[Federal Register: March 20, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 54)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 13795-13801]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr20mr03-32]
Download: 
[[Page 13795]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Department of Education
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
34 CFR Part 200
Title I--Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged;
Proposed Rule
[[Page 13796]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Part 200
RIN 1810--AA95
Title I--Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged
AGENCY: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of
Education.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Secretary proposes to amend the regulations governing
programs administered under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA)--referred to in these proposed
regulations as the Title I programs. These proposed regulations would
clarify statutory provisions regarding State, LEA, and school
accountability for the academic achievement of students with the most
significant cognitive disabilities and are needed to implement changes
to Title I of the ESEA made by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
(NCLB Act).
DATES: We must receive your comments on or before May 19, 2003.
ADDRESSES: Address all comments about these proposed regulations to
Jacquelyn C. Jackson, Ed.D., Acting Director, Student Achievement and
School Accountability Programs, Office of Elementary and Secondary
Education, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room
3W230, FB-6, Washington, DC 20202-6132. The Fax number for submitting
comments is (202) 260-7764.
If you prefer to send your comments through the Internet, use the
following address: TitleIrulemaking@ed.gov.
You must include the term ``proposed rule'' in the subject line of
your electronic message.
If you want to comment on the information collection requirements,
you must send your comments to the Office of Management and Budget at
the address listed in the Paperwork Reduction Act section of this
preamble. You may also send a copy of these comments to the Department
representative named in this section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jacquelyn C. Jackson, Ed.D., Acting
Director, Student Achievement and School Accountability Programs,
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Telephone: (202) 260-
0826.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may
call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an
alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer
diskette) on request to the contact person listed under For Further
Information Contact.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Invitation to Comment
We invite you to submit comments regarding these proposed
regulations. We are specifically interested in your comments on the
following:
(1) Whether, in proposed Sec. 200.13(c)(1), existing scientific
research, State/LEA or national data, and the current state of
knowledge support setting the cap at 1.0 percent for students with the
most significant cognitive disabilities whose achievement can be
measured against alternate achievement standards for determining
adequate yearly progress (AYP) at the LEA and State levels.
(2) What, if any, significant implementation issues pertaining to
the definition of ``students with the most significant cognitive
disabilities'' in proposed Sec. 200.1(d)(2) would arise at the State,
LEA, and school levels. Specifically, the Department requests comments
on what current recordkeeping and reporting requirements would States
and LEAs use to comply with this provision and whether additional
information or data will be necessary for compliance.
(3) Compliance with the specific requirements of Executive Order
12866 and its overall requirement of reducing regulatory burden that
might result from these proposed regulations. Please let us know of any
further opportunities we should take to reduce potential costs or
increase potential benefits while preserving the effective and
efficient administration of the program.
(4) How the Department should review these regulations once
finalized to monitor regulatory compliance and invite more research and
analysis to potentially fine-tune program implementation.
In addition, we invite you to submit additional comments on Sec.
200.20(c)(3) of the Title I regulations published on December 2, 2002
(67 FR 71710, 71717). This regulation provides that, if a student takes
a State assessment for a particular subject or grade level more than
once, the State must use the student's results from the first
administration to determine AYP. We included this provision in the
regulations in response to comments requesting clarification on the
proposed regulations. Although there may be very sound reasons for
permitting a student to take high-stakes assessments multiple times, we
believe that a student's performance on the first administration best
reflects the performance of the school in preparing the student to take
the assessment, and school accountability is the focus of Title I.
Several States have suggested that their practice of administering
multiple assessments in certain situations and counting the scores on
these assessments for school accountability purposes better reflects
both student and school performance than does Sec. 200.20(c)(3). We
invite you to comment on whether Sec. 200.20(c)(3) should be amended
and, if so, how.
During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public
comments about these proposed regulations in room 3W242, FB-6, 400
Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m.
and 4 p.m., Eastern time, Monday through Friday of each week except
Federal holidays.
Assistance to Individuals With Disabilities in Reviewing the Rulemaking
Record
On request, we will supply an appropriate aid, such as a reader or
print magnifier, to an individual with a disability who needs
assistance to review the comments or other documents in the public
rulemaking record for these proposed regulations. If you want to
schedule an appointment for this type of aid, please contact the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Background
These proposed regulations implement statutory provisions regarding
State, LEA, and school accountability for the academic achievement of
students with the most significant cognitive disabilities. They would
amend final regulations published in the Federal Register (67 FR 45038)
by the Secretary on July 5, 2002 for the standards and assessment
provisions of Title I, part A of the ESEA and on December 2, 2002 (67
FR 71710) for the remaining provisions of Title I, parts A and C. These
regulations implement the ESEA as reauthorized under the NCLB Act (Pub.
L. 107-110), enacted January 8, 2002, which incorporated major
educational reforms proposed by President George W. Bush in his No
Child Left Behind initiative and significant changes to Title I of the
ESEA, which is designed to help disadvantaged children meet high
academic standards.
In the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published in the
Federal Register (67 FR 50986) on August 6, 2002, the Secretary
proposed in Sec. 200.13
[[Page 13797]]
allowing the use of alternate achievement standards for students with
the most significant cognitive disabilities for the purpose of
determining the AYP of States, LEAs, and schools, provided that use at
the State and LEA levels did not exceed 0.5 percent of all students.
Numerous comments were received on this proposal. Many of them
reflected a misunderstanding on the part of commenters who thought that
the number of students with disabilities who could take an alternate
assessment was being limited. Instead, the NPRM proposed to allow the
use of alternate achievement standards to determine proficiency for a
limited group of students with disabilities, and the use of those
assessment results in the calculation of AYP. It did not propose
limiting the number or percentage of students taking an alternate
assessment but did propose limiting the percentage of students who take
an alternate assessment that is evaluated against alternate achievement
standards that may be included in the calculation of AYP.
Section 200.13 as adopted in the final regulations published in the
Federal Register (67 FR 71710) on December 2, 2002 did not allow any
use of alternate achievement standards for students with the most
significant cognitive disabilities for the purpose of determining the
AYP of States and LEAs. Based on the comments in response to the
earlier NPRM and departmental review, we are proposing to amend the
final regulations to provide for this use of alternate achievement
standards. We are seeking public comment in this NPRM regarding their
appropriate use in determining AYP for students with the most
significant cognitive disabilities.
Proposed Regulations
Section 200.1 State Responsibilities for Developing Challenging
Academic Standards
Statute: Under section 1111(b)(1) of Title I, each State must adopt
challenging academic content standards and student academic achievement
standards (formerly called ``student performance standards''). Each
State must have the same academic content standards for all schools and
all children in the State in mathematics, reading/language arts, and,
beginning in the 2005-2006 school year, science. In developing
challenging student academic achievement standards, aligned with the
State's content standards, States must describe at least three levels
of achievement: advanced, proficient, and basic.
Current Regulations: Section 200.1 describes the State's obligation
to develop challenging academic content and student academic
achievement standards in at least mathematics, reading/language arts,
and, beginning in 2005-2006, science that apply to all public schools
and public school students in the State. It requires that the State's
academic achievement standards be aligned with the State's academic
content standards and apply to every grade assessed.
Proposed Regulations: The proposed regulations would allow States
to use a documented and validated standards-setting process to define
academic achievement standards for students with the most significant
cognitive disabilities, as defined in proposed Sec. 200.1(d)(2), who
take an alternate assessment. These standards must be aligned with the
State's academic content standards and reflect professional judgment of
the highest learning standards possible for those students.
Reasons: In proposing these amendments to Sec. 200.1, we
acknowledge that, while all children can learn challenging content
standards, evaluating that learning by alternate achievement standards
is appropriate for some small, limited percentage of students whose
intellectual functioning and adaptive behavior are three or more
standard deviations below the mean.
Section 200.6 Inclusion of All Students
Statute: Section 1111(b)(1)(B) of the ESEA requires States to
provide all public schools and all public school students in the State
with the same challenging academic content standards and student
academic achievement standards. Section 1111(b)(3)(C) further
stipulates that a State's academic assessments must measure the
achievement of all children; be aligned with the State's challenging
academic content and academic achievement standards; and provide for
reasonable adaptations and accommodations for students with
disabilities, as defined under section 602(3) of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
Current Regulations: Current Sec. 200.6 clarifies that the State's
academic assessment system must include accommodations for students
with disabilities as defined under section 602(3) of the IDEA and for
students covered under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
(Section 504) to allow the State to measure the academic achievement of
these students relative to the State's academic content and achievement
standards for the grades in which they are enrolled. In addition, the
regulations require States to provide one or more alternate assessments
for students with disabilities, as defined under section 602(3) of the
IDEA, who cannot participate in all or part of the State assessment,
even with appropriate accommodations. These alternate assessments must
yield results for the grade in which the student is enrolled in at
least reading/language arts, mathematics, and, beginning in the 2007-
2008 school year, science.
Proposed Regulations: Section 200.6 would be amended to allow the
alternate assessments of students with the most significant cognitive
disabilities, as defined in proposed Sec. 200.1(d)(2), to measure the
achievement of those students against alternate academic achievement
standards defined by the State under Sec. 200.1(d)(1). Proposed Sec.
200.6 would also require States to establish guidelines to ensure that
alternate assessments measured against alternate achievement standards
are used only for students with the most significant cognitive
disabilities. States would also be required to report separately on the
percentage of students with disabilities taking alternate assessments
that are measured against alternate academic achievement standards and
the percentage of students with disabilities taking alternate
assessments that are measured against the regular achievement
standards.
Reasons: Proposed amendments to Sec. 200.6 acknowledge the
appropriateness of allowing the alternate assessments of a small
percentage of students--those with the most significant cognitive
disabilities--to be measured against alternate achievement standards
aligned with the State's academic content standards. (Alternate
assessment of other students with disabilities must be measured against
grade-level achievement standards.) Proper implementation of the
requirements that States establish guidelines and report on the
percentages of students with disabilities taking alternate assessments
that are measured against alternate academic achievement standards will
ensure that all students with disabilities are appropriately included
in State assessment systems. The proposed amendment does not limit the
number or percentage of students taking alternate assessments measured
against achievement standards as defined in Sec. 200.1(c), as
determined appropriate by their Individualized Education Program (IEP)
teams, but does limit the percentage of
[[Page 13798]]
those students with the most significant cognitive disabilities taking
an alternate assessment measured against alternate achievement
standards as defined in Sec. 200.1(d).
Section 200.13 Adequate Yearly Progress in General
Statute: Under section 1111(b)(2)(B), each State must define what
constitutes AYP of the State, and of all public elementary and
secondary schools and LEAs in the State, toward enabling all students
to meet the State's student academic achievement standards. This
definition must apply the same high standards of academic achievement
to all public elementary and secondary school students in the State, be
statistically valid and reliable, and measure progress based primarily
on the State's academic assessments.
To make AYP, a school must: meet or exceed the State's annual
measurable objectives with respect to all students and students in each
subgroup; test at least 95 percent of all students and of the students
in each subgroup enrolled in the school; and make progress on the other
academic indicators determined by the State.
Current Regulations: The current regulations governing AYP
implement the statutory provisions in section 1111 of the ESEA. They
require that each State demonstrate what constitutes AYP of the State
and of all public schools and LEAs in the State, in a manner that
applies the same high standards of achievement to all public school
students; is statistically valid and reliable; results in continuous
and substantial academic improvement for all students; measures the
progress of all public schools, LEAs and the State based primarily on
the State's academic assessment system; measures progress separately
for reading/language arts and for mathematics; is the same for all
public schools and LEAs in the State; and applies the same annual
measurable objectives for all students and for all identified subgroups
as defined in Sec. 200.13(b)(7)(ii).
Proposed Regulations: The proposed regulations specify the
acceptable use of alternate achievement standards identified in Sec.
200.1(d) for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities.
Specifically, proposed Sec. 200.13(c)(1) would permit States to use
those standards for students with the most significant cognitive
disabilities in calculating AYP for schools, provided that the
percentage of students with the most significant cognitive disabilities
at the LEA and State levels, separately, does not exceed 1.0 percent of
all students in the grades assessed. Nationally, 1.0 percent of
students in the grades assessed represents approximately nine percent
of students with disabilities, but the actual percent varies across
States. The 1.0 percent limitation applies only at the LEA and State
levels. Proposed Sec. 200.13(c)(2) allows States to request from the
Secretary--and LEAs to request from the State'an exception to the 1.0
percent limitation. This request for an exception by the State or LEA
must document that the incidence of students with the most significant
cognitive disabilities in the State or LEA exceeds that limit and that
circumstances exist that could explain the higher percentages such as a
school, community or health program that has drawn families of students
with the most significant cognitive disabilities into the area or a
very small overall population in which case a very few students with
the most significant cognitive disabilities could cause the State or
LEA to exceed the 1.0 percent limitation.
Students included under Sec. 200.13(c) who take an alternate
assessment that measures alternate achievement standards would be
counted as ``participating'' in the State's assessment system and thus
would be included in determining whether 95 percent of students with
disabilities enrolled in a school at the time of testing are, in fact,
assessed.
Reasons: Under the Title I accountability system, alternate
assessments based on alternate achievement standards are an appropriate
way to measure the progress of only that very limited portion of
students with the most significant cognitive disabilities. Moreover,
holding schools accountable for students with the most significant
cognitive disabilities achieving grade-level academic achievement
standards may subvert the intended benefits of NCLB for these students
and have undesired effects on the services they are provided.
Based on current prevalence rates of students with the most
significant cognitive disabilities, and allowing for reasonable local
variation in prevalence, proposed Sec. 200.13(c)(2) would set the
number of students with disabilities who may be included in
accountability measures using alternate achievement standards at not
more than 1.0 percent of all students assessed in a State or LEA. For
accountability purposes, the performance of all other students with
disabilities (including any other students with disabilities who take
an alternate assessment) must be assessed against the academic
achievement standards established under Sec. 200.1(c). This is not a
limit on the number or type of students with disabilities who can take
an alternate assessment.
Section 200.13 of the NPRM, published in the Federal Register (67
FR 50986) on August 6, 2002, proposed allowing the use of alternate
achievement standards for students with the most significant cognitive
disabilities for determining AYP of States and LEAs, provided that use
did not exceed 0.5 percent of all students. Many comments regarding
this proposal misinterpreted it to mean that the number of students
with disabilities who could take an alternate assessment was being
limited; rather, it proposed the flexibility of allowing the use of
alternate achievement standards to determine proficiency for
calculating AYP for a limited group of students with disabilities.
Numerous commenters expressed concern that the 0.5 percent limit on
assessments using alternate standards in the calculation of AYP ignored
the incidence rate of students with the most significant cognitive
disabilities, which they estimated at 2 to 5 percent. Recommended
alternatives included elimination of the limit, a phase-in of the 0.5
percent limit, higher limits, permitting States to set their own
limits, or using such limits for reporting purposes only and not in the
calculation of AYP.
Several commenters expressed the view that the 0.5 percent limit
was ``especially unreasonable'' for small rural districts, where a very
small number of students with the most significant cognitive
disabilities might cause the LEA to exceed the limit. Others wrote that
the provision would be unfair to districts with large populations of
students with disabilities and to schools with programs specifically
designed to serve students with disabilities. Many commenters perceived
the proposed limit to be in conflict with the requirement of the IDEA
that all students with disabilities must be offered an alternate
assessment when the regular assessment does not adequately measure
their achievement.
Finally, two commenters expressed support for the 0.5 percent limit
on assessments using alternate achievement standards in the calculation
of AYP, while one supported the Secretary's effort to establish a
realistic limit as an important step in preventing inappropriate use of
alternate assessments to ``hide'' low-performing students in general.
The 0.5 percent of total population figure was derived based on
converging scientific evidence from multiple
[[Page 13799]]
sources. The Metropolitan Atlanta Developmental Disabilities
Surveillance Program (MADDSP) sponsored by the Centers for Disease
Control (CDC) has assessed the prevalence of the moderate, severe and
profound groups of mental retardation in that community at a prevalence
rate of 2.9 per 1,000 for students 3 to 10 years of age, or about one-
third of those with mental retardation (Boyle C, Holmgreen N, Schednel
D. Prevalence of Selected Developmental Disabilities in Children 3-10
Years of Age: the Metropolitan Atlanta Developmental Disabilities
Surveillance Program, 1991, MMWR Surveillance Summaries, 1996). Thus,
the estimate of students is for those with an IQ of less than 50.
A later study by Roeleveld and colleagues provided a similar rate
of 3.8 per 1,000 (Roeleveld N, Zielhuis GA, Gabreels F. The prevalence
of mental retardation: a critical review of recent literature. Dev Med
Child Neurol. 1997;39:125-32.). Another study indicates that students
with severe to profound mental retardation are estimated at somewhat
less than 0.13 percent of the total population (Beirne-Smith M, Patton
J, Ittenbach R, Mental Retardation (6th Ed.) Upper Saddle River:
Prentice-Hall Career and Technology, 2001), while 0.22 percent of the
population is considered to have multiple disabilities (IDEA Annual
Report to Congress, 2001). The American Association on Mental
Retardation (AAMR) defines mental retardation as a disability
characterized by significant limitations both in intellectual
functioning and in adaptive behavior as expressed in conceptual,
social, and practical adaptive skills. (AAMR, Mental Retardation:
Definition, Classification, and Systems of Supports, 10th Edition,
2002).
In general, mild mental retardation, which we are excluding from
the definition of students with the most significant cognitive
disabilities, is considered to be two or more standard deviations below
the mean. Thus, for purposes of the Title I program, the term `students
with the most significant cognitive disabilities' is defined as
covering students with intellectual functioning and adaptive behavior
three or more standard deviations below the mean.
However, these numbers are generally seen as reflecting national
rates, and, as a number of commenters on the earlier NPRM pointed out,
may not account for more localized differences, caused by a number of
factors, in the prevalence of students with the most significant
cognitive disabilities. Several commenters indicated that in their
experience the prevalence of students with the most significant
cognitive disabilities exceeded the 0.5 percent proposal and suggested
that a limit of 1.0 percent would be more appropriate.
While not specifically comparable, because they include all
students with disabilities who participate in State assessment programs
through alternate assessments, and not just those students with the
most significant cognitive disabilities, State data reported to the
Department under the IDEA may be illustrative. Of the 38 States for
which sufficient data were provided to calculate a participation rate,
in 21 States 5 percent or less of students with disabilities who
participated in the State assessment program took an alternate
assessment. (Five percent of students with disabilities is roughly
equivalent to 0.5 percent of all students.) In 14 other States, between
5 and 10 percent of students with disabilities participated in State
assessment programs through an alternate assessment. (Analysis of 2000-
2001-Biennial Performance Reports, National Center for Educational
Outcomes) In these States, students with disabilities comprise
approximately 8 to 12 percent of the total student population. (IDEA
Annual Report to Congress, 2001).
In addition, national prevalence rates provide an average, but the
actual numbers in a jurisdiction may be higher or lower than that
average. Factors beyond the control of a school, school district, or
even a State may cause the number of students with the most significant
cognitive disabilities to exceed 0.5 percent of the total student
population at the grades assessed. For example, in small schools, a
single student may be more than that limit would allow. Moreover,
certain schools, districts, or States may have disproportionate numbers
of students with the most significant cognitive disabilities because of
proximity to special facilities or services.
In addition, imposing a limit on the number and type of students
with disabilities who can take an alternate assessment that is
evaluated based on alternate academic achievement standards does not
prohibit other students with disabilities from taking an alternate
assessment or an assessment with appropriate accommodations when deemed
necessary by the Individualized Education Program (IEP) team under the
IDEA. Decisions about how an individual student participates in a State
assessment remain the responsibility of the student's IEP team and must
be made on an individualized basis for each student. However, only the
alternate assessment of students with the most significant cognitive
disabilities may be evaluated against alternate academic achievement
standards.
In sum, even though the 0.5 percent figure was based on the best
available data, those data are limited. We are persuaded by the
comments of a number of stakeholders who said that 0.5 percent did not
reflect their experience; rather, a one percent limitation would allow
for normal State and LEA variations in the occurrence of students with
the most significant cognitive disabilities.
Executive Order 12866
1. Potential Costs and Benefits
Under Executive Order 12866, we have assessed the potential costs
and benefits of this regulatory action.
The potential costs associated with the proposed regulations are
those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have
determined to be necessary for administering this program effectively
and efficiently. Elsewhere in this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section we
identify and explain burdens specifically associated with information
collection requirements. See the heading Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995.
In assessing the potential costs and benefits--both quantitative
and qualitative--of this regulatory action, we have determined that the
benefits would justify the costs.
We have also determined that this regulatory action would not
unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the
exercise of the governmental functions.
Summary of Potential Costs and Benefits
These proposed regulations would not add significantly to the costs
of implementing the Title I programs authorized by the ESEA or alter
the benefits that the Secretary believes will be obtained through
successful implementation.
As noted elsewhere, the proposed regulations would clarify the
statute and facilitate a better understanding of its accountability
requirements regarding students with the most significant cognitive
disabilities. Both the statute and existing regulations require States
to develop assessment systems that include alternate assessments. These
proposed regulations clarify how alternate assessment results based on
alternate achievement standards for a small percentage of students are
to be included in the calculation of AYP within the State
accountability system.
[[Page 13800]]
States and LEAs will benefit by receiving more accurate achievement
information regarding students with the most significant cognitive
disabilities.
Most implementation costs and benefits will stem from the
underlying legislation. The Department believes that these activities
will be financed through the appropriations for Title I and other
Federal programs and that the responsibilities encompassed in the law
and regulations will not impose a financial burden that States and LEAs
will have to meet from non-Federal resources. For purposes of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, these regulations do not include
a Federal mandate that might result in increased expenditures by State,
local, and tribal governments, or increased expenditures by the private
sector of more that $100 million in any one year.
2. Clarity of the Regulations
Executive Order 12866 and the Presidential memorandum on ``Plain
Language in Government Writing'' require each agency to write
regulations that are easy to understand. The Secretary invites comments
on how to make these proposed regulations easier to understand,
including answers to questions such as the following:
[sbull] Are the requirements in the proposed regulations clearly
stated?
[sbull] Do the proposed regulations contain technical terms or
other wording that interferes with their clarity?
[sbull] Does the format of the proposed regulations (grouping and
order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce
their clarity?
[sbull] Would the proposed regulations be easier to understand if
we divided them into more (but shorter) sections? (A ``section'' is
preceded by the symbol ``Sec. '' and a numbered heading; for example,
Sec. 200.13 Adequate yearly progress in general.)
[sbull] Could the description of the proposed regulations in the
``Supplementary Information'' section of this preamble be more helpful
in making the proposed regulations easier to understand? If so, how?
[sbull] What else could we do to make the proposed regulations
easier to understand?
Send any comments that concern how the Department could make these
proposed regulations easier to understand to the person listed in the
ADDRESSES section of the preamble.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
The Secretary certifies that these proposed regulations would not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
These provisions require States and LEAs to take certain actions to
improve student academic achievement. The Department believes that
these activities will be financed through the appropriations for Title
I and other Federal programs and that the responsibilities encompassed
in the law and regulations will not impose a financial burden that
States and LEAs will have to meet from non-Federal resources.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
Section 200.6 contains an information collection requirement. Under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), the Department
of Education has submitted a copy of this section to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for its review as part of the paperwork
collection titled ``State educational agency, local educational agency,
and school data collection and reporting under ESEA, Title I, Part A''.
This provision of the Title I, part A regulations requires States
to establish guidelines to ensure that the alternate academic
achievement standards defined under Sec. 200.1(d) are used only for
students who have the most significant cognitive disabilities. In
addition, it requires schools and LEAs to annually report, separately,
the percentage of students with disabilities taking alternate
assessments measured against alternate achievement standards defined in
Sec. 200.1(d) and the percentage of students with disabilities taking
alternate assessments measured against the academic achievement
standards defined under Sec. 200.1(c).
The total estimated reporting and record keeping burden hours for
SEA activity covered by the paperwork requirement is 56,264 hours for
52 SEAs. The total estimated reporting and record keeping burden hours
for LEA activities covered by the paperwork requirement is 1,159,505
hours for 13,335 LEAs. The total estimated reporting and record keeping
burden hours for school-level activities is 1,506,222 hours.
The Office of Management and Budget is currently reviewing the
information collection pertaining to this regulation. We invite
comments on the information collection in this proposed regulation by
April 21, 2003. If you want to comment on the information collection
requirements, please send your comments to the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, room 10235, New Executive Office Building,
Washington, DC 20503; Attention: Desk Officer for U.S. Department of
Education. You may also send a copy of these comments to the Department
representative named in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.
We consider your comments on this proposed collection of
information in--
[sbull] Deciding whether the proposed collection is necessary for
the proper performance of our functions, including whether the
information will have practical use;
[sbull] Evaluating the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of
the proposed collection, including the validity of our methodology and
assumptions;
[sbull] Enhancing the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the
information we collect; and
[sbull] Minimizing the burden on those who must respond. This
includes exploring the use of appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms
of information technology; e.g., permitting electronic submission of
responses.
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of
information contained in these proposed regulations between 30 and 60
days after publication of this document in the Federal Register.
Therefore, to ensure that OMB gives your comments full consideration,
it is important that OMB receives the comments within 30 days of
publication. This does not affect the deadline for your comments to us
on the proposed regulations.
Electronic Access to This Document
You may view this document, as well as all other Department of
Education documents published in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe
Portable Document Format (PDF) on the Internet at the following site:
http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister.
To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available
free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S.
Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in
the Washington, DC, area at (202) 512-1530.
Note: The official version of this document is the document
published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the
official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal
Regulations is available on GPO Access at: http://
www.access.gpo.gov/nara/index.html
.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number: 84.010 Improving
Programs Operated by Local Educational Agencies)
List of Subjects in 34 CFR Part 200
Administrative practice and procedure, Adult education, Children,
Education of children with disabilities, Education of disadvantaged
children, Elementary and secondary education,
[[Page 13801]]
Eligibility, Family-centered education, Grant programs--education,
Indians education, Institutions of higher education, Local educational
agencies, Nonprofit private agencies, Private schools, Public agencies,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, State-administered programs,
State educational agencies.
Dated: March 14, 2003.
Rod Paige,
Secretary of Education.
The Secretary proposes to amend part 200 of title 34 of the Code of
Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 200--TITLE I--IMPROVING THE ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT OF THE
DISADVANTAGED
1. The authority citation for part 200 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6301 through 6578, unless otherwise noted.
2. In Sec. 200.1, redesignate paragraphs (d) and (e) as (e) and
(f), revise paragraph (a)(1), and add paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 200.1 State responsibilities for developing challenging academic
standards.
(a) * * *
(1) Be the same academic standards that the State applies to all
public schools and public school students in the State, including the
public schools and public school students served under subpart A of
this part, except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section;
* * * * *
(d) Alternate academic achievement standards. (1) For students with
the most significant cognitive disabilities who take an alternate
assessment, a State may, through a documented and validated standards-
setting process, define achievement standards that--
(i) Are aligned with the State's academic content standards; and
(ii) Reflect professional judgment of the highest learning
standards possible for those students.
(2) For purposes of subpart A of this part, the term ``students
with the most significant cognitive disabilities'' means students who
have been identified as students with disabilities under the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and whose intellectual
functioning and adaptive behavior are three or more standard deviations
below the mean.
* * * * *
3. In Sec. 200.6, revise paragraph (a)(2)(ii) and add paragraph
(a)(2)(iii) to read as follows:
Sec. 200.6 Inclusion of all students.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii)(A) Alternate assessments must yield results for the grade in
which the student is enrolled in at least reading/language arts,
mathematics, and, beginning in the 2007-2008 school year, science,
except as provided in paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(B) of this section.
(B) For students with the most significant cognitive disabilities,
alternate assessments may yield results that measure the achievement of
those students against the achievement standards the State has defined
under Sec. 200.1(d).
(iii) The State must--
(A) Establish guidelines to ensure that the alternate academic
achievement standards defined under Sec. 200.1(d) are used only for
students who have the most significant cognitive disabilities; and
(B) Require schools and LEAs to report separately the percentage of
students with disabilities taking alternate assessments measured
against--
(1) The alternate academic achievement standards defined under
Sec. 200.1(d); and
(2) The academic achievement standards defined under Sec.
200.1(c).
* * * * *
4. In Sec. 200.13, redesignate paragraph (c) as paragraph (d),
revise the introductory text of paragraph (b) and paragraph (b)(1), and
add paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 200.13 Adequate yearly progress in general.
* * * * *
(b) A State must define adequate yearly progress, in accordance
with Sec. Sec. 200.14 through 200.20, in a manner that--
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this paragraph, applies
the same high standards of academic achievement to all public school
students in the State;
* * * * *
(c)(1) In calculating adequate yearly progress for schools, a State
may use the alternate academic achievement standards in Sec. 200.1(d)
for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities provided
that the percentage of those students at the LEA and at the State
levels, separately, does not exceed 1.0 percent of all students in the
grades assessed.
(2) If an LEA or State can document that the incidence of students
with the most significant cognitive disabilities in the LEA or the
State exceeds the limitation in paragraph (c)(1) of this section, and
that circumstances exist that could explain the higher percentages such
as a school, community, or health program in the area that has drawn
families of students with the most significant cognitive disabilities,
or such a small overall student population that only a very few
students with the most significant cognitive disabilities exceed the
1.0 percent limitation, the LEA may request from the State, or the
State may request from the Secretary, respectively, an exception to
exceed the 1.0 percent limitation.
(3) In calculating adequate yearly progress for the State and each
LEA, the State must apply grade-level academic content and achievement
standards established under Sec. 200.1(b) and (c) to assessment
results of any students taking alternate assessments that exceed the
percentage limitations under paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 03-6653 Filed 3-19-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P