<DOC>
[108th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:92309.wais]
NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND: IMPROVING RESULTS FOR CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
AND THE WORKFORCE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
March 3, 2004
__________
Serial No. 108-45
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
92-309 WASHINGTON : 2004
_________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE
JOHN A. BOEHNER, Ohio, Chairman
Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin, Vice George Miller, California
Chairman Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
Cass Ballenger, North Carolina Major R. Owens, New York
Peter Hoekstra, Michigan Donald M. Payne, New Jersey
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey
California Lynn C. Woolsey, California
Michael N. Castle, Delaware Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
Sam Johnson, Texas Carolyn McCarthy, New York
James C. Greenwood, Pennsylvania John F. Tierney, Massachusetts
Charlie Norwood, Georgia Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Fred Upton, Michigan Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio
Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan David Wu, Oregon
Jim DeMint, South Carolina Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Johnny Isakson, Georgia Susan A. Davis, California
Judy Biggert, Illinois Betty McCollum, Minnesota
Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania Danny K. Davis, Illinois
Patrick J. Tiberi, Ohio Ed Case, Hawaii
Ric Keller, Florida Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Tom Osborne, Nebraska Denise L. Majette, Georgia
Joe Wilson, South Carolina Chris Van Hollen, Maryland
Tom Cole, Oklahoma Tim Ryan, Ohio
Jon C. Porter, Nevada Timothy H. Bishop, New York
John Kline, Minnesota
John R. Carter, Texas
Marilyn N. Musgrave, Colorado
Marsha Blackburn, Tennessee
Phil Gingrey, Georgia
Max Burns, Georgia
Paula Nowakowski, Staff Director
John Lawrence, Minority Staff Director
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on March 3, 2004.................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Boehner, Hon. John A., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Ohio.............................................. 2
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Miller, Hon. George, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 4
Norwood, Hon. Charlie, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Georgia........................................... 47
Porter, Hon. Jon C., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Nevada............................................ 48
Statement of Witnesses:
Durkin, Dr. Pia, Superintendent of Schools, Narragansett
School System, Narragansett, Rhode Island.................. 14
Prepared statement of.................................... 16
Rhyne, Dr. Jane, Assistant Superintendent for Exceptional
Children, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, Charlotte, North
Carolina................................................... 11
Prepared statement of.................................... 13
Sabia, Ricki, Parent and Associate Director of Public Policy,
National Down Syndrome Society............................. 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 8
Thurlow, Dr. Martha, Director, National Center on Education
Outcomes, University of Minnesota.......................... 17
Prepared statement of.................................... 19
Additional materials supplied:
American Federation of Teachers, Statement submitted for the
record..................................................... 41
American Occupational Therapy Association, Statement
submitted for the record................................... 49
Johnston, Rosemary King, Member, National Education
Association, Statement submitted for the record............ 54
National Center for Learning Disabilities, Statement
submitted for the record................................... 51
NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND: IMPROVING RESULTS FOR CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES
----------
Wednesday, March 3, 2004
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Education and the Workforce
Washington, DC
----------
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:20 a.m., in
room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Boehner
(Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Boehner, McKeon, Johnson, Norwood,
Ehlers, Biggert, Platts, Tiberi, Osborne, Kline, Carter,
Blackburn, Gingrey, Burns, Miller, Kildee, Payne, Andrews,
Tierney, Kind, Wu, Holt, McCollum, Grijalva, Majette, Van
Hollen, and Bishop.
Staff present: David Cleary, Professional Staff Member;
Amanda Farris, Professional Staff Member; Kevin Frank,
Professional Staff Member; Melanie Looney, Professional Staff
Member; Sally Lovejoy, Director of Education and Human
Resources Policy; Krisann Pearce, Deputy Director of Education
and Human Resources Policy; Deborah L. Samantar, Committee
Clerk/Intern Coordinator; Jo-Marie St. Martin, General Counsel;
Liz Wheel, Legislative Assistant; Alice Cain, Minority
Legislative Associate/Education; Tom Kiley, Minority Press
Secretary; John Lawrence, Minority Staff Director; Alex Nock,
Minority Legislative Associate/Education; and Joe Novotny,
Minority Legislative Staff/Education.
Chairman Boehner. A quorum being present, the Committee on
Education and the Workforce will come to order. We're having
problems with our chairs. We got new chairs over the break, and
we're still trying to figure out how to adjust them. So if you
see us disappear, it's by accident.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Boehner. We're holding this hearing today to hear
testimony on ``No Child Left Behind: Improving Results for
Children with Disabilities.'' Under Committee Rule 12(b),
opening statements are limited to the Chairman and Ranking
Member. If other Members have written statements, they may be
included in the hearing record. And with that, I ask unanimous
consent for the hearing record to remain open for 14 days to
allow Member statements and other extraneous material referred
to today during this hearing to be submitted in the official
record.
Without objection, so ordered.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN A. BOEHNER, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON
EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE
Chairman Boehner. Good morning, everyone. I'm pleased to
welcome our guests, witnesses, and Members to this morning's
hearing. We're looking forward to the comments from our
witnesses and the insight that you'll provide on the importance
of including students with disabilities in state accountability
systems under No Child Left Behind legislation.
I'm also pleased to announce that this morning's full
Committee hearing is another in the continuing series we are
holding to examine state and local progress in implementing No
Child Left Behind.
I want to thank Mr. Miller and his staff for agreeing to
work in a bipartisan manner on this hearing. I'm certain that
if we continue to work together, we can ensure improved
educational opportunities for all of our nation's students.
As many of you know, No Child Left Behind plays a vital
role in ensuring that children with special needs receive the
high quality education that they deserve, while providing
states and local school districts significant flexibility to
achieve this goal. Working in conjunction with IDEA, NCLB
represents a truly monumental shift in the way we perceive
students with disabilities and how they fit into state
accountability and assessment systems to ensure that all
students are learning.
The question of whether to include students with
disabilities in state-developed accountability systems received
significant attention during the congressional consideration of
NCLB. After a great deal of discussion, we reached a bipartisan
consensus that NCLB should ensure that all students can learn
and schools should be held accountable for the academic
progress of all children. A student with disabilities should
not be discounted simply because he or she does not learn at
the same rate or in the same manner as other students.
Among the greatest benefits of NCLB are increased
expectations. For the first time in history, we are holding
school districts accountable for the annual progress of all of
their students, including students with disabilities.
Disability does not mean inability, and through NCLB we are
confronting the misconception that students with disabilities
cannot learn.
While this is truly a victory for students with
disabilities, it is also a challenge for states and schools.
And we recognize there are significant pressures surrounding
the inclusion of students with disabilities in state
accountability systems. To rise to meet this challenge, we must
ensure states, districts, schools and the Federal Government
are working together to provide students with disabilities
increased opportunities for academic achievement.
And I'm pleased by the efforts of the Department of
Education and what they have done in the past months to provide
states and school districts with needed flexibility to
appropriately include all students with disabilities in state
accountability systems. The new regulation allows 1 percent of
all students--roughly 10 percent of students nationwide in
special ed--to take an alternative assessment aligned to
alternate standards. This is an important step in ensuring that
states and local districts have the necessary flexibility to
respond to a child's individualized education program while
still meeting the requirements of No Child Left Behind.
In addition, I'm also encouraged by Secretary Paige's
recent letter to state officials outlining the procedure for
states and local districts to apply for additional flexibility
under the regulation. And I'm optimistic that the department's
efforts will ensure that students with disabilities are
appropriately included in state-developed assessment systems.
Finally, I think it's important to point out that a child's
individualized education program dictates how a child is
assessed, and not whether a child is assessed. Since 1997, IDEA
has required that students with disabilities be included in
general education system and the assessment system as
appropriate for the individual child. NCLB works in unison with
the requirements of IDEA by ensuring students with disabilities
are included in these assessment systems.
We remain committed to the importance of including students
with disabilities in the accountability and assessment systems
of No Child Left Behind, while continuing to ensure that the
system works fairly for all involved. And the testimony we
expect today is vital to that task, and we look forward to
hearing from each of our witnesses today.
Let me yield to my friend and colleague and partner in this
effort, George Miller.
[The statement of Chairman Boehner follows:]
Statement of Hon. John A. Boehner, Chairman, Committee on Education and
the Workforce
Good morning. I'm pleased to welcome our guests, witnesses, and
members to this morning's hearing. We are looking forward to your
comments, and the insight you will provide on the importance of
including students with disabilities in state accountability systems
under the historic No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation.
I'm also pleased to announce that this morning's full committee
hearing is another in the continuing series we are holding to examine
state and local progress in implementing NCLB. I would like to thank
Mr. Miller and his staff for agreeing to work in a bipartisan manner on
this hearing. I'm certain that if we continue to work together we can
ensure improved educational opportunities for all of our nation's
students.
As many of you know, NCLB plays a vital role in ensuring children
with special needs receive the high-quality education they deserve,
while providing states and local school districts significant
flexibility to achieve this goal. Working in conjunction with the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), NCLB represents a
truly monumental shift in the way we perceive students with
disabilities and how they fit into state accountability and assessment
systems to ensure all students are learning.
The question of whether to include students with disabilities in
state-developed accountability systems received significant attention
during congressional consideration of NCLB. After a great deal of
discussion, we reached a bipartisan consensus that NCLB should ensure
that all students can learn, and schools should be held accountable for
the academic progress of all children. A student with disabilities
should not be discounted simply because he or she does not learn at the
same rate or in the same manner as other students.
Among the greatest benefits of NCLB are increased expectations--for
the first time in history, we are now holding school districts
accountable for the annual progress of all their students, including
students with disabilities. Disability does not mean inability. Through
NCLB, we are confronting the misperception that students with
disabilities can not learn.
While this is truly a victory for students with disabilities, it is
also a challenge for states and schools. We recognize there are
significant pressures surrounding the inclusion of students with
disabilities in state accountability systems. To rise to meet this
challenge, we must ensure states, districts, schools, and the federal
government are working together to provide students with disabilities
increased opportunities for academic achievement.
I'm pleased by the efforts the U.S. Department of Education has
taken in past months to provide states and school districts with needed
flexibility to appropriately include all students with disabilities in
state accountability systems. The new regulation allows one percent of
all students--roughly ten percent of students nationwide in special
education--to take an alternate assessment aligned to alternate
standards. This is an important step in ensuring states and local
districts have the necessary flexibility to respond to a child's
individualized education program (IEP) while still meeting the
requirements of NCLB.
In addition, I'm also encouraged by Secretary Paige's recent letter
to state officials outlining the procedure for states and local school
to apply for additional flexibility under this regulation. I'm
optimistic that the Department's efforts will ensure students with
disabilities are appropriately included in state-developed assessment
systems.
Finally, I think it is important to point out that a child's
individualized education program dictates how a child is assessed--not
whether a child is assessed. Since 1997, IDEA has required that
students with disabilities be included in the general education system
and the assessment system, as appropriate for the individual child.
NCLB works in unison with the requirements of IDEA, by ensuring
students with disabilities are included in state accountability
systems.
We remain committed to the importance of including students with
disabilities in the accountability and assessment systems of NCLB,
while continuing to ensure that the system works fairly for all
involved. Your testimony is vital to that task, and we look forward to
hearing from each of you today.
With that, I yield to my colleague from California, Mr. Miller.
______
STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE MILLER, RANKING MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON
EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm looking forward to
today's hearing because it gets at the heart of what No Child
Left Behind is about--making sure that children have a real
opportunity to succeed to their full potential. Our witnesses
have great expertise in working with children with
disabilities, and I'm eager to hear from them about how the law
is working for these children so far.
No Child Left Behind tried to address a number of problems
that plague children with disabilities over the years, problems
like dropout rate that was twice that for children without
disabilities, a low enrollment rate of students with
disabilities in higher education, and the poor reading levels
of children with disabilities.
I have two basic questions about the impact of No Child
Left Behind for our witnesses today. What is the impact of high
expectations for students with disabilities on these students
so far? And how are schools and teachers changing how they
identify and teach children with disabilities? I'm particularly
interested in how No Child Left Behind is affecting the
longstanding problem of misidentification of children for
special education.
It is of great concern that children who may have different
learning styles or simply need additional attention are
labeled, or mislabeled, and may spend many years or even their
whole lives achieving below their full potential. This problem
is particularly severe for students of color who all too often
are inappropriately identified as special education and placed
in segregated settings rather than mainstream. The Harvard
Civil Rights Project found that black students are more than
twice as likely as white students to be labeled with an
emotional or behavioral disorder in 29 states and twice as
likely to be labeled mentally retarded in 39 states. This is
not a problem of our children; it's a problem for our system.
I am also interested in your feedback on the regulations
that the Department of Education issued last December. What is
the impact of the regulations that allow school districts to
count alternative assessment scores of 1 percent of the
students with the most severe cognitive disabilities toward
AYP?
Experts have pushed us for years on the importance of
setting high expectations for children with disabilities, and
that is exactly what No Child Left Behind did. It sent a
message to our nation that every child counts. As the New York
Times editorial reiterated the importance of this yesterday,
stating that although the program needs more funds and better
administration, No Child Left Behind is tackling one of the
nation's most critical problems--the substandard educational
opportunities offered to poor and minority children, and I
would add in many instances to disabled children. But the Times
also mentioned that some in Congress are eager to jump ship on
No Child Left Behind. I believe that that would be a huge
mistake for poor and minority children, and I think it would be
a huge mistake for the best interests of the disabled
community.
Now is not the time to turn our backs on children with
disabilities. No Child Left Behind makes the achievement of
these children an essential component of the success of our
schools. We can and we must do everything we can to ensure that
no child with disabilities is ever again left behind.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Boehner. Thank you, Mr. Miller. Let me introduce
our witnesses. Our first witness today will be Ms. Ricki Sabia.
Ms. Sabia is the mother of David and Stephen Sabia and knows
firsthand the issues involved with raising a child with a
disability. Additionally, she is the Associate Director of
Public Policy for the National Down Syndrome Society, and prior
to her current position, she served as the intake coordinator
for the Maryland Coalition for Inclusive Education.
Ms. Sabia is also the co-chair for the Montgomery County
Public Schools Continuous Improvement Team, whose mission is to
assist in improving the quality of instruction in education of
students with disabilities.
Welcome.
The next witness will be Dr. Jane Rhyne. And Dr. Rhyne
serves as the Assistant Superintendent for Programs for
Exceptional Children for the Charlotte-Mecklenburg School
system. And prior to her current position, she served in this
district in various capacities as assistant principal,
principal, and the Coordinating Director for Programs for
Exceptional Children.
Dr. Rhyne has also been an adjunct professor at Queens
College and Appalachian State University.
She will be followed by Dr. Pia Durkin. Dr. Durkin is
currently the superintendent of the Narragansett School System.
Previously she served as the Assistant Superintendent for
Unified Student Services at Boston Public Schools.
Additionally, Dr. Durkin has worked as a special ed director at
Boston Public Schools and Providence Public Schools. She is a
member of various organizations, including the American
Association of School Administrators and Urban Special
Education Collaborative.
And our last witness will be Ms. Martha Thurlow. Dr.
Thurlow is the Director of the National Center on Educational
Outcomes at the University of Minnesota, where she evaluates
and addresses the implications of U.S. policy for students with
disabilities.
For the past 25 years, she has conducted research on
special ed on a variety of topics, including assessment and
decisionmaking, learning disabilities and early childhood
education.
Dr. Thurlow is the author of numerous articles, book
chapters, and books, and is the co-editor of Exceptional
Children, a research journal by the Council for Exceptional
Children.
We're going to hear from all four of our witnesses, and
Members will then ask questions. And with that, Ms. Sabia, you
may begin.
STATEMENT OF RICKI SABIA, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC POLICY,
NATIONAL DOWN SYNDROME SOCIETY AND CO-CHAIR, SPECIAL EDUCATION
CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT TEAM, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND
Ms. Sabia. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Boehner,
Congressman Miller, and Members of the Committee. As you said,
I am here wearing three hats, first and foremost as the mother
of David and Stephen Sabia. I am also here as Associate
Director of Public Policy for the National Down Syndrome
Society, and as the Co-Chair of the Special Education
Continuous Improvement Team in Montgomery County.
My son, Stephen, the handsome young man sitting behind us
over there with my husband, is a fifth grade student at
Cloverly Elementary School in Silver Spring, Maryland. He also
happens to have Down Syndrome. After some initial battles and
with persistent advocacy, we have been able to keep Stephen
fully included in the regular education classes since
kindergarten. He has always taken the regular assessments with
accommodations and has surprised everyone by doing quite well.
The gift that NCLB has given students with disabilities is
the expectation that they can all learn and achieve. IDEA is
also very important because it gives individual parents the
right to advocate on behalf of their child through the IEP and
due process provisions.
Fortunately, my husband and I were in the position to
successfully advocate for access to the general education
curriculum, highly qualified teachers and high expectations
prior to NCLB. But what about the children whose parents
weren't in a similar position? Now NCLB mandates all these
things for every child. Students with disabilities will finally
be able to live up to their full potential when IDEA and the
accountability provisions of NCLB are fully implemented and
working in concert.
This is what we all want for our children: The tools to
maximize their potential and the opportunities that come with
that achievement.
Next year Stephen transitions to middle school. Based on
the past experiences of others, we expected to have resistance
to keeping him fully included in regular classes. Much to our
surprise, attitudes really had changed considerably since NCLB.
In my job as Associate Director of Public Policy for the
National Down Syndrome Society, I have been helping parents and
others to distinguish between the myths and facts related to
NCLB. The two most prevalent myths are that NCLB requires a
one-size-fits-all assessment and that students with
disabilities cannot be expected to demonstrate proficiency on
the assessment.
In response to the ``one-size-fits-all'' myth, I want to
point out that there are many different assessment options
available under NCLB. There are the regular grade level
assessments taken with or without a variety of accommodations.
There are assessments on grade level content that can be
delivered in many formats. In addition, increased flexibility
has been provided by the regulations for students with the most
significant cognitive disabilities which permit alternate
assessments on one or more alternate achievement standards.
The development of universally designed assessments will
further expand the range of students whose achievements can be
accurately measured on any given assessment.
A big obstacle in the implementation of NCLB is that many
states and districts are focusing more resources on their
efforts to weaken the accountability in NCLB than they are on
promoting the development of a range of appropriate assessments
that are allowed under NCLB. If the law seems one-size-fits-
all, it's not a problem with NCLB; it's the failure to design
and develop appropriate assessments. The variety of possible
assessments is the reason why it is also a myth to say that
students with disabilities cannot be expected to demonstrate
proficiency under NCLB. Many students with disabilities are on
a diploma track and should be expected to be proficient at
grade level. This is true for students without cognitive
disabilities, but it is also true for students with mild
cognitive disabilities. As we said already, the students with
more significant cognitive disabilities can demonstrate
proficiency on alternate standards.
When I became co-chair of the Special Ed Continuous
Improvement Team in Montgomery County in 1999, we found that
most of the data was not disaggreated for students with
disabilities. It was a struggle to collect any data at all on
some of our quality indicators. Since NCLB and its mandate for
data disaggregation, the work of our Committee has been greatly
facilitated.
Clearly, there will be many struggles as school systems
grapple with the requirements of NCLB, and it is important that
we ensure adequate funding. Curriculum, instructional materials
and assessments will need to be universally designed for use by
the broadest range of students. Access to the general ed
curriculum will need to be improved. Data systems will need
redesigning, and to allow for disaggregation as well as
additional data collection for example on post-secondary
outcomes. As a result of struggling with these growing pains,
we will have a more effective, efficient and equitable
educational system. I think it's worth the struggle.
In closing, I urge you to preserve the accountability for
students with disabilities in NCLB and to focus your efforts on
the issues related to improved implementation.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak here today.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Sabia follows:]
Statement of Ricki Sabia, Parent and Associate Director of Public
Policy, National Down Syndrome Society
My name is Ricki Sabia and I am wearing three hats today. First and
foremost I am here as the mother of David and Stephen Sabia. I am also
here as the Associate Director of Public Policy for the National Down
Syndrome Society (NDSS) and as the co-chair of the Special Education
Continuous Improvement Team in Montgomery County, Maryland.
My son Stephen Sabia is a fifth grade student at Cloverly ES in
Silver Spring Maryland. He also has Down syndrome. After some initial
battles and with persistent advocacy, we have been able to keep Stephen
fully included in his neighborhood school since kindergarten. He has
always taken the regular assessments with accommodations and has
surprised everyone by doing quite well.
The gift that NCLB has given students with disabilities is the
expectation that they can all learn and achieve. IDEA is also very
important because it gives individual parents the right to advocate on
behalf of their child through the IEP and due process provisions.
Fortunately, we were in the position to successfully advocate for
access to the general education curriculum, highly qualified teachers
and high expectations before NCLB, but what about the children whose
parents were not in a similar position.
Now, NCLB mandates all these things for every child. Students with
disabilities will finally be able to live up to their potential when
IDEA and the accountability provisions of NCLB are fully implemented
and working in concert. This is what we all want for our children, the
tools to maximize their potential and the opportunities that come with
that achievement.
Next year Stephen transitions to middle school. Based on the past
experiences of others, we expected to face resistance to keeping him
fully included in regular education classes. Much to our surprise,
attitudes really had changed considerably since NCLB.
In my job as Associate Director of Public Policy for the National
Down Syndrome Society, I have been helping parents, and others, to
distinguish between the myths and facts related to NCLB. I have
attached a copy of the NDSS press release and the Myths and Facts
document to this testimony. The two most prevalent myths are that NCLB
requires a ``one size fits all assessment'' and that students with
disabilities can not be expected to demonstrate proficiency on the
assessments.
In response to the ``one size fits all'' myth, I want to point out
that there are many different assessment options available under NCLB.
There are the regular grade level assessments taken with or without a
variety of accommodations, there are assessments on grade level content
that can be given in alternate formats. In addition, increased
flexibility has been provided by the regulations for students with the
most significant cognitive disabilities, which permit alternate
assessments on one or more alternate achievement standards. The
development of universally designed assessments will further expand the
range of students whose achievement can be accurately measured on any
given assessment.
A big obstacle right now in the implementation of NCLB, is that
many states and districts are focusing more resources on efforts to
weaken the accountability in NCLB than they are on promoting the
development of a range of appropriate assessment options. If NCLB seems
``one size fits all'' it is not a problem with the law, it is a failure
to design and develop appropriate assessments.
The variety of possible assessments is the reason why it is also a
myth to say that students with disabilities can not be expected to
demonstrate proficiency under NCLB. The fact that a child has a
disability does not mean that he or she can not demonstrate grade level
proficiency with the appropriate accommodations or with an alternate
means of administering the assessment. Many students with disabilities
are on a diploma track and should be expected to be proficient at grade
level. This is true for students without cognitive disabilities, as
well as for students with mild cognitive disabilities. Students with
significant cognitive disabilities are permitted to demonstrate
proficiency using an alternate achievement standard. Without high
expectations we condemn these students to the self-fulfilling prophecy
of low achievement.
When I became co-chair of the Continuous Improvement Team in 1999,
we found that most of the data was not disaggregated for students with
disabilities. It was a struggle to collect any data at all on some of
our quality indicators. Since NCLB and its mandate for data
disaggregation, the work of our committee has been greatly facilitated.
Now we can acquire the data we need to monitor for continuous
improvement.
Clearly there will be many struggles as school systems grapple with
the requirements of NCLB and it will be important to ensure that there
is adequate funding. Curriculum, instructional materials and
assessments will have to be universally designed for use by the
broadest possible range of students. Access to the general education
curriculum will need to be improved. Data systems will have to be
redesigned for disaggregation of data and for the collection of
additional data like post-secondary outcomes. As a result of struggling
with these growing pains, we will have a more effective, efficient and
equitable education system. I think it is worth the struggle.
In closing, I urge you to preserve the accountability for students
with disabilities in NCLB and to focus your efforts on the issues
related to improved implementation.
PARENTS URGE CONGRESS NOT TO LEAVE BEHIND STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES
ACCOUNTABILITY WILL IMPROVE EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES FOR THESE STUDENTS
February 25, 2004
New York, NY--The National Down Syndrome Society (NDSS) continues
to support accountability for students with disabilities under NCLB. It
is critical that the accountability in both NCLB and the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) be preserved in order to improve
educational outcomes for students with disabilities.
Students with disabilities have a right to the ``systemic''
accountability required by NCLB. IDEA focuses on the individual and
NCLB focuses on group accountability. Together these laws provide the
full range of accountability that students with disabilities need.
Families can use the Individualized Education Program (IEP) to improve
their child's education. This is why NDSS has expressed significant
concern about provisions we believe would weaken the IEP, due process
and discipline provisions in the IDEA reauthorization bills. However
IDEA does not provide a mechanism for accountability at the state,
district and school level for students with disabilities as a subgroup.
NCLB requires this ``systemic'' accountability. It is important to make
changes child by child through the IEP process. However, there are many
reforms that need to happen for all students with disabilities and this
can be achieved more efficiently through the systemic accountability in
NCLB.
NCLB is not ``one size fits all.'' Opponents of NCLB suggest that
it requires proficiency on a ``one size fits all'' assessment. ``To the
contrary, there are many different assessment options available under
NCLB,'' responds Ricki Sabia, Associate Director of Public Policy NDSS.
``In fact, additional flexibility has been provided by the regulations
for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities, which
were released on December 9, 2003.'' The development of universally
designed assessments is critical.
Students with disabilities can demonstrate proficiency under NCLB.
The fact that a child has a disability does not mean that he or she can
not demonstrate grade level proficiency with the appropriate
accommodations or with an alternate means of administering the
assessment. Many students with disabilities are on a diploma track and
should be expected to be proficient at grade level. This is true for
students without cognitive disabilities and for students whose
cognitive disabilities are mild. Students with significant cognitive
disabilities are permitted to demonstrate proficiency on assessments
based on an alternate achievement standard.
Both NCLB and IDEA must remain strong. NDSS asserts that the best
way to improve Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for students with
disabilities is to fully implement IDEA. In addition, the ``best
practices'' identified b y NCLB's assessments will improve the quality
of the services delivered through the IEP. NDSS urges Congress to
preserve accountability in both NCLB and IDEA. Children with
disabilities and their families are counting on you.
NCLB - MYTHS AND FACTS
<bullet> Myth: NCLB punishes ``failing schools.''
Facts: Schools that do not make AYP for two consecutive years
are identified as ``needing improvement'' and are given help, not
punishment. NCLB never labels schools as ``failing.'' A school may have
a great reputation because most of its students are achieving at a high
level. However, if one subgroup at the school does not make AYP it is
fair to say that even a great school ``needs improvement.'' These
schools do not lose federal funding; in fact they are eligible for
additional support. If a school continuously does not meet AYP there
eventually is a possibility that the state will take over the operation
of the school, but that is only one of a number of possible
alternatives.
<bullet> Myth: Students with disabilities can't be expected to
attain proficiency.
Facts: This myth represents the low expectations that NCLB is
trying to extinguish. Most students with disabilities are on a diploma
track and with appropriate accommodations and instruction should be
able to attain proficiency on grade level assessments. In addition,
students with the most significant cognitive disabilities can take
alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards and
should be able to attain proficiency as measured in this manner. In
order to help more students reach proficiency there will need to be
greater access to the general education curriculum in the least
restrictive environment. The teachers must be qualified in the subject
areas they are expected to teach. It will also be important to develop
universally designed assessments that are not invalidated by
accommodations and are appropriate for widest possible range of
students.I21
<bullet> Myth: NCLB requires proficiency on a ``one size fits all
assessment.''
Facts: Under NCLB, students with disabilities can take the
regular assessments, with or without accommodations, or they can take
an alternate assessment based on grade level achievement standards or
alternate achievement standards. States have the flexibility to have a
number of different alternate assessments and a number of different
alternate achievement standards. This is not a ``one size fits all''
situation.
<bullet> Myth: High performing schools are not making AYP because
of the scores of a few students with disabilities.
Facts: It takes more than the scores of a few students with
disabilities to cause a school not to make AYP. In fact, the
accommodations on the grade-level assessments and the availability of
for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities level the
playing field so many of these students receive proficient scores. Even
if students with disabilities are doing poorly the ``n'' factor'' and
the safe rule will often prevent these scores from affecting AYP, at
least at the school level. If a large subgroup of students with
disabilities does not meet AYP it may mean the school will be
identified as needing improvement, even if all the other students are
proficient. That is the point of NO Child Left Behind; a school has to
help all its students get an education.
<bullet> Myth: All students with cognitive disabilities should
take an alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards.
Facts: The regulation permitting proficient and advanced scores
from these alternate assessments to be used to calculate AYP refers to
students with the most significant cognitive disabilities. This clearly
doesn't mean all students with cognitive disabilities. With the
appropriate accommodations, many students with cognitive disabilities
should be able to take a universally designed grade-level assessment or
a grade-level alternate assessment. Since the 1% rule is generous
enough to allow most states to place all students with cognitive
disabilities in an assessment based on an alternate standard, it is
left up to parents to ensure that the IEP team places their child in
the appropriate assessment.
<bullet> Myth: NCLB causes excessive federal intrusion into state
education policy.
Facts: There is a tremendous amount of state flexibility built
into NCLB. Except for the general requirement of a state accountability
plan that measures AYP and the requirement for highly qualified
teachers, most of NCLB applies only to schools receiving Title I funds.
Otherwise, the provisions in state plans define accountability
requirements. The diversity among the approved state plans is evidence
of state flexibility.
At http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2004/01/01142004.html
there is a ten page document discussing the many options each state can
choose under NCLB.
______
Chairman Boehner. I'm sure someone explained all the lights
to you, but that's just a general guide. We're pretty nice
here, so.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Boehner. As long as you don't get too carried
away. If you do, I'll let you know.
Dr. Rhyne?
STATEMENT OF JANE RHYNE, ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT, PROGRAMS FOR
EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN, CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG PUBLIC SCHOOLS,
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
Dr. Rhyne. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Miller,
and Members of the Committee. I am Jane Rhyne, Assistant
Superintendent for Exceptional Children in the Charlotte-
Mecklenburg Schools.
I am pleased to testify today on the inclusion of children
with disabilities in the NCLB assessment and accountability
system on behalf of our Superintendent Pughsley and the
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education and the Council of
Great City Schools.
In our school district, I am responsible for over 13,000
students with disabilities, and I provide leadership for them
in program planning and implementation, curriculum and
instruction, professional development for staff, and compliance
with IDEA.
It seemed almost natural for the Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Schools to be a supporter of No Child Left Behind. From top to
bottom, our school district prides itself on delivering a
quality education for all of our students and measuring our
achievement results.
Our district enrolls 114,000 students grades K through 12.
Forty-one percent of them are low income; 43 percent African
American; 9 percent Hispanic; 4 percent Asian; 41 percent
Caucasian; 8 percent limited English proficient; and 12 percent
children with disabilities.
Over the last decade, Charlotte-Mecklenburg, in
collaboration with the state of North Carolina, implemented
many of the cornerstone concepts embodied in NCLB, including
disaggregated performance data, data-based decisionmaking,
quality professional development and support, interventions in
low performing schools, and accountability for subgroup as well
as overall achievement. We were providing research-based
instruction before the term was defined in Federal legislation.
To validate and cross-check our state-tested academic
progress, Charlotte-Mecklenburg volunteered, along with eight
other urban school districts, to participate in the NAEP Trial
Urban District Assessment, providing school district level NAEP
results using a representative sample of students from each
volunteering district. The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools
students outperformed every other urban counterpart and also
outperformed the national NAEP average in reading and math at
the fourth and eighth grade levels.
Though we had an early start on NCLB-type approaches, the
Act provided us with a new set of challenges and truly, truly
helped us refine and deepen our academic focus for all of our
students. For students with disabilities, Charlotte-Mecklenburg
has a multiyear strategic plan for implementing inclusive
practices. I have seen firsthand in Charlotte-Mecklenburg and
on technical assistance and site visits to other school
districts that instructional attention to students with
disabilities has been clearly heightened. Standards-based
curriculum is being provided more often to a broader range of
special education students. Teachers and principals are finding
that many, many more children than they may have anticipated
can make significant progress in the general curriculum when
given the chance and provided with solid instructional
approaches.
As a result of NCLB, expectations have increased, and
services are planned and delivered with greater care and
inclusiveness, even in a progressive system like Charlotte-
Mecklenburg. Principals and teachers are far more focused on
the academic progress of their exceptional students and the
gains needed to make or maintain adequate yearly progress.
Charlotte-Mecklenburg's data system supports our principals
and teachers with up-to-date information and quarterly
assessment of academic progress. Diagnostic information for
each individual student helps the teacher select appropriate
structured interventions based on identified student needs.
This type of systematic attention to disadvantaged and
disabled students is precisely what No Child Left Behind is
helping to articulate. Special educators and parents welcome
this instructional attention to students with disabilities. And
I have seen the same reaction among teachers of English
language learners and other disadvantaged children.
One of the most recent revisions in our local
accountability program has been to refine our bonus pay system
for principals and all building staff to include not only
academic performance of all children, but also NCLB Adequate
Yearly Progress. With data provided to them, principals can
gauge the progress of their schools, subgroups, classrooms and
individual students to ensure focus on the achievement of all
of the subgroups of students.
Operationally, the recent Department of Education
regulation on assessment of significantly cognitively disabled
children will be helpful. However, the state of alternate
assessment, including off-level assessment, continues to
evolve. Because of the focused attention on students with
disabilities resulting from NCLB, our schools, with district
staff support, have reviewed assessments of all of our
exceptional ed students. The result through IEP teams has been
to appropriately reassign many students to their inclusion in
on-grade level state-required assessments. Yet approximately
1.5 percent of our special ed students have disabilities that
prevent them from doing the same level of academic work as
their age mates. These students should be assessed with some
form of alternate academic assessment aligned with the North
Carolina academic standards. As the district, state and nation
continue to work through the challenges of NCLB, we are
confident that the special needs of these students will also be
met.
Inclusion in accountability systems, however, is undermined
in states proposing and being approved for minimum subgroup
sizes for students with disabilities that are substantially
larger than for low-income students, African-American students
and others. It invites the manipulation of the NCLB
accountability system and operationally allows some schools and
some school districts to escape portions of subgroup
accountability. As an urban educator and as a special educator,
equity for our students is extremely important.
For those of us in Charlotte-Mecklenburg and for our Great
City School colleagues, No Child Left Behind is focused on the
right children--those in greatest need of instructional
attention and additional resources. For students with
disabilities, the attention and accountability for results may
be the most significant addition to Federal law in the last
decade, and an appropriate complement to Section 504, IDEA and
ADA.
Thank you.
[The statement of Dr. Rhyne follows:]
Statement of Jane Rhyne, Ph.D., Assistant Superintendent, Programs for
Exceptional Children, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Public Schools
Good Morning Mr. Chairman, Congressman Miller and Members of the
Committee.
I am Jane Rhyne, Assistant Superintendent for Exceptional Children
in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools. I am pleased to testify today on
the inclusion of children with disabilities in the NCLB assessment and
accountability system on behalf of Superintendent Pughsley and the
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education and the Council of the Great
City Schools. In our school district, I am responsible for over 13,000
students with disabilities and provide leadership for them in program
planning and implementation, curriculum and instruction, professional
development for school staff, and compliance with IDEA.
It seemed almost natural for the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools to
be a supporter of No Child Left Behind. From top to bottom our school
district prides itself on delivering a quality education for all of our
students and measuring our achievement results. Our district enrolls
114,000 students K-12--41% low-income, 43% African American, 9%
Hispanic, 4 % Asian, 41% Caucasian, 8% limited English proficient, and
12% children with disabilities. Over the last decade, Charlotte-
Mecklenburg, in collaboration with the State of North Carolina,
implemented many of the cornerstone concepts embodied in NCLB including
disaggregated performance data, data-based decision making, quality
professional development and support, interventions in low performing
schools, and accountability for subgroup as well as overall
achievement. We were providing research-based instruction before the
term was defined in federal legislation.
To validate and cross-check our state-tested academic progress,
Charlotte-Mecklenburg volunteered along with eight other urban school
districts to participate in the NAEP Trial Urban District Assessment,
providing school district level NAEP results using a representative
sample of students from each volunteering district. The Charlotte-
Mecklenburg Schools students outperformed our other urban counterparts
and also outperformed the national NAEP average in reading and math at
the 4th and 8th grade levels.
Though we had an early start on NCLB-type approaches, the Act
provided us with a new set of challenges and truly helped us refine and
deepen our academic focus for all students. For students with
disabilities, Charlotte-Mecklenburg has a multi-year strategic plan for
implementing inclusive practices. I have seen first hand in Charlotte-
Mecklenburg and on technical assistance and site visits to other school
districts that instructional attention to students with disabilities
has been clearly heightened. Standards-based curriculum is being
provided more often to a broader range of special education students.
Teachers and principals are finding that many more children, than they
may have anticipated, can make significant progress in the general
curriculum when given the chance and provided with solid instructional
approaches.
As a result of NCLB, expectations have increased, and services are
planned and delivered with greater care and inclusiveness, even in a
progressive system like Charlotte-Mecklenburg. Principals and teachers
are far more focused on the academic progress of their exceptional
students and the gains needed to make or maintain adequate yearly
progress. Charlotte-Mecklenburg's data system supports our principals
and teachers with up-to-date information and quarterly assessments of
academic progress. Diagnostic information for each individual student
helps the teacher select appropriate structured interventions based on
identified student needs. This type of systematic attention to
disadvantaged and disabled students is precisely what No Child Left
Behind is helping to articulate. Special educators and parents welcome
this instructional attention to students with disabilities. And, I have
seen much the same reaction among teachers of English language learners
and other disadvantaged children.
One of the most recent revisions in our local accountability
program has been to refine our bonus pay system for principals and all
building staff to include not only academic performance of all children
but also NCLB Adequate Yearly Progress. With data provided to them,
principals can gauge the progress of their schools, subgroups,
classrooms and individual students to insure focus on the achievement
of all subgroups of students
Operationally, the recent Department of Education regulation on
assessment of significantly cognitively disabled children will be
helpful. However, the state of alternative assessment including off
level assessment continues to evolve. Because of the focused attention
on students with disabilities resulting from NCLB, our schools, with
district staff support, have reviewed assessments of all exceptional
education students. The result through IEP teams has been to
appropriately reassign many students to their inclusion in on-grade
level state required assessments. Yet, approximately 1.5% of our
special education students have disabilities that prevent them from
doing the same level of academic work as their age-mates. These
students should be assessed with some form of alternative academic
assessment aligned with our North Carolina academic standards. As the
district, state, and nation continue to work through the challenges of
NCLB, we are confident that the special needs of these students will
also be met.
Inclusion in accountability systems, however, is undermined in
states proposing and being approved for minimum subgroup sizes for
students with disabilities that are substantially larger than for low-
income students, African-American students, and others. It invites the
manipulation of the NCLB accountability system and operationally allows
some schools and some school districts to escape portions of subgroup
accountability. As an urban educator and a special educator, equity for
our students is extremely important.
For those of us in Charlotte-Mecklenburg and for our Great City
School colleagues, No Child Left Behind is focused on the right
children--those in greatest need of instructional attention and
additional resources. For students with disabilities, this attention
and accountability for results may be the most significant addition to
federal law in the last decade, and an appropriate complement to Sec.
504, IDEA, and the ADA.
______
Chairman Boehner. Thank you, Dr. Rhyne.
Dr. Durkin?
STATEMENT OF PIA DURKIN, SUPERINTENDENT, THE NARRAGANSETT
PUBLIC SCHOOLS, NARRAGANSETT, RHODE ISLAND
Dr. Durkin. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Miller,
and Members of the Committee. Thank you for the privilege of
offering testimony today on the critical work with students
with disabilities and the impact of No Child Left Behind.
I am Pia Durkin, Superintendent of Narragansett Public
Schools, a small, suburban, upper income community on the coast
of Rhode Island. I bring to the superintendency, however, over
25 years of special education experience in both leadership and
classroom positions in New York City, in Providence, Rhode
Island and in Boston, Massachusetts most recently.
I'd like to frame my remarks under the context of simply
saying stay the course with including students with
disabilities in all the accountability standards.
As the pressure toward accountability for progress mounts,
the reaction of some is to question those students who are not
making fast enough gains, most notably, students with
disabilities. Why include them in accountability standards? I
offer four reasons.
First, in 1997, this country took both an equity and
educational leap forward for the rights of students with
disabilities by mandating not only was it the law that students
enter our classroom door with their peers, but that access to
the general education curriculum was critical for success of
our students. Access so students with disabilities would have
the same opportunities as their non-disabled peers.
The mandate was issued that students with disabilities
would be counted, as all other students, in state and local
assessment systems. If access infers being counted, then not
being counted infers not being cared for. From the historical
perspective, I urge you that we must continue to ensure that
all students are counted and cared for.
Second, being counted and having access demands and ensures
a share of the resources for schools to succeed. Without
accountability, quality curricula, state-of-the-art classroom
materials and technology and solid effective professional
development do not become the domain of the special education
teacher, who then becomes further disengaged from effective
practice. The cycle continues with administrators demanding
less rigor in classrooms serving special education students,
and students falling further behind because of lackluster, low
expectations.
Third, given that nearly 80 percent of the six million
students served through IDEA have learning issues, and those
predominately are related to literacy--reading and writing--we
must have a laser-like focus on increasing proficiency of
literate learners. The significance of so many of our students
with poor reading skills has been documented well in the
literature. This research is not unrelated to the
overidentification issues facing our school systems--large and
small, urban and rural, rich and poor.
For years, Boston had the highest proportion of special
education students served in this country--23 percent of its
population. The school system I now lead, Narragansett, on the
other end of the economic spectrum, has nearly 25 percent of
students identified. Two school districts, one large, one
small, one largely serving the poor, the other serving families
of considerable means, both inadequate in providing effective,
systemic literacy instruction, and both using special education
as the escape valve for students with different needs. Both
developed separate systems of accountability. Now Boston has
reduced its high proportion to a respectable 16 percent, due in
large part to broad-based, unified literacy instructional
methods. And Narragansett has begun its first steps toward that
same end.
Without accountability, data has shown that referrals to
special education increase significantly the year before the
test is given. The sorting process begins by sifting through
those who have learned and those who have not, moving the issue
away from its source and its place of intervention.
Without accountability, the urgency to create conditions
for students to make progress is merely reduced to a simmer
level. When schools and the adults working in them are held
accountable, the teaching and learning conversation becomes
more of where is the student reading? Where was she reading 3
months ago? How much progress has she made? Rather than a
discussion of labels, excuses, or reasons focused on the
student as to why he or she is not making progress.
These conversations must continue, and No Child Left Behind
provides the context for those discussions to continue.
As a superintendent, I grapple with my colleagues across
the country with the pressures of meeting the NCLB mandates--
targeting resources to meet the needs of those who have already
been left behind; challenging the culture of accepted low
performance for some, and collecting data not only on those who
have met the bar, but those who are making progress toward that
bar.
Booker T. Washington once said, ``It is not where you have
reached, but rather, how far you have come.'' In 1975, with the
passage of IDEA, this country allowed millions of children with
disabilities to enter the doors of public schools. The
continued impact of No Child Left Behind to count, consider,
review, and demand progress of our students with disabilities
must not waiver, so that the students who enter our doors can
leave them with the assurances they need to succeed as well as,
if not better than, their non-disabled peers.
Thank you for this opportunity.
[The statement of Dr. Durkin follows:]
Statement of Pia Durkin, Superintendent, Narragansett Public Schools
Good morning Mr. Chairman, Congressman Miller, and members of the
Committee. Thank you for the privilege of offering testimony today on
the critical work with students with disabilities and the impact of the
No Child Left Behind Act on that work. I am Pia Durkin, Superintendent
of the Narragansett Public Schools, a small suburban upper income
community on the coast of Rhode Island. I bring to the Superintendency
over 25 years of special education experience--in both leadership and
classroom positions--in New York City, Providence, and Boston, most
recently serving as an Assistant Superintendent there for five years.
I will would like to frame my remarks under the context of
``staying the course'' with including students with disabilities in all
accountability standards.
Students with disabilities must remain part of--and succeed with--
the standards-based reform movement. Standards have brought schools
clear and focused high expectations-the ``what'' our students need to
learn, the ``how'' of challenging and rigorous curriculum, and the
``where'' of ensuring that all students make sustained progress toward
reaching those standards.
As the pressure toward accountability for progress mounts, the
reaction of some is to question those students who are not making fast
enough gains--students with disabilities being one major group. Why
include them in accountability standards? I offer four reasons.
First, in 1997, this country took both an equity and educational
leap forward for the rights of students with disabilities by mandating
that not only was it the law that students enter the classroom door
with their peers but that access to the general education curriculum
was critical for success of these students--access so that students
with disabilities would have the same opportunities as their non-
disabled peers. The mandate was issued that students with disabilities
would be ``counted,'' as all other students, in state and local
accountability systems. If access infers ``being counted,'' then ``not
being counted'' infers not being cared for. From the historical
perspective, we must continue to ensure that all students are counted
and cared for.
Second, being ``counted'' and ``having access'' demands and ensures
a share of the resources for schools to succeed. Without
accountability, quality curricula, state of the art classroom materials
and technology, and solid effective professional development do not
become the domain of the special education teacher who then becomes
further disengaged from effective practice. The cycle continues with
administrators demanding less rigor in classrooms serving special
education students and students falling further behind because of
lackluster low expectations.
Third, given that nearly 80% of the six million students served
through IDEA have learning issues--and those predominantly are related
to literacy--reading and writing--we must have a laser-like focus on
increasing proficiency of literate learners. The significance of so
many of our students with poor reading skills has been documented well
in the literature. This research is not unrelated to the
overidentification issues facing our school systems--large and small,
urban and rural, rich and poor. For years, Boston had the highest
proportion of special education students served in the country--23% of
its population. The school system I now lead, Narragansett, on the
other end of the economic spectrum has nearly 25% so identified. Two
school districts--one large, one small, one largely serving the poor,
the other serving families of considerable means--both inadequate in
providing effective systemic literacy instruction and both using
special education as the ``escape valve'' for students with different
needs. Both developed separate systems of serving students because of
different accountability standards. Now Boston has reduced it high
proportion to a respectable 16% due, in large part, to broad-based
unified literacy efforts. And Narragansett has begun the first steps
toward that same end.
Without accountability, data has shown that referrals to special
education increase significantly the year before the test is given--the
sorting process begins by sifting through those who have learned and
those who have not--moving the issue away from its source and its place
of intervention.
Without accountability, the urgency to create conditions for
students to make progress is reduced to merely a ``simmer level.'' When
schools and the adults working in them are held accountable, the
teaching and learning conversation becomes ``Where is she reading at?
Where was she reading three months ago? How much progress has she
made?'' rather than a discussion of labels/reasons/excuses focused on
the student as to why she is not making progress. These conversations
must continue and No Child Left Behind provides the context for these
discussions.
As a Superintendent, I grapple, as my colleagues across the
country, with the pressures of meeting the NCLB mandates--targeting
resources to meet the needs of those who have already been left
behind--challenging the culture of ``accepted'' low performance for
some--and collecting data on, not only on those who have met the bar,
but those who are making progress toward the bar.
Booker T. Washington once said ``It is not where you have reached,
but rather how far you have come.'' In 1975 with the passage of IDEA,
this country allowed millions of children with disabilities to enter
the doors of public schools. The continued impact of NCLB to count,
consider, review, and demand progress of our students with disabilities
must not waver so that the students who enter our doors can leave them
with the assurances they need to succeed as well, if not better, than
their non-disabled peers.
Thank you for this opportunity.
______
Chairman Boehner. Thank you, Dr. Durkin.
Dr. Thurlow?
STATEMENT OF MARTHA L. THURLOW, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL CENTER ON
EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES, UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
Dr. Thurlow. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Miller, and other Members of
the Committee, thank you for inviting me to speak today, as
well.
At the National Center on Educational Outcomes, a center
that provides assistance to states on the inclusion of students
with disabilities in state and district assessments, my staff
and I are closely involved with states as they implement their
No Child Left Behind plans.
Because of our many years in working on the inclusion of
students with disabilities in assessments, I think that we have
been able to see the forest as well as the trees, a perspective
that not everyone has these days. It is because of this view
and the evidence we see about the effects of including students
with disabilities that I so strongly support their inclusion in
the assessment and accountability provisions of the No Child
Left Behind Act.
I want to make four points today that confirm the
importance of including students with disabilities in
assessment and accountability. They show I think that it is not
unreasonable to hold schools accountable for these students; in
fact, that it is important to do so.
First, we are already beginning to see the benefits of the
inclusion of students with disabilities. Stopping now would be
terrible. More students with disabilities are participating in
assessments than ever before, and the increased participation
is translating into improved performance in states where they
have implemented reforms.
I have given the Committee graphs showing data from New
York and Massachusetts. The New York data show that more
students with disabilities took and passed the rigorous
Regent's Exam in recent years than have ever taken them before,
indicating access to the curriculum as well as to the
standards--or standards and to the assessments.
The Massachusetts data show the steady increase in passing
rates of students with disabilities and the fact that they were
not doing very well when the exams were first administered.
That's where we are in a lot of the states at the beginning.
Over time, with training for the educators, support for the
students, the stuff that NCLB is about, the scores improved.
Kansas has posted data that show increasing percentages of
students with disabilities who are proficient. Twenty-six
percent in 2000; 50 percent in 2003 in reading. As will other
states when they emphasize and implement reforms. These data
show what can be.
My second point is that being in special education, having
a disability does not mean that students cannot meet standards.
It should be obvious I think from the above examples and from
what we've heard today. But I still so often hear educators and
others say something like how can you expect special education
students to perform well on these tests? If they could do that,
they wouldn't be in special education. Statements like that are
outrageous to me. Special education is supposed to provide the
services and supports that enable students to be successful so
that students can achieve proficiency. Special education
eligibility should not be an excuse to expect little from a
child or to provide little for the child. Low expectations is a
pervasive problem. No Child Left Behind is shining a very
bright light on low expectations, and that is a very important
outcome.
The third point I want to make today is about where the
adjustments are in fact needed. Well, I think there are some
ways in which assessments can be improved, for example, by
making them more accessible through use of universal design
principles. The bigger work that needs to be done is in
providing students with disabilities greater access to the
curriculum, making sure that they have appropriate
accommodations and supports that they need.
States that have done this have seen improved results.
There are many states and districts on the road to these
improved results. Ohio, for example, has a very strong plan for
reform and improvement that is bound to produce subgroup gains.
I've looked at districts within California. They're exploring
their data in ways that are going to help them identify
successful programs, programs and practices that meet the needs
of their students with disabilities. These approaches are
popping up all over the country. The adjustments that are
needed are emerging.
My last point is to emphasize the importance of staying the
course. Complaints and controversy are a natural reaction to
the increased pressure of ratcheting up of accountability. This
doesn't mean that it is bad or that there should be a change.
It does mean that people are paying attention. It means that
students with disabilities are not just the concern of special
educators anymore. They are the concern of all educators, and
this is good.
Where we are now is a sea change from where we were 10
years ago. Some of this started before NCLB. The Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act of 1997 required that students
with disabilities participate in state and district assessments
and that their results be reported publicly in the same way and
with the same frequency as those of other students. While this
happened in some states, not until No Child Left Behind did all
states really pay attention to the requirements.
NCLB has given us data on students with disabilities that
we only had sporadically before. These data can help educators
know where to devote resources. NCLB has given the impetus for
special educators and general educators to work together in a
way that never seemed to rise to the level of importance to
make it happen before.
Making students with disabilities one of the subgroups of
No Child Left Behind truly has been a very important and
positive event in the education history of students with
disabilities.
Thank you.
[The statement of Dr. Thurlow follows:]
Statement of Martha L. Thurlow, Ph.D., Director, National Center on
Educational Outcomes
Thank you for inviting me to speak today. I am the Director of the
National Center on Educational Outcomes, a technical assistance center
that provides assistance to states on the inclusion of students with
disabilities in state and district assessments, and on important
related topics such as standards-based reform, accommodations,
alternate assessments, graduation requirements, universally designed
assessments and accessible testing. We support our technical assistance
with policy research on states'' current policies and practices in
these and other areas. We also conduct other research to move the field
forward in its thinking, in areas such as how to develop universally-
designed assessments that are accessible for students with disabilities
without changing the content or level of challenge of the test, and how
to most appropriately assess students with disabilities who are English
language learners.
The focus of our organization results in our close involvement with
states as they implement their No Child Left Behind plans. Yet, because
of our many years of working on these issues, I think that we can see
the forest as well as the trees. It is because of this view, and the
evidence we see about the effects of including students with
disabilities that I so strongly support the inclusion of students with
disabilities in the assessment and accountability provisions of the No
Child Left Behind Act.
I want to make four points today. These points confirm the
importance of including students with disabilities in assessment and
accountability. They show that it is not unreasonable to hold schools
accountable for these students.
First, we are already beginning to see the benefits of the
inclusion of students with disabilities in assessments and
accountability systems. As a result of having actual assessment data
for these students, we know that more students with disabilities are
participating in assessments now than were tested a mere three to five
years ago. We see these data in every state. Participation rates have
gone up dramatically. Think of New York's Regents exams, some of the
most rigorous exams in the country. The state released data showing
that more students with disabilities took and passed those tests in
recent years than had ever taken them before--and to take them,
students had to first be enrolled in Regents courses. This means that
they had to have access to a curriculum that they had not had access to
before, and they are achieving success.
Massachusetts also has data showing the passing rates for students
with disabilities on its high stakes graduation exam. Many students did
not pass when the exams were first administered. People started to pay
attention when that happened, including the students. Attention was
devoted to what was happening in the classrooms for all students,
including students with disabilities. Training was provided to make
sure that all educators including special educators knew WHAT all
children were to know and be able to do--the content standards--and how
to teach them. Massachusetts's data show where the passing rates for
students with disabilities have steadily climbed from one year to the
next. Graphs showing the data from both of these states are attached to
the end of this testimony (Figure 1 shows New York's Regent's Exam in
across four years; Figure 2 shows Massachusetts's graduation test
results for the class of 2003).
Kansas, as a result of its emphasis on reform, has reported that
the overall percentage of students with disabilities who are proficient
in reading has increased from 26% in 2000 to 50% in 2003. The
percentage who are proficient in math has increased from 36% in 2000 to
58% in 2003.
These data show what can be. Staff at NCEO talk to state directors
nearly every day, and they tell us that they are seeing positive
changes. Of course, they also tell us about the challenges. The
challenges are not necessarily due to the assessment or the
accountability system, however. The assessment system and its results
serve as a warning flag. They tell us when we need to do something
about our instruction, our resources and supports. Making changes to
the assessment or accountability system is not the answer.
My second point is that being in special education--having a
disability--does not mean that students cannot meet standards. I know
that it is terrible to speak in double negatives, but I so often hear
educators say something like: ``How can you expect special education
students to perform well on these tests? If they could do that, they
wouldn't be in special education.'' Those statements are outrageous to
me. Special education eligibility should result in an identified
student receiving the services and supports needed so that the student
can be successful--so that the student can achieve proficiency. Special
education eligibility should NOT be an excuse to expect little from a
child, and to provide little for the child. The assessment and
accountability provisions of NCLB have helped us recognize this for
what it is, a problem of low expectations.
Low expectations is a pervasive problem--one that our colleague
Kevin McGrew, who is one of the authors of the Woodcock-Johnson III
tests of cognitive ability and achievement, has examined by looking at
the academic achievement of students of varying IQs, often used for
eligibility for special education services. He has found: ``It is not
possible to predict which children will be in the upper half of the
achievement distribution based on any given level of general
intelligence. For most children with cognitive disabilities (those with
below average IQ scores), it is NOT possible to predict individual
levels of expected achievement with the degree of accuracy that would
be required to deny a child the right to high standards/expectations.''
One of the bedrock principles of No Child Left Behind is that all
students can learn to high standards. I believe that No Child Left
Behind is shining a very bright light on low expectations, and that is
an important outcome.
The third point that I want to make today is about where
adjustments are in fact needed. First we should look at accommodations,
supports, and instruction. These are where the issues that are causing
low student achievement are most likely to lie, not in the assessment.
While there are some ways in which assessments can be improved, for
example by making the assessments more accessible through the use of
universal design principles, the real work that needs to be done is in
providing students with disabilities greater access to the curriculum,
making sure that they have the appropriate accommodations and other
supports they need. States that have done this have seen the improved
results that are the goal of No Child Left Behind, as shown in the data
from New York, Massachusetts, and Kansas.
We know how to educate all children, including those with
disabilities, if we have the will to do so. The discussion should not
be about whether students with disabilities can learn to proficiency--
and thus, it should not be about whether they should be included in
assessment and accountability measures--it must be about whether we
have the will and commitment to make it happen.
Finally, my last point is to emphasize the importance of staying
the course. Complaints and controversy are a natural reaction to the
increased pressure of the racheting-up of accountability. This does not
mean that it is bad, or that there should be a change. It does mean
that people are paying attention! It means that students with
disabilities are not just the concern of special educators anymore.
They are the concern of all educators, and this is good. Everyone needs
to take responsibility for the learning of students with disabilities.
Recent research has shown that schools where there is shared
responsibility and collaboration among staff have students scoring
higher on their district assessments.
Where we are now is a sea change from where we were 10 years ago.
Some of this started before No Child Left Behind. The Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act of 1997 required that students with
disabilities participate in state and district assessments and that
their results be reported publicly in the same way and with the same
frequency as those of other students. While this happened in some
states, not until No Child Left Behind did all states really pay
attention to the requirements. The assessment and accountability
requirements of No Child Left Behind have given us data on students
with disabilities that we only had sporadically before. These data can
help educators know where to devote resources. No Child Left Behind has
given the impetus for special educators and general educators to work
together in a way that in many places never seemed to rise to the level
of importance to make it happen before. Making students with
disabilities one of the subgroups of No Child Left Behind truly has
been a very important and positive event in the education history of
children with disabilities.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 92309.001
______
Chairman Boehner. We thank all of our witnesses for your
testimony and your insight into the effect that No Child Left
Behind is having on students with special needs. And I guess I
particularly appreciate your strong support of the fact that No
Child Left Behind really means no child left behind. I don't
know why some in America don't quite understand this, but they
will.
Dr. Thurlow, in 1997, when we last reauthorized IDEA,
states were required not only to assess children with
disabilities and to publish those test scores, but they were
also required under the '97 act to develop alternative
assessments for students with severe cognitive disabilities. No
Child Left Behind comes along 4 years later, and it's been 2
years since then, so now we're talking about 6 years. How many
states still don't have alternative assessments for those very
special needs children?
Dr. Thurlow. All states have alternate assessments now for
their special needs children--those with the most significant
cognitive disabilities. The development of those assessments
has been quite a challenge for states, and it's been an
evolving process for states as they've come to understand who
that population is. These are children in some states that they
were outside of their vision, literally outside of their
vision. And so it has been a dramatic change, a sea change, for
people to realize we do mean all students. All students means
all students.
So figuring out how do we really assess these students with
the most significant cognitive disabilities has been a
challenge. All states now do have an alternate assessment for
those students, but they are still evolving. Because when they
started in 1997, and some were slower to start than others,
when they started, perhaps they started falsely and they went
back and had to revise. So even now, states are evolving. And
as they now have to go from an assessment that they perhaps did
in grades 4, 8 and 12, and now are going to need to do that in
every grade, they are also rethinking, can we continue to use
the procedure that we used in only a few grades to do it?
Chairman Boehner. Dr. Durkin, you brought up the
troublesome subject of overidentification. And while there are
some that are concerned that the 1 percent rule issued by the
department doesn't go far enough, if in fact we can begin to
address the overidentification issue, that would in effect
provide even more flexibility to local districts.
What's happening in the real world with regard to reducing
the incidence of overidentification, especially of poor
minority children?
Dr. Durkin. I think your question, Mr. Chairman, is an
excellent one, because it points to the type of preventive work
we need to do as educators before a referral is made to special
education. Referrals to special education should be one of the
last steps when we're talking about students with learning
disabilities and learning issues.
In some instances, we need to look to what has been the
level of instruction. Many states are now working on a response
to intervention model--what has been done, and how has that
student responded to the instructional supports that have been
targeted for that child's needs, particularly in the pre-K
through 3 arena? We're seeing in our own school district the
more effort we are putting in those areas, the fewer students
that are moving out of third grade where the shift comes from
learning to read to reading to learn, that we can be able to
see fewer students needing that targeted needs between fourth
and then eighth grade.
Right now I believe school systems are grappling with a
great deal of work at the ninth grade level. Students who are
coming into high school who are poor learners and through that.
I think our identification systems must merit questions not
only regarding individual testing but how has the environment
in that classroom changed. What has been done with that
student, so that we can ensure that when we do make a referral
and then a definition of eligibility comes into play, what has
been done. And to my satisfaction, we attempts have not
answered that question of what has been done with that student
prior to that.
Mr. Miller. If I just might piggyback on that question, and
you may have just answered it, but let me give it to you how
I'm hearing it in some anecdotal fashion. And that is that some
parents and even some educators are suggesting to me because of
the disaggregation of the data and the need essentially for the
school district progressing to take a second look at some of
these children, and they're putting them through some
additional assessments. They are finding out that in many
instances this is a reading problem that can be addressed as
opposed to then deciding to push the child along with some
other label that would suggest that they be in special
education. Is that anecdotal--is that happening or not
happening?
Dr. Durkin. I think the issue of disaggregated data propels
us to look at students individually as well as a subgroup. Your
point about noting progress of students rather than wait till
the year end standardized high stakes testing that so many of
our states have developed, we need to develop and ensure that
we're seeing progress along the way.
It is very difficult in May to see a student who has
failed, and my first question to my staff is why? What didn't
we catch back in November, back in January and back in March?
And those are the issues that we need to hold accountable for
both general and special education and put systems in place
where we're monitoring the progress as we move toward the high
stakes involvement.
So your point is a good one in terms of not only do we have
to make sure that responses and interventions are made, but
that we need to have a targeted, timely response in school
systems to ensure as students are moving that we are tracking
progress, and that we are ensuring they are moving. And that
progress may differentiate depending on the child, the
disability and the areas. But progress has to be made.
Chairman Boehner. Dr. Rhyne, let's stay on the same
subject. You've got a model district when it comes to dealing
with students with special needs. How does your district deal
with identifying and appropriately identifying children with
special needs that qualify for IDEA, and where do you draw the
line, and how do you deal with the overidentification question?
Dr. Rhyne. It's an excellent question, and I think an area
that Charlotte-Mecklenburg schools has done exceptionally well
in. We have implemented a comprehensive reading model within
the district, and within that model there is a universal access
piece of it where most of the children are going to do well on
the universal access piece. For those children who are falling
out of the universal access, we are looking at targeted and
intensive interventions. And we have set targeted and intensive
interventions in place. We're seeing great improvement in our
reading scores as suggested in our NAEP trial urban school
district scores.
Another thing that we're doing that Dr. Durkin referred to,
we have in our district a very systematic way of keeping track
of where students, classrooms and schools are. As a principal
in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg schools, I am provided with
quarterly data. We have developed quarterly tests that align
with our end-of-grade and end-of-course tests. And the
principals get that data, and we have instructed every
principal on how to sit down, use that data, tear it apart by
classroom and down to the individual students.
We're now dealing with individual students in the
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools. And we're looking at what does
that child need. We're looking at specific items that they
missed on the test. Do they need to be regrouped? Can we pull
this group to the side and do a different intervention with
them?
So we have quarterly assessments and then we have what are
called mini-assessments, and these assessments are like the
quarterly except they occur every approximately six to 7 days.
And so with that type of very intense data and using data to
make instructional decisions, we feel that we are more on
target with where individual children are. And by doing that as
a district, we are affecting special education.
Chairman Boehner. Well, I want to congratulate you and
others who take the assessment data, actually use it as a
management tool to look at your own systems, your own
curriculum, your own teachers, and relate that to the needs of
children. There's a nearby state that I've met with yesterday
that the assessment data goes to the state. It never comes back
to the school. It just flabbergasts me. They don't--the
principal, the teachers, all they know is that their kids
passed or failed or they need improvement or they're somewhere
on the list, but they don't know what the test scores are.
So, congratulations. Mr. Miller?
Mr. Miller. Thank you. Once again, I'm going to piggyback
on Chairman Boehner's question here. First of all, I want to
say that I was at a meeting on Monday with some foundation
people in California and all they kept talking about was
Charlotte-Mecklenburg. So apparently there's much to envy here.
But first of all--second of all, one of the little secrets,
maybe it's of legislative intent, but we think it's also in the
bill rather clearly that when we were talking about
assessments, very often we were talking about diagnostic tools.
The Governors got wrapped up in high stakes testing long before
we ever wrote this law.
But what we were hoping for was that in real time, every
six or 7 days or quarterly or monthly, we could pass on real
information to teachers, to principals, to students and to
their families about what might be done and what adjustments
could be made so that these children could continue to
progress. That seems to have been lost in most of this. When I
meet with many of the curriculum companies, who are also now
becoming assessment companies, they tell me that this can be
embedded and you can do this for a vast number of students
which would be helpful because then we could again focus down
on others. I don't know if that's the case or not. But it would
seem to me especially with this population of special ed
children that diagnostic tools are really what you would be
looking for here, both to convey information to the teacher and
to the--about the student. But also we want to see whether or
not the teachers are teaching in a manner that's appropriate to
that student. Is that correct?
Dr. Rhyne. That's absolutely correct. That's why we
established these mini-assessments and quarterly assessments.
We did not want to wait till the end of the year and be
surprised. We wanted to know as we progressed through the year
what children were proficient in what was being taught, the
specific objectives, and who needed help. And we used that
data. We used that data on a daily basis. We are down to
looking at individual students and looking at what objectives
children know, what they don't know, and then providing
targeted intervention.
Another way we use it, which I think is quite interesting,
in Charlotte-Mecklenburg, as you know, in a large urban
district, the issue of hiring certified special education
teachers is often difficult. And so we hire sometimes lateral
entry teachers who are not certified. They are college
graduates. They may have an undergraduate degree, for example,
in psychology. And this data is used also to target those
teachers in how well they are instructing their students.
And when we find that they are really struggling because
they don't have the educational preparation that a certified
teacher might have, then we send out to the school
instructional support in that we have special education staff
out of my office who go and work with that teacher. When I say
work, I mean get your hands dirty work. They are in the
classroom sometimes 13 solid days co-teaching, teaching,
modeling, showing them the standard course of study,
rearranging their classroom, helping them set up behavior
management. And that has proved to be very, very effective for
our lateral entry teachers.
We want to increase these teachers' skills, and we don't
want them to leave, because then we're in a vicious cycle. If
they leave at the end of the year, we start all over again. So
we're trying to grow our staff, and by growing our staff, we
can ensure better instruction for our students with
disabilities.
Mr. Miller. Thank you very much. Let me just ask you, in
your general curriculum, do you use the same reading program
across the entire district?
Dr. Rhyne. Yes, we do. Our universal curriculum is a
specific reading series that is used across the district in
both regular education and special education.
Mr. Miller. So as the child moves from one school to
another--
Dr. Rhyne. Same, exact--
Mr. Miller. You would have, again, you would have real time
information about that child when they go into the new school?
Dr. Rhyne. Absolutely. And our district has written pacing
guides so that on any given day, we know what is being
instructed in all of our schools, all 140 schools across the
district. For those children who then are having difficulty
with that textbook, with that series, we have established
another set of materials that is used for targeted intervention
with any student. It just doesn't have to be a special
education student. And the targeted intervention is a research-
based intervention. And we group students, find time in the
schedule to provide that targeted intervention and then move
students back into the universal text as they make improvement.
Mr. Miller. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Boehner. The chair recognizes the gentleman from
Nebraska, Mr. Osborne, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Osborne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for being
here today. We appreciate it. I'm somewhat interested in maybe
the interface of early learning programs with special ed, and
so I'm going to ask kind of a broad question of all of you.
Let's say we took a random student population and we
subjected them to a fairly rigorous early learning program such
as Head Start, and we took another random group and didn't
assign them to Head Start, would you see--do you think that
you'd see a reduction in special ed students who, if they were
exposed to early learning experiences? And how does that relate
to overidentification?
Dr. Rhyne. I'd like to respond to that. In the Charlotte-
Mecklenburg schools, we have an early childhood education
program, and it's called Bright Beginnings. It is for 4-year-
old children who are disadvantaged educationally.
We have studied--the program has been in effect probably
for about 5 years, 6 years, and we have studied the groups of
children who have gone through this Bright Beginnings program,
which is very literacy based, and there's a high level of
parent involvement that's required as part of being in the
program. We've studied these children at the third grade level,
and these children are right on target and exceeding the
success and progress of control group type children. So we feel
that Bright Beginnings, that Bright Beginnings program with the
attention on early literacy is absolutely critical.
Dr. Thurlow. I'll jump in on top of that one, because I
think there is some research basis for preschool and early
programs. But I think we need that focus on the early literacy,
and, you know, we really need to know what is going on in those
programs. So I wouldn't just say Head Start. I would say what
is going on in those programs? What's the target of the
instruction and the nature of what's going inside them? Before
I'd say--
Mr. Osborne. So you're not just saying a blanket approach.
Dr. Thurlow. Yes. Right.
Mr. Osborne. But as long as it's targeted and it's headed
toward literacy, it's important. Yes, ma'am?
Dr. Durkin. Congressman, I would just like to add that my
colleagues are correct in what is going on, but we have found
with children who do come to school with significant stressors
from urban settings and with lack of language skills, because
we know language is tied very much with literacy, is they need
more time. And they need more intensive supports. It doesn't
mean they cannot achieve that same standard. But we must put
into place either additional home components.
We've had a great deal of success with family literacy
programs, working with families in conjunction with students on
how to encourage reading and writing at home, as well as
developing Saturday programs, after-school programs. These are
the merits of what really helps our children catch up and give
them a fair level field, level playing field, which is what No
Child Left Behind is about.
Ms. Sabia. I just want to make a comment about high
expectations in this area, because many times we have children
with cognitive disabilities. The ones that are identified early
because they have Down Syndrome or something that you know from
birth, there are not high expectations when it comes to these
children, and a lot of time is wasted until they can show you
what they can do because they can't speak early on. And we went
ahead and did our own early intervention for reading and other
things, and my son went into kindergarten being able to read.
And I think it shows that, if given the opportunity, and with
the high expectations, that you don't wait until you find out
how well they can speak or other things they can do. They can
start learning early and they will, by the time those kids get
to all these assessments you're talking about, really be
amazing and be able to surprise people. But those high
expectations have to start from the very beginning or you lose
all those years.
Thank you.
Mr. Osborne. Thank you. I gather you're in favor of early
learning programs, from your response. One last question. Dr.
Rhyne, in your testimony, you mention that your bonus pay
system for principals and building staff include not only
academic performance of all children but also No Child Left
Behind adequate yearly progress. And one of the complaints we
often hear is, well, you know, you're going to have teachers
teach to the test, and when you throw in additional economic
incentives, I imagine that there may be even more grounds for
that complaint. And I just wondered if you would care to
comment on how you see that working in your system.
Dr. Rhyne. We just did this about 2 weeks ago. We
realized--we've had a local bonus for a long time, and our
local bonus was tied to achievement of our state scores. We
realized that with AYP coming in and No Child Left Behind that
principals were paying more attention to the state scores than
they were to this whole AYP issue. So we had to get their
attention.
And we said that not only did you have to make achievement
on the state scores but also you had to make your AYP goals.
And so for the first time this year at the end of this school
year, all staff at a school includes all levels of staff, will
receive a bonus if they make both.
Mr. Osborne. Thank you. That sounds a little bit like merit
pay or something like that, but I appreciate it very much and I
yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mrs. Biggert. [presiding] Thank you. The gentleman from
Michigan, Mr. Kildee, is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll direct this to Dr.
Rhyne first, but the others are welcome to join in. What are
the advantages or disadvantages, benefits or problems with the
alternative tests based upon alternative achievement standards?
The Secretary has said 1 percent can be assessed using an
alternative test. What are the advantages or disadvantages of
that, the problems or benefits? And might states be tempted to
seek an exception to the 1 percent limitation, which the
Secretary has indicated could be given?
Dr. Rhyne. I think there are definitely advantages to the
alternative assessment. If we did not have alternative
assessment, then when said that No Child Left Behind was
dealing with all children, we'd be leaving out a group of
children. And so ``all'' would not mean all.
In the state of North Carolina, we have had a very
successful alternative assessment. It's a portfolio assessment
for our students. We had the good fortune of receiving a
Federal grant and working with colleagues from the University
of North Carolina at Charlotte on alternative assessment for
our students, and we in Charlotte have done very well with our
alternate assessment, and we feel like with the alternate
assessment, we have really been able to show teachers how to
use data. Again, it gets back to data and how to use data to
make instructional decisions on a daily basis.
So I'm very much in favor of the alternate assessments,
because it allows us to include all children.
Mr. Kildee. Do you see much of a problem of, in the
alternative assessment, the temptation to bring the assessment
down rather than to bring the child up?
Dr. Rhyne. What we've done in Charlotte, we have another--
our alternate assessment is one level, and then kind of the
next level up of assessment is called an alternate academic
inventory, and it's an assessment for students who are being
instructed off grade level. So, for example, a child who may be
in the fifth grade but is instructed on the second grade level.
For that group of children, we have special education
children on the alternate assessment, and we felt like perhaps
across the district there might be children on that assessment
who really could be on a standard assessment with
modifications. So we went to every school. We went to all 140
schools and met with the special education staff in those 140
schools talking about and encouraging staff and IEP teams to
really take a look and see if they had children who instead of
going down to the portfolio, which would not be an appropriate
move, who really could be on the end-of-grade standard
assessment with modification.
And I'm happy to report, we just got the data. We, through
the IEP team process changed 27 percent of those assessments
and put those children on standard assessment with
accommodations.
Mr. Kildee. Dr. Thurlow?
Dr. Thurlow. I would like to make two points about the
alternate assessment. One, I'd like to just comment briefly
about what I see as the benefits that we've seen across the
country in the alternate assessments, and then I'd like to
second address your point about the concern that people might
or states might sort of make things easier for these kids, kind
of that concern there.
So first, the benefits. And this has been--I think the
alternate assessment has been one of the most dramatic sort of
enlightened things that has been done in No Child Left Behind
for recognizing a very small group of students who receive
special education services who have very significant cognitive
disabilities who most of population in the United States
doesn't even realize are in our schools today, but who are.
These are students with very significant cognitive
disabilities.
These are students who are taught by educators who for many
years have viewed themselves as babysitters. And we have gone
out now and have talked to many of these teachers, and they
tell us they no longer see themselves as babysitters. They see
themselves as professionals. They now know what their state
standards are, because they are required to know their state
standards because they have to work on an alternate assessment
that is aligned to the state standards, and how can do that if
they don't know the state standards?
They have had to talk to the general education teachers in
their districts to figure out what the standards are. So they
see themselves as professionals. They know what their state
standards are, and they are working on their state standards.
They are working on academic aligned stuff for their kids with
the most significant cognitive disabilities. This is a dramatic
and, you know, I get emotional trying to talk about how
important this piece is.
Mr. Kildee. And the second part of my question?
Dr. Thurlow. OK. And let me just say, because this 1
percent means that these kids who are significantly cognitively
disabled can be proficient. That's what's important about this
1 percent.
OK. The safeguards are really important, and that's what
the other important thing about this 1 percent regulation is,
because it has built in--it has built in a requirement that
states must set rigorous standards. It doesn't say you can just
go and say whatever you want to is proficient.
States have to build a--have to go through a rigorous
standard-setting process. They have to come up, like they do
with their regular assessment, they have to come up with a
process that they go through, they have to put together I would
say a technical manual where they've defined what they've done.
Show me why this is proficient, why this score, why this is
proficient. Show me what process you've gone to.
And, you know, so they've got to do for their alternate
assessment what they've done for their regular assessment, and
we've got to begin to look at those. And I would think your
peer review process, or the Department of Education's peer
review process will be looking very carefully at those. And I
would expect, given what I've seen happening, that they will be
doing that. So.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you, both of you. I appreciate your
response.
Mrs. Biggert. The gentleman yields back. I will now yield
myself 5 minutes.
Ms. Sabia, you--they've been talking about the appropriate
accommodations for students with disabilities to participate in
the assessment and making sure that the test is still valid. If
you don't mind my asking, what types of accommodation does a
child like your son need in order to be assessed on what he
knows and has learned?
Ms. Sabia. Not as much as you would think, actually. For
reading and language, he can read, as I said, so he does not
need the verbatim reading. They do read the directions with him
to make sure that he's really paying attention to the
directions. Interestingly enough, the biggest accommodation he
needs is somebody to color in the circles to make sure that
they're precise enough that it can be read by the computer.
That is really the biggest accommodation.
He can dictate and have them write the answers when there
are written answers, although he has refused that accommodation
in the past by self-efficacy. Math, he uses a calculator, and
that is his math accommodation.
And I did want to make one point about alternate
assessments as well, because that's really, for a lot of the
kids, they may end up in the alternate assessment with the 1
percent. I'm just hoping--we are all just hoping that states
will take--be really reading those regulations closely and
follow what they say, because the spirit in there is very
strong about high standards and high expectations, and that
that 1 percent is only--it's supposed to be a cap. So many
students who have cognitive disabilities can, like you just
asked for my son, be able to take the regular assessments
either with accommodations or with the alternate format that's
permissible on grade level. And for those who can't, that there
still be high expectations and there are even multiple
alternate achievement standards. So to make sure that there are
enough of those going on so that you really are reaching the
kids where they are at and challenging them and not having the
problem you were speaking about.
But obviously, you know, kids vary, and there are other
accommodations that need to be given. And the big thing--we had
a problem where we were seeing that the test was not being
validated because of accommodations. And the push with No Child
Left Behind really was to find ways to work around that. And
now tests that before were invalidated because they were not
separating them out enough so that the accommodations only
invalidated some and not all, the push of No Child Left Behind
has found ways to fix that problem.
And we're hoping that states will really rise up and not do
the minimum of what needs to be done. For example, in my state,
Maryland, we have an N of 5 that's second to lowest in the
country, of the number of kids with which you have to keep that
group as a subgroup. So almost every school counts their kids
with disabilities because the N is 5 and not 20 or 100.
And so that's what our hope is, that states will then take
the lead that you all have started and have high expectations
and not just necessarily put those kids under the 1 percent,
see what they could do with those accommodations that you asked
about.
Mrs. Biggert. Thank you. I know that you mentioned that
NCLB is one of the myths is that it requires one-size-fits-all
assessments, and I don't think that so many people realize that
it really is so much--the flexibility to give the states to do
so much, and I don't think that we've done a good job of
getting that word out on how the states and the local school
participate so much.
In fact, I think from my state, there's been concerns that
in doing the AYP that so many of--so much of the media came out
and said schools fail, and using the term ``failure'' because
they haven't met the AYP goals for that year. And part of it
was just not understanding I think how the system worked, and
it's been unfortunate I think, but maybe all of you could help,
if you have some ideas how we as Members of Congress can help
get the word out to people about the real benefits.
Yes, Dr. Durkin?
Dr. Durkin. Yes. I just want to add to that. I think one of
the key things that we need to work together on is looking
toward more of an academic progress standard and really noting
of how much progress students make in contrast to the current
proficient standard. And I think over time, that is going to
mean a great deal, particularly for school systems that are
finding themselves a great deal of difficulty reaching that AYP
standard.
There really does need to be merit and challenge to
motivate principals, staff, and teachers as well as students
and families that we're moving in the right direction. We have
to stay the course. And it's those kinds of looking at value-
added assessments really need to merit some view of how much
progress we've made as opposed to in addition to just reaching
the proficiency standard.
Mrs. Biggert. Thank you. With that, I'll yield back and
recognize the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Andrews.
Mr. Andrews. Thank you, Madam Chairman--Chairwoman. Ms.
Sabia, I just wanted to say to you the reason I voted for No
Child Left Behind and would again is so that Stephen and
children like him have a highly qualified teacher in front of
them all the time, have no artificial limits placed on our
expectations of what they can achieve, and so that they are
regularly measured so we can test ourselves to see whether
we're meeting our commitment to Stephen and his classmates.
I think there are a lot of people out there who really
don't want accountability and are using legitimate objections
to problems in this law as trojan horses to try to disrupt the
law and overturn it. Having said that, I think we do need to
focus on some of the legitimate issues that I've identified in
talking to educators, listening to educators in my area, and I
wanted to ask Dr. Durkin some questions that might help me
understand how she's dealing with them in Rhode Island.
I did a little bit of research on your district, Dr.
Durkin, and I think you have about 1,700 students. Is that
right?
Dr. Durkin. That's correct.
Mr. Andrews. And so I'm--and it's a K to 12 district?
Dr. Durkin. It's a pre-K through 12 district, yes.
Mr. Andrews. So I'm assuming that, just pick the third
grade, for example, has maybe 140 children, 145?
Dr. Durkin. About 134. You're close.
Mr. Andrews. OK. Could you be a little more specific?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Andrews. I notice in your testimony you say that about
a quarter of the children in your district are identified IDEA.
Does that hold true in the third grade roughly?
Dr. Durkin. Generally--it's interesting. There's right now
a significant bulge at the ninth grade because of students
having been identified so in grades.
Mr. Andrews. What I'm asking is, about how many of your
third graders are IDEA students?
Dr. Durkin. I would say approximately--I would say about 10
percent at this point.
Mr. Andrews. So maybe 13 or 14 children?
Dr. Durkin. Correct. Yes.
Mr. Andrews. What's the N in Rhode Island? What's the
smallest group--what's the group that you have to disaggregate
to? Ms. Sabia just said it's 5 in Maryland. It's 20 in New
Jersey. What's it in Rhode Island?
Dr. Durkin. It's 30 to 45 in those issues. And I think
that's a real measure of concern, if I can elaborate on that.
Mr. Andrews. Well, can I just ask you a question first?
Dr. Durkin. Yes. Sure.
Mr. Andrews. If I understand the regulation the Department
has just put out, with respect to your third graders, and again
we're using about 130 of them or so, that at most, two of them
could be waived out of the assessments under No Child Left
Behind, 1.5 percent, 1 percent is 1.6 children or something, so
it's two kids, which means that there are 11 or 12 children in
the third grade in your school district who will be subject to
assessment under No Child Left Behind, which I support and
agree with. How do you plan to assess them? What are you going
to do?
Dr. Durkin. We've used the regular assessments that we are
using. And at this point in time, the concern that, in terms of
the cell size, and I think your point is a good one, is that we
need to really look at the cell size to ensure that that's not
being used to minimize the impact of No Child Left Behind.
Mr. Andrews. If the cell size were five in Rhode Island, so
you would have I assume two groups of third grade children who
are IDEA, right? How would you assess those 10 or 11 children?
You would assess them against the regular Rhode Island third
grade assessment?
Dr. Durkin. That's correct. With accommodations as needed,
depending according to their IEPs.
Mr. Andrews. Without in any way disclosing any--I guess I
shouldn't use a specific rate. Generically in your school
system, based on your research, what percentage of the IDEA
children do you think have the potential to achieve total
proficiency on the regular assessment?
Dr. Durkin. My view with progress--right now we've targeted
approximately 23 percent of students who have not reached the
standard at the middle school level, grades 5 through 8, and 25
percent grades 9 through 12. Interestingly enough, in that
percentage point, approximately 10 to 15 percent of those
students are students with IEPs. They are not all students with
IEPs.
Mr. Andrews. I understand.
Dr. Durkin. Which comes back to the Congressman's question
about the overidentification issue.
Mr. Andrews. And again, without making a rhetorical
statement, I would say all the children have the potential to
achieve.
Dr. Durkin. Absolutely.
Mr. Andrews. But looking at it in terms of passing the
assessment, what do you think the optimal result is for passing
the assessment? A hundred percent?
Dr. Durkin. I would--yes, we shoot for 100 percent over
time in terms of looking at the benchmarks to ensure that we're
constantly increasing our level of proficiency toward that.
Mr. Andrews. Are you satisfied that you're being given
sufficient flex ability on test accommodations that you can
fairly evaluate those 10 or 11 children?
Dr. Durkin. Yes.
Mr. Andrews. Are there any additional accommodations that
you would ask for?
Dr. Durkin. I would probably, in working with my IEP team,
see what those additional would be needed, and we would then
accommodate that individualized request for that.
I have not had issues with the accommodation issues. My IEP
teams have not. In fact, we're really trying to do what my
colleague, Ms. Sabia, is saying, to really look at the students
who can take the standardized testing with as close to the
valid procedures that are administered for that.
Mr. Andrews. Just very quickly I'll wrap up. There are
three schools in your district?
Dr. Durkin. Yes, there are.
Mr. Andrews. Are any of them on the needs improvement list?
Dr. Durkin. There are--all three schools are considered
high performing. Two are what we consider the sustaining model,
one is in the improving level. So our goal is to always be high
performing and improving. However, because of the cell size and
the smallness, there are significant numbers of students who
have not reached the standards, and because I have such a small
district, I have the benefit of knowing every one of those
kids.
Mr. Andrews. I have a lot of districts like yours in my
area, that's why I'm very interested. Thank you very much.
Dr. Durkin. Thank you.
Chairman Boehner. The chair recognizes the gentleman from
Georgia, Mr. Gingrey, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Gingrey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was in my district
last week--well, actually, Monday of this week, talking about
No Child Left Behind and in particular, regarding IDEA special
ed students and the testing.
There seems to be some confusion, at least in my district,
about the 1 percent rule. The assistant superintendents and
principals that were at this meeting felt that the 1 percent
rule was only applicable to 1 percent of the students being
tested, not the whole student population. It's my understanding
that it's the entire student population, and that when you
calculate that and you apply it, then those numbers to your
special ed population, that you're able to have an alternate
assessment for up to 9 or 10 percent of that subgroup.
They went on to express a concern about the remaining
students in that subgroup, those that are not part of that 9 or
10 percent that you're able to do alternate testing because of
the 1 percent rule. And the rest of those students of course
have a standard testing. And depending on their IEP, of course,
you make special provision for them, whether it's vision-
impaired or hearing-impaired or ADD or whatever those needs
might be, to optimize their chances of succeeding on the tests.
But these teachers and these administrators felt that even
given all of that, it was unlikely that this larger population
of your special education students, IDEA, that they would
hardly--maybe never be able to be brought up to grade level
because many of them at the outset are two and 3 years behind
their peers, and that the goal that this particular school
system was setting was to raise them by a half a year in each
full calendar year. So they felt that it was an unfair burden
to expect them to take a standard test that the regular ed
students are taking, and they could not make that adequate
yearly progress. So that I guess basically what they're saying
is you need to cut us some more slack.
And I would like to ask particularly Dr. Durkin and Dr.
Rhyne about that, because I truly believe that No Child Left
Behind means exactly what it says. And while these children may
be a couple of years behind or more at the outset, hopefully at
the end of the day, before we get to 2014, that they will be no
longer being left behind. If you'll comment on that, I would
appreciate it.
Dr. Rhyne. It is a challenge, and we have children who are
being instructed. Their instructional level is several years
below their chronological level. And the question you raise is
a good one and a very legitimate one.
And that is where a district really needs to get focused
from the top down and to put the message out about the need to
provide intensive interventions. And it's not just special
education children. There are other children as well, intensive
interventions for those children where in effect they're
learning more in a year than their counterparts, because if
they don't learn more, they will never catch up.
And the importance of--I've said this before--using data to
make those decisions, rather than guessing as to what you think
might be right and what the child should be working on, but
using very specific data to make those instructional decisions;
by providing after school programs; by providing Saturday
programs where we really, really get focused on what children
need. And I do believe that they will make and pass that
standard test.
Dr. Durkin. I think the issue of leadership and aligning
goals that everyone is, as Dr. Rhyne said, focused, but
everyone is on the same page. There has to be a real connection
between, for example, my superintendent goals, the school
improvement team goals, as well, as the supervisory goals I
expect from my administrators. And all those have to point to
achievement, teaching and learning. And there has to be a
progression to understand that it's doable, but that we're all
moving toward that direction.
So I really see an alignment of having everyone understand,
verbalize and speak the focus that is on literacy and numeracy.
Mr. Gingrey. Thank you very much. I am encouraged by those
responses. And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Boehner. The chair recognizes the gentlelady from
Minnesota, Ms. McCollum, for 5 minutes.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair. If the Children's
Defense Fund got a dollar for every time we said ``leave no
child behind,'' we'd have more and more children succeeding. I
want to talk about just a couple of things, and that is, if
someone after I'm done with my question would comment about the
role of social capital in making sure that all of our children
reach their full potential, and that goes to parents'
education, access to learning, sometimes due to opportunities
because of limited income--I couldn't afford to take my
children to the science museum--all those things are not only
important to children that we talk about in the mainstream, but
they're of equal importance to children with disabilities. And
so the social capital and the investment in that and helping
those children succeed I think is something I would like to
have some comment on.
One of the challenges I think that I'm hearing very clearly
is the labeling issue, and people saying OK, this child is
special needs. Therefore, we don't have high expectations. It
has been my experience in my school districts in Minnesota that
I haven't run across parents who don't have high expectations
for their children with special needs. Being a parent of a
child who was in special needs labeled, you know, well, maybe
because of his dyslexia, he shouldn't take any foreign
languages, and now is going to get his masters degree in
English as a second language and is fairly proficient in
Japanese, reading and writing it, we kept those high
expectations. We pushed our school districts, and I feel that
the parents in Minnesota have done that.
But at the same time, we are hearing from many of our folks
in Minnesota, you know, if we don't get all the resources we
need in order to make all of our children successful, holding
the state accountable, holding the school district accountable,
puts everyone at edge with one another. And I was just recently
in a high school where there was a special needs student, and
his comment was he had some things he would like to see
addressed in his individualized plan, but he turned around to
the rest of the students in the classroom and he said, but
everybody here has things that they would like to have added as
value to their education.
So my question is, given the fact that Washington, D.C.
right now is under a lead water alert, and we know that
contributes to children not doing well, how do we as a country
move forward, address the social needs, the environmental
needs, and the needs of all of our children, because all of you
are finding parents competing for limited resources? So what
are some of the challenges you're facing in making this law
work?
Dr. Rhyne. If I may address that. I think one key thing is,
as we've talked about before, early childhood programs that
emphasize literacy I think are critical so that children come
prepared to learn in kindergarten. Where language is really
stressed within that early childhood program it's critical.
I think it's critical that we have two things in a
district, in a school district: one, that we provide more
inclusive practices for students with disabilities, when you
talk about the social capital. I think it's critical that
students with disabilities be in general education classrooms
and that special education teachers perhaps could be of more
benefit not only to those special education children but also
to general education children who are struggling.
Ms. McCollum. If I may, because my time is going to run
out.
Dr. Rhyne. Yes.
Ms. McCollum. The question then becomes, and was, do you
have the resources to do that? Because that costs money to do.
Dr. Rhyne. I believe we do have the resources to do that. I
think if we're creative with what we have and we think outside
the box and get people out of their little silos. Special
educators, and I am a special education teacher, we think that
only we can do it and only we can educate the students with
disabilities, and it's very uncomfortable as a special educator
to move out of that box and to move into general education and
to be doing it a different way--for example, to be co-teaching.
But I think it's critical for the students with disabilities
and can potentially be very, very helpful for other students in
that classroom who are struggling.
And I'd like to just make one other point. The whole issue
of students and social capital and how children come to school,
I think it's critical that schools establish positive
behavioral interventions and support; that a whole school
establishes what the rules are in the school, where everybody
from the custodian to the cafeteria worker to the parents to
the teachers to the children can articulate what is expected in
that school.
And then for those children, 85 percent of the children
should be able to behave under a universal model like that.
Then another 15 percent of the children are going to have
difficulty and need some group work, and schools can set that
group work up where there are peer bodies, where there are
small groups where the psychologist is working with a small
group, maybe on anger management. And then there's another 5
percent who are going to need individual work.
A PBIS model is a research-based model, and I think as
districts and the problems that public schools have with
discipline, I think we need to be looking differently at how
the adults do business in schools.
Ms. Sabia. I would just make a comment about the resources,
just a quick example of how it doesn't always take resources.
Creativity is the buzz word here, and parents can help a lot,
you know, with coming up with some of these ideas. One of the
ways to help kids who are disadvantaged, who are not getting
what they need at home for a variety of reasons are some of the
after-school activities like homework club, whatever. But if
you have a child with a disability, they may not be able to
access it because maybe they need some more support.
So in my school we started why not find out what middle
schoolers might want community service credit, and connect the
parents with those students and bring those students in to
help. They did that with my son in science club. So here after
school, he's getting access to something that he maybe would
not be able to do as easily if the person teaching it did not
have the support, and that's more time that a student who may
not have opportunities at home can get those enrichment
opportunities and not have it cost anything for that extra
support.
So it's creativity.
Ms. McCollum. Transportation. That's the problem.
Ms. Sabia. Transportation is an issue. But I really do
believe, you know, some problems can't be creatively handled,
but there are enough of them to free up resources for where you
can have those creative solutions.
Mrs. Biggert. [presiding] The gentlewoman yields back. The
gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Kline, is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Kline. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank all of you
for being here today. Some of you have traveled far. I'm
especially pleased to see Dr. Thurlow from Minnesota. It's
always nice to have somebody from your home state here.
Let me just say that I know it must be horribly
disconcerting to you to travel so far and see Members and
coming and going from these hearings as we walk in and we walk
out, and I just want to assure you that none of us mean any
disrespect and none of us think that your testimony and your
answers is anything but critically important. We just have a
system that's almost impossible to understand much less
explain, we schedule hearings here at the same time. And so in
my case, I'm listening to General Abizaid from the Central
Command testifying in one hearing, which seems to be fairly
important, considering the 200,000 U.S. troops in his area of
responsibility, and then to this panel, which is also just
extremely important.
This issue has been discussed at great length, and I can't
tell you how many teachers, principals, superintendents have
been to my office or me to theirs to talk about No Child Left
Behind and the difficulties that special education students are
offering them. And I know this has been discussed. Chairman
Boehner brought it up, but I want to revisit it for just a
minute, and that's the 1 percent rule that the Department has
just put out that allows 1 percent of students to get different
assessments.
Even with that, I'm hearing from folks in Minnesota that
that's not good enough; that the 1 percent number is too low,
and yet I think I've heard from the panel that we should stay
the course. And so maybe we'll start with Dr. Thurlow since
just I'll pick on my fellow Minnesotan. And if you would just
address that specific issue, the 1 percent. Is that right?
Should we have any percent? Is that number too low? And then
anybody else who would like to offer a thought.
Dr. Thurlow. Let me start. We collect data. We've been
working with all states, so let me start with some data that we
collected in 2000 and 2001 when most of the states had their
alternate assessments in place and had collected the data.
Now not all states had collected the data, but we had data
from most states. And we looked at their alternate assessment
data at that point. And I can't right now off the top of my
head recollect the exact number, but the majority of states at
that point had less than 1 percent of their students, of their
total population of students, taking their alternate
assessment. That's a good barometer I think because that was
before the accountability things were right there on top of
their head.
So once you put that accountability in there, then
everybody's getting really nervous and they're worried about
whether their kids are going to be proficient. And so then
they're looking for, I don't want to call it loopholes, but
they're looking for ways to figure out how to get those numbers
up.
And so I think the 1 percent number is the break number.
The data that I've looked at tell me that the number is the
right number. That's not to say that people are worried about
their numbers and that they think maybe, you know, there are
some kids right on the borderline that maybe they really
shouldn't be in the regular assessment at this point anyway,
and maybe they should be in the alternate assessment, but every
piece of data that I've looked at tells me that 1 percent is
the right number. Some states are way below that 1 percent
figure.
You know, in my mind, 1 percent is right, and there's no
question in my mind.
Dr. Durkin. With all due respect to Dr. Thurlow, and I do
believe nationally when we look at this group of students, this
is a group of students that are clearly identifiable at birth,
and we know clearly that they're going to be eligible for IDEA
services. But I will just give one piece of examples. In
Boston, which has huge medical facilities--I believe our city
in Houston has the same--we were at times having a large
proportion of students, significant proportion of medically
fragile students, simply because of our medical investments,
these children were living longer and coming to school, where
previously, 10, 12 years ago, they would not be.
So I ask you to caution to look at the 1 percent, but for
states to be cognizant of certain things that do impact on
their areas that may merit that, without going into the
loophole or escape valve kind of provision. Because these
students are clearly identifiable. And if anything should be
asked, what are the reasons for asking for an increased
percentage, not to increase or change the accountability
standard but to possibly include students who really do merit
that category.
Mr. Miller. Would the gentleman yield? Oh, excuse me. Go
ahead.
Mr. Kline. Yes, I'd be happy to yield.
Mr. Miller. I just wanted to yield, if you could
incorporate in your answers this question of the LEAs being
able to ask the states to increase that. I assume that would
have to be based upon data.
Dr. Durkin. Correct.
Mr. Miller. And then the question would be whether or not
the Department of Education would grant the state some leeway.
Could you explain how that might play out in this
consideration?
Dr. Durkin. I could definitely foresee with the data of the
area that we're in and the kinds of students we're talking
about according to the criteria in IDEA that a particular LEA
may be representing more students in that category that might
merit more than the 1 percent. But it would have to go through
either a waiver process or documentation through that, through
the LEA.
Mr. Miller. With the state?
Dr. Durkin. Yes.
Mr. Miller. And then that question would be what's the
impact on that on the overall state?
Dr. Durkin. I would think particular cities, though, would
have, particularly in the urban cities, would have a different
piece of information than you would from other cities. So I
would imagine foreseeing going to the LEA to be able to look at
that and then foreseeing that, again, being granted that
because of the data representing in that particular location.
Mr. Miller. You mentioned the medical facilities. You might
have the same situation in Minnesota. So they could
theoretically, based upon hard data, go and get additional
leeway or waiver for--in that particular school system, right?
Dr. Durkin. But I would imagine that would be the exception
rather than the rule.
Mr. Miller. Right. Right.
Dr. Durkin. Because the same criteria would be kept. Just
the fact that I may have more students in that category than
perhaps another town across the state, for that, and I think
that's the issue that really needs to merited, because I do
hear that if we waiver from that criteria, we could very much
be having students over that 1 percent that clearly should be
held to standard assessment procedures rather than alternate.
Mr. Kline. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Miller. I'm sorry.
Mr. Kline. And reclaim my time and just ask if there's
anybody on the panel who disagrees with the 1 percent rule.
Anyone who disagrees?
[No response.]
Mr. Kline. OK. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Mrs. Biggert. Thank you. The gentleman from Massachusetts,
Mr. Tierney, is recognized.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank all of you
witnesses. And I respect your testimony and appreciate it. I
think we may have all benefited if we had also had a panelist
who could raise some of the issues that we keep hearing in our
districts. I'm not sure I'll be able to do all of that in the
short period of time that I have, but I do want to project out
some of the comments that I hear and get your response on them.
One I think hear most predominately is the claim that
there's not enough resources in order to accommodate all of the
support systems that you talk about when you find there is
something lacking in a teacher or in a school, many of you have
already talked about sending resources out there to fix that
situation. I'm told over and over again because of state
cutbacks in funding as well as the Federal real or perceived,
whichever side you want to argue on that, cut, lack of funding
or whatever, that there just aren't those resources, and
therefore, schools are being put into needs improvement
category more and more often. Do you find that? I guess, Dr.
Thurlow, you're the one that deals most often on a broader
scope. The others can answer if they want. Do you find that to
be the case in general?
Dr. Thurlow. We find there's a consistent complaint about
it, but we also find that states are doing very innovative
plans that are not necessarily requiring a lot of additional
resources. So, I referred to the Ohio plan. They have put
together a very, very impressive plan where they are pulling in
existing resources that they now have access to. There is a
wonderful array of technical assistance services that are out
there available, and I'm speaking particularly from the special
education side.
There is a whole host of technical assistance services
available to states. Ohio has built in all of those technical
assistance services and has a comprehensive plan that it is
working off of.
You know, I think states being creative, filtering those
resources down into their districts and down into their schools
is one of the creative things that can be done.
Mr. Tierney. Do you think the Department of Education is
doing enough to help states get that done? Because I'm not sure
from what I'm hearing that that's the case. It seems to me that
in a lot of instances, we're talking about people who at least
feel as if that isn't getting down to their school or their
classroom, and that's where a lot of this feedback is coming,
that they just aren't getting that support.
Dr. Thurlow. I think there is a lot that's happening and
that there's so much to be done and that people feel so much
pressure. So, you know, I do think it's there. I just think
that people feel like they're under so much pressure. We just
need to give it more time.
Mr. Tierney. Well, in line with that, let me read you a
statement and get your reactions for this:
``Throughout history, business and schools in America
flourished as powerhouses of economic and educational
opportunity. For businesses that kept up with rapid
globalization, the label continuous improvement organization
became an asset, an advantage that would bring technical
expertise and expansion opportunities. However, the President,
Congress and state policymakers chose to cast the continuous
improvement of schools as a negative. Policies and regulars
appear designed to impugn rather than support public schools.''
What would be the panel's response to that statement?
Dr. Thurlow. Well, I think some of the media have created
the impugning piece of this, and that is a tragedy, I think,
because I think that the resources that are there to help the
schools improve--and I guess I'll turn it over to my--
Ms. McCollum. Would the gentleman yield?
Dr. Thurlow. --to the others that are right down there in
the field there.
Ms. McCollum. Would you yield?
Mr. Tierney. Sure. I'll yield to the gentlelady.
Ms. McCollum. Dr. Thurlow, you're familiar with the
Minnesota state auditors recent report, by 2014, the
overwhelming majority of our schools in Minnesota will be
failing. And that's a nonpartisan report. And that I find very
alarming. That is separate a little bit from what we're talking
today. But that was a nonpartisan report.
Dr. Thurlow. Actually, I have to apologize, because I've
been in the state so little I haven't had a chance to see the
report.
Ms. McCollum. Yes, well, Mr. Jim Nobles, our esteemed state
auditor, released the report, which stated under No Child Left
Behind, over 80 percent of our schools will be failing in
Minnesota.
Dr. Thurlow. All I can see is often--and I haven't seen
that report--often those reports are based on if things stay
the same. I apologize I haven't seen the report.
Mr. Tierney. I have to--thank you. I made a mistake here. I
had promised Mr. Kildee I'd yield to him, but so many people
have asked questions between that promise and the time that I
almost forgot Mr. Kildee. I'll yield to you.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you very much. I just want to thank Ms.
Sabia for offering her additional response and insight to my
question on the 1 percent rule. That was very, very helpful.
And also, Madam Chair, I'd ask unanimous consent to submit a
statement for the record from the American Federation of
Teachers.
Mrs. Biggert. Without objection.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you.
[The material to be provided follows:]
Statement of the American Federation of Teachers
The AFT has long championed high standards around core academic
subjects and accountability for the progress of all students, including
students with disabilities. We support the use of valid and reliable
assessments and the disaggregation and reporting of all mandatory state
and district assessments so that we know how all students are doing and
so that help can be provided to those who need it.
We are, however, concerned about how children with disabilities are
being integrated into the accountability systems under the No Child
Left Behind Act. For example, although the Department of Education has
revised its Title I regulations pertaining to the assessment of
students with disabilities, the regulations are still problematic for
two reasons.
First, the revised regulations require that, except for the 1
percent of students with the most severe cognitive disabilities, the
scores of students taking an alternate assessment must be measured
against grade-level standards. This means that students who are
performing well below grade level, but who do not fall into the one
percent, will almost certainly be rated as not proficient. These are
students who may be improving, but the regular grade level assessment,
even with accommodations, does not accurately measure their academic
progress. Typically the Individualized Education Program (IEP) team
recommends that such students, often referred to as ``gap students,''
take an out-of-level assessment because it is considered to be a better
and more accurate way to measure the progress of their achievement. As
the Title I regulations are written, out-of-level tests will, for
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) purposes, only count for the
significantly cognitively disabled, not the ``gap'' students. Districts
and schools are left with no options for appropriately assessing these
students for AYP purposes.
Second, the revised Title I regulations only allow the proficient
scores of students held to alternate achievement standards to count for
AYP purposes if they do not exceed 1 percent of all students in the
grades assessed. Proficient scores that exceed the 1 percent cap may
not be included in AYP calculations. Setting a cap on the scores that
may be counted is extremely arbitrary, and preliminary evidence
suggests that the cap may be particularly unfair for urban districts
because they tend to educate more students with significant
disabilities.
______
Mrs. Biggert. Do you yield back?
Mr. Tierney. I'll keep going if I can, but it looks like
the red light is on, so I'll yield back.
Mrs. Biggert. Your time is up. The chair recognizes Ms.
Majette, from Georgia, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Majette. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and I thank the
witnesses for being here and for the wonderful work that you
all have done in this area.
I've been sitting here for almost the entire hearing, and
from what I understand, the brief comment that was made
regarding resources, is it the opinion of all four of you that
we do have sufficient resources to meet the needs of children
and their parents nationwide with respect to this particular
application of leave no child behind? And I'm asking that
question because in my district--I represent suburban Atlanta,
Georgia's Fourth Congressional District, and in the state of
Georgia, our education system is in a precarious position with
respect to funding.
With the lack of funding or the underfunding of IDEA, of
Head Start and of No Child Left Behind, we're really not able
to meet all of the needs that we do have, and particularly in
those areas where we have large minority communities, large
communities of people where English is not their first
language, where there are substantial cultural differences. And
I just would like to hear the panel address whether you think
that we do have enough funding to do what needs to be done for
all of the different segments of the population as I've
described. And perhaps--well, I don't know. Dr. Thurlow?
Dr. Thurlow. I'll start it off, but I think those in the
districts really are the ones that probably need to talk more
about this issue. Looking only from a broad perspective, I'm
not sure that I can answer that we have sufficient funds. I
just, you know, what I think is, funding has always been an
issue. It's not a new issue because of No Child Left Behind.
So--
Ms. Majette. Well, I certainly--I understand that the
implementation of No Child Left Behind is going to require
additional resources, whether you say it's money or something
else, but it is going to require additional resources, and in
terms of intensive intervention, if we already are not able to
meet needs as they stand now, how do we expect to be able to do
that?
Dr. Thurlow. We need to be thinking creatively and changing
what we do. I mean, this is an opportunity to do that, to meet
the needs of kids and do what we do differently. So we really
do change things. And because what we've been doing hasn't been
working. There are too many kids who have been left behind in
lots of different ways. This is an opportunity.
Ms. Majette. Dr. Durkin?
Dr. Durkin. I'd like to address that, because I really do
think we have not been doing a great job of using the resources
we do have. I have the highest per pupil spent on students in
the state of Rhode Island, and asking me here today, if you
said is that money well spent, I am appalled that I am a high
performing school district with still 23 percent of fifth
through ninth graders not reading at standards.
So my quest as a new superintendent is really looking where
the resources are going, realigning them, and targeting them to
the needs we have. And that means doing things differently and
maybe stop doing some things, but ensuring that they go to the
services of the kids that we do need.
Ms. Majette. Thank you. Dr. Rhyne?
Dr. Rhyne. I think another issue is leadership in a
district and focus in a district so that from the top down,
from the superintendent, every level of administration, the
teacher level, cafeteria workers, custodians, that everybody
knows in that district what the goals are, what you're after. I
think that's critical, and I think it's critical to develop
strategic plans with very specific, measurable targets so that
all the consumers know where a district is at any time and if
we're meeting the goals or not.
And I think, like Drs. Thurlow and Durkin have said, it's
taking--we're never going to have enough money. So it's taking
the money that we do have, and it's taking the resources that
we do have, and doing business differently.
Ms. Majette. Thank you. And Ms. Sabia?
Ms. Sabia. Well, I think first of all, I mean, IDEA needs
more funding and full funding and that would take some of the
weight off of what school systems are dealing with. But I also
think there are ways, and not just creative--I gave an example
of a real specific creative way to deal with things--but on a
larger level.
School systems have, from the beginning with IDEA, for some
reason developed this two-tier approach of special education
and general education, and they're working these two parallel
systems, and that's very expensive. There is a lot of
duplication. You're creating a whole system of something, like
extracurricular activities, and then later on saying, oh, what
about those kids with special needs? What do we do with them?
And we heard that sometimes transportation is an issue.
Well, if those kids were in their neighborhood schools to begin
with, they'd go home on the regular bus with the other kids.
They wouldn't have to have some special special ed bus.
And this goes all the way up to the administration. When
you're running two separate school systems, a special ed system
and a general ed system, there's a lot of add on expense. So
with No Child Left Behind, we are now talking about one system
of accountability, one school system. They're all our kids. And
if that mindset starts flowing down to how you do
administration, how you do curriculum, how you run your
schools, I think we're going to find ways in which we can do it
as one school system and just naturally I think costs will be
cut that way, and also to the extent you want access to the
general ed curriculum under No Child Left Behind, that's going
to help improve scores for students. There's going to be more
access to LRE, Least Restrictive Environment, under IDEA, I
think if IDEA is fully implemented and you have more of that
general access--the access to general ed curriculum and access
to least restrictive environment, that will help No Child Left
Behind and it will also allow for students who are in their
neighborhood schools to have the same transportation, and
you'll stop duplicating some of these things.
But it's going to take time. This should have been
happening in many states for a long time, and I'm afraid some
of the states that are having the problems, it's partly because
they weren't doing some of the things early on, and now it's
catch up time, and now it counts. And so we're going to have a
tough period to go through, but that doesn't mean it's not
important and it isn't something we should go through. And
funding has never been an issue not to do the right thing, as
far as I'm concerned. And hopefully, while we work out the
funding issues, people will continue to do what's right for
kids with disabilities and not use that as a reason to not give
them the accountability they deserve. Thank you.
Ms. Majette. Thank you.
Mrs. Biggert. The gentlewoman yields back. The gentleman
from Maryland, Mr. Van Hollen.
Mr. Van Hollen. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank all of
you who are here today for this very important subject. Ms.
Sabia, thank you for all you've done in Montgomery County,
Maryland, as well as for the country.
I had one question that relates to something that came up
locally that I think also is an issue nationally which I
believe has been resolved, but I'd like to figure out what the
cause of it was. In Montgomery County when we were taking the
state assessments I believe a year ago, the special education
kids were given supports as part of taking their test,
consistent with their special programs that they had. And as a
result of that, those test scores were thrown out, and they
were all, you know, counted as failing. Was that as a result of
a state interpretation? Was that as a result of Federal law?
And if it was part of the Federal law, has that been changed
now? Because I think there was general agreement that people
should be able to have the same supports that were available
through their IEPs when they're taking the tests.
Ms. Sabia. Well, my understanding, it actually wasn't the
fault of any of those things. It was actually the test
development. The test was developed in such a way reading
assessment where there was a decoding portion, and obviously if
someone is reading to you--it was a verbatim reading
accommodation that caused it to be thrown out--if someone is
reading to you, that would invalidate obviously a decoding
portion, because you're not reading it. But then there are
other parts to that test, and they were invalidating the entire
test.
And this is not new. I mean, it became a big issue last
year because of AYP. This has been going on every year my child
has taken this test, and it's never become a big issue because
it didn't, you know, count, so to speak. And the only
difference last year is for some reason they wouldn't even give
you scores. That was something new.
But because of the pressure of No Child Left Behind, there
was just something put out, I think it was January 24th, that
this has all been cured, that they did the test in such a way
now that they can separate out the score of the decoding
portion and the rest of the test will be valid and will be used
for AYP. So to me that's an example of how the pressure of No
Child Left Behind can help creatively fix some of these
problems that have been around.
So it's my understanding we're in good shape on that.
Mr. Van Hollen. Good. Because that's been an issue
elsewhere, as well.
Dr. Thurlow. I'd like to make one other comment, and that
is one of the real benefits that has come out of that. But it's
also made us aware of something else that needs to happen, and
that is one of the precursors of that was that IEP teams made a
decision that lots of kids needed that reading accommodation,
probably too many kids, more kids than actually did need that
reading accommodation, and that identifies a need for more
training for IEP teams, probably more research related to some
of the accommodations. So there are still some needs out there
related to research, professional development, training of
various groups. So there's still some needs.
Mr. Van Hollen. OK. You're saying overidentifying the
number of kids who need the reading supports?
Dr. Thurlow. That particular accommodation.
Mr. Van Hollen. Dr. Durkin, you mentioned an issue with
respect to being able to measure an academic progress standard
or the value added. And I guess one question is for kids who
were not meeting proficiency standards but have made lots of
progress, does No Child Left Behind provide some kind of
recognition of that kind of advancement, or is it dangerous to
provide that kind of recognition because you want to really
make sure people are absolutely proficient, even though they
made a lot of progress?
I think some schools are frustrated they may make progress
and still be failing with respect to proficiency with no
recognition of the fact that the kids have made progress. Could
you respond to that, and anybody else?
Dr. Durkin. I think you've captured that very well. And the
difference is in a balance. We absolutely must stay firm on a
proficiency standard, but in leading a school district,
particularly in classrooms--and I'm a small district, so I'm
looking at classroom data--I've got to encourage those
individuals to keep working, and those families and kids to
keep working.
So I do see over time if we can move toward staying with
the proficiency standard but giving some recognition, and that
really comes to the state's accountability systems, of looking
at progress made, and specifically targeting that progress in
very objective terms, in terms of the percentage of students
moving from one level to the next, the percentage of students
that may have started 3 years below level and now are at--or
are now moving a full year and a half progress, or have made
the rate of progress much quicker because of the accelerated
programs put in place.
Those are just some thoughts to really look at, not only
the actual standard piece, but the morale piece that keeps you
going every day when you come into work.
Mr. Van Hollen. And that can be done, you think, at the
state level rather than through changes at the Federal level
with respect to--
Dr. Durkin. I believe so. I'm doing that at the local
level. When I do a report, I report not only my NCLB standards,
but actually by grade what the progress has been made also for
the community to understand.
Mr. Van Hollen. OK. Thank you. Madam Chairman, I'd like if
I could, with unanimous consent, to submit the testimony of a
teacher from Maryland, Rosemary King Johnston, who at one point
was going to be--I think there was a last minute request that
could not be accommodated for time purposes with respect to her
testimony. If I could submit that for the record.
Mrs. Biggert. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Van Hollen. Thank you.
Mrs. Biggert. Yield back.
Mr. Van Hollen. I have one last question. I'll pass. It's
late. But I guess--
Mrs. Biggert. It's usually that last question that's the
zinger.
Mr. Van Hollen. No, no. It's just--it has to do with this
issue of differences among the states between the number of
children who are in a particular category for the purposes of
measuring AYP. You said Maryland's got an N. We've been saying
the N is 5. Some have 20. How--it's difficult enough to make
sort of cross-state comparisons, because states already have
different tests and different pass levels--does that just
further complicate? Should we have some more consistency among
states with respect to that number, or should we just leave it
to the states as we have it today?
Dr. Rhyne. I believe that we should have more consistency.
And let me give you an example. In a school with about 1,000
students, and we can assume that possibly out of those 1,000
students we'll have about 120 special ed students, and so with
those 120 special ed students, that school will be held and
will count all of their special education students in AYP.
Let's take a small school, a small school with, say, 300
students. And let's assume in that small school with 300
students that we're going to have roughly around 30 to 36
special education children. And let's say the maximum subgroup
is 45 in that state. All of those children get left out of the
accountability system. And if you look at the National Center
of Educational Statistics data on the size of schools, in the
United States, median school size is about 460.
So in a report there are approximately almost half of the
schools in the United States could be left out of the
accountability standards for students with disabilities. It's
very disconcerting to me.
Mr. Van Hollen. OK.
Ms. Sabia. And this also adds to one of the myths that's
going around. When you hear that, and then also consider how
you're hearing all over the country that a few kids with
disabilities are causing our school not to make AYP, well, even
with all that flexibility, you are still hearing that. And I do
think it should be more consistent, and I congratulate my state
for being the lowest, or one of the lowest. I think there's
more than one that has 5. And that I hope other states step up
to that plate.
But the people that are resisting this are still saying,
even when they've got huge Ns for their school and are not
having to count these subgroups, they're still saying, you
know, this group of kids is bringing down the school. And
that's a particular concern to parents of kids with
disabilities, because it's making our kids the scapegoat.
Somebody else brought forward, I think you might have been
the one, Mrs. Biggert, about the issue with saying that the
schools are failing, that language, which is not even in No
Child Left Behind, and it's needs improvement. And I think it's
fair to say that a school that may be a great school, a
wonderful school, is doing a lot of great things, if they've
got a subgroup in that school that is not doing well, it would
not be fair to say they're failing in their mission, but it
would be fair to say they need improvement.
So this whole rhetoric turns around and it gets used in a
negative way against kids with disabilities, and that's the
part that I object to is the way in which the language and
these myths keep propagating, and it's one of those myths
people don't know about that in general, and they don't realize
the extent to which kids are still, even with the strength of
this law, kept out of the accountability system.
Dr. Thurlow. I'll just add that we've been trying to go to
states' web sites and pull those datas to see if we can
actually get to that question of, you know, how many, in each
of the states, how many schools are in needs improvement
because of their students with disabilities subgroup, how many
because of other subgroups, and let's actually get the data and
see what's happening.
And we can't find those data to look at. And part of it is
because of the cell size issue. In too many schools, the cell
size number prevents us from seeing kids with disabilities. So
it is an issue I think to be able to look at the data and see
really what's going on.
Right now we're, you know, having a lot of complaints, and
mostly it's because of rumor, and I'm not sure it's actually
true.
Mr. Miller. Just on that point, are parents or advocacy
groups organizing around this issue of whether their kids are
going to become invisible in this process or not?
Ms. Sabia. Well, I'm in the process of writing this parent
friendly brochure that we keep saying is an oxymoron, because
it's a very difficult law to explain to anybody, and especially
things like N numbers. But one of the things we're saying to
parents in this is these are the things you can do at your
state level, and one of them is find out what the N number is
for your state and question why it is so high, and do advocacy
on these specific parts, because the state does have so much
flexibility. Make sure your state is using it wisely and not in
ways that are going to undermine the accountability for your
child.
Dr. Rhyne. One other thing I'd like to just mention is some
states have petitioned to get higher subgroup numbers for
students with disabilities, and so a state, for example, their
N might be 30 for all other groups, but 45 for students with
disabilities. Something to take into consideration.
Dr. Durkin. I would also like to add about the backlash
that we all can work together regarding the issue of penalizing
and demeaning the addition of special education students in a
school because it will drag down their AYP. I think that's a
very important message. Students with disabilities add an
incredible breadth to a school to both children who have
disabilities and those who do not. And I think we need to look
at that value of what that brings to our communities and ensure
that there is no backlash in a public relations standpoint for
that.
Mrs. Biggert. Thank you. I think that last question was a
very important question, regardless.
But I wish to thank the witnesses for their valuable time
and testimony. You have been just an outstanding panel, and you
have the expertise that is so important as we go through the
implementation of No Child Left Behind, so we really appreciate
that you've been here, and I thank the Members for their
participation.
If there is no further business, the Committee stands
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[Additional materials submitted for the record follow:]
Statement of Hon. Charlie Norwood, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Georgia
Mr. Chairman I thank you for holding today's hearing to further
explore the impact of No Child Left Behind, and more specifically, the
impact of including students with disabilities in the Adequate Yearly
Progress (AYP) provisions of Title I. As a longtime supporter of No
Child Left Behind and a firm believer that every student deserves the
opportunity learn and make progress, I look forward to the testimony of
our witnesses and appreciate their time in shedding light on this
critical issue.
Mr. Chairman, we all know that No Child Left Behind reflects the
four pillars of President Bush's education reform agenda, which
includes accountability and testing, flexibility and local control,
funding for what works, and expanding parental choice and educational
options.
The engine that drives these important reform ideas is the ability
to assess yearly progress for students in our public schools, and the
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) provision in No Child Left Behind gives
States the tools they need to help them determine if public schools are
meeting the expectations of American families. Without AYP, it is
impossible to determine which students are learning the critical skills
and knowledge that they will need to compete in the modern workforce,
and I fully support this program and the flexibility it offers to our
States and local school districts.
Mr. Chairman, I further believe that we must make sure that EVERY
student has the skills and knowledge necessary to compete in the modern
world. That is why I strongly support the actions taken by Congress and
the Administration to ensure that ALL students, including students with
disabilities, were included in State Developed AYP systems. Since we
all desire to improve the educational opportunities for our most
vulnerable children, I believe it is critically important to continue
providing States with the flexibility they need to include children
with disabilities in the AYP system.
Simply put, a disabled student should not be discounted simply
because he or she does not learn at the same rate or in the same manner
as other students, and I believe that Congress has a responsibility to
continue guaranteeing States the ability to assess the progress of
students with special needs. In addition, I applaud the Administration
for finalizing a regulation granting States further flexibility in
measuring AYP for students with disabilities, so that they can develop
and administer alternative assessments aligned to the standards for
these students at the local level.
The progress that Congress and the Administration has made in
regards to AYP and students with disabilities is impressive, and I look
forward to continuing our work in Congress to further enhance the
opportunity for EVERY student to receive a top quality education in
American public schools. With that being said, more work needs to be
done in order to ensure that we continue to measure progress for all
American students.
I look forward to hearing our witness'' thoughts on how Congress
and the Administration can continue in this important endeavor.
Thank you Mr. Chairman and I yield back.
______
Statement of Hon. Jon Porter, a Representative in Congress form the
State of Nevada
Good Morning, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for convening this hearing on
the progress of No Child Left Behind Programs in providing our special
needs children with the necessary resources to achieve educational
advancement.
Through a greater understanding of how these students are assessed
in the class room, we as legislators will gain greater comprehension of
the issues facing teachers in the classroom. I thank our distinguished
panel of guests for providing us the insight into this process as we
assess the efficacy of the programs contained under No Child Left
Behind.
As we work to ensure that the regulations of No Child Left Behind
and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act are enforced
simultaneously, we must also inquire as to the actual benefit proffered
to those whose challenges in the classroom are much greater than the
average tasks of academic achievement. It is my hope that the
flexibility of No Child Left Behind will allow our schools to maintain
standards of progress and achievement that provide all students,
special needs or otherwise, with the appropriate learning environment.
The announcement yesterday by the Department of Education of
states'' ability to exceed the 1% cap on the level of proficient scores
from alternate assessments under their adequate yearly progress
calculations illuminates the need, felt both by states and the federal
government, to allow states substantial flexibility in determining the
progress of their special needs students. This action by the federal
government demonstrates the capability of No Child Left Behind to
encompass the varying needs and standards of the states and their
individual school districts.
As we constantly review the measures of No Child Left Behind, we
must continue to recognize the importance of the states in implementing
the standards created at the federal level. This hearing provides us,
as Members of Congress, an excellent opportunity to understand the
varying degrees of difficulty in implementing this law. Again, I
applaud the chairman, and this Committee, for engendering a continued
relationship between the Congress and the teachers and administrators
who implement the many facets of No Child Left Behind.
______
Statement of American Occupational Therapy Association
The American Occupational Therapy Association (AOTA) submits this
statement for the record of the March 3, 2004 hearing. We appreciate
the opportunity to provide this information regarding the relationship
of occupational therapy services to improving results for children with
disabilities under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). It is important
for Congress to monitor how well the law meets its objective of holding
states and schools accountable for improving educational outcomes for
all students, including those with disabilities. The topic of this
hearing is critical to the development of a better, clearer picture of
how America's public schools should educate students with special
needs.
Children's education and learning continues to receive a great deal
of attention from teachers, administrators, parents and policy makers
across the country. Of concern to everyone is how to best educate all
students to high standards and how to appropriately measure student
progress, particularly for students with disabilities and those with
limited English proficiency. Embedded in NCLB is recognition of the
link between improved student outcomes and well trained and qualified
personnel. The law also requires school personnel to use effective
instructional practices and other supports to help children learn.
These and other issues have also been raised in the pending
reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA). NCLB and IDEA are expected to work in concert to help schools
meet the learning and behavioral needs of children with disabilities.
Occupational therapy services can play an important role in this
effort.
Occupational Therapy Services under IDEA and NCLB
Occupational therapy is concerned about an individual's ability to
do everyday activities, or occupations, so that they can participate in
school, at home, at work, and in the community. Occupational therapy
practitioners use purposeful activities to help children bridge the gap
between their capacity to learn and full, successful participation in
education, work, play, and leisure activities.
Occupational therapists look at the individual's strengths and
needs with respect to daily life performance in school, home and
community life, focusing on the relationship between the child and
their performance abilities, the demands of the activity, and the
physical and social contexts within which the activity is performed. In
addition to the physical aspects, each individual's occupational
performance is viewed through a psychological-social-emotional lens.
This perspective helps the occupational therapist to understand what is
important and meaningful to the child as well as how their roles,
experiences, strengths and patterns of coping affect performance in
learning and other activities.
Occupational therapy for the school-aged child is intended to help
them succeed in school. Intervention strategies may focus on
information-processing, academic skill development, social interactions
and ability to function in the school environment. For adolescents,
occupational therapy focuses on preparation for work life choices,
improvement of social and work skills, and learning how to create or
alter the environment to maximize productivity.
How Occupational Therapy Helps Support NCLB and IDEA
Occupational therapy intervention for children and youth is planned
in consultation with parents and families, teachers, and other
professionals, and is directed toward achieving desired outcomes.
Children are being challenged by increasingly higher standards of
educational performance and achievement. They may feel pressure from
parents, peers, and others to behave in certain ways or to conform to
certain expectations that may be in conflict with one another.
Depending on the student's age, the presence of any learning
difficulties may have debilitating effects on his or her sense of
accomplishment or social competence. Difficulties with completing class
assignments or in getting along with others may lead to frustration and
self-isolation. Occupational therapy intervention for these students
can address these stresses by identifying these psychosocial problems.
In addressing learning problems, occupational therapists identify
the underlying performance skills, including motor, process,
communication and interaction skills that impede the student's ability
to participate in learning and other school-related activities.
Intervention strategies and service models are designed to support
desired educational outcomes, and may be provided individually or in
small groups. The therapist also works with classroom teachers and the
student's family to determine how to modify the home or classroom
settings, routines and schedules to provide structured learning
opportunities and experiences that support the student's emerging
skills. Occupational therapists also help students participate in lunch
activities in the cafeteria and to identify organizational strategies
so they can attend to instruction in the classroom.
Occupational therapy can have a significant supportive role in
testing under NCLB. The occupational therapists'' expertise in helping
students meet school activity and task demands can help teachers and
IEP Teams to identify appropriate accommodations needed in the
classroom or learning environment to support the student's skill level.
This includes identification of and training in the use of assistive
technology or other aids that will help the student complete his
assignments, as well as to participate in state and district
assessments. These accommodations might include simple keyboarding
devices such as the Alpha Smart; low-tech solutions such as built-up
pencil grips, notebook paper with raised lines and elevated writing
surfaces to assist with handwriting; and carrels to limit students''
peripheral vision distractibility.
Another area in which occupational therapy can help improve student
results is the area of literacy. Poor or messy handwriting is a major
reason for referral to occupational therapy in school settings. Many of
these referrals are from general education classrooms and may be
related to decreased formal instruction in the mechanics of
handwriting.
Reading and handwriting are not simple learning tasks. Both require
the coordination of complex cognitive, memory, visual and motor
processes. Difficulties in one or more of these areas can also impact a
child's view of the entire learning environment (such as learning to
spell, use scissors or move through the hallways without bumping into
another child), not just their ability to read and write. Even after
these components are mastered, students' do not become 'writers' unless
they also have the requisite language and cognitive abilities to
organize ideas and express them appropriately using the rules of
grammar and syntax.
Occupational therapy has unique expertise in the areas that affect
reading and writing. Children's visual and writing skills are dependent
on having a stable base of postural or physical support from which
their eyes and hands can do the work of reading and writing. It is
difficult, for example, for a child to participate in a reading
activity on the chalkboard when they can not keep their head/trunk up
for long periods of time, or if they are easily visually distracted and
can not ``tune out'' a visually ``busy'' classroom. Children with
handwriting and visual-perception difficulties often find a way to not
perform or complete reading and written assignments. Occupational
therapy is an important service that can help meet the needs of
children with reading and writing difficulties.
AOTA believes that occupational therapy is an underutilized service
that can meet and address children's learning, social and behavioral
needs. As a result, many children who could benefit from occupational
therapy do not receive services. This limited access affects both IDEA-
eligible students as well as students in general education. Often this
limitation is due to a lack of understanding about how occupational
therapy can help or because of perceptions that therapists only address
``motor'' issues. Occupational therapy training is comprehensive and
covers physical, psychological, social and pedagogical aspects of human
occupation. Occupational therapy's understanding of human performance,
or ``do-ing,'' can be invaluable in helping parents and school staff to
understand the relationship between the physical and psychosocial and
how these factors support or impede children's progress.
What is Occupational Therapy?
Occupational therapy is a vital health and rehabilitation service,
designed to help individuals participate in important every day
activities, or occupations. Occupational therapy services address
underlying performance skills, including motor, process, communication
and interaction skills to assist in the correction and prevention of
conditions that limit an individual from fully participating in life.
For children with disabling conditions and other educational needs,
occupational therapy can help them to develop needed skills within the
context of important learning experiences and to perform necessary
daily activities such as feeding or dressing themselves and help them
get along with their peers at school. Occupational therapy services can
help identify strategies for teachers and families to use to facilitate
appropriate reading and writing development.
Occupational therapy practitioners have the unique training to
assist individuals to engage in daily life activities throughout the
lifespan and across home, school, work and play environments. Services
may be provided during only one period of the child's life or at
several different points when the child is having difficulties engaging
in his or her daily school occupations, such as when they are faced
with more complex demands in the classroom resulting from increased
emphasis and reliance on written output. Occupational therapy services
may be provided in the family's home; at school; and in the community,
such as day care and preschool programs, private clinics, and
vocational programs.
Occupational therapy evaluation determines whether an individual
would benefit from intervention. The evaluation looks at the
individual's strengths and needs with respect to daily life function in
school, home and community life, focusing on the relationship between
the client and their performance abilities, the demands of the
activity, and the physical and social contexts in which the activity is
performed. The findings of the occupational therapy evaluation inform
the team of the need for intervention. Occupational therapy
practitioners use purposeful activities to help individuals bridge the
gap between capacity to learn and full and successful engagement in
work, play, and leisure activities.
For example, occupational therapy for infants and young children
may include remediation of problem areas, development of compensatory
strategies, enhancement of strengths, and creation of environments that
provide opportunities for developmentally appropriate play and learning
experiences. Services for the school-aged child are intended to help
them be successful in school. Intervention strategies may focus on
improving the child's information-processing ability, academic skill
development such as handwriting, and ability to function in the school
environment. For adolescents, the occupational therapy intervention
focus is on preparation for occupational choice, improving social and
work skills, and learning how to create or alter the environment to
maximize their productivity.
Occupational therapy is a health and rehabilitation service covered
by private health insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, workers' compensation,
vocational programs, behavioral health programs, early intervention
programs, and education programs. AOTA represents 30,000 occupational
therapists, occupational therapy assistants, and students. We thank
you, once again, for the opportunity to submit our comments for the
record.
______
Statement of the National Center for Learning Disabilities, Inc.
Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the National Center for Learning
Disabilities (NCLD), I would like to submit testimony to the record in
conjunction with the Full Committee hearing held on March 3, 2004. NCLD
is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1977 that works to increase
opportunities and improve outcomes for children and adults with
learning disabilities (LD) by providing accurate information to the
public, developing and disseminating innovative educational programs,
and advocating for more effective policies and legislation to help
individuals with LD.
First, I would like to thank you and Representatives Castle,
Miller, Woolsey, and Kildee for your support of The No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), which was signed into law by President Bush
in January of 2002. Your unwavering bipartisan commitment to ensure
that states and school districts intensify their efforts to improve the
academic achievement of the nation's traditionally at-risk groups of
public school students is historic and is deeply appreciated by parents
nationwide. By protecting NCLB's new provisions for assessment and
accountability that focus increased levels of attention on under-
performing groups of students to help close the achievement gap for
students who have long lagged behind, you are ensuring millions of
students will finally be seen through the lens that allows us to really
know whether they are receiving a quality education and making expected
gains.
For the nation's 2.9 million students with identified learning
disabilities (LD) currently receiving special education services under
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the challenging
new provisions of NCLB create expanded opportunities for improved
academic achievement. As the IDEA definition of specific learning
disabilities indicates, these students have neurological differences
that are not primarily the result of mental retardation, emotional
disturbance, or of environmental, cultural or economic disadvantage.
Additionally, IDEA eligibility determination criteria require that
students should not be determined to be a child with a specific
learning disability if the determinant factor is lack of instruction in
reading or math or limited English proficiency.
These definitional and qualifying criteria establish students with
LD as competent to participate in general education curricula and
achieve at a proficient level when provided with high quality
instruction by trained professionals as well as appropriate
accommodations. Thus, students identified and served under the IDEA
category of Specific Learning Disabilities must be provided full
participation and equal accountability in NCLB.
These additional findings serve to further support our position for
full participation and accountability:
<bullet> The Twenty-fourth Annual Report to Congress on the
implementation of the IDEA indicates that 45 percent of students in the
SLD category spend less than 20 percent of their instructional time in
special education, leaving the majority of their instruction in the
hands of general education teachers.
<bullet> The majority of students served in the SLD category have
their primary academic deficit in the area of reading, the same
academic area at the core of NCLB improvement provisions.
<bullet> Nearly 30 percent of students with learning disabilities
drop out of school (compared to 11% of the general student population).
Two-thirds of high school graduates with learning disabilities were
rated entirely unqualified to enter a four-year college, compared to
37% of non-disabled graduates.
<bullet> The 2003 National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 reports
that grades given to secondary school students with disabilities have
been found to have no correlation to real academic functioning,
misleading parents about how their child is actually performing.
<bullet> Most students with learning disabilities spend the
majority of their instructional time in general education classes.
However, only 60 percent of students with disabilities in general
education academic classes have teachers who receive any information
about the needs of those students and only about half have teachers who
receive any input or consultation from a special educator or other
staff about how to meet those needs.
<bullet> Despite having their disabilities identified earlier
(from 7.3 years of age in 1987 to 6.5 years of age in 2001) two-thirds
of secondary students with learning disabilities are reading 3 or more
grade levels behind. Twenty percent are reading 5 or more grade levels
behind.
<bullet> A 2002 survey conducted by Public Agenda reports that 69
percent of parents of students with disabilities said many children
could avoid special education if they were given help earlier.
NCLD recommends that the Committee consider the following as you
make the critically important legislative decisions and seek to
influence regulation and implementation of NCLB:
Access to the General Curriculum: Students with LD must have access
to the general education curriculum, which must be aligned with the
standards and assessments used to implement NCLB requirements, with
appropriate accommodations.
Teachers must be allowed the time and provided the resources to
learn the new curriculum and adjust their pedagogy, and teachers must
use those instructional practices that have been proven to be effective
in improving outcomes for students with LD.
Schools should effectively employ technology to enhance learning
and increase student achievement by maximizing the use of universally
designed technologies and assistive technology devices and services in
the classroom.
High-Quality Teachers and Paraprofessionals: Students with LD must
receive instruction from highly qualified personnel prepared in
current, validated practices tailored to their individual needs.
Unfortunately, studies have shown that students with learning
disabilities are often the victims of watered down curriculum and
teaching approaches that are neither individualized nor proven to be
effective.
Teachers must be given access to ongoing professional development
and should be prepared to use ongoing progress monitoring using
curriculum-based measurement in order to accurately identify student
progress and tailor instruction accordingly.
Regular and special educators must work collaboratively as part of
a coherent system in planning and delivering instruction.
Conditions of Teaching: Teachers responsible for delivery of
instruction to students with LD, both general and special education,
must use validated, inclusive teaching practices including:
<bullet> instructional configurations that allow teachers to
implement validated teaching practices such as modeling, scaffolding,
elaborated feedback, etc
<bullet> coordinated instruction of skills and strategies across
teachers, grades and schools
<bullet> alignment of instructional methods with curriculum
demands
<bullet> grouping practices that reflect optimal teacher/student
ratios.
Access to Accommodations: Students with LD must be provided
accommodations to ensure their participation in State assessments.
Decisions regarding accommodations must be made by the student's
IEP team or placement team and should be made on the basis of
individual student needs, not on the basis of labels.
The accommodations that students receive on State assessments
should be similar to those routinely provided during classroom
assessment. Neither the State Education Agency (SEA) nor the Local
Education Agency (LEA) can limit the authority of the IEP team to
select individual accommodations/modifications needed by a student with
LD to participate in State assessments.
Monitoring for compliance of these requirements should become part
of the ongoing federal IDEA monitoring system.
Appropriate Use of Test Results: Results of tests used to hold
schools accountable for student achievement as required by NCLB should
not be used solely to make high stakes decisions, such as grade
retention and graduation, about students with LD.
Since grade retention has been shown to contribute significantly to
school dropout, administrators should ensure the use of multiple
sources of information (such as coursework and portfolio assessments)
about student performance for making decisions on such matters. This is
particularly important given that ``out-of-level'' testing is not an
acceptable means for meeting either the assessment or accountability
requirements of NCLB for IDEA eligible students.
Fair Treatment of Subgroups: NCLB's requirements for the
disaggregation of assessment results for several subgroups of students,
including students with disabilities, are designed to enhance school
accountability for at-risk populations. However, the state level
flexibility regarding the determination of minimum group size has led
to a significant range of subgroup size. One survey of subgroup size
across States found that the required minimum number ranges from 3 to
200, with 10 being the most common.
The U.S. Dept. of Education should closely review the results of
such a vast range in subgroup minimums with particular attention to
those States that have established relatively high minimums. While the
purpose for subgroup minimums--to ensure statistically reliable results
and protect student identity--are appropriate, states with artificially
high subgroup minimums may escape the very accountability that this
provision was intended to promote.
Parent Involvement: NCLB creates an authority for funding of
Parental Assistance Information Centers and Local Family Information
Centers (LFICs) to provide training, information, and support to
parents, and to individuals and organizations that work with parents,
to implement parental involvement strategies that lead to improvements
in student academic achievement. The information and training provided
by these centers is critical to prepare parents to hold schools
accountable for closing the achievement gap. These new centers should
be monitored for their effectiveness in providing information related
specifically to students with disabilities, including learning
disabilities.
Full Funding of NCLB and IDEA: Policy-makers need to appropriate
the authorized funding levels for both NCLB and IDEA. States and school
districts need these additional funds to accomplish the aggressive
improvements required by NCLB. Without adequate funding targeted to
effective practices, schools might be pressured to make decisions that
will harm students with learning disabilities, such as limiting access
to special education eligibility.
Monitoring NCLB Implementation: The U.S. Department of Education
should undertake aggressive monitoring activities to ensure full
participation and equal accountability for students with disabilities,
including learning disabilities, in NCLB. Additionally, studies should
immediately be undertaken to track any unintended consequences of
implementation that might adversely impact students with learning
disabilities. Such attention can help to determine the need for
additional guidance and technical assistance and minimize any negative
impact resulting from implementation (e.g. reduced access to special
education eligibility, lack of access to appropriate accommodation and
to general curricula aligned with state standards).
The National Center for Learning Disabilities believes that the new
provisions of NCLB provide substantial opportunities for students with
learning disabilities. However, given the serious sanctions schools
face for not delivering sufficient academic progress, NCLD also
recognizes the possibility that students with learning disabilities and
their parents might be subjected to numerous obstacles. Many of these
obstacles have been mentioned here, while others will only be
thoroughly understood and identified as NCLB implementation moves
forward.
Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the millions of students and their
families we represent at NCLD, I thank you for this opportunity to
provide written testimony to the record on this important subject. We
stand ready to assist you in any way as the discussion continues in
Congress.
James H. Wendorf
Executive Director
______
Statement of Rosemary King Johnston, Member, National Education
Association
Good Morning Chairman Boehner, Mr. Miller, Mr. Van Hollen, and
distinguished members of the Committee. My name is Rosemary King
Johnston and I am a proud veteran of nearly 30 years in the classroom.
I taught my first class of children in 1968 - at a time we refer to as
before the law. I taught primary age students with disabilities in
Massachusetts for a few years and most recently taught in Harford
County, Maryland for 18 years. I am a member of the National Education
Association's IDEA Cadre--a group of 27 education practitioners from
around the country that prepares and delivers professional development
to our members specifically about instructing students with
disabilities. I am also the parent of an adult with a disability and
actively involved in decision making for a relative, who has multiple
disabilities, including a significant cognitive disability. These
experiences, both personal and professional, have given me a
familiarity with the issues affecting educators, parents, and students
with disabilities in the classroom and the community.
As this Committee is aware, the amendments to IDEA in 1997 resulted
in about 6.5 million students with disabilities having access to the
general curriculum. This corrected a practice that was happening all
too often in our nation's schools - that students with disabilities
were being taught in segregated settings, regardless of their
individual capabilities to be included in general education classrooms.
As a parent, an educator, and an advocate, I absolutely agree with the
principles embodied in No Child Left Behind that move us beyond IDEA 97
and begin to focus on how we include students, including students with
disabilities, in the same accountability system.
Please allow me the opportunity to commend the Department of
Education for its final reg lation regarding the assessment of students
with significant cognitive disabilities under No Child Left Behind. As
I understand it, the final regulation allows students with disabilities
to be assessed in four different ways and clarifies that the student's
IEP team makes the determination regarding the most appropriate
assessment instrument for the student. While this is a step in the
right direction, there are additional challenges that must be addressed
at the school and classroom level.
The first is reaching all educators with information explaining
this final regulation. This will be no small feat, as many states have
been slow to implement some of the assessment requirements of IDEA 97,
let alone the requirements of NCLB for students with disabilities. Many
states have still not developed alternate assessments based upon the
state content standards. There is little professional development
available to teachers about how to write an effective IEP that is
aligned with state content standards and how to include students with
disabilities in standardized tests, particularly if the child needs to
be assessed in an alternate manner than the state's standardized tests.
As a cadre member, I have conducted many workshops for my colleagues,
but this requires a national, state, and local partnership to provide
consistent and ongoing technical assistance and professional
development.
To meet part of this challenge, I'd like to suggest to the Members
of this Committee something that the Department of Education could do
to make it easier for classroom teachers and support professionals to
understand the testing regulation. The Department could issue a desktop
guide for educators which looks at some sample content standards for a
particular grade level and illustrates what a regular assessment of
those standards looks like, what an alternate assessment based upon
those standards looks like, and what an alternate assessment based upon
alternate standards looks like. The desktop guide should also include
an explanation of the array of accommodations that should be available
for students with disabilities, based upon their individualized
education program (IEP).
The second challenge we face is that many standardized tests do not
include accommodations in their standard protocol, so any child that
takes the regular assessment with an accommodation might not have their
scores ``counted'' in a school's AYP measurement. For example, in many
states, students who are blind had the state test read aloud to them.
Their scores were invalidated because the test-maker did not include
this as a protocol of the test administration. Accordingly, their
scores whether they were 95, 100, or 75 were counted as zeroes in their
school's AYP calculation.
I have no doubt that many schools, prior to the Department's final
regulation, didn't have the opportunity to ``count'' scores like these
in their initial AYP lists when they identified schools in need of
improvement. Therefore, I'd like to suggest that you urge the
Department of Education to work with states to ensure that the AYP
listings are corrected retrospectively in accordance with this new
final regulation. Just as we seek to have students with disabilities
included in the assessment programs, so should those students' scores
be included in their school's calculations.
I'd also like to suggest that this Committee urge the Department of
Education to convene a meeting of education stakeholders and national
test developers to discuss what assessments are currently valid and
reliable for students with various types of disabilities. The goal of
this discussion should be to encourage test makers to update their
protocols and expand their test offerings, so that the assessment
options in the final regulation are a reality, not just a hope.
Finally, as the members of this Committee are aware, students with
disabilities are a very diverse population, some with cognitive
disabilities, some with physical disabilities, and some with behavioral
issues. There are some children who are not significantly cognitively
disabled, but who are currently performing well below grade level. The
challenge with NCLB that is not addressed by the Department's final
regulation is how to bring these students up to grade level in a way
that is not punitive and does not damage the morale and reform efforts
currently under way in many of our schools. NCLB gives no credit to a
school that raises the level of achievement for this group of students
by several grade levels, if that level doesn't meet the state's overall
numerical target for all children. For example, what if a school
improves the academic performance of a group of children-whether
disabled or not from ``below basic'' to ``basic?'' This school may
still be labeled in need of improvement, which may inadvertently
stigmatize those students who didn't make the AYP target. Shouldn't the
school instead be required to develop improvement plans for just the
subgroups or individual students who are not proficient?
And for students with disabilities, why not incorporate a growth
model into their IEPs that requires the student begin to close his own
achievement gap, that is, his current performance level with grade
level expectations. The House's IDEA reauthorization bill (H.R. 1350)
will require IEPs to be aligned with NCLB requirements, so
incorporating a growth model into the IEP will require academic
progress, but at a pace that is appropriate for the individual student.
This individualized approach is the cornerstone of IDEA and can be made
to work together with NCLB.
In closing, I'd like to reiterate what I and my colleagues of the
National Education Association believe. We believe in the goals of No
Child Left Behind. We believe in holding schools accountable for
improving results for all groups of children. And we believe in
providing parents and communities more information about how their
schools and all of their students are doing academically. But in order
to make NCLB work for all students--and especially for students with
disabilities--we must be able to look at growth in student performance
over time, not just a snapshot from a test given on one day of the
year. Each of our students deserves the most advanced and accurate
determination of their achievement levels and I am concerned that the
current interpretation of NCLB limits our schools' ability to document
the real, every day progress made by students. Our students are more
than just a test score and so are our schools. A few common sense
changes to NCLB will not weaken accountability; they will make
accountability work for every child. That's the goal of every educator:
great public schools for every child.
<all>