York) to 17 points (Florida). 

However, the percentage of students with disabilities who scored below a basic level in 

reading increased by 5 percent at the national level. Our 10-state sample ranged from 

an increase of 8 percentage points (New Jersey) to a decrease of 26 points (Ohio). 

On the other end of the spectrum, the percentage of students who scored at the 

proficient level on the NAEP mathematics and reading tests increased, although 

moderately at best. In mathematics, the national increase in students with disabilities 

scoring at the proficient level increased 3 percent (from 11 to 14 percent), with 

California posting a 0-point increase and Ohio a 10-point increase. In reading, the 

national score increased 1 percent, with New York posting a 2-point decrease and Ohio, 

again, posting a 10-point increase. 

26 
These numbers, especially those below the basic proficiency level, illustrate the volatility 

in data. For instance, is Ohio truly doing that much better than the other nine states? 

Or is the improvement the result of the method by which students with disabilities are 

tested? At this point, we cannot infer much from the data due to the short trend lines. 

However, over time, these data will begin to have more meaning as testing standards, 

even within NAEP, begin to stabilize. 

Exhibit 1. Percentage of Fourth-Grade Students with Disabilities Scoring at the 

Below-Basic and Proficient Levels of the NAEP Mathematics Test, 2003 and 2005 

Below-Basic Proficient 

2003 2005 ∆ 2003 2005 ∆ 

UNITED STATES 50 44 –6 11 14 3 

CALIFORNIA 59 56 –3 5 5 0 

FLORIDA 50 33 –17 12 19 7 

GEORGIA 57 46 –11 10 14 4 

ILLINOIS 49 43 –6 12 15 3 

MASSACHUSETTS 35 26 –9 18 21 3 

MICHIGAN 41 39 –2 12 19 7 

NEW JERSEY 51 43 –8 16 19 3 

NEW YORK 49 48 –1 11 10 –1 

OHIO 49 38 –11 9 19 10 

PENNSYLVANIA 58 48 –10 11 15 4 

27 
Exhibit 2. Percentage of Fourth-Grade Students with Disabilities Scoring at the 

Below-Basic and Proficient Levels of the NAEP Reading Test, 2003 and 2005

Below-Basic Proficient 

2003 2005 ∆ 2003 2005 ∆ 

UNITED STATES 71 76 5 8 9 1 

CALIFORNIA 78 79 1 4 5 1 

FLORIDA 72 62 –10 9 10 1 

GEORGIA 72 63 –9 9 13 4 

ILLINOIS 69 64 –5 10 12 2 

MASSACHUSETTS 59 47 –12 11 15 4 

MICHIGAN 70 61 –9 6 11 5 

NEW JERSEY 62 70 8 6 7 1 

NEW YORK 67 68 1 9 7 –2 

OHIO 80 54 –26 4 14 10 

PENNSYLVANIA 76 65 –11 7 11 4 

Exhibits 3 and 4 focus on eighth-grade NAEP achievement in mathematics and reading. 

Our findings illustrate that, on average, the percentage of students with disabilities who 

scored at the below-basic level in mathematics and reading decreased by 2 and 1 

percent, respectively. Again, we see volatility between the states. In mathematics, the 

percentage of students with disabilities who scored at the below-basic level ranged from 

a decrease of 13 percent (Florida) to an increase of 2 percent (California/New Jersey). 

In reading, the percentage ranged from a decrease of 11 percent (New Jersey) to an 

increase of 2 percent (Illinois). 

The percentage of students with disabilities who scored at the proficient level was also 

very modest, with only a 1 percent increase at the eighth-grade level in both 

mathematics and reading. Similarly, the ranges in both areas were also much more 

modest than in our other analyses. 

28 
Exhibit 3. Percentage of Eighth-Grade Students with Disabilities Scoring at the 

Below-Basic and Proficient Levels of the NAEP Mathematics Test, 2003 and 2005 

Below-Basic Proficient 

2003 2005 ∆ 2003 2005 ∆ 

UNITED STATES 71 69 –2 5 6 1 

CALIFORNIA 80 82 2 5 5 0 

FLORIDA 76 63 –13 5 10 5 

GEORGIA 76 71 –5 5 5 0 

ILLINOIS 72 69 –3 5 5 0 

MASSACHUSETTS 59 49 –10 8 14 6 

MICHIGAN 73 69 –4 5 4 –1 

NEW JERSEY 66 68 2 6 4 –2 

NEW YORK 68 63 –5 7 7 0 

OHIO 67 62 –5 5 8 3 

PENNSYLVANIA 73 68 –5 6 5 –1 

Exhibit 4. Percentage of Eighth-Grade Students with Disabilities Scoring at the 

Below-Basic and Proficient Levels of the NAEP Reading Test, 2003 and 2005

Below-Basic Proficient 

2003 2005 ∆ 2003 2005 ∆ 

UNITED STATES 68 67 –1 5 6 1 

CALIFORNIA 80 79 –1 3 3 0 

FLORIDA 71 66 –5 4 8 4 

GEORGIA 78 68 –10 2 5 3 

ILLINOIS 60 62 2 5 7 2 

MASSACHUSETTS 56 47 –9 11 13 2 

MICHIGAN 63 62 –1 4 8 4 

NEW JERSEY 63 52 –11 5 8 3 

NEW YORK 67 64 –3 8 8 0 

OHIO 68 62 –6 4 6 2 

PENNSYLVANIA 69 65 –4 4 6 2 

With some exceptions, why do we see such changes and volatility at the fourth-grade 

level and less dramatic changes and differences at the eighth-grade level? This could 

be for a number of reasons, including how the testing of students with disabilities is 

conducted in the states, and who actually gets tested. But, certainly, academics at the 

eighth-grade level are more complex than in the fourth grade, and making valid leaps of 

achievement is more difficult work. 

29 
What this brief analysis illustrates is that we need to look much deeper and along a 

longer trend line to have any real clue as to whether NCLB has had an impact. As with 

the CEP report, the data, while interesting, say little regarding the question of whether 

IDEA and NCLB are having an impact on student achievement. What the data do 

clearly show is that, taken together, IDEA and NCLB have had a large impact on “who” 

gets tested and “what” gets tested. However, we will need to bide our time for several 

more years of collecting data in order to form a significant trend line. 

Exhibits 5 through 8 focus on outcomes of students with disabilities, including dropouts, 

those who received disability services, and graduates. Because IDEA has required this 

information for several years, we have longer trend data to review. For our purposes, 

we have reviewed data on a two-year basis, since the trends do not change 

dramatically by year. 

Exhibit 5 focuses on the dropout percentages of students with disabilities. In the prior 

exhibits, we noted that achievement has generally risen, even if modestly, for these 

students. But clearly we can see that the number of dropouts has also increased, in 

some cases rather dramatically. For instance, California had the nation’s lowest dropout 

rate for students with disabilities, but that number has now risen to be more than half of 

all students with disabilities who drop out. But the dropout rates for students with 

disabilities in 2004–2005 were higher than in prior years for other states as well, with 

the exception of Pennsylvania. Were more students with disabilities dropping out 

because of new graduation policies? Were they forced out for the same reasons? Or 

is this a policy blip that will evolve over time? The answer could be yes to all three, but 

it is more likely that the policies (and practices) need to evolve to better suit students 

with disabilities. 

30 
Exhibit 5. Percentage of 14–22+-Year-Old Students with Disabilities Who 

Dropped Out, 1998–1999 to 2004–2005 

State 1998–1999 2000–2001 2002–2003 2004–2005 1998–1999 to 

2004–2005 

California 4.5 6.7 4.9 58.3 53.9 

Florida 19.1 15.7 12.3 29.8 10.7 

Georgia 12.2 21.3 15.3 33.1 20.9 

Illinois 17.3 15.2 15.2 26.0 8.6 

Massachusetts 16.4 14.3 15.0 25.6 9.1 

Michigan 21.9 31.5 26.3 27.4 5.5 

New Jersey 15.1 15.5 13.1 25.6 10.5 

New York 13.8 21.4 17.5 32.2 18.4 

Ohio 11.4 12.4 9.9 17.6 6.1 

Pennsylvania 10.4 12.1 10.6 10.2 –0.1 

Exhibit 6 illustrates the percentage of 14–22+-year-olds with disabilities who no longer 

receive special education services. This chart also illustrates data inconsistencies of 

IDEA, as the 2004–2005 data are not available, or “NA,” more than two years after the 

fact. With exceptions, there is a definitive decline in services provided. Again, we do not 

clearly understand the reason for this, as it could pertain to (a) students who cannot find 

the services needed; (b) students who have become ineligible under new laws and 

regulations for services; (c) students who drop out may not be calculated in these data; 

or (d) the term “no longer uses services” has been redefined. We are unsure of the true 

reason, but the data tell us that fewer students are using services. 

Exhibit 6. Percentage of 14–22+-Year-Old Students with Disabilities Who 

No Longer Receive Special Education Services, 1998–1999 to 2004–2005 

State 1998–1999 2000–2001 2002–2003 2004–2005 ∆ 

California 16.1 13.6 11.6 NA –4.5 

Florida 13.7 8.7 6.9 NA –6.7 

Georgia 14.1 8.0 3.9 NA –10.3 

Illinois 11.0 8.6 9.2 NA –1.7 

Massachusetts 15.3 25.3 20.7 NA 5.4 

Michigan 14.5 15.0 10.4 NA –4.0 

New Jersey 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

New York 9.6 8.3 7.8 NA –1.7 

Ohio 12.5 12.5 18.1 NA 5.6 

Pennsylvania 8.7 12.8 6.8 NA –1.9 

31 
Exhibit 7 focuses on graduation rates for students with disabilities. These data clearly 

illustrate that students with disabilities are graduating at much higher rates than they 

were before NCLB and the last reauthorization of IDEA. With the exception of Ohio, 

which posted nearly a 12-point decline, most states show a double-digit increase in 

graduations, with Michigan (47 percent) and Pennsylvania (48 percent) at the top of the 

group. These two states were also among those that exhibited only a small increase in 

dropout rates. Thus, these data clearly suggest that students with disabilities are 

graduating in much higher percentages than before NCLB/IDEA reauthorization. If 

these are data inconsistencies due to policy or definitions, all states are equally 

implicated. 

Exhibit 7. Percentage of 14–22+-Year-Old Students with Disabilities Who 

Graduated, 1998–1999 to 2004–2005 

State 1998–1999 2000–2001 2002–2003 2004–2005 ∆ 

California 16.1 23.8 27.8 34.9 18.8 

Florida 16.5 17.3 20.2 40.8 24.3 

Georgia 20.1 13.3 19.6 26.7 6.6 

Illinois 30.5 35.7 40.1 71.1 40.6 

Massachusetts 41.0 36.4 36.8 69.2 28.2 

Michigan 22.4 23.1 24.1 69.4 47.0 

New Jersey 45.6 51.3 51.8 72.4 26.8 

New York 29.5 22.9 26.3 46.1 16.7 

Ohio 46.7 43.6 46.5 35.0 –11.7 

Pennsylvania 40.5 37.9 51.1 88.3 47.8 

Exhibit 8 illustrates students who received a certificate rather than a standard diploma. 

Although 2 of the 10 states did not post data, the remaining states—with the exception 

of California—all posted some increase in the rate of certificate completion. Combined 

with data from Exhibit 7, this suggests that students with disabilities are completing at 

much higher levels, in most cases, than before NCLB/IDEA reauthorization. 

32 
Exhibit 8. Percentage of 14–22+-Year-Old Students with Disabilities Who 

Received a Certificate, 1998–1999 to 2004–2005 

State 1998–1999 2000–2001 2002–2003 2004–2005 ∆ 

California 7.6 5.2 3.5 4.8 –2.8 

Florida 13.2 16.4 15.8 28.9 15.7 

Georgia 25.7 15.8 24.2 39.8 14.1 

Illinois 0.7 1.0 0.9 1.1 0.4 

Massachusetts 0.0 0.0 1.5 NA NA 

Michigan 2.2 2.6 4.4 2.5 0.3 

New Jersey 0.0 0.0 NA NA NA 

New York 10.3 10.6 10.9 19.7 9.4 

Ohio 0.0 0.0 NA 41.0 41.0 

Pennsylvania 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 

In summary, we can echo some of the positive comments of the CEP report released in 

June 2007: Students with disabilities appear to be doing better academically (using 

NAEP rather than AYP data), and they also appear to be graduating with diplomas and 

certificates at higher rates than in prior years. Data suggest, however, that there is still 

certainly concern about the dropout levels of students in the states. Regardless of 

whether that concern is definitional or real, we ultimately need to better understand the 

manifestations of new rules and regulations on these students. 

As with all policy change, more time is needed to collect and bring data into the trend 

analysis. The academic outcomes data are simply too short with regard to trend 

analysis to bear any real weight. We strongly advise caution in reading these and other 

data that suggest NCLB has or has not pushed academic advances in the relatively 

short period since its enactment in late 2001. 

However, as we will see in the next two parts of this report, there are indications that 

stakeholders across the country believe that NCLB has pushed data collection and the 

generalization of services to students with disabilities far further than previously existed, 

which would support the theory of a rise in educational success for students with 

disabilities. 

33 
34 
PART II. PERSPECTIVES OF STATE OFFICIALS 

For this study, NCD interviewed state staff members from sectors of education that 

were directly affected by NCLB and IDEA: assessment, data collection, curriculum and 

instruction, and professional development. During these interviews, staff discussed the 

changes that had been made at the state level to comply with IDEA and NCLB 

regulations, the difficulties states had in making those changes, and whether or not a 

discernible improvement in the academic achievement of students with disabilities had 

occurred as a result of NCLB and IDEA. 

Over the span of six months, NCD spoke with more than 35 staff members from 10 

states: California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New 

York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. NCD contacted each state’s department of education by 

email with a request for the contact information for staff responsible for data collection 

and management, assessment, curriculum and instruction, and professional 

development. If no response was received, NCD sent a letter to the head of each state’s 

department of special education. NCD did eventually receive contact information for 

staff members from relevant areas from each of the 10 states. 

The interviews were conducted by contractual researchers and followed a 

predetermined set of questions. The contractual researchers spoke with staff ranging 

from division administrators, data managers, and analysts to consultants, learning 

specialists, and bureau directors. 

From the interviews it was evident that state characteristics, such as the demographic 

make-up, geographical distribution of the school-age population, culture, and size and 

number of school districts, all had an impact on each education department’s ability to 

respond to NCLB and IDEA mandates. Responsiveness was also affected by the 

sophistication of each state’s existing assessments and data collection systems and by 

how much work needed to be done to comply with NCLB and IDEA reporting 

requirements. 

35 
Implementing NCLB and IDEA at the state level has been no easy task. Despite the 

difficulties states have faced in complying with the two laws, however, it was clear from 

our interviews with staff members that some positive changes are taking place. The 

following is a brief summary of the common themes that emerged from these 

conversations. 

Academic Achievement 

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

Most staff members interviewed for this project felt that, overall, the academic 

achievement of students with disabilities had increased since the implementation of 

NCLB and IDEA. Staff members were careful to point out, however, that increases in 

test scores are not necessarily attributable to NCLB or IDEA alone. Because so many 

factors can influence a student’s academic performance, it is difficult to isolate those 

that truly have an impact. As one interviewee warned: 

Determining the causal link between a law and student achievement 

would be a major undertaking. As we don’t have a control group or any 

other elements of experimental design, most likely any attempt to link the 

two and show causality wouldn’t pass a rigorous test of being 

“scientifically based.” —Data Manager, Ohio Department of Education 

Despite the fact that changes in student achievement cannot be directly linked to the 

impact of the two laws, many staff members highlighted the positive changes that had 

taken place since the implementation of NCLB and IDEA. One of the most important 

results of NCLB and IDEA has been the increased access students with disabilities 

have to the general education curriculum. Since the two laws were enacted, a higher 

percentage of students with disabilities have been placed in general education 

classrooms or receive instruction based on the general education curriculum in special 

education classrooms. According to one educational professional from New York, 

whose observation was echoed by many others, with the implementation of NCLB and 

IDEA, 

36 
Students with disabilities have access to the curriculum and are passing 

the assessments. Before, there was no accountability [for instruction] 

and you could teach students with disabilities whatever you wanted to. 

—Staff member, New York State Department of Education 

Staff members applauded NCLB for pushing states to include students with disabilities 

in general education classrooms and forcing administrators, teachers, and the general 

community to recognize the academic ability of these students. As one state staff 

member pointed out, students with disabilities have a much better chance of doing well 

on assessments when they are exposed to the general education curriculum. 

As a result of the push for inclusion, there is much more interaction between general 

and special education at the state, district, and school levels. An interview with staff 

members from New Jersey revealed: 

In the ’90s, each department for each content area was developing 

curriculum frameworks on their own with no collaboration with the 

special education department. The department of special education 

had a list or section in each one of the frameworks on what to do for 

students with disabilities. Since then, the state has greatly increased 

the level of collaboration between general and special education. 

—Multiple staff members, New Jersey Department of Education 

None of the staff members interviewed for this project thought NCLB or IDEA had a 

negative impact on student achievement. On the contrary, every person interviewed 

commended the two laws for holding states accountable for the academic performance 

of students with disabilities. A few staff members pointed out that although IDEA ’97 

came before NCLB, NCLB is the law that really began to push states into compliance 

with IDEA’s regulations. 

There have been changes at the state level in the number of people 

who care about students with disabilities. IDEA had no teeth. People 

did not care about alternate assessments because there were no 

real repercussions. After NCLB, people started paying attention. 

Before NCLB, IDEA did not have as much prominence. 

—Coordinator, Michigan Department of Education 

37 
Other staffers mentioned that NCLB has given education departments the extra push to 

make improvements they had already been contemplating. For example, Florida had 

always promoted the inclusionary model for students with disabilities. However, 

inclusion in the state’s education system got an even bigger push with the NCLB 

requirement that 95 percent of all students take the general assessment. 

Therefore, it seems to be the general opinion of state staff members that the academic 

achievement of students with disabilities has improved, even if only marginally. In a 

short period of time, states have made major changes to their approach to educating 

students with disabilities, and those changes have begun to make a difference. Many 

educators and administrators hold out hope for continued improvement. 

Assessment 

Are students with disabilities being included in state assessments, and what have 

the consequences been? 

NCLB appears to have been effective in promoting the increased inclusion of students 

with disabilities on state assessments. Though IDEA ’97 required states to develop an 

alternate assessment for students with severe cognitive disabilities, the real push for 

inclusion came with the NCLB rule that 95 percent of all students had to participate in 

state assessments. 

Students with disabilities have a number of options when it comes to taking the state 

assessment. They may take the general assessment, with or without accommodations, 

or take the alternate assessment. States are responsible for deciding which 

accommodations are acceptable for the general assessment. Some states have 

standard and nonstandard accommodations. If a student takes the general assessment 

with nonstandard accommodations, his or her score may not be counted toward the 

proficiency rating of the local education authority (LEA). It was evident from our 

interviews that policy regarding standard and nonstandard accommodations varies 

greatly from state to state. Furthermore, the level of guidance related to the use of 

accommodations ranged from a list of acceptable accommodations posted on the 

38 
state’s department of education Web site to providing direct training to IEP team 

members and assessment administrators. 

States also offer an alternate assessment for students with severe cognitive disabilities. 

States vary in the level of technical assistance they provide to IEP teams that decide 

which test a student should take. Some states, like Michigan, post their policies and list 

of acceptable accommodations online. Technical assistance varies from state to state 

for teachers and administrators in charge of administering and grading the general 

assessment with accommodations and the alternate assessment. Most states post a 

manual or training documents online. Some states send representatives to districts that 

provide training. Michigan has posted a podcast online to provide information to districts 

that administer the alternate assessment. 

A positive outcome of alternate assessments has been the increase in participation 

rates in state assessments of students with severe cognitive disabilities. According to 

some state staff members, this increase is a direct result of NCLB. 

[The] alternate assessment for students with severe cognitive disability 

was required by IDEA prior to NCLB. It became a high priority when 

NCLB was implemented because of the 95 percent participation 

requirement. As far as participation goes, prior to NCLB, there was little 

or no push at the local level to have students with severe cognitive 

disability take the alternate assessment. So, that’s a big difference 

between then and now. —Manager, California Department of Education 

As discussed in the previous section, because states are required to include students 

with disabilities in state assessments, they are gaining wider access to the general 

education curriculum. Their teachers are experiencing favorable results from the 

inclusion model as well. Special education teachers now have access to the general 

education curriculum and are frequently included in development and planning meetings 

with general education teachers. 

When I was developing the alternate assessment, I was in the special 

education department. When I would go out into the field and talk to 

special education teachers about the state curriculum framework, they 

39 
would draw a blank. They were not included in that area. Now, more 

people are familiar with the curriculum framework, and schools and 

districts are finally including the special education teachers in 

professional development activities. The same thing is happening 

with assessments. In the past, schools would pull general education 

teachers into a meeting to discuss the results of MAEP [Michigan’s 

state assessment] but [would] exclude the special education teachers. 

Now, both general and special education teachers are included in those 

types of meetings. —Coordinator, Michigan Department of Education 

Including students with disabilities in general education classrooms and exposing them 

to the general education curriculum gives them the chance to perform better on 

assessments. As one Florida staff member pointed out, 

The laws have emphasized the need for students with disabilities to be 

included in general education. It’s not just inclusion in general education 

classes but exposing these kids to the general education curriculum. 

They all have to take the assessment on grade level, so it can only help 

them to have exposure to the curriculum. It gives them the chance to 

do well on the assessment, whereas before, they may not have ever 

seen some of the material included on the test. —Section Administrator, 

Florida Department of Education 

Most state staff members we spoke with viewed the increased inclusion of students with 

disabilities on state assessments as a positive outcome of NCLB and IDEA. A few 

staffers mentioned concerns regarding over-testing students and the fear that focusing 

too much on assessments can limit creativity in the classroom. These concerns are not 

unique to the special education population; however, they have been brought up on the 

general education side as well. 

Accountability 

Are states complying with the laws, and where are they struggling with the laws’ 

requirements? 

Every state we spoke with has taken steps to develop an accountability system that 

meets NCLB and IDEA requirements. Accountability is a key component of standardsbased reform. According to NCLB and IDEA, states must establish standards for 

student achievement, communicate those standards to students and educators, 

40 
measure student progress in reference to the established standards, and apply 

consequences when schools and districts do not meet those standards.1 

Our interviews with state staff members revealed how different each state was in its 

approach to developing and maintaining its accountability system. Some states, like 

Illinois, had developed accountability systems prior to the implementation of NCLB. 

In order to be in compliance with NCLB, Illinois had to make considerable changes 

to its assessment system. One Illinois staffer pointed out that although they made the 

necessary changes, those changes may not have been to the benefit of the students. 

Because we already had an assessment system, we were forced to 

go back and revise what we had, unlike some states that did not have 

accountability and assessment systems set up. That put more of our 

schools in jeopardy. We have more grades participating in the 

assessments. Previously, we had a writing assessment that was very 

integral to the testing process, but our legislators looked at it and 

said we couldn’t afford to do it anymore. Teachers indicated that we 

were testing too many content areas. It’s had some curricular impact. 

—Division Administrator, Illinois State Board of Education 

Many states must deal with specific issues, problem areas, or populations of students 

that require targeted attention in order to boost academic performance. For example, 

staff members in a few states discussed the issue of disproportionality, which refers to 

the disproportionate representation of minority students placed in special education. 

NCLB and IDEA require states to track data on the number of minority students 

identified as in need of special education. States must monitor districts and schools and 

pinpoint those that overidentify or under-identify certain populations for special 

education services. States like Georgia send education department representatives to 

train school teams to resolve their disproportionality issues. The trainings are ongoing 

and aim to teach schools how to assist students without labeling them disabled. 

Though many improvements have been made since NCLB and IDEA began 

emphasizing accountability for all students, some staffers worried that some regulations 

could actually harm students with disabilities. Several staff members expressed concern 

41 
regarding rules for graduation requirements included in NCLB. According to the law, a 

state may count as high school graduates only those students who received regular 

diplomas in the standard number of years. Some state staffers felt this stipulation put 

students with disabilities at an unfair disadvantage, since many states had created 

modified graduation standards or allowed students to take longer than four years to 

complete their course requirements. Under the new definition, schools do not receive 

credit for students who graduate using modified standards or take longer than four 

years to graduate, so there is no motivation to maintain these alternate routes to 

graduation. 

Florida is one state that had separate general and special education diplomas before 

NCLB. Each diploma had different requirements. Because NCLB prohibits the use of 

separate standards for general and special education students, Florida eliminated its 

special education diploma. In its place, the state developed a system that uses access 

points to focus on a student’s ability to function. Access points exist at each grade level 

to show how students with disabilities can make contact with the general education 

curriculum and retain the implications of the material, but at a lower complexity level. 

Schools and districts that struggle with the graduation issue receive targeted 

interventions and technical assistance from the state. The state continues to provide 

remediation for students with disabilities who do not pass the state assessment on the 

first try. Additionally, a student’s IEP team is allowed to determine whether or not the 

graduation requirements have been met even if the student failed the assessment 

required for graduation. 

One complaint that came up several times during our interviews was the issue of timing 

in regard to when the Education Department makes changes to regulations and when 

the states receive the guiding documents necessary to implement those changes. As 

one staff member noted, 

There are a few examples of ED issuing guidance documents after or 

at the same time states are supposed to be implementing policies or 

changes. Although states are always aware that new regulations or 

changes to existing regulations are coming out, not having the guidance 

42 
documents can make things difficult. —Coordinator, Michigan Department 

of Education 

Staffers pointed out that it is unfair of ED to make changes to the regulations and expect 

states to comply, but then fail to provide guidance on what these changes entail. 

Without guiding documents and a short implementation time line, states are often left 

guessing what is expected of them. 

Overall, state staff members believe that accountability systems are a positive result of 

NCLB and IDEA. Schools and districts must now pay attention to the performance of all 

students, which means students with disabilities now get attention they did not have 

before. This attention is not always positive, however. Some schools and community 

members worry that the performance of students with disabilities on assessments may 

negatively affect the school’s ability to meet AYP goals. In general, however, holding 

schools accountable for students with disabilities has made people more aware of how 

talented these students are. 

Data Collection and Quality 

Standards-based educational reform requires the collection of data to determine 

whether or not progress is being made. NCLB and IDEA therefore require states to 

collect a substantial amount of data, which can be a daunting and expensive task. In 

addition to the reporting requirements imposed by NCLB and IDEA, a state must also 

collect data for reports to the state legislature. 

The quality and sophistication of data collection and management systems vary from 

state to state. Some states, like Georgia, maintain separate systems for general and 

special education data. Staff members explained that this separation was necessary 

due to the extra reporting requirements under IDEA and the different monitoring 

activities the state performs with that data. 

A number of factors affect data quality. These include the skill level of local staff 

performing the actual collection; the interoperability among school, district, and state 

43 
data systems; and the data verification. As a conference call with New Jersey staff 

members revealed, states spend a significant amount of money and time training staff 

and verifying data. 

We offer training for districts on an annual basis for everyone at every 

level of data collection. We give definitions and examples and help them 

figure out how to code certain incidences. We walk them through the 

system. Through our new Title IV data grant, we’re working on an 

instructional video to help in the training. We update the training materials 

and presentations every year and post the PowerPoint presentation on 

the Web. —Multiple staff members, New Jersey Department of Education 

But, as more than one state staff member mentioned, training is expensive, and states 

do not have people or the capacity to supply one-on-one support to every district and 

school. Therefore, states do what they can with the resources they have. Most try to cut 

costs by posting training and technical assistance materials online. Some sponsor a call 

center for districts and schools to contact for guidance. 

Providing individualized training is a difficult and expensive task, especially when most 

districts choose their own data collection systems and come up with their own 

procedures for data entry. In addition, the expertise of data collection staff at the local 

level can vary from district to district. States also struggle to make sure that districts 

understand the connection between the data they collect and the results the states 

report to ED. Errors at the local level affect the accuracy of state-level data. 

The interview with New Jersey also revealed the importance of collaboration among 

departments and divisions to guarantee data quality throughout the entire collection 

process. 

We work with the assessment officials and request information about 

how they code certain answers. We give information to the grants office 

when they do their consolidated applications so they can give districts 

information about data collection. Every county has a data collection 

specialist. —Multiple staff members, New Jersey Department of 

Education 

44 
A number of data collection experts we interviewed for this study mentioned that OSEP 

often did not give them sufficient time to implement changes to the system. As one 

expert explained, 

In Florida we have a very sophisticated [data collection] system. We 

are confident in our data quality. When we add a data element, it takes 

about two or three years to implement the change. The Department of 

Education does not give us enough time. The turnaround time is never 

long enough. They want us to accomplish the changes in six months 

when we know it takes longer than that to do it right. We had a situation 

recently regarding the State Performance Plan [that] we submit for IDEA, 

where we have to calculate data on [the] progress students have made. 

ED changed the definitions and we’d already collected the data. In the 

end, they’re going to end up with something that they can’t disaggregate. 

—Section Administrator, Florida Department of Education 

Not only do states need time to make the appropriate changes to the data collection 

system to ensure that they are collecting the proper data, but also districts need 

advance notification to train their employees on the new requirements. In 

Massachusetts, a state with a fairly sophisticated data collection system, changes are 

made to the collection system on an annual basis. The state gives districts six months’ 

advance notice when changes are coming and conducts training for the district each 

year to prepare them for modifications to the system. 

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

data collection requirements. 

A negative impact is the complexity, time, and energy that go into working 

out glitches in data and data that don’t seem to mean anything. There is 

a need for greater alignment. We’ve continued in New York to look at 

requirements that we don’t need. [ED] needs to do that as well. We want 

to put more time and money into getting achievement levels up, instead 

of collecting data twice. —Multiple staff members, New York State 

Department of Education 

It is evident from our interviews that all 10 states are at various stages of upgrading their 

data collection systems. It is not clear, however, whether those changes are the direct 

45 
result of NCLB. Some staff members were careful to note that their state was already in 

the process of updating their system when the law came out, while others thought 

NCLB gave their state the extra push to make much-needed changes. Ultimately, most 

states would like to track students from pre-K through college. Massachusetts is one 

state that is already able to link the secondary and college systems with a 95 percent 

match rate. As data collection and tracking systems become more sophisticated, the 

range of possible applications continues to expand. States may someday be able to link 

student, teacher, and course data. 

State staff members pointed out that data are useful only if people know how to use 

them. States are aware of this fact and, consequently, provide training and professional 

development to districts and schools on how to use the data to identify areas where 

they can make improvements. For example, teachers can use performance data to 

tailor their instruction to the needs of individual students. 

The data collection experts we spoke with often expressed their frustration with the 

overlap of reporting requirements from NCLB, IDEA, and the state. They suggested that 

collaboration, particularly between NCLB and IDEA, was needed to develop clear 

definitions for data collection that would result in gathering information truly useful to ED 

and the states. It was clear from speaking with these experts that even though states 

continue to struggle with data quality and reporting requirements, they have 

nonetheless made significant progress in past years. But, the data experts warned, only 

accurate data will show a real picture of what educational systems are accomplishing. 

Best Practices 

What are states doing to increase the achievement of students with disabilities 

and to ensure that they are in compliance with NCLB and IDEA? 

The end goal of NCLB and IDEA is to increase academic achievement. Our 

conversations with staff members at the state level highlighted some best practices that 

are being implemented in an attempt to achieve this goal. 

46 
Data Collection 

Interoperability. States are working toward comprehensive systems that (1) are linked 

across schools and other agencies; (2) are from the classroom level up to the federal 

level; and (3) are able to track students from preschool through college. By creating 

data systems with these linkages embedded in them, states can streamline test 

reporting, reduce errors, and help identify problem areas. 

Accuracy. Changes are constantly being made to state data systems as state and 

federal indicators are added, taken away, or modified. Many states have established 

verification processes that allow them to test the accuracy of new elements added to the 

data collection system. The verification process can take at least two years to complete. 

States therefore need sufficient time from ED to make changes to the system in order to 

properly train their local staff on the changes and test the accuracy of the added 

element. 

Training. States spend substantial amounts of time and money training data collection 

staff on proper methods in order to guarantee the accuracy of the data. States also 

spend a lot of time and money training administrators and teachers on how to use that 

data to identify problem areas and target interventions to correct those issues. 

Collaboration 

Collaboration is a key component of increasing the academic achievement of students 

with disabilities. The difficulty lies in how to organize the departments, divisions, 

districts, schools, teachers, parents, and other stakeholders into a cohesive unit that 

ultimately leads to the creation of positive and effective educational experience for the 

student. 

State Level. Collaboration at the state level can be difficult depending on how the state 

education department is organized and what duties and responsibilities are linked to 

specific departments or divisions. Since NCLB, some states have undergone a 

reorganization to promote collaboration between general and special education staff. 

47 
California, for example, made major changes to its standards and assessments division 

to comply with NCLB and IDEA. 

When the standards and assessment division realized they needed our 

assessment, they moved the special education division not only on the 

work chart, but also physically into the mainstream of curriculum and 

instruction. Before, the special education division was in a separate 

building. We were in a specialized programs branch and they weren’t 

sure what to do with us. We were isolated on the work chart and 

physically. Now we actually see each other in the elevator. All of this 

change happened at the same time that NCLB came out. —Interagency 

Liaison, California Department of Education 

A specific example of how collaboration can be complicated at the state level came from 

an interview with one of Georgia’s data collection experts. To track students from pre-K 

through 12th grade, the Office of Standards, Instruction, and Assessment, located within 

the Georgia Department of Education, had to work with the Department of Human 

Resources, a separate department in Georgia’s government structure. 

Despite these challenges, states continue to promote collaboration from all divisions. 

By working together, these divisions are able to create more effective educational 

programs for students. 

District and Regional Levels. Collaboration between the general and special 

education sectors is also important at the district and regional levels. Oftentimes, states 

provide similar services for general and special education students through separate 

divisions or agencies. The challenge, therefore, is to ensure that the activities of one 

agency complement the work of others in the department. Some states sponsor special 

education resource centers that offer training, professional development, and technical 

assistance. 

Ohio is one state that has used the regional resource center model to support special 

education since the 1960s. Ohio’s 16 Special Education Regional Resource Centers 

(SERRCs) are a well-known network throughout the state. The mission of the resource 

centers has evolved since the 1960s to become much more prescriptive in determining 

48 
which activities receive funding. The centers have begun to direct their professional 

development toward principal-led teams to promote shared responsibility at the building 

level for the performance of all students. 

One problem for SERRCs, as one state staff member warned, is that the name can be 

both a resource and a barrier in that some people think the centers serve only special 

education providers. The Ohio state legislature recently passed a bill to create the 

Educational Regional Service System (ERSS) to align existing resources like SERRCs 

into a coordinated regional service delivery system. The ERSS will unify professional 

development and technical assistance activities to target the individual needs of the 

state’s districts. 

Georgia is another state with a long history of providing training and assistance to 

special education teachers through resource centers. As in Ohio, the purpose of 

Georgia’s Learning Resource Centers (GLRCs) has evolved over their 30-year 

existence to focus more on coaching and support-based activities for teachers and 

parents. The GLRCs mainly help schools and districts meet NCLB and IDEA 

requirements through the implementation of effective instructional strategies. 

Parents. The parents of students with disabilities can be a valuable resource, and 

states are beginning to take advantage of this fact. Some states have started programs 

that train parents how to be advocates for their children and make them aware of the 

resources that are out there for them. Support for parents is available from various 

sources, from resource centers like GLRCs to local or state advocacy organizations. 

Other states are involving parents in the accountability of LEAs and districts by letting 

them serve on accountability committees and in other ways. Where parents were an 

external part of the accountability process before NCLB and the 2004 reauthorization of 

IDEA, they are now deeply involved in many states. 

49 
Professional Development 

Ensuring that all students with disabilities receive instruction from a highly qualified 

teacher is a goal for each of the 10 states whose representatives we spoke with for this 

project. 

Preservice training. Meeting that goal starts at the preservice level, where state 

departments and boards of education must work with local colleges and universities to 

create rigorous programs that adequately prepare general and special education 

teachers for the classroom. For example, Florida has created Professional Development 

Plans based at universities that provide preservice training. A major concern for 

educators and administrators is that new teachers enter their first year of teaching with 

all the tools they need to succeed. Florida allows students who majored in subject areas 

other than education to obtain their teaching certificate by taking a test once they have 

received their college degree. This is not an ideal situation, however, as one staff 

member pointed out. 

A worry is that the new generation of teachers are students who majored 

in business and passed a test at the end of their college career to certify 

that they are ready to teach special education classes. They do not have 

the training or experience that our older teachers have. Even if the new 

graduates are in a 35- or 65-hour program, they do not have the depth of 

learning. It’s a huge issue over who is going to be left and what their 

knowledge level is. —Principal Investigator, Florida Department of 

Education 

Co-teaching models and mentoring programs have also been widely implemented 

across the nation. Veteran teachers are an important resource for schools to use in 

providing support for new teachers. One-on-one guidance from experienced teachers 

can help new teachers develop their skills and techniques. 

Highly Qualified Teacher Requirement. A significant problem for districts and schools 

is NCLB’s requirement that all students be taught by highly qualified teachers. The 

highly qualified teacher (HQT) requirement in NCLB comes at a time when most states 

50 
are struggling with massive teacher shortages, not just in the area of special education, 

but in general education as well. 

In many cases, veteran special education teachers have the skills but not the 

certification. Therefore, many states have used alternative approaches to ensure that all 

their special education teachers are highly qualified. One popular approach for states 

was to use high, objective, unified state standards of evaluation (otherwise known as 

HOUSSE) to verify that experienced teachers had sufficient content area knowledge to 

be considered highly qualified. Through the HOUSSE procedure, teachers could use 

their years of experience and participation in training workshops to meet NCLB’s highly 

qualified requirement. Critics of HOUSSE feared the process “watered down the 

standard,”2 and in May 2006, ED requested states to submit plans for phasing out their 

HOUSSE options. 

The HQT requirement becomes a particularly difficult issue at the high school level for 

special education teachers. A special education teacher may be certified in one content 

area but may also teach other subjects. This issue can be a challenge for schools to 

address for a number of reasons. For example, as one staff member in Michigan 

pointed out, 

The high school content is more challenging. One problem Michigan has 

run into with special education teachers at the secondary level is that 

their math skills are not high enough to effectively support students with 

disabilities taking algebra. —Consultant, Michigan Department of 

Education 

States have developed creative solutions to address the problem. One issue is that 

LEAs do not have the funds to provide professional development training for all their 

teachers. States, such as Florida, have therefore stepped in to help LEAs with the 

professional development piece. 

The Florida Department of Education provides courses for special education teachers 

preparing for certification exams. One staff member mentioned that making the courses 

51 
available online means that general education teachers and administrators can access 

them as well. 

In-service training. All states provide in-service training opportunities for special 

education teachers. Many staff members mentioned targeted professional development 

as a key component of the state efforts to improve academic achievement and to 

address problem areas. 

States use a variety of methods to provide in-service professional development 

opportunities to teachers. Most states have resource centers, such as those mentioned 

above, to provide teachers with technical assistance and resources. Some states have 

set up online clearinghouses where teachers can easily access free materials. States 

also sponsor message boards or listservs where teachers can exchange ideas and 

discuss any difficulties they might be having. 

States have been encouraging the use of schoolwide or team trainings to increase the 

effectiveness of professional development activities. Team trainings involve 

administrators, teachers, and other staff that play a role in the students’ education. 

These trainings can take place during the summer and are often extended through the 

school year. Staffers mentioned the importance of continuing training throughout the 

year and requiring teachers and team members to assess their progress at scheduled 

intervals to see where improvements can still be made. 

Conclusion 

Each state’s experience with implementing NCLB and IDEA has been unique and was 

affected by a variety of factors, including physical characteristics, population, access to 

resources, and level of advance preparation. 

The most important result of NCLB and IDEA appears to be that students with 

disabilities are no longer ignored or discounted. People must pay attention to them 

now and work to make sure they have the same opportunities as their nondisabled 

peers. To that end, NCLB and IDEA have had a significant, positive impact. Teachers, 

52 
administrators, and the community are becoming aware of what students with 

disabilities are capable of achieving if they are held to the same high standards and 

expectations as general education students. Students with disabilities have a wide 

range of talents, and it is up to the educational system to make sure they are challenged 

and encouraged to develop their skills. 

53 
54 
PART III. PERSPECTIVES OF KEY STAKEHOLDERS 

This section of the report provides an assessment of how NCLB, after three more years 

of implementation, has impacted students with disabilities. This section draws on 

interviews with disability policy, education, and advocacy leaders, and with students 

with disabilities and their parents. 

The Current Environment 

Attitudes and Expectations 

We are in the middle of a dramatic change process, and we haven’t 

given it all the time it needs. Too many places are still in a resistance 

mode. The possibility for change is great, and I would hate to see it falter. 

—Official 

Since 2004 there has been a palpable and positive change in the overall attitude of 

educators toward educating students with disabilities. Educators expect students with 

disabilities to meet higher standards, and students with disabilities have increased 

access to highly qualified teachers and higher-level curricula. The full integration of 

students with disabilities into general education is not complete, but progress is very 

noticeable. 

Most individuals interviewed for this report believe that the culture of high expectations 

for students with disabilities—and, for that matter, for all students—is taking root. They 

credit these attitudinal changes to NCLB and to IDEA as reauthorized in 1997 and 2004. 

Interviewees recognize that this is a momentous change and that the leadership from 

both the president and the Congress and other national leaders has been a key factor in 

making this social change. Even though outcome data from standardized tests shows 

that certain subgroups (such as students with disabilities and ELLs) do not always make 

AYP as required under NCLB, more and more educators and policymakers are holding 

firm to the promise of NCLB to ensure that every student is proficient at grade-level 

standards. As one advocate said, “People teach what is tested and who is tested—so 

now that students with disabilities are included in the accountability system, they are 

55 
being taught.” This message seems to have been internalized by educators over the 

past three years and has also been very strongly embraced by the public, policymakers, 

and advocates. 

When asked whether students with disabilities are looked upon the same way as 

general education students in the current environment, individuals who were 

interviewed generally said there is much more acceptance of students with disabilities 

in general education, but they voiced some concerns nevertheless. A comment from 

one special educator represented the opinion of many when she said: 

Students with disabilities are still viewed as special education students, 

but we have pushed hard to have them in general education. But it takes 

some time for attitudes to change. Special education is not being left out 

of the conversation on accountability any longer, which is good. We are 

making progress in seeing students with disabilities as general education 

students, but they still have special conditions which require special 

services. 

This tension between whether students with disabilities should be 

considered as general education students or remain in the special 

education system was expressed by several other interviewees. 

There is a growing impression that students with disabilities are 

considered to be part of general education classrooms, but they are 

still considered separate and part of special education because of 

their Individualized Education Plans. That is what sets them apart. 

—Special education teacher 

One interviewee noted that differences in the type of disability can result in differing 

perceptions of students’ capabilities and, hence, whether or not they are considered 

as general or special education students. 

Most people don’t understand the differences between disability 

categories and have in mind that all students with disabilities are severely 

disabled. A lot of folks don’t know much about learning disabilities and 

therefore aren’t aware that most learning-disabled kids can be in general 

education and learn to high standards. —Administrator 

56 
The seriousness of the disability also impacts how students with disabilities are viewed 

vis-à-vis general education. 

More students with disabilities are considered as general education 

students, and there is a greater awareness of providing differentiated 

curriculum for every student. But students with severe disabilities are not 

viewed as general education students so much. The attitude of the 

teacher is very important. Do they see the need for differentiated 

education for all students, or do they see students with disabilities as a 

separate group that has to be dealt with differently just because they 

have a disability? We have to create more awareness of disabilities, and 

we have to help teachers understand that by providing accommodations 

it doesn’t show preferential treatment. —Administrator 

Several other interviewees noted that there is a shift in thinking away from seeing 

special education as a separate program and more as a support to learning. 

Students with disabilities are more often viewed as general education 

students. Special education is a support system to help them succeed 

in general education, rather than a special or separate program. 

—State official 

One advocate expressed an opinion about the unique circumstances of students with 

disabilities, however, that may prevent them from ever completely being viewed as 

general education students. 

Students with disabilities are not considered general education students. 

Because you have to report on subgroups of students with disabilities, 

they can’t blend in, because the data are there on how they do. The belief 

system hasn’t really changed, although behavior and actions are starting 

to change. 

And from another advocate: 

Students with disabilities are thought of as another group of students, not 

general education students. But that is okay; they should always be 

identified as special education students because they need special 

services. 

57 
These comments demonstrate that there are still dividing lines between students with 

disabilities and the general education population, but those lines are becoming more 

blurred. However, by the nature of their disability, some students will always need extra 

supports to allow them access to the general education curriculum. Of course, students 

with disabilities are not the only ones who need extra supports to access the general 

education curriculum, and educators must recognize that schooling should be 

intentionally structured to provide the necessary supports for any student to succeed. 

Several interviewees acknowledged that special education is by nature based on 

differentiated instruction, which can help influence teaching strategies for all students. 

Interviewees were asked how students with disabilities are viewed in the overall 

accountability system and whether they were singled out because the subgroup did not 

make AYP. Most indicated that there has not been any serious backlash against 

students with disabilities, at least in public. Comments from two administrators reflect 

this attitude: 

We really haven’t seen much backlash. We work to educate all our 

parents about our situation, and our community is pretty supportive. We 

had two middle schools that did not make AYP, but that wasn’t because 

of students with disabilities. There was a new math test that all students 

had to take, and all students, not just students with disabilities, did not do 

well on it. 

We have had 30 years of inclusion, thanks to IDEA, and so inclusion is a 

value that educators and the public care about, and schools have dealt 

with it. Students with disabilities have a face and a name, and people are 

accepting of students with disabilities, so I don’t think there has been a 

backlash against them. 

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

comment: 

Yes, there is a backlash. When you show students with disabilities in a 

separate column, and it’s very clear students with disabilities are the 

reason for not making AYP, it puts pressure on families and students and 

creates tension between students and teachers who are trying to improve 

their scores. —Advocate 

58 
Another advocate viewed the potential for backlash against students with disabilities as 

an issue regarding the quality of the instruction and the ability of the teacher to teach 

diverse students. 

If the school is providing extra support for kids, and it helps them to make 

progress, people know they are trying. But if teachers aren’t skilled to 

work with students with disabilities (or any student), they may resent 

having special education students in their class. I’m not sure kids get the 

backlash, unless you have very weak teachers who can’t help any 

students. Those teachers should not be in the classroom or need to be 

given help so they can teach the kids. We have too many weak teachers. 

Poor kids of color with disabilities—they are not treated well at all. They 

are a subgroup that gets ignored, and they may suffer from some 

backlash because they get identified as a failing category. 

While there seems to be a perception among some that students with disabilities 

(as well as ELLs) are holding schools back from making AYP, the truth is quite different. 

A recent report from the Aspen Institute showed that fewer-than-expected schools fail 

to meet AYP because of test results for students with disabilities. 

One common complaint of No Child Left Behind is that schools are not 

making AYP solely because of children with disabilities or [limited 

English-proficient] students. The analysis done for this report raises 

questions about this claim due to the large numbers of schools in states 

that do not have to report for these subgroups. Furthermore, even when 

these subgroups do not meet their annual targets, they are very often not 

the sole reason a school is identified as not making AYP.3 

Further analysis by the Aspen Institute reveals that of the 410 schools in California that 

did not make AYP, only 28 failed solely because of students with disabilities. In 

Michigan, only 54 of 436 schools that did not make AYP failed solely because of 

students with disabilities. In Florida, only 23 of a total of 3,106 schools that did not make 

AYP failed solely because of students with disabilities.4 As similar data become 

available, there seems to be a growing recognition that the failure of schools to meet 

AYP is not solely due to the presence of students with disabilities. 

59 
Academic Achievement of Students with Disabilities 

There is general agreement that NCLB has helped improve the academic performance 

of students on standardized tests. A recent report from the Center for Education Policy 

states: 

In most states with three or more years of comparable test data, student 

achievement in reading and math has gone up since 2002, the year 

NCLB was enacted. There is more evidence of achievement gaps 

between groups of students narrowing since 2002 than of gaps widening. 

Still the magnitude of the gaps is often substantial.5 

But many people caution that it is too early to tell whether or not NCLB has had an 

impact on increasing academic achievement and skills of students with disabilities. 

Because states are still developing and implementing assessments and data reporting 

systems, instructional frameworks, and curricula, as well as ensuring that all teachers 

are highly qualified, it is, according to many interviewees, too soon to judge the impact 

of all these changes on the academic performance of students with disabilities. As one 

individual pointed out, “We need to distinguish if students are getting smarter or getting 

smarter at taking tests.” Another interviewee carried that thought further. 

It’s way too soon to determine the impact of NCLB on academic 

performance of students with disabilities. The implementation of the law is 

so complex and is implemented across such a broad spectrum of schools 

and communities [that] there is no way to say if NCLB has had an impact. 

We need to ask a lot of questions about NCLB’s impact on students with 

disabilities—does it affect increased achievement or are students 

benefiting from participating in the assessments, for example? We don’t 

know. We are only implementing the testing and accountability structures 

of NCLB at this time. —Advocate 

According to the Center on Education Policy report, 

Data for students with disabilities and limited English-proficient students 

subgroups must be interpreted with caution because changes in federal 

regulations and guidance and in state accountability plans may have 

affected which students in these subgroups are tested for NCLB 

accountability purposes, how they are tested, and when their test scores 

60 
are counted as proficient under NCLB. We do not believe the data are 

reliable enough to be included in the national summary tables.6 

Many interviewees did report that state performance reports indicate higher scores in 

math and English for elementary students with disabilities but little improvement for 

students with disabilities at the high school level. One state official from a state that had 

a disaggregated accountability system in place before NCLB (and therefore a longer 

period of time to track results) said: 

Academic performance for students with disabilities has improved to 

some extent. There is an increase in students with disabilities who are 

scoring in the proficient range of tests more often. 

Interviewees all agreed that NCLB has had an impact on programs for students with 

disabilities and that there is much more attention focused on improving the academic 

performance of students with disabilities. But most felt it has not translated into actual 

academic improvements yet because it takes time to prepare teachers and to change 

instruction. 

NCLB has had an impact on programs for students with disabilities, but 

it’s not clear if it’s had an impact on improvement of academic outcomes. 

It’s raised the profile of students with disabilities in terms of expectations. 

They are now expected to achieve mastery. This has probably had a 

positive affect on academic achievement, but the data are not very clear. 

Not a lot has changed about the level of teacher ability to deal with 

students with disabilities and to increase inclusion in general education. 

—Advocate 

Reporting Disaggregated Outcome Data 

There is no question that the intent of NCLB is what it should be. By 

disaggregating data by subgroup, we can finally see what is happening 

to students, and . . . that has had an untold benefit for students with 

disabilities. —Administrator 

Since 2004 there has been widespread acceptance of the importance and need to 

report outcome data disaggregated by subgroups. When NCLB was first being 

implemented, there was some resistance to this provision, but three years later, almost 

61 
without exception policymakers, educators, advocates, and parents sing the praises of 

the disaggregated reporting requirements of the law. That does not necessarily mean 

that all the data are of high quality, are complete, or make sense to the general public. 

Nevertheless, educators can no longer cover up the poor performance of subgroups of 

students by reporting average test scores. 

A common phrase used by many interviewees was “Accountability means there is 

no place to hide.” Schools now have to honestly account for the performance of 

every student. The following quote represents the attitude of many interviewees: 

The biggest impact is that every building administrator knows the scores 

of students with disabilities in their building, and they know they have to 

do something about it. It brings it into the daylight. Scores allow people to 

see what is happening, which is a good thing, but then they have to act 

upon it. 

More Supports Needed for Students with Disabilities 

Educators are increasingly aware of the need to provide lower-performing students 

with extra supports to allow them to learn to high standards. Many educators refer to 

this as providing differentiated instruction based on the needs of each student. This 

approach is very similar to the development of an IEP for special education students, 

as it spells out what type of instruction each particular student needs in order to develop 

proficiency. With subgroup reporting, educators are much more aware of the need to 

provide intensive instructional supports to certain categories of students, including 

students with disabilities, English language learners, and students reading below 

grade level. 

One of the first steps to help students meet grade-level proficiency standards is to 

provide them with access to a higher-level curriculum or the grade-level curriculum, if 

they have not been taught at grade level. Since 2004, students with disabilities are, 

according to interviewees, gaining much more access to grade-level curriculum. This 

move began with the reauthorization of IDEA in 1997, and NCLB has continued this 

press for students with disabilities. Students with disabilities are also increasingly being 

62 
expected to take high school exit exams in states that administer them, which means 

those students must have access to the curriculum. As one advocate said, 

If kids have had access to high-level curriculum, they probably did okay 

on the high school exit exams, and if they didn’t, it’s a problem not just 

for students with disabilities, but all poor kids. This is not new—that kids 

were not passing the tests—it’s just more visible. Malpractice in schools 

has been going on long before NCLB, and it’s going on now. 

Another advocate provided a broader perspective on making a higher-level curriculum 

available to all students. 

NCLB has had a major affect on students with disabilities because 

schools were never held accountable for those students and now they 

are. People don’t like being held accountable but now they are. The 

disability issue is really misunderstood by the general public and 

educators as well. For example, many learning-disabled students never 

learned to read. If they had been identified at an early age and given the 

appropriate help, they would never be in special education. What we 

need to do is focus on younger students and earlier identification of their 

educational needs and reduce the numbers in special education and get 

them the educational support so they can learn to read. I’m proud of the 

disability community for hanging in there with regard to supporting NCLB. 

If students with disabilities are going to access a higher-level curriculum, they need to 

have well-trained teachers—with strong content knowledge and pedagogical 

strategies—to make that curriculum learnable. One of the most common strategies for 

providing access to the general education and higher-level curricula for students with 

disabilities is to develop collaborative teaching relationships between special and 

general education teachers. Most interviewees said this collaborative approach is 

becoming much more common and that both sets of teachers are benefiting from this 

closer contact. 

There has been an impact on curriculum and instruction, both for special 

education and general education. General education is now much more 

aware of teaching students with disabilities and special education 

pedagogical strategies, and special education is now much more aware 

of standards and content. The two are working together to change the 

63 
face of education. Because students are assessed against the same 

standard, all students are getting access to the same curriculum. 

—Official 

The special education teachers do not have the freedom any longer to 

ignore the general education curriculum, such as reading and math. 

Regular education teachers have taken an affirmative role in working with 

special education teachers to help them to better understand the 

requirements of the general education curriculum. Regular education 

teachers are directly involved in looking at the special education 

curriculum and making sure it provides the necessary academic skills. 

—Administrator 

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

during the interviews. 

We are moving more students with disabilities to general education and 

getting them access to curriculum and testing requirements, which means 

they have to get better teaching in order to pass the test. So we need 

better teachers and better teaching in order for this to really work. — 

Advocate 

One researcher indicated that several states had been working to develop the capacity 

of teachers and to provide guidance on teaching special education students. 

There have been some positive, organized efforts at the state level. 

Massachusetts created a resource guide both for general and special 

education teachers because all teachers need to learn how to work with 

special education students. Ohio developed materials for principals to 

help them become instructional leaders to deal with this issue. Ohio also 

identified schools of promise that do well under NCLB with all the 

subgroups, and they identified schools of distinction that do well with 

students with disabilities, so other schools could learn from them. 

Several interviewees also sounded a cautionary note about focusing too exclusively on 

grade-level standards to the point that the special education curriculum is ignored, 

which may prevent students with disabilities from learning necessary skills. 

There can be too much alignment of the special education curriculum with 

the general education curriculum for students with severe disabilities. 

64 
They still need an individualized approach, and we can’t ignore that. — 

Administrator 

Schools Still Focusing on Compliance with NCLB 

States, districts, and schools are still engaged to a large extent in compliance with the 

requirements of NCLB, which is preventing them from focusing their efforts on 

instructional change and teacher development. States are still in the process of 

designing assessment systems (particularly the alternate and modified assessments); 

working to meet the highly qualified teacher requirements; and providing timely 

notification of testing results to schools, teachers, and parents. Additionally, guidance 

from the U.S. Department of Education7 has often been inconsistent or slow in coming, 

which has slowed down the implementation at the state and district levels. Many of the 

interviewees noted that the real work of instructional reform and providing a high-level 

differentiated curriculum to every student is just now beginning. 

We have spent most of the last four years on compliance for NCLB. 

Educators have not gotten deeply into changing curriculum and 

instruction. There is more attention placed on curriculum, but not on 

revising the curriculum to really make a difference. We need more time 

and a sharper focus on changing curriculum. —Policymaker 

Challenges and Issues 

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

—Official 

The following section of the report addresses various challenges and issues that were 

identified by interviewees and hinted at in the previous section. 

Culture and Belief Systems 

We learned from the interviews that, increasingly, educators and policymakers believe 

all students can learn to higher standards and that this perception is growing stronger all 

the time. However, when students with disabilities are considered, there is still some 

hesitation about the extent to which they can learn to grade-level proficiency standards. 

65 
The interviewees, all very familiar with various types of disabilities, believe that every 

student with a disability can learn to higher standards than previously expected, but they 

were also quick to point out that the type of disability a student has can have a 

significant impact on the level of learning. They also believed that the general public has 

a monolithic perception of students with disabilities (generally focusing on more severe 

disabilities) and assumes that students with disabilities are incapable of learning to 

higher standards. Because the public (and some teachers) does not understand the 

various gradations of disability, they are often less willing to believe that students with 

an IEP are capable of mastering a high-level curriculum. 

Several interviewees pointed out that it is critical to differentiate between various types 

of disability category in order to keep the pressure on to integrate special education 

students into general education. This is particularly important for learning-disabled 

students who most people agree can learn to grade-level standards if given more time 

and supports. 

There is so much lumping together of disabilities, and we need to 

really differentiate them. NCLB should have more varied testing and 

accountability standards for students with disabilities given the 

differences in disabilities. NCLB should be more sophisticated in its 

requirements for proficiency, not just one standard. —Researcher 

Because some districts allow students with disabilities to be given assessments that can 

be less rigorous than the regular assessments, it reinforces the idea with the public that 

students with disabilities cannot perform to grade-level proficiency. Guidance on which 

students with disabilities fall into the 1 percent and 2 percent categories for alternate 

and modified assessments has been slow in coming from the U.S. Department of 

Education, and therefore states are still in the process of finalizing not only the actual 

assessments but also their processes for determining which students fall into which 

category. 

What group of students should be held at alternate standards? We don’t 

have a good evidentiary base of knowledge to make these decisions, and 

teachers and staff don’t know how to make these decisions. We need 

66 
much more teacher preparation/professional development on this issue. 

—Advocate 

In addition to this confusion, there is the very real issue of accepting the fact that some 

students with severe disabilities will never be able to master grade-level or, in some 

cases, an academic curriculum. This reality begs the question: How can these vastly 

competing visions be reconciled? 

There is an assumption that students with disabilities should be expected 

to meet the standards, but many students with disabilities cannot. 

However, we shouldn’t just place these students into the 1 percent 

category. The 1 percent doesn’t make sense to me and is a completely 

arbitrary number—where did it come from? —Administrator 

We set expectations for students with disabilities to meet NCLB 

standards, but some have real problems because of their disability, and 

we negate the importance of their IEP and individualized learning process 

because we are trying too hard to get them to pass the NCLB tests. Even 

their parents know they will never pass the grade-level test, and the 

parents just want them to learn some important life skills. —Administrator 

The extreme alignment of special education instruction to the general 

education curriculum for every student with disabilities can have negative 

consequences. It’s okay for the mild and moderately disabled student to 

participate in the general education curriculum, but for severely disabled 

students, having so much alignment with the general education 

curriculum means they may not be getting the special accommodations or 

instruction they really need. Some teachers are taking it to the extreme. 

For a typical learning-disabled student, it’s good to look at the general 

education curriculum, but for severely disabled students, it may be much 

more important for them to learn life skills than math skills. We need to be 

cognizant of what the student needs and is able to do. —Administrator 

Because the issue of expectations drives so much instructional practice and classroom 

behavior, it is important to have clarity on what should be expected of students with 

disabilities. Research on academic achievement by students with various types of 

disabilities would be helpful for educators as they set goals for students with disabilities 

to learn to higher standards. This information would also help distinguish between the 

capabilities of learning-disabled students and those with more serious disabilities. 

67 
Capacity Building 

Much of the discussion of helping all students achieve to high standards comes down to 

the capacity of the system to deliver the appropriate instruction and needed supports. 

And the number one issue is, of course, the skill level of the classroom teachers that 

work not only with students with disabilities but also with all students—be they lowerperforming, ELL, or gifted children. Without prompting, almost every interviewee raised 

the issue of highly qualified teachers as a key provision to help students with disabilities 

achieve to higher standards. 

First, there were a number of questions about what highly qualified means for special 

education teachers and whether NCLB and IDEA defined it appropriately. 

What does highly qualified mean for a special education teacher? This is 

a really interesting issue that confounds me. Under NCLB we ask special 

education teachers to become expert in a content area so they can 

instruct students with disabilities in that content area. But the general 

education teacher, who already has the content expertise, has tried to 

teach the student with disabilities the content and it didn’t work—which is 

why the student is in special education. We repeat the content 

preparation that wasn’t successful with the child before. So why are we 

thinking that more content will make a difference with students with 

disabilities, if it’s just the same thing as what the general education 

teachers did? [Highly qualified] for special education teachers should 

mean more intensive reading or math instructional skills, or knowing more 

about a certain disability or condition. Our state is requiring special 

education teachers to take the Praxis,8 and we offer training sessions, 

free content preparation courses, and Web-based training. So we’ll 

probably have more highly qualified special education teachers on paper, 

but will it really help teach students with disabilities what they need? 

Down the road, I don’t think we will have many special education teachers 

that are career professionals. They will leave, and we are [already] seeing 

a revolving door for special education teachers. —Administrator 

The following comment also relates to clarifying the role of the content expert and the 

special education teacher: 

Special education teachers are still in the best position to provide access 

to students with disabilities to the curriculum. Special education teachers 

68 
are better prepared to know instructional strategies, and we should not 

necessarily require all special education teachers to be content experts. 

The content expert teacher should be the lead, and the special education 

teacher should help provide access and break down the content so 

students with disabilities can access it. Team teaching is very important. 

We also have some concerns that special education teachers will leave 

the profession in increasing numbers. —Administrator 

While it is clear that students with disabilities are getting increased access to highly 

qualified teachers, there remain many challenges to guarantee that teachers are 

actually having an impact on student learning. When general and special education 

teachers are team teaching, it appears to make the curriculum more accessible and 

learnable. However, we know that not every school has an equitable distribution of 

highly qualified teachers and students, and poorer schools and districts suffer from this 

imbalance of skilled teachers.9 

NCLB will make a difference in improving the quality of the program, but 

teacher preparation programs don’t change overnight, and teachers don’t 

know how to meet the needs of students with disabilities. Not a lot has 

changed about the level of teacher ability to deal with students with 

disabilities and to increase inclusion in general education. Teacher ability 

will ensure the success of students with disabilities in the general 

education curriculum, but teacher education hasn’t changed enough yet, 

and teachers don’t have those skills. —Advocate 

There was also concern about finding and retaining enough special education teachers, 

especially in light of the highly qualified teacher requirements under NCLB. 

There is a huge cohort of special education teachers near retirement age, 

and we are pushing them into retirement more quickly. Where are we 

going to find warm bodies to replace them? We are driving out good 

teachers, not just bad teachers. The mandates and processes of NCLB 

have made it impossible for many teachers. There was an attempt in 

IDEA to fix the issue of requiring teachers to have subject area 

competence, but we didn’t go far enough to fix it. There has to be a happy 

medium in expecting highly qualified teachers in content and having them 

possess the pedagogy to teach students with disabilities. —Advocate 

69 
Several interviewees raised the role of higher education and teacher licensing, but the 

conversations did not explore how these systems could more strongly support the 

development of highly qualified special education teachers. Rather, those conversations 

largely indicated that higher education needs to be revamped to meet current teaching 

demands. This is an area that should be reviewed more carefully. 

Higher education [teacher preparation programs] has not been quick to 

make changes and retool. General education teachers can get through 

four years of college and never have to take classes on differentiated 

teaching for students with disabilities, and special education teachers 

don’t have to learn content. After this many years of NCLB, you would 

think we would be farther along. It’s troubling that higher education is so 

slow to change and professional development is such a big issue. We 

need to tailor professional development to what teachers need [in order] 

to help students with disabilities get access to the general education 

curriculum and then figure out what works. —Advocate 

We should use computers to provide individual assessments and 

instruction geared to each student’s needs; have daily diagnostic 

assessments that lead to accountability assessments and changes in 

instruction. It’s possible, but we haven’t developed the infrastructure, 

such as the training of teachers to use diagnostic, ongoing assessment to 

influence instruction. But there is pressure on the system from NCLB for 

greater accountability, and that is pushing the higher education system to 

change. —Researcher 

The strongest focus on capacity building was, for obvious reasons, on the 

teacher workforce, but interviewees also stressed the need for school 

principals to set the tone for the school by first creating the culture of high 

expectations for all students—especially students with disabilities—and 

then serving as an instructional leader who could support differentiated 

learning strategies. Interviewees also mentioned the role of school 

counselors and their importance in being trained to work with students 

with disabilities, both for course selection and with transition planning. 

Several of those interviewed raised the issue of textbooks and curricular 

materials. They hoped to move toward a universal design for curriculum 

so all students could have access to the material. As one administrator 

suggested: 

We need products to help all teachers teach all students. We need 

products that include differentiated instruction, and variability in 

material. We need variance, not deviance. We need to have 

curriculum that uses embedded assessments, multiple 

70 
competencies, progress monitoring, response to intervention, and 

individualized strategies. 

Capacity is also desperately needed in the area of test development. Several 

interviewees indicated that it would be very timely and helpful to have access to 

alternate and modified assessments to learn how to best structure and design such 

tests. Having the federal government provide development work in this area would be 

helpful, as tests are expensive and time consuming to develop. And, given that most 

states have not yet developed alternate assessments based on modified academic 

achievement standards and alternate assessments based on alternative academic 

achievement standards, many students with disabilities are not even being assessed 

or counted. 

Last, educators need access to information about which instructional strategies help 

lower-performing students succeed. This is not just an issue in teaching students with 

disabilities; it applies to teaching all lower-performing students. 

Title I directors are putting out more information on how to help these 

populations. We identified that teaching English language learners and 

students with disabilities would become a big issue under NCLB, and we 

needed to help them figure it out. But the U.S. Department of Education 

is not providing any information on how to serve these challenging 

populations. The civil servants at the Department are scared to admit 

there are problems in serving students under NCLB and therefore are not 

sharing information. —Administrator 

Ensuring Access to High-Quality Instruction and Services 

If one accepts that students with disabilities can achieve to higher standards, it follows 

that they must have access to high-quality education and services to meet those 

standards. Interviewees generally agreed that if students had access to a high-quality 

curriculum—aligned to high school exit exams, for example—then students should pass 

the tests. However, it is clear that this is not always happening, and more than just 

students with disabilities are affected. 

71 
Opportunities need to be enhanced for students with disabilities to be 

prepared to participate in high school exit exams, just not at the expense 

of a well-rounded curriculum. This is true for all students. If students 

aren’t passing high school exit exams, this should raise the question, 

why not? And then, it should lead to improving the quality of instruction. 

—Policymaker 

Students with disabilities are not being prepared for high school exit 

exams. It’s not just students with significant impairments; it’s also 

learning-disabled kids with minor disabilities. —Administrator 

Minority and poor students with disabilities are much less prepared than 

students from higher incomes or students with disabilities from wealthier 

families. —Advocate 

For most students with disabilities, if they are getting a high-quality 

education, they can pass high school exit exams. I’m a fan of high school 

exit exams. It’s not about the exams; it’s about the quality of education 

that all students are getting. —Advocate 

It was quite clear that many students with disabilities have been placed in lower-level 

classes that do not prepare them for high school exit exams. The requirement of NCLB 

to test all students is having the desired impact of identifying groups of students who 

have been previously unchallenged. An interesting comment about placing students 

with disabilities into more demanding curriculum has resulted in focusing attention on 

what was happening to students with disabilities before NCLB. 

No one has been honest about why students with disabilities are 

suddenly being placed in classrooms with highly qualified teachers. 

Parents are asking, “Why is my child being moved?” The schools are 

afraid to admit that students with disabilities have been in classrooms 

with generically certified special education teachers, who don’t know the 

content, and now they are required to have students taught by highly 

qualified teachers, so they move them to a classroom with a teacher with 

content knowledge. But what does that mean has been happening for the 

past several years? It means that students with disabilities have been in 

classrooms where they are not getting the content. It’s hard to admit that. 

—Advocate 

72 
Another concern stated by several interviewees related to the quality of the high school 

diploma offered. In some states, there is only one diploma for everyone, but other states 

offer various diplomas that are of lesser academic value, a clear signal that students are 

not being challenged. 

In our state, you can get a modified diploma that does not require you to 

take core classes, so a student can take more electives. And there aren’t 

any end-of-course exams for most electives, so kids don’t get tested. We 

need to make sure that more students with disabilities are placed in the 

core classes that have end-of-course exams, rather than put them in 

classes where they don’t have to take those tests. We need to move 

more kids into the regular diploma track, not the modified diploma track. 

—Administrator 

While students with IEPs are provided with additional instructional supports, little 

attention has been paid to how students with disabilities are being involved in afterschool or supplemental learning opportunities. NCLB requires schools that are in need 

of improvement to offer Supplemental Education Services (SESs) to students in those 

schools. SESs generally involve tutoring and remediation, but it is up to the student and 

parent to access these services. While the school is supposed to provide a list of SES 

providers, many parents—especially those of students with disabilities—are not 

informed about the availability of SESs. In addition, according to the Great Lakes Center 

for Education Research & Practice: 

Under current regulations, SES providers are not required to provide 

services to students with disabilities or those learning English. One study 

in a large urban school district reported that in fact, none of the district’s 

top eight [SES] providers served ELL or special education students.10 

Clearly, students with disabilities are not getting the complete access they deserve and 

to which they are entitled. 

Several interviewees felt that some schools are being selective in providing extra 

supports to students. For instance, if a school has limited resources (in terms of time 

and teachers) and can focus merely on a limited number of students to help them pass 

73 
tests, interviewees said that schools are deciding to work with the students who are only 

a few points away from passing the test, rather than working with students who have 

little chance of passing. While one can rationalize this type of behavior given the 

deadlines and pressures to meet AYP, it clearly goes against the fundamental purpose 

of NCLB and means that many students are being left out of the press to increase 

access to more rigorous instruction. 

Measuring Performance 

A report on NCLB would not be complete without a discussion of testing. Almost without 

exception, interviewees felt that there was too much testing as a result of NCLB and 

that it is having unintended and negative consequences on both students and schools. 

There was also discussion of how a number of states have postponed or delayed 

implementation of certain testing requirements. It is clear that NCLB has put 

tremendous pressure on states and districts, and they are beginning to learn, through 

data, the full extent of how difficult it is to have every student learn to high standards. 

Measuring the performance of students with disabilities is one of the 

largest challenges for states, and states are dealing with the challenge in 

different ways. Alaska excluded students with disabilities from the high 

school exit exam system. California delayed the high school exit exam 

system to allow schools more time to prepare students. Other states have 

elaborate systems for accommodating students with disabilities. In states 

with established exam systems, you don’t hear as many complaints, so 

they may have worked out systems and processes to help students with 

disabilities, after accommodation and alternative testing has been 

developed, to help students meet exit exams. States are working to 

develop alternative assessment methods, such as portfolios or creating 

alternate routes to diplomas. But you’re not always sure what standards 

for alternative routes are being used and whether they are as high or 

rigorous as the state exit exams. —Researcher 

The closer you get to the classroom, the more negative are the comments made about 

NCLB’s testing requirements. Teachers routinely say there is too much testing, too 

much teaching to the test, and not enough time to explore interesting and relevant 

curricula. Several reports have also noted a decrease in the number of electives being 

taught.11 

74 
Everything revolves around testing and the punitive nature of the system. 

It pervades everything, and kids pick up on it. And then you have the 

stress of the IEP. Teachers don’t feel like they can just try something 

creative or different to help meet the needs of students with disabilities. 

There is no time to be creative—teachers are always planning for tests. It 

is a constant struggle to try to figure out how to make it work for kids 

when the curriculum is very rigid and what kids need are flexibility and 

creativity and individualized approaches. —Advocate 

On the positive side, teachers are preparing students for what they know 

will be on the test. The challenge is that teachers are so focused on 

preparing students for tests and not being creative in ways that will help 

students learn. It’s “hurry up and teach to meet the test,” and there’s only 

one way. Alternate means of education are going away, and that scares 

me. I needed things taught to me in a different way, an alternative way, 

and I needed to demonstrate my knowledge in different ways, like 

classroom presentations or writing a response instead of taking a multiple 

choice test, which was hard for me. Why can’t we have options like that? 

—Advocate 

Several comments were made about how the focus on making AYP has prevented 

teachers from providing a rich curriculum that meets the individual needs of each 

student. 

The emphasis on AYP takes away from what might make sense for kids 

and in providing a meaningful curriculum. Is getting a test score 

meaningful education or a meaningful measurement? I would say not. 

Should we focus on just a test score? No. This attitude affects all 

students but is more pronounced for students with disabilities. We are 

very concerned about the quality of the curriculum. NCLB is keeping us 

from providing the best curriculum we can. —Administrator 

At the high school level, the focus is on getting kids ready for college, but 

we need to prepare kids for what they will do after high school, and we 

need better transition for students with disabilities and all kids. For 

example, how do you fit in life-skills training when there is so much focus 

on academic skills? The ability to address transition skills is getting 

squeezed out by the focus on academic issues. —Administrator 

As you advance up the education bureaucracy ladder, there begins to be a shift in 

feeling about tests. District- and state-level administrators see the value of outcome 

75 
data across schools because they can then drive resources into lower-performing 

schools. Federal-level policymakers and advocates are committed to measuring student 

performance through some type of testing structure. As Congress debates the 

reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act, there is an emerging position that 

NCLB’s process of measuring adequate yearly progress could be improved, but the 

notion of testing students to see what they know is firmly embedded. 

Despite the overall agreement that students need to be tested, interviewees mentioned 

a host of concerns about the impact of testing on students with disabilities and how the 

alternate and modified assessments fit within the overall accountability system. 

Comments were made regarding the stress placed on students with disabilities and how 

some of them, particularly learning-disabled students, would be brought to tears during 

testing time. 

I’ve heard innumerable stories from legislators that students with 

disabilities are being humiliated by having to take tests that they know 

they can’t do. Special education teachers say, “We didn’t become special 

education teachers to humiliate these students, to remind them they can’t 

do the work.” The testing makes students with disabilities feel like 

failures. —Advocate 

Given the pressures on educators to make AYP, interviewees shared numerous stories 

of states, districts, and schools that found ways to discount or hide students with 

disabilities in their accountability systems. It is hard to determine how widespread these 

practices are, but given the small number of educators interviewed for this project, these 

themes surfaced quite often. 

I’ve heard of the “enrolled grade game,” where students are held back 

during testing years—this is more relevant to younger grades, but also 

affects high school students. For example, if the high school exit exam is 

in grade 10, the students are held back in grade 9 and then just show up 

later as an 11th-grade student that didn’t take the test. One state has a 

policy against this, so, clearly, people have been thinking of this. There 

are loopholes and game playing. This is likely to affect the students who 

are the lowest performing, which include students with disabilities, but it’s 

not just students with disabilities. —Researcher 

76 
In years when NCLB tests are given, students with disabilities might be 

held back prior to the testing year. This is evident in our research 

because class size in one state doubled from what it was the year before. 

—Researcher 

I heard of an instance where a superintendent was not identifying the 

same numbers of students with disabilities as before because they are 

burying them in general education, and then they don’t count as a 

subgroup. Some schools encourage students with disabilities to stay 

home during testing. —Official 

In addition to these comments, interviewees had plenty to say about the now-infamous 

“N-size” cohorts selected for subgroups. An N-size refers to the state-determined size 

of the student subgroup for which reporting of disaggregated data is required. For 

example, in California the N-size for student subgroups is 50, which means that if a 

school does not have 50 students in a particular subgroup (students with disabilities in 

grade 5, for instance), they would not have to report on the performance of that group 

on the standardized tests. Therefore, a higher N-size means fewer students are counted 

and fewer schools, presumably, are found to be in need of improvement. Since states 

all have different N-sizes, there is almost no way to compare states with regard to the 

number of schools that make AYP. 

Many states have set higher N-sizes than were warranted, perhaps, in order to avoid 

reporting on the subgroups. One interviewee provided a very practical rationale for this 

behavior. If more schools are identified as in need of improvement because they did not 

meet AYP, then the state or district has to find the money to pay for needed services at 

many schools. By setting high N-size numbers, states will most likely reduce the 

number of schools identified as in need of improvement, therefore reducing the stress 

on the budget. 

Interviewees generally felt that it would not be workable to have a federal standard for 

the N-size; to them, it would make sense to “have a range of N-sizes based on the size 

of the school.” Some of those interviewed, however, felt it was important to take into 

account such characteristics as the type of students, the location of schools (rural or 

77 
urban), the population of states, and the numbers of students with disabilities in the 

school. 

We can’t set a federal standard. There is always going to be an inequity 

between urban and rural communities and schools because rural schools 

are so small and their N-size is of no consequence. —Official 

One official suggested that as all schools begin to drill down deeper to serve all 

students in their quest for 100 percent proficiency, the N-size issue will eventually fade 

away. 

The issue of N-size is perhaps an unnecessary discussion, because 

everyone is going to get caught up in reporting on subgroups at some 

point, regardless of what their N-size is. We are starting with urban 

schools because they are getting identified sooner by their N-sizes. The 

targets will catch up with everyone eventually as we keep drilling down. In 

our state we set an N-size of 30 for purposes of NCLB, but then for the 

state accreditation process, we required schools to use an N-size of 10. 

Interviewees told of other ways of gaming the system to ensure either that students with 

disabilities were not counted or to prevent too many schools from being labeled as in 

need of improvement. 

Our state created a special diploma for students with disabilities if they 

can’t meet the state testing requirements to earn the standard diploma. 

These special diplomas don’t get counted under NCBL. We’re not 

pushing kids to take that diploma, because it has reduced expectations, 

but it exists. —Administrator 

In our state, if the only thing that keeps a school or district from making 

AYP is the students with disabilities subgroup, then the school or district 

can add 14 points for reading and 17 points for math (a proxy) to their 

passing rate so they can usually make AYP. —Administrator 

Our state has an odd system. We got permission from the U.S. 

Department of Education to grant waivers to schools that don’t make 

AYP because of the performance of students with disabilities. If a school 

does not make AYP because of students with disabilities, the schools are 

allowed to offer a modified assessment to them, because if the test were 

78 
modified, the assumption is that they would pass. However, the reality is 

that the modified tests do not exist, so they are granting waivers even 

though students with disabilities aren’t being tested. The state department 

of education is making this decision by looking at individual IEPs and how 

schools have helped the students meet the standard. But since there is 

no modified exam, it’s just done by eyeball, and is very subjective. What 

does accountability mean when you allow schools to avoid measuring this 

way? What does it say to parents? —Advocate 

Another important question to ask is whether the system is actively finding ways to keep 

students with disabilities out of the accountability system, as was referenced in several 

comments stated earlier. 

Our state has already decided to delay the requirement for students 

with disabilities and English language learners to 2011. Students with 

disabilities are not being prepared and have not had adequate access 

to the curriculum to be able to pass end-of-course exams. —Advocate 

After considering the issue of too much testing and the unintended consequences of 

testing on students with disabilities, interviewees provided some thoughts about what an 

accountability system should measure. First, several interviewees felt it was more 

important to measure school performance than individual student performance. They 

recognized that individual student assessments are needed but that they should inform 

instruction, not be used as part of an accountability system. And there were various 

questions about what standardized tests can really tell you about a student’s ability to 

succeed in the world. One individual asked, “What do standardized tests, high school 

graduation rates, or dropout rates really tell you in terms of how students with 

disabilities are prepared for life?” 

Our state requires all kids to pass geometry, but does every kid need to 

pass the test? There is no flexibility in the math requirement—everyone 

has to pass geometry. But what if you take three or four other high-level 

math courses—why do you have to take the geometry test? A student 

with a spatial disability will have a very difficult time passing this test, 

but could pass other high-level math. The rigidity of the tests and the 

curriculum is a problem. We don’t want to dumb down the curriculum, 

but there should be more flexibility. —Advocate 

79 
Most interviewees felt that the NCLB’s academic focus on English language arts and 

math was correct, because academics are the underpinning for all other work. However, 

most individuals felt that students with disabilities are being shortchanged by not 

measuring other important outcomes. These professionals felt that accountability 

systems need to measure occupational and technical skills, employability skills, 

behavioral and attitudinal skills, and, particularly for students with disabilities, life skills. 

One interviewee also suggested that parental satisfaction should be measured as part 

of an accountability system. 

We would like to see employability and life skills in an accountability 

system. It’s hard to meet the four-year graduation rate for some students 

with disabilities, but they can still improve their skills. The academic focus 

on NCLB has pushed out some career and technical education classes, 

which is what some students with disabilities really need. So it’s hard for 

us in special education to provide students with disabilities with 

appropriate classes in occupational training. —Administrator 

But the challenges of incorporating these other domains in accountability and 

assessment systems are great. First, there are very few good assessment tools for 

testing noncognitive skills, and some skills are very difficult to measure. As we are 

seeing with the development of the alternate and modified assessments, it is a timeconsuming process to develop effective, fair, and valid assessments for all groups of 

students. An administrator made the following excellent point about what we should 

expect a federal accountability system to measure for students with disabilities: 

In a federal accountability system, the focus should just be on academics, 

as long as they are measured appropriately. It would be hard to measure 

all the different things included in an IEP because there are too many IEP 

goals. We have transition measures, for example, as part of IEP, but we 

wouldn’t want them included in a federal assessment system. 

The use of alternate and modified assessments for students with disabilities was 

frequently mentioned during interviews. Individuals at various levels stressed the 

difficulty in developing quality assessments, in determining which students should take 

80 
them, and in calibrating the alternate assessments to standardized tests in a way that 

makes sense to the public. 

Proficiency on an alternate assessment is not the equivalent of 

proficiency on a regular assessment, and we are fooling ourselves if we 

say [it is]. It undermines the credibility of the special education 

system/teachers with the general public because the general public thinks 

the two assessments are equivalent (because we’re reporting them as 

equivalent), but they aren’t. The general public doesn’t understand how 

special education students could be proficient on standardized tests. 

Parents of students with disabilities understand that the alternate 

assessments are not equivalent because they know their kids, but the 

general public is confused by this reporting. —Advocate 

A number of interviewees raised the issue of which students were being placed in the 1 

percent and 2 percent categories for alternate assessments and whether these 

categories met the needs of students with disabilities. 

My biggest concern is that there is a group of kids that are still falling 

through the cracks and that are struggling to meet the standards. They 

are not in the 1 percent. They are gray-area kids, gap kids. When the 

Department of Education came out with the 2 percent regulations, we 

were hoping that would help deal with these kids. We wanted to have the 

flexibility to change the test so that it did not have to be on grade level. 

But the department said for the 2 percent kids that the test could be made 

easier, but it still had to be on grade level. These kids will probably do 

better than they have ever done before, but they will never be proficient 

on our state test. They must be tested on the same content as other 

students in their grade, and while we can make the test easier, we don’t 

think all kids will be able to master that. It won’t help with these gray-area 

kids. —Administrator 

Several interviewees also raised the issue of the cost of alternate assessments, both in 

terms of development and the amount of time it takes away from classroom teaching. 

For the 1 percent kids, there will be an inevitable increase in the costs of 

testing—how much does it cost to develop tests based on modified 

standards and assessments? A lot. Teachers spend an inordinate amount 

of time with each student to administer these tests. Example: It takes 30 

days to administer one test to a severely disabled student (one who has 

cerebral palsy and is in a wheelchair). What is the cost to the teacher, the 

81 
cost to develop the assessments, the cost to administer the test, and 

finally, does it really reflect student achievement at all? —Administrator 

For the 1 percent kids, the alternate test will consume a lot of their day, 

and I’m not sure if it’s good or bad. It’s good that they are being tested on 

more rigorous material, but what does the test really tell you? We should 

be focused on post-school outcomes. Why require students to take an 

11th-grade math test, for example, when they really need to learn skills 

for a job? We really need to focus on post-school outcomes and put much 

less emphasis on testing. —Advocate 

Developing growth models as a way to measure academic performance engendered 

some very thoughtful and interesting comments. While some education leaders in the 

Congress seem to be leaning toward adopting a growth model system, most of those 

interviewed for this project felt that the knowledge based on growth models was too 

limited to allow for wide-scale application and that they are much more complicated than 

the rhetoric implies. Most interviewees also felt that growth models, while extremely 

appropriate in many ways for students with disabilities, could return practice to preNCLB days, when students with disabilities were not held to a common standard. They 

felt this would be a negative step, as students with disabilities have greatly benefited by 

being held to higher expectations and being included in general accountability systems. 

While there is a natural tension between the growth model assessment and measuring 

against a prescribed proficiency level, most interviewees felt it was important to 

maintain some absolute standard. 

Some combination of a growth model and absolute standard would be 

ideal. Growth models without a standard won’t be sufficient. If we start 

changing the measurements, we’ll muck it up. We should let states work it 

out. Don’t jettison AYP and replace it with a growth model or we’ll be 

having the same conversation in five years, just about a different kind of 

assessment. —Advocate 

We need to have absolute standards because too many kids are getting 

by without learning essential skills and knowledge. Too many “fake A’s.” 

We have to have agreement on what counts because we are all in the 

same labor market. 

82 
One advocate disagreed with holding students to an absolute standard; she argued 

instead for a time-based proficiency assessment. 

There should not be an absolute standard because then it’s not a growth 

model, unless we had open-ended time to meet the growth standard. If 

you don’t have the ability to set the starting point and if you can’t extend 

the time for learning, growth models can’t really be done. A hybrid growth 

model (growth model and absolute standards) is not the answer to solve 

the problem of AYP. If growth models were real and we had open-ended 

time frames and realistic expectations about what could be achieved, it 

might work. 

Under a growth model system, you will have to determine how much 

progress is being made by students with disabilities. Some can make a 

year’s worth of progress in a year and others can’t due to their disability 

or because they have not had access to the curriculum or because their 

IEP is so poorly designed that it doesn’t take into account the true 

educational needs of the student in order to meet higher expectations. 

Based on the disability, that’s one thing. Students will progress, but if they 

progress at slower rates, is it because of the profound disability or it is 

because the education they are getting is so poor? That will be hard to 

sort out, and you definitely cannot leave this to the IEP team to figure out 

because they might be making bad placements or bad education 

decisions—mostly because they just don’t know and haven’t been 

expected to make sure students with disabilities have complete access 

and support to learn the general education curriculum. —Advocate 

Another approach that some interviewees suggested was to allow the IEP to serve as 

the standard for high school completion. One official even suggested that the standard 

for passing should be when a student with a disability fulfilled his or her IEP. 

Valid accommodations that allow students to take the test to demonstrate 

what they know should include extended time, such as five to six years in 

high school. Also, when a student with disabilities fulfills his/her IEP, then 

that should be the standard for passing high school. —Official 

Questions were also raised about how important it is to develop a body of knowledge 

and research on how students with various categories of disabilities perform and 

progress academically. 

83 
Students with disabilities, especially the 1 percent and 2 percent groups, 

are a perfect place to start to build individual growth models because 

each student is so different. One assessment is not enough for all the 1 

percent kids because they have such specific needs and they are so 

different. We need to establish a realistic and challenging trajectory of 

growth for each student. But this is easier said than done. But we are 

beginning to see some of the research and data about where students 

with disabilities are performing, what progress they can make, and where 

we need to expect students to be in a year. This kind of research can help 

inform the development of individual growth targets, just like an IEP, for 

each student with disabilities. However, all teachers need to be made 

aware of this information. We need to develop realistic expectations 

based on the potential of each child. There are confounding factors that 

make this difficult for each child, and they need to be taken into 

consideration, but we need to challenge them to do the work. Even with 

the 2 percent kids, which includes the severely learning-disabled, they will 

probably not be able to meet the standard in one year, but they can 

probably make it within a longer period of time, and we need to determine 

what they can do. An absolute standard for the majority of kids is on 

target, but for special education students, they don’t fit, and time is the 

issue. —Official 

A researcher posed a difficult question about how to incorporate into a growth model 

scale those students with disabilities who are measured by alternate assessments. 

You can’t have a growth model unless you also include students in 

alternate assessment structures. So you have to add them onto the 

regular growth model, but you don’t want them to show up way at the 

bottom of the growth model. You need to add them on somehow without 

making them feel like they are off the chart because of their lower 

performance. —Researcher 

Interviewees also expressed concern about having clear definitions of growth models, of 

ensuring consistency of growth models across schools, districts, and states, and 

ensuring that state education officials have the necessary resources to evaluate how 

growth models are being used. 

I like the concept of growth models, but it’s very easy to manipulate IEP 

goals so they become meaningless. I think the same thing could happen 

with growth models. How would you assure that the goals are age 

appropriate and important? There would be no way to measure 

comparability of growth models across districts, because the state office 

84 
does not have the staff to monitor, train, or evaluate. There is no one to 

check and make sure that the growth models would be working right. 

—Advocate 

Growth models are a generic phrase that appeals to people because they 

like the idea of looking at an individual kid’s performance year after year. 

But how do you measure progress from fourth grade to make sure you 

can reach an eighth-grade standard? How much does a student need to 

progress in order to meet that trajectory? How do you develop predictive 

models that are of high quality? We don’t have any right now. —Advocate 

An official articulated the dilemma facing education policymakers as they try to reconcile 

the difficulty of measuring every student against one standard of proficiency while 

acknowledging that progress is nonetheless being made. 

Educators do want to get credit for making some growth and be 

recognized for their progress, and we should do that. Growth models are 

helpful for figuring out instructional needs and intervention strategies, as 

they give you a good idea of where the students are and how they are 

making progress. Growth models provide personal information on student 

development, how students learn, but they should not dumb down 

standards. Growth models, however, have different trajectories, which 

don’t match with the goal of having all students be proficient by 2014, 

which is untouchable. 

In all this the important question is “How do students with disabilities fare under these 

performance measurement systems?” Generally, the response varies based on the 

degree of severity of the disability. For instance, students who are severely disabled 

and are counted as part of the 1 percent cohort will be allowed special accommodations 

and modified achievement standards, in recognition of their limitations. Higherperforming students with disabilities (those with either physical or cognitive 

impairments) are often completely capable of performing on grade level as long as they 

are given the appropriate accommodations and supports, such as more time and 

individualized classroom instruction. 

The 1 percent with severe cognitive disabilities—NCLB is clear that we 

have to try to serve those kids with various types of strategies and 

modified achievement standards, which will produce higher outcomes. 

85 
For the mild to moderate students with disabilities, NCLB gets them 

back in general education classes and focuses on grade-level 

content where they may not have had access before. The challenge is 

the 2 percent students—there is less common agreement on who these 

kids are and whether it makes sense to teach them grade-level content. 

—Administrator 

According to a researcher, one state has been proactive in helping schools and districts 

determine the best way to serve students in the 2 percent category. 

One state legislature recognized that they might need a test to deal with 

the 2 percent students, and the state dept of education did a study and 

found that the lowest 2 percent weren’t always students with disabilities 

and [that] the students with disabilities weren’t always getting the 

accommodations they needed to pass the test, so they changed their 

strategy and actions. The states are problem solving, not just reacting; 

that is the positive, and they are thinking of unintended [negative] 

consequences and trying to address them up front. 

Another impact of the testing requirements is that some schools that do well with 

students with disabilities do not make AYP and look bad, whereas other schools that do 

not do well with students with disabilities and have a small percentage of them (because 

the public knows they do not do well) have a better overall score on the assessments. 

In our state, if a school provides good accommodations for students with 

disabilities, more students with disabilities want to come to that school. 

Then, as a result, even though they provide good education, their scores 

may go down, simply because they have a higher percentage of students 

with disabilities. For the schools that don’t do a good job serving students 

with disabilities, where the students decided to leave, their percentage of 

students with disabilities they serve goes down, and their scores can be 

higher and they can “look better” than the schools that are really serving 

students with disabilities better and in a more individualized manner. 

—Administrator 

Meeting the 100 Percent Proficiency Target 

Some researchers have predicted that, by the 2013–2014 school year, 

nearly all schools and school districts will not meet AYP requirements, 

even many of America’s highest-achieving schools in affluent areas.12 

86 
Of all the issues raised by NCLB, perhaps the most significant is that of having all 

students meet grade-level proficiency by school year 2013–2014. Yet, interestingly, 

many school-level educators and advocates did not raise it in their comments. The 

reason may be that they are buried in the other complexities of NCLB, such as training 

highly qualified teachers, reporting on subgroups, meeting AYP, and providing alternate 

and modified assessments. As one interviewee said: “We are just thinking about next 

year. [The year] 2014 is too far away for most people to think about.” However, at the 

national level there is a growing awareness that changes will have to be made to the 

100 percent proficiency target. 

Professionals and advocates who work with individuals with disabilities know there are 

certain categories of young people who will never be able to meet grade-level 

proficiency, yet under current law, they are expected to do so. Therefore, a difficult 

political question is presented. Do lawmakers keep the pressure on regardless of the 

impact on certain students with disabilities who will be made to feel like failures? Or, do 

they recognize the academic limitations of the severely disabled and allow limited 

exceptions—acknowledging that it is unfair to ask such students, their teachers, their 

school, and their parents to do the impossible? The comments that follow represent 

interviewees’ various attitudes regarding this issue: 

As we get closer to 2014, there will have to be a federal policy shift that 

recognizes that there are indeed some students who will not meet 

proficiency. We cannot expect every student to meet proficiency. But 

without NCLB, we would not have had the impetus to raise expectations. 

—Administrator 

Having an absolute standard is good, but 100 percent proficiency isn’t 

working—there are some students who are too severely disabled to ever 

meet proficiency standards. The expectation is for every student and 

school to meet proficiency, but they can’t—it’s just not reasonable. We 

need to acknowledge that there is a subset of students who will never be 

proficient. —Administrator 

Absolute standards are not realistic for all students with disabilities 

because it depends on the disability. The 1 percent category probably will 

never meet the standard. Students with learning disabilities can usually 

87 
meet proficiency standards as long as they are given more time and a lot 

of additional instructional help. Time should be flexible in terms of 

reaching proficiency. There is so much lumping together of disabilities, 

and we need to really differentiate them. NCLB should have more varied 

testing and accountability standards for students given the differences in 

disabilities. NCLB should be more sophisticated in its requirements for 

proficiency, not [have] just one standard. —Researcher 

Most interviewees voiced these two concerns: first, education policy needs to recognize 

that some students will need more time to meet grade-level proficiency standards, and 

second, we are too bound by the traditional structure of education and the requirement 

to complete high school in four years. 

The challenge for policymakers is to define what proficiency really means and who will 

be allowed to meet slightly lower levels of proficiency. This is a true policy dilemma, in 

that we have learned there is tremendous benefit in increasing standards and 

expectations for students. But we must also recognize that some students may never 

meet these high standards. Many individuals who were interviewed were unable or 

unwilling to take on that question. Given that 2014 is still a number of years away, we 

have time to engage in a thoughtful public conversation about the best approach to this 

dilemma. 

Data and Reporting 

As with most issues discussed in this report, there are both positive and negative 

outcomes from NCLB’s requirements on data collection and reporting, and the 

implementation of the law has raised a number of pertinent questions. 

Most interviewees who worked with data felt that IDEA and NCLB could work more 

effectively together in various ways, from using common definitions and Web sites and 

forms to common reporting infrastructures and data systems. For example, IDEA uses 

the term “peer-reviewed research and related services personnel,” while NCLB uses the 

term “scientifically based research and pupil services personnel” to mean basically the 

same thing. 

88 
Another expressed concern was that the two laws should report on similar outcomes. 

Whereas IDEA is concerned with a range of outcomes, including post-school outcomes, 

NCLB has no language regarding post–high school performance. 

Data are very duplicative, and there are different definitions for the same 

things. We have to report data for NCLB and then report it for IDEA in 

two different formats, but it’s basically all the same information. It gets 

confusing for the public because there are two reports and they have 

such different definitions. Why can’t we have just one report card? For 

instance, the graduation and dropout rate definitions are different. We 

have to work twice as hard, and people don’t understand when the 

data are different. We spend so much time on reporting, it keeps us 

from being out in the field helping schools. —Administrator 

Another significant discrepancy between the two laws relates to how high school 

graduation is measured, which has an impact on whether schools do or do not meet 

AYP and on how students progress through high school. IDEA gives much more 

flexibility to students with disabilities in terms of the length of time it takes to complete 

high school or meet the goals of the IEP. This time-based approach runs headlong into 

the NCLB requirement for high school graduation in the traditional four-year time period. 

One area that could be improved relates to high school graduation and 

dropout rates. IDEA allows students with disabilities access to education 

until age 21, but the NCLB graduation rate is based on a 9th-through12th-grade cohort. So, if students with disabilities stayed in school until 

age 19, 20, or 21 and completed, they are not counted as a completer. 

Rather, they are counted as a non-completer. Older students should be 

maintained in their original cohort. That is something that should be 

changed in NCLB that would help data collection under both laws. 

—Administrator 

At the same time, some interviewees felt that IDEA collected a level of detailed student 

data that allows for much richer analysis of instructional strategies than what is required 

by NCLB. One individual suggested that outcome data be disaggregated by the 13 

definitions of disability in IDEA so the public can really understand who is meeting 

standards and who is not. In any case, several interviewees felt that having these data 

89 
is valuable to answer instructional outcomes in a way that does not exist with NCLB’s 

focus on subgroups. 

There is a worry that if we lose some of the information from the Office of 

Special Education Programs [at the U.S. Department of Education] side 

that we’ll lose some very important and fine detail on students with 

disabilities. The data that we are really interested in is the number of 

students with disabilities participating, what their performance really is, 

but you must start from IEP enrollment data to get that information. 

IDEA data are more specifically defined because they are based on IEPs. 

—Researcher 

We think some data and indicators really matter to students with 

disabilities, and we should focus on certain important outcomes, not 

processes. For instance, the state performance indicator on post-school 

outcomes required by IDEA is probably the most important indicator. We 

should be held to reporting outcomes for that, rather than reporting on 

processes like do you have a good transition planning process. Hold us 

accountable to what the student actually did, then you could probably tell 

that if students do well after high school, you did have a good transition 

planning process in place. —Administrator 

According to several interviewees, a review of the two laws for consistency in terms of 

definitions, reporting requirements, outcomes, and data formats would save time and 

effort for districts and states. 

Parental Access to Information 

Overall, most interviewees—including advocates—felt that the amount of information 

available to parents, and the public in general, had vastly increased and improved as 

a result both of NCLB and IDEA. Some of their positive comments include, among 

many others: 

The availability of real, disaggregated data is a positive development, and 

that’s good for all of us. This information can help us make better 

decisions about all kids. —Administrator 

90 
I think our state education department has done a pretty good job of 

making information available. It’s pretty accessible, and there is a lot of 

material for parents. —Advocate 

One advocate pointed out that being able to compare groups of students with those 

from other schools or districts would be extremely valuable for parents. 

Parents want to know how their kids are doing compared to similar kids 

in other schools/districts, so standards are helpful that way. Even with 

severely disabled kids, it’s helpful to be able to compare them to other 

kids with similar disabilities, because it could demonstrate that one 

school is doing a really poor job with such kids. That is very important 

information for parents to have. 

While most felt that it is positive that more data and more disaggregated data are now 

available than ever before, concerns were expressed about how useful some of these 

data are to parents. While parents get information on the performance of the student 

subgroups and the school, this information does not really tell them how their child is 

doing. As one individual said, “NCLB doesn’t measure what parents are interested in 

because it measures groups of students and schools.” 

Other comments were made about the limitations of data in terms of giving parents a 

more thorough understanding of the instructional needs and accomplishments of each 

child. 

There is a lot of info on the Web, but it’s very superficial. Parents have 

to deal with the complicated issue of what kind of assessment their kid 

should take, but that is very hard to sort out. The top-level info is pretty 

good, but the next level down is limited and hard to tell. The U.S. 

Department of Education hasn’t done a good job of providing resources 

to parents. Aside from subgroup scores, we don’t get information about 

what’s really going on with students with disabilities in terms of 

classroom, curriculum, and instruction. —Advocate 

Parents are just as confused as the rest of us. The data that are made 

available to the public do not provide information on each child and how 

to change instruction, so those data are not really useful to parents. 

91 
The data provide information on how the school and groups of students 

are doing. —Policymaker 

While access to information about student performance by subgroup has vastly 

improved, much of the information is still unrelated to individual student needs, which 

is of prime interest to parents. 

Compatibility of NCLB and IDEA 

Asking if NCLB and IDEA are compatible unleashed a torrent of comments, from 

“Absolutely not!” to “Absolutely!” The most common opinion, however, was that although 

the two laws complement and strengthen each other, they could be made more 

compatible. 

The following comment is an example of the first response, namely, that the laws are 

not compatible: 

They are entirely different laws with entirely different perspectives and 

goals. IDEA is a civil rights law to protect and promote the rights of 

students with disabilities and to provide a good education, free and 

appropriate public education, and to monitor the procedures to ensure 

equity. The strength of IDEA is the focus on and protection of individual 

kids. NCLB is a law to make people “mind.” —Administrator 

An example of a comment about their compatibility follows: 

The two laws are very compatible. They have similar goals: the goal of 

IDEA is how you help a child be successful; the goal of NCLB is how you 

help schools and districts be successful. The words in the statute are not 

a problem—they track very closely. —Advocate 

Some specific advice about how to make the two laws more compatible focused on 

early intervention services. 

Early intervention services are a good idea, but we need money to fund 

that. This is really a general education issue, and general education 

should be required to do this, but to ask that the money come from Part 

B, IDEA, it’s hard to pay for, given all the other needs we have in special 

education. Early intervention services should be put into NCLB, and 

funding should be included for it. Response to intervention is also a 

92 
general education intervention, and so it should be paid for with general 

education funds, and general education teachers are the ones that really 

need to be thinking about this. There should be a focus on general 

education, and then everyone has to think about early intervention 

services and response to intervention, not just special education 

teachers. Because this is really where students can be identified and 

determine what the appropriate educational intervention is—which in 

many cases is not special education. Same with transition: this should 

be something that everyone takes responsibility for, not just special 

education teachers. —Administrator 

Perhaps the structure of IDEA and NCLB can best be summarized with the following 

chart, which distinguishes major aspects of both laws: 

IDEA NCLB 

Orientation Process oriented Outcomes oriented 

Unit of Analysis Individual student System or groups of students 

What Is Measured? Range of skills Core academic skills 

Educational Approach Teach according to ability Test according to grade 

Type of Law Civil rights Compliance 

Several interviewees felt that because IDEA is a civil rights law, it should prevail over 

NCLB and that Congress should make this clear. Interviewees also provided a number 

of suggestions on how to make IDEA and NCLB more compatible, which are discussed 

in the recommendations section. 

93 
94 
PART IV. RECOMMENDATIONS 

In looking at changes to NCLB, it is important to understand the complex interplay 

among the federal law, state laws and regulations, and actual practice at the district and 

school levels. Some of the requirements in NCLB have had unintended consequences, 

and any new changes to the law should be carefully considered to make certain that 

additional unintended consequences are not created, especially for students with 

disabilities. It is also important to provide flexibility with regard to student performance 

while holding on to the idea of meeting a high standard. High expectations with 

differentiated learning and instruction should be the twin foundations for the law. 

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

interviewees: 

1. Maintain high expectations for students with disabilities and continue to 

disaggregate outcome data by subgroups. The most important recommendation 

gathered from the interviews is to maintain high academic expectations for students 

with disabilities and continue to report student outcome data by subgroup. Not a 

single interviewee suggested that we return to pre-NCLB days, when students with 

disabilities were not included in academic accountability systems. Interviewees 

acknowledged that not every student with a disability can achieve to high standards, 

but they recommended holding firm to high expectations, continuing to report 

disaggregated data, and keeping the pressure on the system to deliver higher-level 

instruction. School leaders must create the environment of high expectations for all 

students and create supports and incentives for teachers to help all students reach 

higher levels of achievement. 

2. Develop the capacity of teachers to provide differentiated instruction and a 

more rigorous curriculum. In order for students to benefit from a higher-level 

curriculum, teachers must have the content knowledge and pedagogical skills to 

work with a diverse group of learners, particularly students with disabilities. All 

teachers must have strong academic content if they are the lead teacher, or be 

95 
paired with a content expert if they bring strong pedagogical skills, as many special 

educators do. Teachers need to be trained in using benchmark assessments to 

influence how they provide instruction to each student. 

All teachers, especially general education teachers, must be trained to work with 

students with disabilities and other diverse students. Teachers should be trained to 

identify students with disabilities and know about various instructional approaches 

and universally designed curriculum. States should be held accountable for ensuring 

that teachers are trained to work with different types of students. 

3. Create incentives to attract, recruit, and retain special education teachers. As 

special education teachers retire and leave the profession, more attention needs to 

be paid to how to develop the profession and maintain adequate numbers of 

teachers with the skills and knowledge to work with students with disabilities. 

No Child Left Behind should be amended to include provisions such as early 

intervention services, response to intervention, individualized education plans for 

lower-performing students, and transition planning for needy students. These are 

key elements in IDEA, yet they affect all students, not just those with disabilities. All 

students would benefit from being provided early intervention and differentiated 

services, as well as a stronger focus on transition planning. Currently, 15 percent of 

IDEA funding can be used to support the early intervention activities for students 

who do not have IEPs. Because these students are not technically covered by IDEA, 

NCLB should cover the costs of these services. 

4. Align NCLB and IDEA data systems and definitions. NCLB and IDEA require 

data collection and reporting on various student outcomes and program 

characteristics, but the laws use different definitions and reporting formats, which 

should be brought into closer alignment so that states, districts, and schools are not 

duplicating data collection efforts. NCLB should also be amended to require that 

post-school outcomes be reported, as that is a critical indicator of success for all 

students. 

96 
Redefine the proficiency target to recognize that a certain percentage of students, 

such as students with severe disabilities, will not meet grade-level proficiency. 

Options could include changing the 100 percent target to a slightly lower number, 

allowing waivers for certain defined categories of students, allowing students with 

disabilities to be tested on out-of-grade-level material, extending the time to reach 

proficiency, or setting the goals of the IEP as the proficiency target for certain 

categories of students with disabilities. 

Change the four-year graduation requirement to allow students with disabilities a 

longer period of time to achieve high school completion. Because IDEA allows 

students with disabilities to stay in high school until age 21, NCLB must be amended 

to be consistent with IDEA and prevent students with disabilities from appearing as 

non-completers if they do not graduate in four years. 

Continue to require states to meet AYP, but balance it with credit for improved 

academic performance for lower-performing subgroups. States and schools should 

ensure that their students are making progress toward proficiency, but they should 

have more flexibility in determining AYP and should be recognized for improving 

academic performance and for closing achievement gaps. 

5. Ensure that students with disabilities are measured on more than just 

academic skills attainment. The definition of what is assessed for students with 

disabilities should be broadened to include occupational, employability, and life 

skills. 

6. Increase funding for special education. Helping students with disabilities access a 

higher-level curriculum requires more support services, potentially more learning 

time, better-trained teachers, collaborative teaching, and new instructional 

approaches. The current requirement to spend 15 percent of IDEA on early 

intervention services on non–special education students diverts funding from an 

already needy population. 

97 
98 
ACRONYMS 

AMO annual measurable objective 

APA Alternate Proficiency Assessment 

API Academic Performance Index 

ASK Assessment of Skills and Knowledge 

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

in Education 

AYP adequate yearly progress 

AYPF American Youth Policy Forum 

BEESS Bureau of Exceptional Education and Student Services 

BSE Bureau of Special Education 

CAHSEE California High School Exit Exam 

CALPADS California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement System 

CalSTAT California Services for Technical Assistance and Training 

CAPA California Alternate Performance Assessment 

CASEMIS California Special Education Management Information System 

CCCS Core Curriculum Content Standards 

CDDRE Center for Data-Driven Reform in Education 

CDE California Department of Education 

CEP Center for Education Policy 

CIMS Continuous Improvement and Monitoring System 

CMCI Compliance Monitoring for Continuous Improvement 

CSIS California School of Information Services 

CSPD Comprehensive System of Personnel Development 

CST California Standards Test 

DES Division for Exceptional Students 

DRA disability rights advocate 

EC Education Code 

ED U.S. Department of Education 

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

E-GHSGT Enhanced Georgia High School Graduation Test 

ELA English/language arts 

ELL English language learner 

EPI Educational Policy Institute 

ERSS Educational Regional Service System 

ESPA Elementary School Proficiency Assessment 

EWT Early Warning Test 

FAAR Florida Alternate Assessment Report 

FCAT Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test 

FIN Florida Inclusion Network 

FLDOE Florida Department of Education 

GAA Georgia’s Alternate Assessment 

GCIMP Georgia Continuous Improvement Monitoring Process 

GDOE Georgia Department of Education 

99 
GEPA Grade Eight Performance Assessment 

GHSWT Georgia High School Writing Test 

GLRC Georgia’s Learning Resource Center 

HOUSSE high, objective, unified state standards of evaluation 

HQT highly qualified teacher 

HSPA High School Proficiency Assessment 

HSPT High School Proficiency Test 

IAA Illinois Alternate Assessment 

IDEA Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 

IEP Individualized Education Plan 

IS intervention specialist 

ISAT Illinois Standards Achievement Test 

ISBE Illinois State Board of Education 

IU intermediate unit 

KPI key performance indicator 

KPISC Key Performance Indicator Stakeholder Committee 

LEA local education authority 

LEP limited English proficient 

LRC Learning Resource Center 

LRE least restrictive environment 

MBS Minimum Basic Skills 

MCAS Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System 

MDOE Massachusetts Department of Education 

MEAP Michigan Educational Assessment Program 

MI-CIS Michigan Compliance Information System 

MI-DOE Michigan Department of Education 

NAEP National Assessment of Educational Progress 

NCD National Council on Disability 

NCLB Act No Child Left Behind Act 

NJDOE New Jersey Department of Education 

NJOSEP New Jersey Office of Special Education Programs 

NYSED New York State Education Department 

OAT Ohio Achievement Test 

ODE Ohio Department of Education 

OEC Office for Exceptional Children 

OGT Ohio Graduation Test 

OISM Ohio Integrated Systems Model 

OSA Office of Student Achievement 

OSE/EIS Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services 

OSEP Office of Special Education Programs 

PASA Pennsylvania Alternate System of Assessment 

PaTTAN Pennsylvania Training and Technical Assistance Network 

PCSE Partnership Committee on Special Education 

PDE Pennsylvania Department of Education 

PEN Parent Education Network 

PI program improvement 

100 
PQA Program Quality Assurance 

PSAE Prairie State Achievement Examination 

PSC Professional Standards Commission 

PSSA Pennsylvania System of School Assessment 

PVAAS Pennsylvania Value-Added Assessment System 

SAP State Advisory Panel 

SARC State Accountability Report Card 

SEDCAR Strategic Evaluation Data Collection, Analysis, and Reporting 

SELPA special education local plan areas 

SEQA Special Education Quality Assurance 

SERRC Special Education Regional Resource Center 

SES Supplemental Education Service 

SETRC Special Education Training and Resource Center 

SID student identifier 

SIG state improvement grant 

SIMS Student Information Management Services 

SIS student information system 

SOP state-operated program 

SPPDP State Performance and Personnel Development Plan 

SPSR Service Provider Self-Review 

SRA Special Review Assessment 

SRSD Single Record Student Database 

SSID Statewide Student Identifier 

STAR Standardized Testing and Reporting 

START Statewide Technical Assistance Resource Team 

TQ Teacher Quality 

UIC unique identification code 

USI unique student identifier 

VESID Vocational and Educational Services for Individuals with Disabilities 

101 
102 
APPENDIX 

Mission of the National Council on Disability 

Overview and purpose 

The National Council on Disability (NCD) is an independent federal agency with 15 

members appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the 

U.S. Senate. The purpose of NCD is to promote policies, programs, practices, and 

procedures that guarantee equal opportunity for all individuals with disabilities 

regardless of the nature or significance of the disability and to empower individuals 

with disabilities to achieve economic self-sufficiency, independent living, and inclusion 

and integration into all aspects of society. 

Specific duties 

The current statutory mandate of NCD includes the following: 

• Reviewing and evaluating, on a continuing basis, policies, programs, practices, and 

procedures concerning individuals with disabilities conducted or assisted by federal 

departments and agencies, including programs established or assisted under the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, or under the Developmental Disabilities 

Assistance and Bill of Rights Act, as well as all statutes and regulations pertaining to 

federal programs that assist such individuals with disabilities, to assess the 

effectiveness of such policies, programs, practices, procedures, statutes, and 

regulations in meeting the needs of individuals with disabilities. 

• Reviewing and evaluating, on a continuing basis, new and emerging disability policy 

issues affecting individuals with disabilities in the Federal Government, at the state 

and local government levels, and in the private sector, including the need for and 

coordination of adult services, access to personal assistance services, school reform 

efforts and the impact of such efforts on individuals with disabilities, access to health 

care, and policies that act as disincentives for individuals to seek and retain 

employment. 

103 
• Making recommendations to the President, Congress, the Secretary of Education, 

the director of the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, and 

other officials of federal agencies about ways to better promote equal opportunity, 

economic self-sufficiency, independent living, and inclusion and integration into all 

aspects of society for Americans with disabilities. 

• Providing Congress, on a continuing basis, with advice, recommendations, 

legislative proposals, and any additional information that NCD or Congress deems 

appropriate. 

• Gathering information about the implementation, effectiveness, and impact of the 

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) (42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.). 

• Advising the President, Congress, the commissioner of the Rehabilitation Services 

Administration, the assistant secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative 

Services within the Department of Education, and the director of the National 

Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research on the development of the 

programs to be carried out under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. 

• Providing advice to the commissioner of the Rehabilitation Services Administration 

with respect to the policies and conduct of the administration. 

• Making recommendations to the director of the National Institute on Disability and 

Rehabilitation Research on ways to improve research, service, administration, and 

the collection, dissemination, and implementation of research findings affecting 

people with disabilities. 

• Providing advice regarding priorities for the activities of the Interagency Disability 

Coordinating Council and reviewing the recommendations of this council for 

legislative and administrative changes to ensure that such recommendations are 

consistent with NCD’s purpose of promoting the full integration, independence, and 

productivity of individuals with disabilities. 

• Preparing and submitting to the President and Congress an annual report titled 

National Disability Policy: A Progress Report. 

104 
International 

In 1995, NCD was designated by the Department of State to be the U.S. government’s 

official contact point for disability issues. Specifically, NCD interacts with the special 

rapporteur of the United Nations Commission for Social Development on disability 

matters. 

Consumers served and current activities 

Although many government agencies deal with issues and programs affecting people 

with disabilities, NCD is the only federal agency charged with addressing, analyzing, 

and making recommendations on issues of public policy that affect people with 

disabilities regardless of age, disability type, perceived employment potential, economic 

need, specific functional ability, veteran status, or other individual circumstance. NCD 

recognizes its unique opportunity to facilitate independent living, community integration, 

and employment opportunities for people with disabilities by ensuring an informed and 

coordinated approach to addressing the concerns of people with disabilities and 

eliminating barriers to their active participation in community and family life. 

NCD plays a major role in developing disability policy in America. In fact, NCD originally 

proposed what eventually became ADA. NCD’s present list of key issues includes 

improving personal assistance services, promoting health care reform, including 

students with disabilities in high-quality programs in typical neighborhood schools, 

promoting equal employment and community housing opportunities, monitoring the 

implementation of ADA, improving assistive technology, and ensuring that people with 

disabilities who are members of diverse cultures fully participate in society. 

Statutory history 

NCD was established in 1978 as an advisory board within the Department of Education 

(P.L. 95-602). The Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1984 (P.L. 98-221) transformed 

NCD into an independent agency. 

105 
106 
END NOTES 

1

 C. Lehr and M. Thurlow, “Putting It All Together: Including Students with Disabilities in 

Assessment and Accountability Systems,” Policy Directions No. 16 (Minneapolis, MN: 

University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes, 2003). Retrieved 

June 28, 2007, from http://www.education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Policy16.htm. 

2

 B. Keller, “Ed. Dept. Won’t Force HOUSSE Closure Now,” Education Week, 26, 28, 

30. Retrieved June 15, 2007, from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2006/09/20/ 

04hqt.h26.html?qs=HOUSSE. 

3 Commission on No Child Left Behind, Commission Staff Research Report, Children 

with Disabilities and LEP Students: Their Impact on the AYP Determinations of Schools 

(Washington, DC: Aspen Institute, 2006). 

4

Ibid. 

5

 Center for Education Policy, Answering the Question That Matters Most: Has Student 

Achievement Increased Since No Child Left Behind? (Washington, DC: Center for 

Education Policy, 2007). 

6

 Ibid. 

7

 By regulation, states are allowed to provide alternate assessments to certain 

categories of students with disabilities. Title I regulations permit a state to develop 

alternate academic achievement standards for students with the most significant 

cognitive disabilities and to include those students’ proficient and advanced scores on 

alternate assessments based on alternative academic achievement standards in 

measuring AYP subject to a cap of 1 percent of all students assessed (about 10 percent 

of students with disabilities). Additional regulatory guidance from the U.S. Department of 

Education now permits states to provide assessments based on modified academic 

achievement standards that cover the same grade-level content as the general 

assessment. The expectations of content mastery are modified, not the grade-level 

contents themselves. Up to 2 percent of all students assessed in a grade (about 20 

percent of students with disabilities) may be assessed with assessments based on 

modified academic achievement standards. U.S. Department of Education, Modified 

Academic Achievement Standards: Non-Regulatory Guidance Draft (Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Education, 2007). 

8

 Praxis SeriesTM Assessments provide educational tests and other services that states 

use as part of their teaching licensing certification process. Retrieved June 14, 2007, from 

http://www.ets.org/portal/site/ets/menuitem.fab2360b1645a1de9b3a0779f1751509/?vgne 

xtoid=48c05ee3d74f4010VgnVCM10000022f95190RCRD. 

9

 H.G. Peske and K. Haycock, Teaching Inequality: How Poor and Minority Students 

Are Shortchanged on Teacher Quality (Washington, DC: Education Trust, 2006). 

10 P. Burch, Supplemental Education Services under NCLB: Emerging Evidence and 

Policy Issues (East Lansing, MI: Great Lakes Center for Education Research & 

Practice, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2007). 

107 
11 Center for Education Policy, NCLB: Narrowing the Curriculum? (Washington, DC: 

Center for Education Policy, 2005). 

12 P. Goldschmidt, Practical Considerations for Choosing an Accountability Model, paper 

presented at the April 2006 annual meeting of the American Educational Research 

Association, San Francisco, CA; and R.L. Linn, Test-based Educational Accountability 

in the Era of No Child Left Behind (CSE Report No. 651) (Los Angeles: University of 

California, Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing, 2005). 

108 


th

e ID

E

A: A

Pro

gre

s

s

R

e

p

ort—

J

a

n

u

ary

2

8, 2

0

0

8

—

N

atio

n

al C

o

u

n

cil o

n

Dis

a

bility