JANUARY 28, 2008

NEW ORLEANS, LA

To the distinguished members of the Board and staff of the National Council on Disability (NCD), members of the press, and assorted colleagues, I am pleased to provide brief comments on the report released by NCD and EPI today: The No Child Left Behind Act and the Individuals with Disabilities Act: A Progress Report. This is the second project that the Educational Policy Institute has conducted for NCD during the past three years, this work building on our initial investigation in 2004.

This was an enormous study involving data and interviews over an eight-month period. To reduce the abundance of critical and interesting information into a 25-minute block is difficult at best. Although we provided an executive summary to the report, it certainly does not do the research justice. There are simply too many perspectives and issues to be reduced in such fashion, so I strongly urge you to review the entire report to understand the entire meaning and implications of this research.

This new report provides both a follow-up and 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 of the US general population.

In this study we looked at trend data in student academic achievement; interviewed state administrators and representatives about trends and issues related to NCLB and IDEA; held conversations with advocates, federal officials, and other stakeholders; and provided recommendations based on our findings. In addition, there is an appendix available online at NCD and EPI that provides background data and statistics from the 10 case studies.

I would like to mention that the Educational Policy Institute is a non-profit research center devoted to the study of issues impacting the educational opportunity of individuals, especially those who have traditionally had lesser access to quality opportunities than other students, regardless of age. This study embodies the reason why I started the Institute in 2002; to provide a reasoned voice to issues that matter in a non-partisan manner. I would also like to acknowledge that our work on this study benefited greatly through our continuing partnership with the American Youth Policy Forum (AYPF). In particular, I would like to acknowledge Ms. Betsy Brand, the Director of AYPF, for her herculean efforts in conducting discussions with grassroots organizations and other stakeholders for this effort.

For my part, I will begin with a discussion of trends in academic achievement for students with disabilities over the last several years, then turn to the more atmospheric issues associated with NCLB and IDEA from the viewpoints of stakeholders around the country. I will conclude with a list of recommendations based on our findings.

* * * * *

When the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) 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. The No Child Left Behind Act has, indeed, had a significant impact on the education system and students in our schools, and has perhaps been most successful in bringing to light various practices and behaviors that were preventing many students from high academic achievement. However, there is evidence that the full promise of NCLB has not yet been achieved.

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.

So, we begin by first looking at achievement data. Because of the relative lack of decent academic trend data since the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act, there is no truly credible way to connect academic trends and NCLB. Even the recent Center for Education Policy (CEP) report strongly suggested caution in using currently available data to document the impact of NCLB. Frederick Hess of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) cautioned that “these findings should be treated very cautiously… especially trying to link this to something as amorphous as NCLB” (Hoff, June 5, 2007).

Calculating trends in academic achievement across states is a difficult task. 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 second is to use data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress, or 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 their own test and also determines what their 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).

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 of the states—22 to be exact—have sufficient trend data for analysis. In our analysis of NAEP data for this report, we ran into similar challenges. Only in the last couple of years have states started documenting all students, including those with disabilities, making trend lines extraordinarily short.

What the Data Say…

My comments in the associated handouts obviously reflect information in the report, and I will refer casually to tables in those reports. 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 is a statistically-significant test conducted in all states. It was not designed to be used as a diagnostic instrument, but does give us average measures of student achievement across the country. Although NAEP has limitations, we believe it is a more consistent barometer of achievement in the states than AYP proficiency levels.

We also focused on 10 states which, population-wise, constitute a majority of the population of the United States and include some of the most progressive states in the union with regard to NCLB and students with disabilities. These states include California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

Our first data glimpse looks at mathematics and reading scores for 4th- and 8th-grade students with disabilities (see Exhibits 1 through 4). On average, the percent of 4th-grade students with disabilities scoring below basic proficiency level in mathematics declined by 6 percentage points between 2003 and 2005. Generally speaking, this is a good trend. Our 10-state sample ranged from a decrease of just 1 point (New York) to a decrease of 17 percentage points by Florida. However, the percentage of students with disabilities scoring in the below basic level in reading (Exhibit 2) increased by 5 percent at the national level, with ranges from an 8 point increase in New Jersey to a 26 percentage point decrease in Ohio.

On the other end of the spectrum, the percentage of students scoring at the proficient level on the 4th-grade NAEP mathematics and reading tests increased, although moderately at best. In mathematics, the national increase in SWD scoring at the proficient level increased 3 percent (from 11 to 14 percent), with California posting a zero point increase and Ohio 10 points. In reading, the national score increased 1 percent, with New York posting a 2-point decrease and Ohio again posting a 10-point increase.

These numbers, especially the below basic numbers, illustrate the volatility in data. For instance, is Ohio truly doing that much better than anyone else? Or is it the method in which students with disabilities are tested? At this point, we cannot make too many inferences on 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.

In eighth-grade mathematics and reading (Exhibits 3 and 4), our findings illustrate that, on average, the percentage of students with disabilities scoring 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 percent distribution of students with disabilities scoring at the below basic level ranged from a reduction 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 scoring 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 analysis.

This poses an important question: 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 with students of disabilities (and who actually gets tested) is conducted in the states. 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. Whatever the reason, what we do know from academic testing and educational opportunity research is that whatever gaps exist by the 8th grade seem relatively permanent; gaps at the 8th grade continue for the remainder of mandatory education. There is no “catch-up” by that point.

Apart from academic outcomes, it is worth looking at the attendance behaviors of students. In the report, we look at the outcomes of students with disabilities, including dropouts, graduations, and disability services (Exhibits 5 through 8). Because these data have been required by IDEA for several years, we have longer trend data to review.

Dropout Percentages. In our prior discussion, we noted that achievement has generally risen, even if modestly, for SWD. But clearly we can see that the number of dropouts has also increased, in some cases, rather dramatically. Understatedly, this is not a good trend. For instance, California had the nation’s lowest dropout rate for SWD, but has risen to over half of all SWD dropping out. But the dropout rates for SWD in 2004-05 were higher than in prior years for other states, as well, with the exception of Pennsylvania. Were more SWD dropping out because of new policies of graduation? Were they forced out for the same reasons? Or is this a policy blip that will evolve over time? The answers could be yes to all three, but more likely that the policies (and practices) need to evolve to better suit SWD.

Percentage of Students with Disabilities Receiving Special Education Services. Over the past several years, the percentage of 14-22-year olds with disabilities who no longer receive special education services has declined. Between 1998-99 and 2004-05, the percentage of students with disabilities receiving special education services in 7 of our 10 test states declined between 1.7 percent (New York) and 10.3 percent (Georgia). One state (NJ) did not have these data available for analysis, and the states posting increased were Ohio and Massachusetts (5.6 and 5.4 percent respectively). The later is especially known for doing well with students with disabilities.

Why the overall decline? This could be for a variety of reasons, including (a) students cannot find the services needed; (b) they have become ineligible under new laws and regulations for services; (c) students dropping out may not be calculated in these data or (d) a redefinition of the term “no longer uses services.” We’re unsure of the true reason, but these data tell us that fewer students are using services.

Graduation Rates. Clearly, students with disabilities are graduating from high school at much higher rates than they were before NCLB and the last reauthorization of IDEA. With the exception of Ohio, which posted a 12-point decline, most states are in the double digits of graduation increases, with Michigan (47 percent) and Pennsylvania (48 percent) at the top of the group. These two states were also among the states that exhibited only a small increase in higher dropout rates.

Also, with the exception of California and two states that did not possess the requisite data, all posted some increase in the rate of certificate completion.

In summary, we can echo some of the positive comments of the CEP report in June 2007: students with disabilities appear to be doing better academically and also appear to be graduating with diplomas and certificates higher than in prior years. Data suggest that there is certainly concern about the dropout levels of students in states, and 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.

But clearly we need to look much deeper and along a longer trend line to have any real clue if NCLB has had an impact. As with the CEP report, the data, while interesting, say little to 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 data and form a significant trend line.

In addition to data analysis, especially with regard to the short trend lines, it is ultimately important to hear what key stakeholders have to say about the impact of NCLB and IDEA on student achievement.  

What State Officials Say…

We interviewed over 35 state staff members from sectors of education directly affected by NCLB and IDEA: assessment, data collection, curriculum and instruction, and professional development. 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.

From our 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 had an impact on each education department’s ability to respond to NLCB and IDEA mandates. Responsiveness was also affected by the sophistication of each state’s existing assessments and data collection systems, and how much work needed to be done to comply with NCLB and IDEA reporting requirements.

Another understatement: 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 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 data manager 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)

Respondents suggested that 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 put in place, a higher percentage of students with disabilities are placed in general education classrooms or receive instruction based on the general education curriculum in special education classrooms. One staff member from New York pointed out that with the implementation of NCLB and IDEA:

“Students with disabilities have access to the curriculum and are passing the assessments. Before, there was no accountability [for instruction] and you could teach students with disabilities whatever you wanted to.” - (Multiple staff members, New York State Department of Education)

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

Assessment. We asked whether students with disabilities were being included in state assessments and what have been the consequences. Our experts suggested that 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. It was evident from our interviews that policy regarding standard and non-standard accommodations varied greatly from state to state. Further, the level of guidance related to the use of accommodations ranged from a list of acceptable accommodations posted on the state’s department of education website, 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 deciding 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 have a manual or training documents posted on-line. Some states send representatives to districts to provide training. Michigan has a podcast posted to provide information to districts administering the alternate assessment.

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

“[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)

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.

Accountability. Every state we spoke with has taken steps to develop an accountability system that meets NCLB and IDEA requirements. Accountability is a key component of standards-based reform, and, according to NCLB and IDEA, states must establish standards for student achievement, communicate those standards to students and educators, measure student progress in reference to the established standards, and apply consequences when standards are not met by schools and districts. Not an easy task by any measure.

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 though 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, a few states we interviewed 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 identify those that over- or under-identify certain populations for special education services. States like Georgia send education department representatives to train school teams to resolve their disproportionality issues. The trainings are ongoing and aim to teach schools how to assist students without labeling them disabled.

Though many improvements have been made since NCLB and IDEA began emphasizing accountability for all students, some staffers worried that some regulations could actually harm students with disabilities. Several staff members expressed concern regarding rules for graduation requirements included in NCLB. According to the law, a state may only count students who received regular diplomas in the standard number of years as high school graduates. 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 4 years to complete their course requirements. With 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.

One complaint that came up several times during our interviews was the issue of timing with regard to when ED makes changes to regulations and states receive the guiding documents necessary to implement those changes. One staff member from Michigan noted:

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

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

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 data collection experts we interviewed for this project mentioned that OSEP often did not give them sufficient time to implement changes to the system. As one expert from Florida 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 2 or 3 years to implement the change. The Department of Education does not give us enough time. The turn-around time is never long enough. They want us to accomplish the changes in 6 months when we know it takes longer than that to do it right. We had a situation recently regarding the State Performance Plan (SPP) we submit for IDEA where we have to calculate data on 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)

The data collection experts we spoke with often expressed frustration with the repetitiveness of reporting requirements between NCLB, IDEA, and the state. They suggested collaboration, particularly between NCLB and IDEA, was needed to develop clear definitions for data collection that truly gathered information that is useful to ED and the states. It was clear from speaking with these experts that states continue to struggle with data quality and reporting requirements, but that they have 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. This was a huge area to cover so I will do so systematically. Our conversations with staff members at the state level highlighted some best practices that are being implemented in an attempt to achieve this goal.

Regarding data collection, respondents stated thatStates are working towards comprehensive systems linked across schools and other agencies; from the classroom level up to the federal level; and able to track students from preschool through college. By creating data systems with these linkages embedded, states can streamline test reporting, reduce errors, and help identify problem areas. The systems are more accurate than they were before, and many states have established verification processes that allow them to test the accuracy of new elements added to the data collection system. Because this process can take at least two years to complete, states 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.

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. Since NCLB, some states have undergone a reorganization to promote collaboration between general and special education staff. California, for example, made major changes to its standards and assessments division to comply with NCLB and IDEA. Some states sponsor special education resource centers that offer training, professional and development, and technical assistance at the district and regional levels.

As well, 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 Georgia’s GLRCs to local or state advocacy organizations.

With regard to professional development, ensuring that all students with disabilities are instructed by a highly-qualified teacher is a goal for all ten states. Here are three main issues:

Professional development. Ensuring that all students with disabilities are instructed by a highly-qualified teacher is a goal for all ten states we spoke with for this project.

Many states have created alternative certification models for teachers, but this is not without its pitfalls:

“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)

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

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

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,” and in May 2006, ED requested states to submit plans for phasing their HOUSSE options out.

All states provide in-service training opportunities for special education teachers. Targeted professional development was mentioned by many staff members as a key component of the state efforts to improve academic achievement and 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 technical assistance and resources to teachers. 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.

What Stakeholders Say…

We interviewed disability policy, education, and advocacy leaders, and students with disabilities and their parents about how NCLB, after three more years of implementation, has impacted students with disabilities. This is what they had to say.

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, and they credit these attitudinal changes to NCLB, but also to IDEA as reauthorized in 1997 and 2004.

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 if NCLB has had an impact on increasing academic achievement and skills of students with disabilities. Many interviewees did report that state performance reports indicate higher scores in math and English for elementary students with disabilities, but little improvement for students with disabilities at the high school level.

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. Since 2004, students with disabilities are, according to interviewees, gaining much more access to grade-level curricula. Students with disabilities are also increasingly expected to take high school exit exams in states where they exist, which means students must have access to the curriculum. But if students with disabilities are going to access higher-level curriculum, they need to have well-trained teachers, both with strong content knowledge and pedagogical strategies, to make that curriculum learnable.

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

Capacity Building. Without prompting, almost every interviewee raised the issue of highly qualified teachers (HQT) as a key provision to help students with disabilities achieve to higher standards. The role of higher education and teacher licensing was raised by several interviewees; that higher education needs to revamp to meet current teaching demands.

Measuring Performance. 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. 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. 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 relatively small number of educators interviewed for this project, these themes surfaced quite often.

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, to reporting infrastructures, common websites, forms, and data systems. A 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 NLCB requirement for high school graduation in the traditional four-year time period.

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

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

Recommendations

In looking at changes to NCLB, it is important to understand that there is a complex interplay between the federal law, state law and regulation, and 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 onto 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. No one 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 disaggregated data, and keeping the pressure on the system to deliver higher-level instruction.
2. Develop the capacity of teachers to provide differentiated instruction and more rigorous curriculum. In order for students to benefit from higher-level curriculum, teachers must have the content knowledge and pedagogical skills to work with a diverse group of learners, particularly students with disabilities.
3. Create incentives to attract, recruit, and retain special education teachers. As special education teachers retire 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.
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.
5. Ensure that students with disabilities are measured on more than just academic skill 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 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. 

www.educationalpolicy.org

The full report may be downloaded HERE

Print copies may be obtained from NCD by faxing requests to Stacey Brown at 202-272-2022 or by e-mail (sbrown@ncd.gov).

Questions related to the report may be directed to Watson Scott Swail of EPI or Martin Gould of NCD.

- 30 -

The Educational Policy Institute is a non-profit research center focused in issues of educational opportunity, especially for our most needy populations. Based in Virginia Beach with offices in Toronto and Melbourne, EPI conducts program evaluation, policy analysis, and conducts professional development opportunities for educational professionals throughout the education continuum. Visit the EPI website at www.educationalpolicy.org.