[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
HOW NCLB AFFECTS
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EARLY CHILDHOOD,
ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION
COMMITTEE ON
EDUCATION AND LABOR
U.S. House of Representatives
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, MARCH 29, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-18
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor
Available on the Internet:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/education/index.html
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
34-174 WASHINGTON : 2007
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR
GEORGE MILLER, California, Chairman
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan, Vice Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman California,
Donald M. Payne, New Jersey Ranking Minority Member
Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin
Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, Virginia Peter Hoekstra, Michigan
Lynn C. Woolsey, California Michael N. Castle, Delaware
Ruben Hinojosa, Texas Mark E. Souder, Indiana
Carolyn McCarthy, New York Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan
John F. Tierney, Massachusetts Judy Biggert, Illinois
Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania
David Wu, Oregon Ric Keller, Florida
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Joe Wilson, South Carolina
Susan A. Davis, California John Kline, Minnesota
Danny K. Davis, Illinois Bob Inglis, South Carolina
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
Timothy H. Bishop, New York Kenny Marchant, Texas
Linda T. Sanchez, California Tom Price, Georgia
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Luis G. Fortuno, Puerto Rico
Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania Charles W. Boustany, Jr.,
David Loebsack, Iowa Louisiana
Mazie Hirono, Hawaii Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
Jason Altmire, Pennsylvania John R. ``Randy'' Kuhl, Jr., New
John A. Yarmuth, Kentucky York
Phil Hare, Illinois Rob Bishop, Utah
Yvette D. Clarke, New York David Davis, Tennessee
Joe Courtney, Connecticut Timothy Walberg, Michigan
Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire
Mark Zuckerman, Staff Director
Vic Klatt, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EARLY CHILDHOOD,
ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION
DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan, Chairman
Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, Virginia Michael N. Castle, Delaware,
Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio Ranking Minority Member
Susan A. Davis, California Peter Hoekstra, Michigan
Danny K. Davis, Illinois Mark E. Souder, Indiana
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan
Donald M. Payne, New Jersey Judy Biggert, Illinois
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Bob Inglis, South Carolina
Linda T. Sanchez, California Luis G. Fortuno, Puerto Rico
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Rob Bishop, Utah
Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania
David Loebsack, Iowa Ric Keller, Florida
Mazie Hirono, Hawaii Joe Wilson, South Carolina
Phil Hare, Illinois Charles W. Boustany, Jr.,
Lynn C. Woolsey, California Louisiana
Ruben Hinojosa, Texas John R. ``Randy'' Kuhl, Jr., New
York
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on March 29, 2007................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Boustany, Hon. Charles W., Jr., a Representative in Congress
from the State of Louisiana................................ 3
Davis, Hon. Susan A., a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, question for the record............... 77
Fortuno, Hon. Luis G., a Resident Commissioner from the
Territory of Puerto Rico, submissions for the record:
Letter from Alpidio Rolon, president, Puerto Rico chapter
of the National Federation of the Blind................ 64
Letter from Maria Miranda, director of the technical
assistance program, University of Puerto Rico.......... 66
Hare, Hon. Phil, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Illinois, submissions for the record:
Letter from Illinois Positive Behavior Intervention and
Support Program (PBIS)................................. 58
Letter from American Occupational Therapy Association
(AOTA)................................................. 62
Kildee, Hon. Dale E., Chairman, Subcommittee on Early
Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education.............. 1
Letter from the National School Boards Association (NSBA) 89
Statement of Witnesses:
Cort, Dr. Rebecca H., deputy commissioner, Office of
Vocational and Educational Services for Individuals with
Disabilities (VESID), New York State Education Department.. 8
Prepared statement and NCLB Issue Briefs................. 10
Hardman, Dr. Michael L., dean-designate, College of
Education, University of Utah.............................. 44
Prepared statement of.................................... 47
Henderson, William, Ed.D., principal, the O'Hearn Elementary
School..................................................... 51
Quenemoen, Rachael, senior research fellow, National Center
on Education Outcomes, University of Minnesota............. 23
Prepared statement of.................................... 26
Response to questions for the record..................... 78
Rhyne, Jane, Ph.D., assistant superintendent, Programs for
Exceptional Children of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools.. 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 6
HOW NCLB AFFECTS
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES
----------
Thursday, March 29, 2007
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Early Childhood,
Elementary and Secondary Education
Committee on Education and Labor
Washington, DC
----------
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:30 a.m., in
Room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dale Kildee
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Kildee, Davis of California,
Payne, Holt, Sarbanes, Sestak, Loebsack, Hare, Woolsey, Castle,
Fortuno, Platts, and Boustany.
Staff present: Aaron Albright, Press Secretary; Tylease
Alli, Hearing Clerk; Alice Cain, Senior Education Policy
Advisor (K-12); Alejandra Ceja, Senior Budget/Appropriations
Analyst; Adrienne Dunbar, Legislative Fellow, Education; Amy
Elverum, Legislative Fellow, Education; Denise Forte, Director
of Education Policy; Lloyd Horwich, Policy Advisor for
Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary
Education; Lamont Ivey, Staff Assistant, Education; Ann-Frances
Lambert, Administrative Assistant to Director of Education
Policy; Jill Morningstar, Education Policy Advisor; Alex Nock,
Deputy Staff Director; Joe Novotny, Chief Clerk; Lisette
Partelow, Staff Assistant, Education; Rachel Racusen, Deputy
Communications Director; Theda Zawaiza, Senior Disability
Policy Advisor; James Bergeron, Minority Deputy Director of
Education and Human Resources Policy; Robert Borden, Minority
General Counsel; Steve Forde, Minority Communications Director;
Jessica Gross, Minority Deputy Press Secretary; Taylor Hansen,
Minority Legislative Assistant; Susan Ross, Minority Director
of Education and Human Resources Policy; and Linda Stevens,
Minority Chief Clerk/Assistant to the General Counsel.
Chairman Kildee [presiding]. A quorum being present, the
hearing of the subcommittee will come to order.
And Mr. Castle, my ranking minority member, understands why
I am doing this, and I do it with his full concurrence. He will
be here shortly--not only my ranking Republican member, but a
very dear friend.
Pursuant to committee rule 12(a), any member may submit an
opening statement in writing which will be made part of the
permanent record.
I now recognize myself, to be followed by Ranking Member
Castle, for an opening statement.
I am pleased to welcome my fellow subcommittee members, Mr.
Hare, who is here this morning, the public and particularly our
witnesses on how the No Child Left Behind affects children with
disabilities.
The bottom line as we go through these hearings is: Does No
Child Left Behind help, hurt or keep about the same what we
have done for children with disabilities? And if you can help
us on that, that will be extremely helpful to us.
Dr. Boustany, good to see you. And I will call upon you in
just a minute, and you can make the opening statement.
Dr. Boustany. Thank you.
Chairman Kildee. Providing for the education of children
with disabilities has been a top priority for me for many
years. During my 12 years in the Michigan legislature, I
authored the state's special education law even before Congress
passed education for all handicapped children in 1975. And
Michigan was ahead of that.
The Education for all Handicapped Children Act, today we
call it the Individuals with Disabilities Act, or IDEA, was a
watershed for children with disabilities and their families.
Before IDEA, more than 1 million children with disabilities
were excluded entirely from our education system. And most of
those who were not excluded had only very limited access.
IDEA supporters--and it passed the House by a vote of 404
to 7 back in those days--recognized that that situation was
unconscionable and resolved that children with disabilities,
like all children, deserve the dignity of an education. The
government's role is to promote, protect, defend and enhance
human dignity. And IDEA certainly is part of that.
Today's hearing is about the No Child Left Behind Act, not
IDEA itself, but they certainly overlap one another. The same
principle, dignity, underlies the inclusion of children with
disabilities in No Child Left Behind.
Children with disabilities must overcome unique hurdles to
get their education. But No Child Left Behind recognizes that
in the vast majority of cases that doesn't mean that these
children can't achieve what their non-disabled peers achieve,
only that they may need special help to achieve it.
Our witnesses today will give specific examples of how they
have provided that help and what it has meant for children with
disabilities. Unfortunately the President's proposal to cut
special education funding by $200 million is not the kind of
help we need at this time, nor is the continued under-funding
of No Child Left Behind. Cumulatively No Child Left Behind has
been under-funded by over $70 billion.
As we will hear from our witnesses, to improve special
education programs, we must strengthen general education
programs because that is where so many special education
students are and where they belong.
For the same reason, we will hear about the need to prepare
all teachers to work with all students, not just general
education or special education students. And we will hear many
suggestions about how to improve No Child Left Behind to ensure
that it accounts for the complexities that states, school
districts, and schools must address in educating and assessing
students with disabilities.
I hope that today's hearing will help us understand these
issues better, which are some of the most difficult and
important ones in the law. And I look forward to working
together with my ranking member, Mr. Castle, Chairman Miller
and Ranking Member McKeon and with all the members of the
committee on a bipartisan reauthorization of No Child Left
Behind.
I now yield to my good friend, Congressman Boustany.
Dr. Boustany. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ranking Member Castle was detained at this time. And I am
hoping he will make it, but I will fill in in his absence.
I would like to say good morning to all of you.
I would like to thank my colleagues for joining me here
today for the latest in our series of hearings on No Child Left
Behind.
I would also like to thank Chairman Kildee for his
continued dedication to hearing from education leaders around
the country, and all of you for being here today to testify.
Today's hearing will focus on how students with
disabilities are excelling in public school. Additionally, I
hope that we will examine how these students are evaluated, how
effective those evaluation measures are, and whether or not
there is enough flexibility granted to states and school
districts by the Department of Education with regard to this
student sub-group.
First, let us not lose sight of the fact that No Child Left
Behind was crafted under the guiding principle that all
students can learn. Students with special needs are certainly
no exception.
Because of that, under No Child Left Behind, schools are
held to higher standards and held accountable for the academic
achievement of all the children, including special education.
Indeed, the evaluation of this student sub-group is an
essential component of our discussions on No Child Left Behind
and a window into the effectiveness of our current systems of
evaluation and accountability.
With regard to students with disabilities, No Child Left
Behind affirms our belief that a child should not be discounted
simply because he or she doesn't learn at the same rate or in
the same manner as other students.
Moreover, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act,
which Congress renewed in 2004, also requires that all students
with disabilities be appropriately assessed on state
assessments and within the context of a student's
individualized education program and allowing for enhanced
flexibility and personalization within the student's learning
experiences.
I look forward to today's testimony on accountability
standards at the local and state level. But more importantly, I
look forward to hearing about what is being done to meet the
goals that we have set. I am certain that this hearing will
build upon previous hearings in this series.
And I am eager to hear the unique perspectives of our
witnesses. And I extend a warm welcome to them.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Kildee. Thank you very much, Dr. Boustany. And I
certainly appreciate personally your deep and abiding interest
in this area of special education.
Without objection, all members will have 7 calendar days to
submit additional materials or questions for the hearing
record.
I would like now to introduce the very distinguished panel
of witnesses here with us this morning.
Dr. Jane Rhyne is the assistant superintendent for programs
for exceptional children in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools,
a district with 129,000 students in North Carolina. Dr. Rhyne
works with her general education colleagues to ensure that the
district's special education program is woven into every aspect
of the school system.
Dr. Rebecca Cort is a deputy commissioner of the New York
State Education Department's office of vocational and
educational services for individuals with disabilities. Dr.
Cort oversees special education services for more than 400,000
students.
Rachel Quenemoen is a senior research fellow at the
National Center on Educational Outcomes at the University of
Minnesota. For the past 10 years, she has worked at the
national and state levels on educational reform efforts
concerning standards-based reforms and students with
disabilities.
Dr. Michael Hardman is chair of the University of Utah's
department of special education and recently was appointed dean
of the university's college of education. He also was past
president for the Higher Education Consortium for Special
Education and a member of the board of directors for the
Council for Exceptional Children.
Dr. William Henderson has been the principal of the Patrick
O'Hearn Elementary School in Dorchester, Massachusetts since
1989. He has received numerous awards during his career,
including the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Outstanding Americans Award and the city of Boston's Henry L.
Shattuck Public Service Award.
And I welcome all our witnesses.
For those who may have not testified before this
subcommittee, I would explain our lighting system. We have a 5-
minute rule here. Everyone, including members, is limited to 5
minutes of presentation or questioning. The green light will be
illuminated when you begin to speak. And when you see the
yellow light, it means that you have 1 minute remaining. When
you see the red light, it means that your time is expired; you
need to conclude your testimony. There is no ejection seat,
however, so we will let you finish your thought or your
paragraph. [Laughter.]
And, Dr. Henderson, if you wish, I will gently note when
you have 1 minute left and when your time is expired.
Please be certain as you testify to turn on and speak into
the microphone in front of you and turn it off when you are
finished.
We will now hear from our first witness, Dr. Rhyne.
STATEMENT OF JANE RHYNE, PH.D., ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT,
PROGRAMS FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN, CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG
SCHOOLS
Ms. Rhyne. Good morning, Chairman Kildee, Ranking Member
Castle and members of the subcommittee. I am Jane Rhyne,
assistant superintendent for programs for exceptional children
in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, Charlotte, North
Carolina. I am pleased to be here today to testify on behalf of
our superintendent, Peter C. Gorman, and our board of
education.
CMS has about 129,000 students, and we are growing.
Minority students are the majority. Almost half live in
poverty. About a tenth speak English as a second language. And
over a tenth are students with disabilities.
CMS has been recognized in numerous ways as one of the
highest achieving urban districts in America. For example, in
the National Assessment of Educational Progress, CMS
outperformed the nation and the state in three of four reading
and math tests. And there is additional information about
accolades about Charlotte in my written testimony.
During the first year of NCLB, I had the privilege of
appearing before this committee. I testified then that the
instructional attention to students with disabilities had
clearly increased with the new federal disaggregated
accountability requirements. This is still true. Standards-
based curriculum and instruction have been provided to a
broader range of students with disabilities. Teachers are
demonstrating that this group of children can make significant
progress in the general curriculum if given the opportunity and
effective teaching.
The number of students with disabilities achieving in
general education in CMS has definitely increased. So I support
the basic concepts of NCLB and its attention to the performance
of students with disabilities. However, I do have some
concerns.
States are allowed to ignore the academic performance of
significant numbers of children through unnecessarily high sub-
group minimums. This invites the manipulation of NCLB
accountability and allows some districts to escape portions of
sub-group accountability, particularly for students with
disabilities.
As an urban special educator, I believe equity for our
students is extremely important. So is a level playing field
for urban districts. In CMS, our students with disabilities
continue to make progress in state assessments, as our written
testimony shows. However, based on projections of current
performance, I do not expect 100 percent of them to be
proficient by 2014.
For those students who have not attained proficiency, their
progress within performance levels continues to be important
and carefully monitored. There is almost universal agreement
among educators that adding a growth model to NCLB will improve
the act. North Carolina has been selected as a pilot to
demonstrate this.
I am concerned that significant progress below proficiency
may not be recognized. I believe that acknowledging such
progress would mute criticism of NCLB regarding the performance
of students with disabilities as well as the questionable
claims that this sub-group is responsible for the labeling of
large percentages of schools as failing.
In 2004, the Department of Education provided flexibility
by allowing districts to deem as proficient up to 1 percent of
students with significant cognizant disabilities using
alternate standards and assessments. Recently additional
flexibility was provided by allowing districts to deem as
proficient up to 2 percent of other students with disabilities
using regular standards and alternate assessments. I think a
better way to measure this success is through a growth or a
progress model.
NCLB emphasizes that quality teaching is key to student
academic performance. A particular challenge, however, is the
requirement that special education teachers be highly
qualified.
Sometimes this requires multiple certifications, which
creates two problems. First, there is a national shortage of
special education teachers. Second, special educators who teach
content subjects must be certified in these areas. Finding
special ed teachers with one certification has been difficult.
Finding teachers with two or more has been almost impossible.
There needs to be flexibility in these standards for them.
At CMS we have addressed these certification issues
partially through the use of inclusive practices where we team
highly qualified general and special ed teachers in the
classroom. Our data has shown that all students benefit, both
students with disabilities and general ed students. I still
believe that NCLB is focused on the right children.
Further refinements to acknowledge student progress in the
accountability and assessment system, to enhance focus and
resources on effective instructional practices, and to allow
flexibility with highly qualified provisions would help
overcome many of the operational problems that attract so much
attention at the local level.
Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Rhyne follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jane Rhyne, Ph.D., Assistant Superintendent,
Programs for Exceptional Children of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools
Good morning, Chairman Kildee, Ranking Member Castle and members of
the subcommittee.
I am Jane Rhyne, Assistant Superintendent for Exceptional Children
in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools (CMS) in North Carolina. I am
pleased to testify today on behalf of Superintendent Peter C. Gorman
and the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education. I will discuss how
children with disabilities have been affected by the No Child Left
Behind (NCLB) Act.
I am responsible for the education of and support services for more
than 14,000 students with disabilities in Charlotte and Mecklenburg
County. I oversee program planning, implementation and monitoring,
curriculum and instruction, instructional interventions and student
progress.
Let me quickly describe our district for you. CMS has about 133,000
students pre-kindergarten through twelfth grade. We're adding about
5,000 students each year. For this school year, the district has 42.4
percent African-American students, 36.2 percent white, 13.6 percent
Hispanic, 14.3 percent Asian and 3.5 percent multiracial or Native
American students. Almost half--45.5 percent--of our students qualify
for free or reduced-price lunch. Nearly 15,000 of our students come
from homes where English is not the native language. And we have 14,502
students with disabilities.
CMS has been recognized in numerous ways as one of the highest-
achieving urban districts in America. Our student academic performance
compares favorably with that of many urban districts: 86 percent of our
fourth-graders are at or above grade level in reading in comparison to
85 percent of all fourth-graders statewide. For mathematics, 69 percent
of all fifth-graders are at or above grade level compared with 64
percent across the state. We participate in the trial urban initiative
of the National Assessment of Educational Progress--called the Nation's
Report Card -and have seen strong results there, too. Charlotte-
Mecklenburg Schools outperformed the nation and North Carolina in three
of four reading and math tests at grades four and eight and scored
within two points in the other area. Nine percent of CMS students
achieved at the advanced level on the NAEP test in grade four reading
and math and grade eight math--more than the nation, more than North
Carolina, and more than most states.
More than half of our graduating students last year had taken one
or more advanced courses in high school and Newsweek magazine in 2006
put three of our high schools on its list of the Top 100 high schools
in America. And we were the first large county-wide school district to
be accredited as a high quality district by the Southern Association of
Colleges and Schools. Fifty-seven percent of 2006 graduates completed
at least one AP or IB course. The number of African-American students
enrolling in AP courses increased from 341 students in l995-96 to 2,764
in 2005-06. The average score for our students who ranked in the top 10
percent of scores on the SAT was 1207, higher than North Carolina
(1179) and the nation (1184).
In March of 2004, during the first full year of NCLB
implementation, I had the privilege of appearing before this Committee.
I testified then that I had seen first-hand in my school district and
in visits to other districts that the instructional attention to
students with disabilities had clearly increased with the new federal
disaggregated accountability requirements.
This is still true. Standards-based curriculum and instruction has
been provided to a broader range of students with disabilities.
Teachers and principals are demonstrating that this group of children
can make significant progress in the general curriculum if given the
opportunity and effective teaching. The number of students with
disabilities being taught in general education classes in CMS has
increased by 10.25 percent since the 2004-2005 school year.
Participation in regular pre-kindergarten programs for students age
three to five has increased 21.5 percent since the 2004-2005 school
year. When we pair general and special education teachers in a
classroom, the performance of all students rises. We have seen
significant increases in performance on state reading and math tests
for not only students with disabilities but for general education
students as well.
So I support the basic concepts of NCLB and its attention to the
performance of students with disabilities. However, I also have some
concerns. States are allowed to ignore the academic performance of
significant numbers of children through unnecessarily high subgroup
minimums or N-sizes. This state flexibility invites the manipulation of
the NCLB accountability system and operationally allows some schools
and some school districts to escape portions of subgroup
accountability, particularly for students with disabilities. As an
urban educator and a special educator, I believe equity for our
students is extremely important. So is a level playing field for urban
districts.
In school year 2002-03, 34.6 percent of our students with
disabilities in grades 3 through 8 achieved proficiency on our state
assessments, compared to 42.2% of students in grades 3 through 8 in the
2004-05 school year. On state high school tests, 24.3 percent of
students passed in 2002-03 compared to 35 percent in 2005-2006. So we
are making progress. However, based on the current North Carolina
academic standards and projections of current performance, I do not
expect 100% of our students with disabilities to be proficient by 2014.
For those students who have not attained proficiency, their progress
within performance levels continues to be important and carefully
monitored.
There is almost universal agreement among educators that adding a
growth or progress model to NCLB would improve the act. North Carolina
is one of the pilot projects selected by the Department of Education to
demonstrate such a growth model. But this pilot growth model, as I
understand it, is tied to a student's trajectory for attaining
proficiency--and I am concerned that even significant progress below
proficiency may not be recognized. I also believe that recognizing such
progress would mute criticism of NCLB regarding the performance of
students with disabilities, as well as the questionable claims that
this subgroup is responsible for the labeling of large percentages of
schools as failing. We should give schools proper credit for the
academic progress of students with disabilities and other students.
In March of 2004, then-Education Secretary Rod Paige had just
announced the flexibility to assess one percent of students with
significant cognitive disabilities against alternate standards and
using alternate assessment. At that point, I estimated that there were
at least 1.5 percent of students whose disabilities would prevent them
from doing the same level of academic work as their age-mates. In
recent years the Department of Education has proposed additional
flexibility for another two percent of students to be assessed with
modified tests. North Carolina has implemented this by allowing up to
another two percent of students with disabilities to demonstrate
proficiency with a modified assessment. In Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Schools, only 14.3% of these students have done so on the North
Carolina modified assessment. The one and two percent involve most of
our students with mental retardation, multiple disabilities, autism and
a few with other disabilities.
Some students with disabilities will not make one year's worth of
academic growth by the end of the school year. These students will
achieve, but they need more time and properly designed instruction. A
better way to measure their success is through a growth or progress
model.
No Child Left Behind emphasizes that quality teaching is key to
student academic progress. A particular challenge, however, is the NCLB
requirement that special education teachers be highly qualified. In
some instances, this requires multiple certifications. This situation
creates two problems. First, there is a national shortage of special
education teachers. Teachers who provide special education must now
meet rigorous state certification standards to show that they are
highly qualified to do so. Second, special education teachers who
provide content instruction at the secondary level, such as math, must
also be certified in the content area that they are teaching. Finding
special education teachers with one certification has been difficult;
finding teachers with dual certification has been almost impossible.
This problem becomes even more complex with special education teachers
who teach in self-contained classrooms. These teachers are required to
have certification not only in special education but also in all the
subjects taught in the classroom--math, English, science, social
studies. There needs to be flexibility in the standards for these
teachers.
At CMS, we have addressed these certification issues partially
through the use of inclusive practices. Highly qualified special and
general education teachers team together to co-teach in general
education classrooms that include both students with disabilities and
their general education peers. The general education teacher has
certification in the content area and the special education teacher has
certification in special education. This teaching team provides the
expertise of the special educator, a master at differentiated
instruction, and the general educator, an expert in curriculum content.
All students benefit.
For example, in our district, students with disabilities who were
co-taught performed at higher levels and made more progress in reading
at grades three and four and in math at grades six, seven and eight, as
measured by state tests. We have found that including students with
disabilities in the classroom does not hinder the performance of non-
disabled peers. For example, on the average, scores were higher and
demonstrated improvement for non-disabled students in co-taught
classrooms in reading for grades three, four, six and eight and in math
for grades 3 through 8, as well as Algebra I and Geometry--as measured
by state tests.
I still believe that the No Child Left Behind Act is focused on the
right children--those in greatest need of instructional attention and
additional resources. Further refinements and revisions in the act to
acknowledge student progress in the accountability and assessment
system, to enhance the level of focus and resources devoted to
effective instructional practices, and to allow sufficient flexibility
to align our teacher qualifications to the instructional needs of our
students would help overcome many of the operational problems that
attract so much attention at the local level.
Thank you.
______
Chairman Kildee. Thank you very much.
Dr. Cort?
STATEMENT OF REBECCA CORT, PH.D., DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK
STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, OFFICE FOR VOCATIONAL AND
EDUCATIONAL SERVICES FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES
Ms. Cort. Good morning, Chairman Kildee and subcommittee
members. And thank you for this valuable opportunity. I am
Rebecca Cort. I serve as the State director for special
education and adult vocational rehabilitation in New York
State.
I want to begin by affirming that the New York Board of
Regents and the New York State Education Department are strong
supporters of the high expectations for students and the
accountability for schools and districts as set by NCLB.
The board of regents remains committed to preparing all
students to be educated and productive citizens in the 21st
century. And we believe that NCLB can play an important role in
achieving that goal for the children of New York State. We have
seen steady progress in the outcomes for students with
disabilities since the regents' reform efforts began and NCLB
was passed. But their performance continues to be unacceptably
low.
To improve these outcomes and to ensure that we rely on
accurate data, there are several issues that require your
attention. Most significantly, NCLB needs to acknowledge and
accommodate the individual student differences that are at the
core of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. We
agree a large majority of students with disabilities should be
receiving instruction on the general education learning
standards and should be able to master these standards, given
appropriate research-based instruction.
However, students with disabilities represent a very broad
continuum of cognitive functioning from profoundly
developmentally delayed to gifted. I want to address today the
2 percent, or gap students, whose disabilities prevent them
from mastering the general education learning standards at the
same level or rate as their non-disabled peers, even when they
receive appropriate instruction. We believe that this group
includes two separate subsets of students that require
different options under NCLB.
The first subset consists of students who will be able to
earn a regular diploma and learn the general education
standards but who do it at slower and often inconsistent rates.
These students don't require modified standards or modified
assessments. But they do require the time to learn and an
opportunity to demonstrate that learning.
We ask that NCLB clearly authorize the students whose
individualized education program, IEP, recommends instruction
at a 4th-grade level in math and 3rd-grade level in English
language arts to be able to participate in assessments that
correspond to these different levels.
Currently in New York, if such a student is actually 5th
grade chronological age, many of them are being required to
take 5th-grade tests on content that they have never received
instruction on. The IEP should indicate the appropriate
instructional levels and assessments for each student with a
disability. And that recommendation should be recognized and
accepted under NCLB's accountability system.
The second subset of students within this 2 percent group
are those whose disabilities are so severe that they cannot
earn a regular New York state diploma but who are functioning
higher than the 1 percent group appropriate for alternate
assessments. For these students, states must be permitted to
develop truly modified standards and modified assessments that
will reflect substantively different content from the general
education standards.
The draft regulations issued by USED indicated that
modified standards and modified assessments could reduce the
depth and breadth of a state's learning standards but they
could not represent a reduction in the grade level or base
content of the standards and they must provide access to a
regular high school diploma.
We believe that teaching a student half of algebra will not
produce proficiency in algebra or prepare the student to move
on to the subsequent grade's course work. The modified
standards instead need to be designed to maximize the
functioning level of students who need to leave school prepared
for employment and independence.
Currently, districts and schools do not receive any
recognition under NCLB for a student's mastery of a career and
vocational education program that is relevant, meaningful, and
results in a pathway to competitive employment unless that
student also receives a high school diploma.
NCLB also anticipates the students will meet all of their
graduation requirements within 4 years of entering grade 9. In
New York many students with disabilities graduate after 5 or
even 6 years. Schools that hold on to these students should be
given credit, not penalized for their efforts and their
success. For students with disabilities, again, it is the IEP
that should indicate the anticipated time required to meet
graduation requirements. And schools should be held accountable
for that standard.
Even if these changes are instituted, it is likely that we
will still see a number of schools identified for not meeting
AYP with this sub-group. Currently, regardless of the reason
for identification, the consequences are uniform for all
schools, even though required options such as school choice and
supplemental services are often unavailable to students with
disabilities. If only students with disabilities fail to meet
AYP targets, we believe that funding should be targeted to this
sub-group and allowed to be spent on interventions that will
meet the unique needs of students with disabilities.
Finally, we recommend that NCLB incorporate language from
the IDEA regarding the use of response to intervention systems.
RTI is not a method for helping a district identify students
with disabilities as its primary purpose. Rather, it is a
method for teaching and monitoring the progress of all students
that must be driven first and foremost by general education
teachers in a general education classroom with the support of
strong building leadership and professional development.
NCLB's greatest potential benefit to students with
disabilities may depend on its ability to ensure strong general
education programs that eliminate inappropriate referrals and
increase the opportunities for meaningful integration of
students with disabilities into general ed environments.
Incorporating RTI into NCLB would help accomplish that goal.
Thank you. And I welcome your questions.
[The statement of Ms. Cort follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Rebecca H. Cort, Deputy Commissioner, Office
of Vocational and Educational Services for Individuals with
Disabilities (VESID), New York State Education Department
I would like to thank the Chairman and members of the Subcommittee
for this valuable opportunity to testify on How NCLB Affects Students
with Disabilities. I am Rebecca Cort, Deputy Commissioner of the Office
of Vocational and Education Services for Students with Disabilities
(VESID) within the New York State Education Department. As such, I am
in the unique position of being the state director for both preschool
to Grade 12 special education services as well as for adult vocational
rehabilitation.
I am submitting with my testimony a number of detailed briefings
that discuss New York State's position regarding areas in NCLB where we
believe there are significant opportunities for revision and
improvement during the reauthorization process. However, I will focus
here on several issues that have had the greatest impact on students
with disabilities.
The New York Board of Regents and the New York State Education
Department have been strong supporters of the high expectations set by
NCLB. This focus closely parallels initiatives undertaken in New York
prior to the enactment of NCLB. The Regents recognized that, within
many schools and districts, the expectations for students with
disabilities were far too low and that they were not being provided
with the same access to rigorous course work as their non-disabled
peers. Even before NCLB, the New York State Board of Regents
established requirements that all students must be prepared to meet the
same high level learning standards and to participate in rigorous state
assessments as a condition for graduating from high school with a
regular high school diploma. New York's Board of Regents remain
committed to preparing all students to be educated and productive
citizens in the 21st century and we believe that NCLB can play an
important role in achieving that goal for the children of New York
State.
However, there are a number of areas where NCLB has reduced the
likelihood of meeting that goal and where it is having a
disproportionately negative impact on students with disabilities. The
first, and most significant, area concerns the lack of recognition of
the extremely broad range of characteristics and developmental levels
of students with disabilities. NCLB has not integrated into the law the
elements needed to ensure consideration of those individual student
differences that are at the core of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA). This has led to the identification of districts
as needing improvement as a result of the assessment outcomes for
students with disabilities when, in fact, the current system does not
allow an accurate measurement of districts' and schools' cumulative
impact on their performance. In many instances, students with
disabilities now must be tested on what they have never been taught
instead of being allowed to demonstrate what they have learned.
Assessments for the 2% ``Gap'' Students
Students with disabilities represent a broad continuum of cognitive
functioning from profoundly developmentally delayed to gifted. Those
with severe to profound mental retardation have been accommodated under
NCLB through the allowance for 1% of students who can be counted as
proficient based on an alternate assessment aligned to alternate
achievement standards. In New York, our guidance to districts indicates
that students participating in the alternate assessment must have a
severe cognitive disability and significant deficits in communication/
language and in adaptive behavior. Most of the students who meet the
criteria for the alternate assessment do not achieve higher than a
first grade level. New York agrees that, in general, these students
should not exceed 1% of the school district population.
However, the lack of options available for other students with
disabilities is a significant problem. We welcomed the US Department of
Education's (USED) promise of increased flexibility for an additional
2% of students whose disabilities prevent them from mastering the
general education learning standards at the same level and rate as
their non-disabled peers. However, we believe that the proposed
regulations that would guide the development of ``modified standards''
and ``modified assessments'' for this group of students were not
sufficiently flexible. Further, they interpreted the law as requiring
modified assessments to be aligned with the general education learning
standards at the grade level of non-disabled chronological peers. While
the regulations indicated that modified standards could represent
reduced ``depth and breadth'' of a state's learning standards, they
could not represent a reduction in the grade level of the content of
the standards for any subject area to be measured.
We agree that the large majority of students with disabilities
should be receiving instruction based on the general education learning
standards and should able to master these standards given appropriate
research-based instruction. But there exists a band of students (the 2%
or ``gap'' students) who are not able to master grade-level standards
at the rate and/or level of their non-disabled chronological peers even
with appropriate instruction. We believe that this band includes two
separate subsets of students with disabilities that require different
options under NCLB.
The first subset consists of students with disabilities who, while
able to make progress toward a regular diploma, learn at a slower and
often inconsistent rate. Many students with disabilities require and
receive one level of instruction in reading and language arts and
another in mathematics or other content areas as a result of the
individualized education program (IEP) recommendations that drive
special education service delivery. Students who do not have the
language and vocabulary or critical thinking skills necessary to
benefit from instruction at the level of their non-disabled peers
should participate in curriculum appropriate to their developmental
levels that they can master and that can provide them with the
precursor skills necessary to move to the next level.
Reducing the ``depth and breadth'' of 9th grade geometry or biology
may appear to provide a meaningful option for some students but it will
not result in the level of mastery needed to meet New York's standards
for course completion, nor the readiness to move on to the subsequent
grade's course work, nor the ability to successfully complete high
stakes exit examinations. USED's current interpretation is that any
modified set of learning standards and participation in any modified
assessment that measures this reduced level of instruction must still
permit the awarding of a regular high school diploma. For states such
as New York, that are not willing to compromise the rigorous standards
that have been set to earn a high school diploma, there are no real
options.
We ask that NCLB clearly indicate that this subset of students be
allowed to proceed at a slower but equally rigorous pace as their non-
disabled peers. These students require neither modified standards nor
modified assessments but they do require the time to learn and an
opportunity to demonstrate that learning. NCLB must permit a student
whose IEP recommends instruction in the general education curriculum at
a fourth grade level in mathematics and third grade level in English
language arts to participate in assessments that correspond to these
different levels. A school will then be held accountable for that
student's learning on subject matter they have been taught rather than
for the different subject matter that has been taught to the student's
chronological peers in the classroom down the hall. The IEP team should
determine and clearly indicate on the IEP the appropriate instructional
levels and assessments for each student with a disability.
Any reauthorization of NCLB also must provide specific options for
a second subset of students with disabilities within this 2% group.
These students are those whose severe disabilities preclude them from
meeting the high level of learning required to earn a regular New York
State diploma but whose cognitive ability and developmental levels
exceed the first grade level maximum designated for the 1% of students
appropriate for the alternate learning standards and alternate
assessment. They include those who exhibit mild to moderate mental
retardation or some identified with autism spectrum disorders or severe
traumatic brain injuries.
States must be permitted to develop both these modified standards
and the modified assessments that will measure proficiency on these
standards. These modified standards will be substantively different
from the general education standards but have a range that exceeds the
current alternate standards. They need to be designed to maximize the
functioning level of students who need an instructional program that
will allow them to leave school prepared for employment and
independence, even if they cannot earn a regular high school diploma.
Many students with disabilities who now leave school without either a
diploma or adequate work readiness skills are more likely to remain if
they were to be offered a career and technical program that was
relevant and meaningful and resulted in a pathway to competitive
employment. Districts and schools now have little incentive to develop
innovative programs based on modified standards as they are unable to
receive any recognition under NCLB for a student's mastery of such a
modified curriculum, even if it reflects the annual goals and
transition plans recommended on a student's IEP.
While I have not discussed the issue of growth models and value
added assessments here, I have attached more detailed recommendations
on this issue. We believe that all states should have the option of
using these models as new assessments, including those based on
modified standards, are developed. The capacity to capture the rate of
growth will be especially useful in evaluating outcomes for students
with disabilities who have very variable starting points.
Four Year Graduation Standard
While these comments reflect the changes required to address the
needs of what should be a very limited percentage of students, an
additional change is needed for what could be a larger number of
students with disabilities. The current requirements under NCLB
anticipate that students will meet all high school requirements and
then receive a high school diploma within four years of entering 9th
grade. This is not a realistic expectation for many students with
disabilities and prevents recognition of the laudable efforts of
districts and schools that encourage students to remain in school for a
fifth and sixth year as they move toward the completion of all course
work and required assessments. In New York, many more students with
disabilities graduate after five years than after four years.
States with rigorous graduation standards require an option that
allows students extra time to receive the special education instruction
and support services they need even though this may prohibit a full
course load every semester. This option must acknowledge and award
credit to districts and schools that are able to achieve success and
meet NCLB's goals after a student completes five or six years in high
school. For students with disabilities, the IEP should indicate the
anticipated time required to meet graduation requirements and schools
should be held accountable for meeting that standard, based on
individual student needs.
Differential Consequences for Different Subgroups Identified
Even with the addition of these critical elements to a reauthorized
NCLB, there are schools and districts who will continue to struggle to
adequately address the needs of the population of students with
disabilities. We hope that the access to appropriate assessments will
present a fairer measurement of schools' performance and reduce
inappropriate identification of those schools and districts that are
being successful. However, we know that a very substantial number of
schools are being identified as in need of improvement as a result of
the failure of the subgroup of students with disabilities to make AYP.
(Last year in New York, 31% of schools identified failed to make AYP
only for the subgroup of students with disabilities on the grades 3-8
English Language Arts exams.)
Yet the consequences of this identification are systemic and almost
identical for all schools, regardless of the number or composition of
the subgroups that are not achieving AYP. In fact, as currently
implemented, many of the required options and reforms have the least
impact on students with disabilities even if they are the only group
triggering these actions. Options such as school choice are often
unavailable to students with disabilities who are enrolled in unique
programs that are not duplicated within other schools in the district.
In addition, many supplemental educational services (SES) providers do
not offer services that meet the needs of students with disabilities.
States should not be required to impose uniform NCLB mandated
sanctions such as school choice and supplemental educational services
on schools or districts because of the failure of one or several
subgroups of students to meet AYP targets. Schools should be able to
target remediation or interventions based on the nature and extent of
their failure to make AYP. If only students with disabilities fail to
meet AYP targets, resources and remediation should be focused on those
students. In these instances, funding should be allowed to be spent on
creative, targeted alternatives to school choice and SES that will
address the unique needs of students with disabilities.
Alignment with IDEA
Finally, an examination of whole group and subgroup performance
data reveal a strong correlation between poor performance for students
with disabilities and poor performance for students in general
education. While the IDEA's reauthorization included efforts to align
it with NCLB, we now urge Congress to make a similar effort to align
NCLB with IDEA. A number of critical elements within IDEA are more
appropriately targeted to all students and should be incorporated into
NCLB in order to ensure that struggling learners' needs are met in
general education settings and to reduce the inappropriate referral and
over-identification of minority students.
We especially recommend that NCLB incorporate language regarding
the use of Response to Intervention (RtI) systems to ensure that
struggling schools understand the importance and benefit of
implementing high-quality instruction and interventions to meet the
needs of all students. Its inclusion in IDEA is causing RtI to be
viewed as having a primary purpose of helping a district identify
students with disabilities. This is not true. Rather, RtI is a method
for teaching and monitoring the progress of all students that must be
driven first and foremost by general education teachers in the general
education classroom with the support of school building leadership and
strong professional development.
NCLB's greatest potential benefit to students with disabilities may
depend on its ability to ensure strong general education programs that
eliminate inappropriate referrals and increase the opportunities for
meaningful integration of students with disabilities into productive
general education environments staffed with highly qualified teachers
who have the tools to meet the needs of all students.
Attachments
NCLB Issue Briefs:
Assessing Students with Disabilities
Growth Models for State Accountability
Highly Qualified Teachers
Single Accountability Designation for Adequate Yearly
Progress
Targeted Interventions and Differentiated Consequences for
Schools and Districts Identified as In Need of Improvement
______
March 2007.
NCLB ISSUE BRIEF
Assessing Students With Disabilities
CURRENT LAW
Title I, Part A, Section 1111(b)(3)--Academic Assessments
States are required to implement academic assessments in
mathematics, reading or language arts and a third state selected
indicator (in New York, science) to be used as the primary means of
determining Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) (students' continuous
academic improvement toward 100 percent proficiency in 2014).
Alternate assessments may be used for students with the
most significant cognitive disabilities, which 34 C.F.R.
Sec. 200.13(c)(1)(ii) presently limits to 1 percent of all students in
the grades assessed.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Revise assessment systems and accountability practices for students
with disabilities:
Allow states to develop modified assessments that measure
the performance of a student with a disability toward modified state
standards at the student's appropriate instructional level, as
designated by the Individualized Education Program (IEP) team. These
assessments should be designed to show what students know and to
measure their growth over time.
Allow certain students with disabilities to participate in
general education assessments based on general education learning
standards that align with their instructional levels rather than their
chronological age. The assessment levels should be determined by the
IEP team and may be different levels for different content areas.
Establish a lower expected threshold for improvement for
students with disabilities or authorize states to establish their own
realistic and appropriate benchmark targets for incremental performance
improvement to be applied uniformly at the state, district and school
levels.
Authorize states to establish a threshold for the percent
of students with disabilities that should be scoring at the proficient
and advanced levels on alternate and modified standard assessments as
well as instructional-level assessments that are not aligned with
students' current grade level or with their chronological age. States
should justify their decisions to the U.S. Department of Education
(USED) when a threshold exceeds three percent of the total population
tested.
Continue to allow states to include the proficient scores
of students with the most significant cognitive disabilities based on
alternate assessments in its calculations of AYP, provided that such
scores do not exceed one percent of all students tested in the grades
assessed in reading/language arts and in mathematics.
Direct USED to conduct research to identify the
characteristics of the modified assessment population of students
(e.g., the 2-3 percent) to ensure consistency of criteria across IEP
teams, school districts and states.
Permit states to include as a third indicator of meeting
AYP targets assessments that measure modified learning standards at the
high school level reflecting postsecondary goals of competitive
employment and independence when a regular high school diploma is not
an appropriate outcome given the nature and severity of a student's
specific disability.
RATIONALE
NCLB does not ensure appropriate assessment options for the range
of instructional levels and abilities of students with disabilities.
Subjecting students at specific chronological ages to grade-level
assessments that are measuring skills well beyond their capabilities
and that do not reflect content that they have actually been exposed to
is not true participation and does not provide meaningful data to
measure progress toward the standards.
Holding schools and school districts accountable for inappropriate
achievement standards does not recognize the true value of a student's
educational program and does not serve to challenge schools to improve
results for students with disabilities. As a result, students with
disabilities are tested on what they have never been taught instead of
being able to demonstrate what they have learned.
The U.S. Department of Education's (USED) proposed regulatory
language regarding a modified standards and assessment option for an
additional 2 percent of students (above the 1 percent of the most
cognitively disabled) is not responsive to this issue, as it requires
an assessment based on grade-level content standards with reduced depth
and breadth that leads toward a regular diploma.
Students in special education have a wide range of instructional
levels, including those who learn at variable rates but can achieve a
regular diploma, and those whose developmental disabilities result in a
cognitive range that exceeds the alternate assessment levels--the 1
percent of the most cognitively disabled--but does not equal their
nondisabled peers. This latter group constitutes students who require
modified standards that may focus on career and technical programs
leading to competitive employment rather than modified grade-level
content that leads to a regular diploma.
If, as USED has indicated, modified learning standards and
assessments must both simplify the required general education content
and lead to a regular diploma, it is, in essence, requiring a reduction
in states' graduation criteria for a portion of the population. This
exceeds the federal authority to dictate a state's graduation standard.
FACTS
In the 2005-06 school year in New York, 7,205 students
with significant cognitive disabilities participated in the alternate
assessment at the elementary, middle and high school levels. This is
0.9 percent of all enrolled students tested on elementary level
examinations and 0.8 percent of all students tested on middle level
examinations.
New York assessment data shows that even in low and
average need school districts where there is a higher level of
expenditure per pupil, between 2 and 3 percent of the total population
tested are students with disabilities with intellectual and cognitive
disabilities that do not permit them to master the state's general
education learning standards even with appropriate instruction. The
results in these high resource districts show a lack of performance at
the proficient level and failure to graduate with a regular diploma at
a rate that generally exceeds 3 percent of the population.
RESEARCH
On December 15, 2005, USED published in the Federal
Register (Volume 70, Number 240) proposed rules to amend regulations
under NCLB Title I regarding school accountability for students with
disabilities beyond those students with significant cognitive
disabilities (1 percent of the total population) identified for
participation in the alternate assessment. The notice stated ``* * *
recent research indicates that there are other students, who, because
of their disability, have significant difficulty achieving grade-level
proficiency, even with the best instruction.'' The proposed regulations
would permit States to develop modified achievement standards and
assessments to address the needs of this segment of students with
disabilities.
The federal notice further stated, ``the best available research
and data indicates that 2 percent, or approximately 20 percent of
students with disabilities, is a reasonable cap.''
______
March 2007.
NCLB ISSUE BRIEF
Growth Models for State Accountability
CURRENT LAW
NCLB requires schools to show increases in the percentage of
students reaching proficiency in reading and math toward the goal of
having all students performing at their appropriate grade level by
2014. This is called making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP).
States must use a ``status model'' to measure students' academic
progress. A status model measures progress by tracking improvement in
the same grade over time. For example, a status model might compare the
performance of students in fourth grade in a school in 2006-07 against
the performance of a different group of students in fourth grade in
2005-06. In contrast, a ``growth model'' measures the scores of the
same students over time. So, a growth model might measure the
percentage of fourth grade students in a school in 2006-07 who are
proficient compared to the percentage of those same students who were
proficient when they were third graders in 2005-06. A growth model
would allow schools to determine which individual students need
remediation help and target assistance to those students.
Recognizing the potential of growth models for state accountability
plans under NCLB, the U.S. Department of Education (USED) instituted a
growth model pilot project in November 2005 under which it would
approve up to 10 proposals. To date, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, North
Carolina and Tennessee have approved projects.
RECOMMENDATIONS
States should have the option of using a growth model, a
status model, or a combination of both as they develop assessment and
reporting systems that can support those options.
Use of a growth model should be permitted as an alternate
to or an addition beyond the Safe Harbor provision of NCLB as a means
to demonstrate Adequate Yearly Progress. Safe harbor allows a student
subgroup to be considered as making AYP if it demonstrates at least a
10% reduction in the gap between having all students proficient and
their performance in the prior year. Safe harbor saves schools from
being designated as in need of improvement.
Growth models should be based on students demonstrating
progress toward proficiency in English language arts (ELA) and
mathematics for graduation.
RATIONALE
The status model, used currently, does not account for
significant progress made by schools and districts with historically
low levels of achievement.
The goals of a growth model are to:
ensure that states, districts, and schools can measure the
degree to which students are making progress at a sustained
rate so that students will achieve academic proficiency by the
time of graduation from high school;
provide states, districts and schools with information so
they can better target resources to the districts, schools, and
groups of students within schools that are not on track towards
proficiency within an acceptable timeframe and have the most
need for remediation assistance;
ensure that schools and districts in which students may be
underperforming but are making appropriate progress towards
proficiency are not categorized as poorly performing.
By using both a status model and a growth model, states can better
determine which districts and schools need targeted interventions and
which can serve as models for moving the most challenged student groups
towards proficiency.
Measuring the same group of students from one year to the
next indicates how each individual student is performing and
progressing academically.
USED should explore conducting a pilot project on ``value-
added'' models for state accountability. A value-added model is a type
of growth model that uses a student's detailed background information
and achievement data to predict growth and isolate the primary reason
for a student's academic progress or lack of progress.
Governor Eliot Spitzer has proposed that New York use a
growth model by the 2008-09 school year, subject to U.S. Department of
Education approval.
RESEARCH
There is no conclusive research at this time on this issue. Current
practice appears to support these recommendations. Some of the research
cited here discusses ``value- added'' models.
Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice. Winter 2005
Educational Measurement is the journal of the National Council on
Measurement in Education.
This special issue is devoted to empirical research on current
accountability systems, i.e. their structure, their relationship to
policy, and their impact on school reform movements. As the U.S.
Department of Education did not approve growth accountability systems
at the initial implementation of NCLB, this is the first cut of
research on the impact of states' status models and testing policies.
It is important work as it highlights both strengths and weaknesses of
the first set of accountability systems and informs thinking as policy-
makers weigh movement to growth systems.
Value Added Models in Education: Theory and Applications.
Edited by Robert Lissitz (2005).
This work contains 10 chapters authored by measurement
professionals exploring the impact and structure of value-added
modeling. The work is highly technical and all articles contain
research as well as statistical models that value-added research may
employ. Of particular note are articles on the design and
implementation of differing value-added models for the Dallas School
District and Tennessee's experience.
Longitudinal and Value Added Modeling of Student
Performance. Edited by Robert Lissitz (2005).
This work contains 14 chapters that research and discuss the
statistical methodologies that can be employed in value-added modeling
for accountability systems. The book presents a variety of chapters
regarding the theory and application of longitudinal (growth) modeling
and value-added determinations of student achievement. The researchers
who contributed to this work are recognized measurement experts from
universities and testing houses.
Standards for Educational Accountability Systems. National
Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and
Student Testing. Robert Linn et. al. Policy Brief
5. Winter 2002
This policy brief highlights the components necessary for a fair
accountability system as defined by measurement experts.
Policymakers' Guide to Growth Models for School
Accountability: How Do Accountability Model Differ.
Council of Chief State School Officers. October
2005
This policy guide clearly articulates the differences between
status and growth models and explains the conditions necessary to
evolve systems towards growth.
______
March 2007.
NCLB ISSUE BRIEF
Highly Qualified Teachers
CURRENT LAW
NCLB, Title I, Part A, Section 1119--Qualifications for
Teachers and Paraprofessionals
Local education agencies (LEAs), i.e. school districts,
must hire only highly qualified teachers to teach core academic
subjects in schools receiving Title I (Improving the Academic
Achievement of the Disadvantaged) funds starting in the fall of 2002.
LEAs and state education agencies (SEAs) must have plans
in place to ensure that:
100 percent of teachers of core academic subjects are
highly qualified by the end of 2005-2006, although the U.S. Department
of Education (USED) extended the deadline to the end of 2006-2007, and
Teachers receive high quality professional development to
enable them to be highly qualified and successful classroom teachers,
with professional development defined in section 9101(34).
NCLB Title I, Part A, Section 1111--State Plans
SEAs must ensure that, through transfers, providing
professional development, recruitment programs, or other effective
strategies, low-income students and minority students are not taught by
unqualified, out-of-field, or inexperienced teachers at higher rates
than other students.
Core Subjects. Core academic subjects include English, reading or
language arts, mathematics, science, history, civics and government,
geography, economics, the arts and foreign language. Teachers of
students with disabilities and students who are English language
learners (ELLs) must be highly qualified if they teach core academic
subjects.
Definition of Highly Qualified Teacher. Section 9101(23) requires
highly qualified teachers to: (1) have a bachelor's or higher degree;
(2) be fully state certified, as defined by the state; and (3)
demonstrate that they know the subject(s) they are teaching using one
of the ways prescribed in section 9101(23). Teachers can demonstrate
subject knowledge with college courses, state examinations or, in some
cases, a ``high objective uniform state standard of evaluation''
(HOUSSE). Each state can create its own HOUSSE based on coherent and
objective information about a teacher's teaching experience, college
courses, professional development and evidence of subject knowledge.
The HOUSSE is an option only for veteran teachers, new special
education teachers and new teachers in rural LEAs.
Accountability. Section 2141 of the NCLB establishes an
accountability system for teacher qualifications that requires states
to set predetermined targets, or Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs)
for LEAs and to intervene when an LEA fails to meet its AMOs and fails
to meet Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for student achievement. States
must impose sanctions on LEAs that do not meet AMOs and AYP, including
collaborative planning and, at worst, restrictions on an LEA's use of
federal funds.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Feasible Targets. Set feasible targets for all teachers of
core academic subjects to be highly qualified. Clarify that an SEA or
an LEA will not face financial penalties or restrictions on its use of
federal funds if it has 95 percent of core classes taught by highly
qualified teachers and all teachers who are not highly qualified are on
track to become highly qualified within three years.
HOUSSE. Clarify that SEAs and LEAs may continue to use
HOUSSE for determining whether veteran teachers, new special education
and new rural teachers are highly qualified.
Equitable Distribution of Teachers. Retain flexibility for
states to define inequities in the distribution of highly qualified
teachers as it applies to their state's circumstances.
Teacher Effectiveness. Provide financial incentives for
states to pilot different definitions of teacher effectiveness and to
implement comprehensive approaches in high-need schools that include
innovative teacher preparation and recruitment, better working
conditions, professional time for planning and collaboration and
instructional career ladders.
Innovation. Provide more funds for NCLB Title II, Part C
programs for innovative teacher recruitment, such as Troops to Teachers
and Transition to Teaching. Provide financial incentives to states to
pilot definitions and accountability systems for effective school and
district leaders.
Accountability. Preserve the flexibility that enables SEAs
to work with LEAs that do not meet AMOs (Annual Measurable Objectives)
and AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress) to develop credible plans for
improvement in the context of each LEA's needs and circumstances.
Provide SEAs with more funds for interventions with LEAs and to develop
comprehensive, longitudinal (growth model) data systems that track
individual student academic performance over time.
Professional Development. When scientifically-based or
evidence-based research, as defined by the U.S. Department of
Education's (USED) Institute for Education Sciences (IES), is not
available for a specific professional development need, permit the
highest level of available research to be used as the basis for the
professional development. Provide additional funding to renew or
develop online courses, with priorities for courses in high-need
content areas (such as inclusive classrooms with general education and
special education students and English language learners) and courses
for paraprofessionals. Permit federal professional development funds to
be used for Public Broadcasting System's TeacherLine and Ready to Teach
products
Funding Levels and Allocation Formulas. Fully fund Title I
and Title II. Change the Title II, Part A allocation formula to enable
SEAs to target funds to LEAs that are the farthest from meeting teacher
quality goals. Retain factors for population and poverty, eliminate the
``hold harmless'' provision for funding, add a ``rural'' factor to
target funds to sparsely populated areas that have difficulty
recruiting and retaining teachers, and give SEAs flexibility to adjust
the weights for each factor in the formula.
Evaluation. Revise the Higher Education Act Title II
reporting requirements, which require states to report on teachers with
``waivers'' (those who are not certified) by subject area, so they
match the NCLB reporting requirements, which require states to report
on the number of core classes not taught by highly qualified teachers.
RATIONALE
NCLB will be more effective at attaining its important student
achievement and teacher quality goals if it sets feasible goals and
provides more resources and flexibility for reaching them while
continuing to hold states and school districts accountable.
FACTS
Teacher Shortages. New York may not have enough qualified teachers
in all subject areas and geographic regions to reach NCLB's teacher
quality goal by the end of school year 2006-2007.
In 2005-2006, teachers who did not meet the definition of
highly qualified taught 5.5 percent of classes in core academic
subjects in New York, compared to 7.9 percent in the prior year.
However, in 2005-2006, teachers who were not highly qualified taught
8.1 percent of core classes in high poverty elementary schools and 17.4
percent of core classes in high poverty middle and secondary schools.
Teachers in high poverty schools were less likely than other teachers
to be highly qualified because they were less likely to be
appropriately certified for what they were teaching, and, in New York
City, were less likely to have had prior teaching experience.
In 2005-2006, there were shortages of certified teachers
in many subjects, with the most prevalent core subjects being the arts,
languages other than English, and mathematics. There were also severe
shortages of teachers for students with disabilities in middle and
secondary grades. New York City and two of the other large cities
(Syracuse and Rochester) had the largest gaps, but there were some
shortages in nearly every region. In some subjects, New York did not
certify enough new teachers to fill vacancies for them. In addition,
not every certified teacher is available to teach wherever there is a
vacancy.
In 2005-2006, 43 percent of teachers in New York were age
45 or more, with 17 percent of them over age 54. Demand for new
teachers will persist as these baby boomers age out of the workforce
and as new policies expand early childhood education, reduce class size
and provide tutoring and other support to help every student succeed.
Importance of Innovation. P-16 partnerships are effective in
addressing teacher shortages. For example, a federally funded
partnership of the State Education Department, the New York City
Department of Education and independent colleges and universities in
the New York City area yielded hundreds of new teachers in shortage
areas for New York City. It is not known yet whether this model can be
extended to other regions without needing funds to do it.
New Approaches to Accountability. New York has comprehensive
policies that promote teacher quality from preparation through
certification, first year mentoring, professional development and
annual professional performance reviews. In addition, Governor Eliot
Spitzer has called for new approaches, such as Contracts for
Excellence, new tenure standards and a review of the effectiveness of
teacher preparation programs. Resources are needed to test and refine
new approaches.
RESEARCH
Why teacher quality resources should be targeted to schools
and districts where they are needed most
Nationwide, low-income and minority students are more likely than
other students to be in high-need schools with fewer qualified, in-
field and experienced teachers. (Peske and Haycock, 2006). Teachers
continue to leave these schools at higher rates than teachers at any
other type of school (Marvel 2006). In New York, three large cities
with high percentages of low-income and minority students are more
likely than other schools to have out-of-field teachers and, in the
case of New York City, inexperienced teachers (New York State Education
Department, forthcoming). NCLB must permit states to target teacher
quality funds to the districts and schools where they are needed most.
Why states need funds to develop comprehensive, longitudinal data
systems
The Data Quality Campaign is an organization supported and endorsed
by dozens of educational and other national organizations. Its 2006
survey found that only one state, Florida, had an educational data
system that met its national standards. Standards and survey results
are at http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey--results/.
Why funds are needed to promote innovative approaches to
teacher preparation and recruitment
NCLB's Transition-to-Teaching program has provided seed money in
many states for dozens of projects that enable high-need districts
recruit and retain highly qualified teachers through alternative
teacher preparation and certification. Performance reports are at
http://www.ed.gov/programs/transitionteach/performance.html. As
alternative teacher preparation models gain the credibility and
recognition they deserve, interest in them is increasing. For example,
Governor Spitzer seeks to increase opportunities in them in New York.
Seed money enables programs to start with enough strength so they can
continue when external funding ends.
REFERENCES
Marvel, J., Lyter, D.M., Peltola, P., Strizeh, G. A., and Morton, B.A.
(2006). Teacher Attrition and Mobility: Results from the 2004-
2005 Teacher Follow-Up Survey (NCES 2007-307). U.S. Department
of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Table 2, page
9. http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2007307
New York State Education Department. Second Annual Report: Teacher
Supply and Demand in 2005-2006. University of the State of New
York: Albany, NY. Available upon request to
[email protected]
Peske, Heather and Haycock, Kati (2006). Teaching Inequality: How Poor
and Minority Students Are Shortchanged on Teacher Quality. The
Education Trust. http://www2.edtrust.org/EdTrust/
Product+Catalog/subject+search (select Teacher Quality)
______
March 2007.
NCLB ISSUE BRIEF
Single Accountability Designation for Adequate Yearly Progress
CURRENT LAW
NCLB makes states responsible for continuous student academic
improvement, known as ``adequate yearly progress'' (AYP). State
education departments must (1) design and secure U.S. Department of
Education approval for school and school district accountability plans
based on academic standards that states develop; (2) ensure that
schools, in turn, are held responsible for their students' academic
performance; and (3) publicly report test results and test data
analyses.
Schools are required to designate student subgroups and measure and
report their academic progress. New York has designated these subgroups
of students: all students; students with disabilities; economically
disadvantaged; limited English proficient; white; American Indian/
Alaskan; Asian; black; and Hispanic. A student may be classified as and
their academic performance reported as part of more than one subgroup.
Schools that fail to make AYP for poor academic performance for any one
or more subgroups in any one subject (English language arts,
mathematics, and a third, state designated subject) are treated under
NCLB as if the entire school failed AYP achievement benchmarks.
States are required to conduct and report publicly on several
different measurements of accountability under NCLB and other federal
programs. Currently, state education agencies (SEAs) are required to
measure and designate:
Schools and districts In Need of Improvement for failing
to make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) under Title I. (Adequate Yearly
Progress is continuous improvement toward all students being
academically proficient, i.e. performing at grade-level, by 2014. Title
I mandates improving the academic achievement of disadvantaged
students.)
Schools and districts that do not meet requirements for
highly qualified teachers (HQT) under Title I and Title II(a). (NCLB
requires 100% of teachers of core academic subjects--English,
mathematics, science, history, civics, geography, economics, the arts,
and foreign language--to be highly qualified by the end of 2006-2007.
To be highly qualified a teacher must have at least a bachelor's
degree, full state certification, and demonstrate knowledge of the
subject they teach.)
Districts that do not meet the state's Annual Measurable
Achievement Objective (AMAO) under Title III. (Title III mandates
language instruction for limited English proficient (LEP) and immigrant
students (English language learners, or ELL). AMAO is the level of
performance that LEP and ELL students must demonstrate for a district
to be deemed to have achieved AYP.
Districts in Need of Assistance or Intervention under IDEA
(Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which governs special
education). These determinations are made based on graduation rates,
drop out rates and scores on 4th and 8th grade mathematics and English
Language Arts (ELA) assessments.
Often, schools and districts end up on more than one list and are
sanctioned for poor performance in different ways, depending on which
list they are on. Under NCLB the sanctions apply to the entire school
or district, even though only one student subgroup may be
underperforming academically in only one subject.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Use only Title I criteria to determine when a school or
district is in need of improvement, not the other subgroup measurements
under Title III (LEP and ELL students) or IDEA (students with
disabilities).
If a school district achieves Adequate Yearly Progress using
Title I criteria for all its subgroups in all subjects--
mathematics, English language arts and a third, state selected
academic indicator (e.g. science or student attendance rate)--
and meets the high school graduation rate, the district should
not be sanctioned for its performance on any other measure
under any other NCLB title or IDEA.
Accountability measures under NCLB Title III and IDEA should
be used only to determine how to meet the additional needs of
ELL and LEP students and special education students
Permit schools to report test scores to the public as letter
grades that represent bands or ranges of scores rather than as
precise numerical scores (e.g. scores ranging from 90.0-100.0
would equal an ``A''). Numerical scores would continue to be
reported to the SEAs and the U.S. Department of Education.
RATIONALE
Using a single set of measures to determine students'
academic performance would promote comprehensive planning, allow for
more targeted remediation (intervention), and encourage more
coordinated use of school and district resources. Using one
accountability measure of academic proficiency for students in English
language arts and mathematics would make the system easier for the
public to understand and avoid the ``list fatigue'' that occurs when
multiple designations are released over the course of the school year.
Labeling an entire school in need of improvement and thus
triggering school-wide interventions when only one subgroup may be in
need of additional assistance is a waste of staff and fiscal resources
at the state, district and school levels.
Parents with school age children make decisions about
where to live based on the academic performance of students in
particular school districts. This, in turn, affects property values and
the desirability of certain communities. Reporting scores to the public
as letter grades would create a more equitable opportunity for
communities to be selected as desirable places to live.
FACTS
It is not clear that multiple measurements add additional value.
School districts do not have the resources to devote to unnecessary
remediation. In New York there is a large overlap in schools and
districts placed on the various lists:
Of the school districts that failed to make AYP under NCLB
Title I, 40% also failed to meet requirements for highly qualified
teachers, 60% also failed to meet the adequate measurable achievement
objective for LEP students and 54% also failed to meet IDEA goals.
Of the 828 schools that failed to make AYP in the 2005-
2006 school year, 51% were designated in need of improvement due to the
performance of only one subgroup, students with disabilities.
RESEARCH
There is no conclusive research on this issue. However, the results
of compliance with current law appear to support our recommendations.
This is a sample of current research:
Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice. Winter 2005
Educational Measurement is the journal of the National Council on
Measurement in Education. This special issue is devoted to empirical
research on current accountability systems, i.e. their structure, their
relationship to policy, and their impact on school reform movements.
Standards for Educational Accountability Systems. National
Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and
Student Testing. Robert Linn, et. al. Policy Brief
5. Winter 2002.
This policy brief highlights the components necessary for a fair
accountability system as defined by measurement experts.
______
March 2007.
NCLB ISSUE BRIEF
Targeted Interventions and Differentiated Consequences for Schools and
Districts Identified as in Need of Improvement
CURRENT LAW
Under NCLB, states must use a school's failure to make Adequate
Yearly Progress (students' continuous academic improvement) for two
consecutive years as a determinant that the school is not on track to
achieve universal proficiency by the 2014 school year, and thus should
be labeled ``in need of improvement''. Schools may be designated in
need of improvement if one or more subgroups of students (e.g.
Hispanic, students with disabilities, limited English proficient) do
not meet targets for improved academic performance or if less than 95
percent of students in a subgroup take an assessment (this is called
the participation rate). The participation rate requirement keeps
schools from selectively eliminating students (e.g. students with
disabilities or limited English proficient) from taking an assessment.
States publicly identify schools in need of improvement. The
schools are required to develop and submit a plan outlining a series of
reforms designed to lead to improved academic performance. As the years
pass, provisions of NCLB are triggered that initiate a series of
mandated school choice options and school district interventions.
During the first year of identification as in need of improvement
(after a school's second consecutive year of missing an AYP target),
NCLB requires the district to offer students the option of transferring
to another public school not identified as in need of improvement (this
is called school choice). After the second year of a school's being
labeled in need of improvement (three consecutive years of failing to
meet AYP), low income students must be offered free supplemental
educational services (SES), such as tutoring, in addition to school
choice.
NCLB assumes all students in a school designated as in need of
improvement need remedial help even though only one subgroup of
students may have fallen short of the AYP target. School districts are
required to set aside up to 20 percent of their Title I program funding
to implement school choice and SES for low-income students. They do not
have to offer SES or school choice beyond what can be supported by that
20 percent and funds that are set-aside, but not used, can be returned
to the general education program.
RECOMMENDATIONS
States should not be required to impose NCLB mandated
sanctions (school choice and supplemental educational services) on
schools or districts because of the failure of one or several subgroups
of students to meet Adequate Yearly Progress targets.
Schools should be able to target remediation, or
interventions, based on the nature and extent of their failure to make
Adequate Yearly Progress.
Schools and districts should have the flexibility to
decide when and in which order to offer school choice and supplemental
educational services. Schools should be allowed to work with parents to
determine which option best meets family and student needs and when to
implement it.
Additional, targeted funding should be provided to school
districts for implementation of school choice and SES.
RATIONALE
Not all schools that fail to make AYP have systemic
problems requiring school-wide interventions. Interventions such as
school choice and supplemental educational services should be given
first to the students who are underperforming academically. For
example, if students with disabilities fail to meet AYP targets,
resources and remediation should be focused on those students.
Some school districts, particularly those in inner cities,
which must offer school choice have only a few schools or no schools
that are not also in need of improvement to which to send students. For
example, most of New York's smaller districts may have only one high
school; if it is identified as in need of improvement there is no other
place to send the students. Or a small city may have two middle
schools; if one is identified, often the other is too. In New York
City, there are too many students eligible for school choice and too
few schools that are making Adequate Yearly Progress to accommodate
them. It would be more efficient and effective to allow school
districts to determine whether and how to implement school choice and
SES, depending on their circumstances.
There is a distinction between a school district's failing
to make AYP for an inadequate participation rate and failing for
students' academic performance. If a district is cited for an
inadequate participation rate, there is no way to determine from this
how students are performing academically. Yet, NCLB requires that
states impose school-wide interventions for failure to meet the 95
percent participation rate mandate.
FACTS
In New York, preliminary data show that for the 2005-06
school year, 37 percent of the schools identified as in need of
improvement were so designated because of the underperformance of one
subgroup: students with disabilities, and 51 percent were designated
because a single subgroup, mostly, students with disabilities,
underperformed on the grades 3-8 English Language Arts exams.
RESEARCH
THere is no conclusive research available on this issue.
In November 2003 the U.S. Department of Education awarded
over $600,000 to the Center for School Change at the University of
Minnesota's Hubert Humphrey Institute and the National Governors
Association Center for Best Practices for a three-year project to help
states develop the most effective and efficient ways to create and
administer school choice systems that will produce improved student
achievement.
In 2005 the U.S. Department of Education instituted a
pilot program that allowed the Boston public schools and the Chicago
public schools to become supplemental educational services providers.
(NCLB does not allow schools in need of improvement to use its staff to
provide SES.)
Also in 2005, USED allowed four school districts in
Virginia to reverse the required order of offering school choice first,
then SES by offering SES first.
USED invited all states to apply for the school choice/SES
pilot program on behalf of their school districts for the 2006-07
school year.
USED has not yet published the results of these pilots.
______
Chairman Kildee. Thank you very much.
Ms. Quenemoen?
STATEMENT OF RACHEL QUENEMOEN, SENIOR RESEARCH FELLOW, NATIONAL
CENTER ON EDUCATION OUTCOMES, UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
Ms. Quenemoen. Thank you, Chairman Kildee and Ranking
Member Castle and all the members of the subcommittee, for
inviting me here to testify today.
I work on several federally funded projects housed at the
University of Minnesota. However, in my testimony this morning
I am representing myself and not the multiple projects on which
I work.
Although you wouldn't know it from the newspaper lately,
the news is good on the increasing achievement of students with
disabilities. Data from schools, states, and the National
Assessment of Educational Progress show improved test scores, a
closing of the gap. Not all schools are being successful. So
researchers and policy-makers are studying what makes a
difference in successful schools.
What they are finding is that successful schools ensure
that all students are taught the challenging standards-based
curriculum at grade level through effective instructional
strategies, and all students are expected to learn it. That
seems straightforward, but clearly, not all schools have
figured that out.
To understand the importance of high expectations, it is
important to have a clear idea of who students with
disabilities are. Most students with disabilities, 75 percent,
have learning disabilities, speech language impairments or
emotional behavioral disabilities. Add another 4 to 5 percent
with physical, visual, hearing, and other health impairments,
and you have 80 percent of students with disabilities who do
not have intellectual impairments who with high quality
curriculum and instruction can achieve proficiency on the grade
level content by going around the effects of their
disabilities.
In addition, research suggests that many of the small
percent of students with disabilities who do have intellectual
impairments, less than 2 percent of the total population of all
students, or 20 percent of students with disabilities, can also
achieve proficiency when they receive high quality instruction
in the grade level content. In schools where all these children
are expected to learn and given the services, supports and
specialized instruction to do so, we are seeing data that shows
students with disabilities can learn to very high levels.
Why don't all educators accept these high expectations?
Some of it results from a misunderstanding of what standards-
based testing is meant to measure. The tests that most of us
experienced growing up were built on the measurement models of
the 20th century, norm referenced tests, designed to sort us
into bell-shaped curves in some kind of ability distribution.
Garrison Keillor makes use of these misconceptions in his sign-
off from Lake Wobegon, not far from my home, ``where all the
children are above average.''
If students of idyllic Lake Wobegon are taking the norm
referenced tests where half the students are above and half
below average, that is very probably true for very complex
reasons. However, if instead they are taking a high quality
criterion reference test based on challenging content and
achievement standards, then there is not an average to
describe, only relative distance from the standard. If there is
a widely accepted but erroneous assumption that there will
always be students who do poorly on tests, then it is pretty
tempting to predict which students will end up on the bottom.
In contrast, on a good standards-based test, all students
who are taught well should perform well. My written testimony
describes what is being done to use the best research in
teaching learning and assessment to help states design
assessment systems that can promote student learning. It also
describes the regular assessments, accommodations, and varied
alternate assessment options available to ensure all students
are tested well. And I welcome your questions about these
options.
The results of these assessments are used, of course, in
accountability systems. There has been much attention in the
press about how states have designed these systems. The
technical difficulties of accountability systems are real, and
states have an obligation to avoid both false positives and
false negatives in identifying schools.
In other words, although gaming of the system does exist,
thoughtful, committed people are struggling with ensuring
fairness all the way around. And sometimes it is hard to
discern good intentions from bad.
Growth models are seen as a logical solution by many.
Pilots of the model are underway, which is good. And serious
attention has been given to ensuring that all student groups
are included, which is better. The states working on this thus
far are in pilot phases and are required to carefully analyze
the effects of these models. They are also required to build
these models based on an absolute standard of proficiency for
all students, which is extremely important.
However, many special educators and the general public have
seen the term growth as more generic, that any progress is
acceptable and would relieve the pressure of proficiency as an
absolute standard. There have been proposals that student IEPs
could replace the regular accountability system, effectively
excluding students from the benefits of standards-based reform.
Others suggest that special education students should be held
to separate standards that focus growth only on basic skills or
suggest exemption from accountability completely.
This would be disastrous and cause us to lose the
tremendous progress we have made the past 6 years. It is
important to step back to celebrate where we have come from and
to clarify where we cannot go. Because of NCLB we now have a
powerful level for reducing and eliminating the achievement gap
of students with disabilities.
Any adjustments to accountability systems should be made
for all students, not just one sub-group, with consideration
and careful monitoring of intended consequences and unintended
consequences for students overall and for sub-groups.
Thank you very much.
[The statement of Ms. Quenemoen follows:]
Chairman Kildee. Thank you.
Dr. Hardman?
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL L. HARDMAN, PH.D., DEAN-DESIGNATE, COLLEGE
OF EDUCATION, UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
Mr. Hardman. Chairman Kildee, Ranking Member Castle,
members of the subcommittee, good morning. And thank you for
the opportunity to testify on the reauthorization of the No
Child Left Behind Act and its impact on teacher education in
this country.
As mentioned, I am Michael Hardman, the incoming dean of
education at the University of Utah. And I am here in my role
and capacity as a faculty member and an administrator at this
university.
In its report on the status of teachers in the United
States, the National Commission on Teaching and America's
Future stated that what teachers know and can do really makes
the crucial difference in what children learn. Good teaching
has never been more important than it is today.
The obvious corollary to this statement is that good
teacher preparation has never been more important. However,
while we are much more knowledgeable about what constitutes
good teacher preparation, many programs continue to prepare new
teachers in a way that is completely inconsistent with today's
schools.
These needs include the skills to teach a more diverse
student population, an emphasis on standards and access to the
general curriculum, and the call for both general and special
education teachers to work together and be accountable to the
improved performance of all students.
In many parts of this nation, general and special education
teachers are still being prepared in total isolation of one
another. These isolated teacher education programs continue
although more than 96 percent of students with disabilities
spend at least a portion of their school day side by side with
peers who are not disabled. Four of 10 students with
disabilities spend more than 80 percent of their day in an
inclusive class. And nine of 10 general education teachers have
an average of nearly four students with disabilities in their
classrooms.
The reality is that neither general nor special education
alone has the capacity to respond to the complex educational
needs of America's children. Collaboration then becomes the key
to raising expectations and increasing the performance of all
students as mandated in NCLB and IDEA.
At the University of Utah, we are undertaking a first-time
major university-wide redesign of all teacher education
programs from early childhood to secondary education. The
entire new program is based on the concept of universal design
for learning and requires a common core of knowledge and skills
for every teacher candidate, whether they be general or special
education.
Universal design for learning focuses on preparing teachers
with the tools to make data based decisions that will meet the
individualized needs of every student in the classroom. It
provides our teacher candidates the skills to create
instructional programs that work for all students. And it makes
curriculum and instruction accessible to every student
regardless of their abilities or their learning styles. Student
monitoring is then used to guide instruction and to increase
parent involvement.
Second, all teacher candidates at the University of Utah
are taught together in courses and field experiences that are
located in inclusive and diverse classrooms. A professional
education core at the University of Utah develops a common
understanding among general and special education teachers of
the goals and purposes of schooling, the skills to meet the
educational needs of every student, and how to work together in
a school-wide support system, not in isolation.
Our core includes instruction in areas such as safe
schools, character education, professional ethics, effective
instruction for students with disabilities and English language
learners, meeting the needs of students with challenging
behaviors, teaching reading, writing, and math, and effective
use of technology in instruction.
Implicit in the call by federal policy-makers to reform
education and improve student achievement is the critical need
for us to reexamine the preparation of our nation's teachers.
In doing so, to guide this effort, I have posed the following
recommendations for the reauthorization of NCLB and the
preparation of both general and special education teachers.
First, federal policy under No Child Left Behind should
ensure that every teacher who is deemed highly qualified has
demonstrated the research-based teaching skills that are
necessary to instruct students with disabilities and English
language learners in inclusive settings.
Teacher preparation must be based on an analysis of the
skills that are needed for new teachers to improve student
performance. These programs must be driven by content standards
that define the specific skills that are expected of new
teachers as well as performance standards describing how these
new teachers will demonstrate mastery.
Teacher education programs should require a common core of
skills for every new teacher so they can demonstrate how to
continuously assess student performance, adjust the learning
environment as needed, modify instructional methods, use
effective behavioral supports, and implement appropriate
accommodations to meet the individual needs of their students.
There is a critical need for Title II of No Child Left Behind
to provide funding that will support universities in
partnerships with schools to teach this set of core skills to
both general and special education teachers.
Teacher education must also include a balance of course
work and field experiences consistent with teacher roles. I
also recommend that teachers not be considered highly qualified
until they have successfully completed their initial
preparation program. Current federal regulations allow states
to immediately deem teachers as highly qualified when they have
enrolled in an alternative preparation program for 3 years but
they have not completed all state requirements.
Only teachers who have successfully completed these
requirements and are fully certified by the state should be
considered highly qualified. Teacher education programs, both
university and alternative programs, must be held accountable
for their graduates.
And finally, NCLB must provide the resources needed to
address the critical shortage of highly qualified teachers and
the university faculty who prepare them. Title II funds must be
targeted to addressing the critical shortage areas, including
special education. The shortage of special education teachers
has been pervasive and persistent for more than two decades.
Approximately half of special education teachers are leaving
this field within the first 3 to 5 years of their preparation.
Chairman Kildee. Dr. Hardman, there is a vote taking place
now in the House. So if you could wrap up, we will----
Mr. Hardman. This concludes my testimony. And I thank you
very much for the opportunity.
[The statement of Mr. Hardman follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Michael L. Hardman, Dean-Designate, College
of Education, University of Utah
Collaboration within a School-Wide System of Support
Chairman Kildee and Members of the Subcommittee, good morning and
thank you for the opportunity to testify on the No Child Left Behind
Act and its impact on teacher education in this country. I am Michael
Hardman, incoming Dean of the College of Education and currently Chair
of the Department of Teaching and Learning and the Department of
Special Education at the University of Utah. I am also a member of the
Board of Directors for the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) and a
past-president of the Higher Education Consortium for Special Education
(HECSE). Since the enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act and the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, CEC and HECSE
have worked closely together to ensure that the promise of every
student succeeding in our nation's schools becomes a reality. Although
my testimony includes excerpts from the CEC Teacher Education Division
and HECSE recommendations on the reauthorization of the No Child Left
Behind Act, my role today is in the capacity of a faculty member and
administrator representing the College of Education at the University
of Utah.
Background
In its report on the status of teachers in the United States, the
National Commission on Teaching and America's Future stated that:
``What teachers know and can do makes the crucial difference in what
children learn * * * New courses, tests and curriculum reforms can be
important starting points, but they are meaningless if teachers cannot
use them well * * * Student learning in this country will improve only
when we focus our efforts on improving teaching. Good teaching has
never been more important than it is today.''
The obvious corollary to this statement is that good teacher
preparation has never been more important as well. However, while we
are more knowledgeable about what constitutes good teacher education,
many programs continue to prepare new teachers in a paradigm that is
inconsistent with the needs of today's schools. These needs include
knowledge and skills to teach a more diverse student population; an
increasing emphasis on standards and access to the general curriculum;
and the call for both special and general educators to work together
and be accountable for improved performance of all students. In many
parts of this country, general and special education teachers are still
being prepared in total isolation of one another. Consequently, many
new teachers lack the necessary skills to work together. These isolated
teacher preparation programs continue although more than 96% of all
students with disabilities spend at least a portion of their school day
side-by-side with their peers who are not disabled in an inclusive
classroom setting. Four of ten students with disabilities spend more
than 80% of their day in a general education class (U.S. Department of
Education). According to the Study of Personnel Needs in Special
Education (SPeNSE), nine of ten general education teachers currently
have an average of 3.5 students with disabilities in their classroom.
The reality is that neither general nor special education alone has the
capacity to respond to the complex educational needs of America's
children. As suggested by Marlene Pugach from the University of
Wisconsin-Milwaukee, ``the need to prepare all teachers to create
classrooms that embrace students with disabilities and teach them is no
longer contested.'' Collaboration is the key to raising expectations
and increasing the performance of all students as mandated in NCLB and
IDEA.
One University's Vision for the Redesign of Teacher Education
The University of Utah is presently undertaking a university-wide
redesign of teacher education at every level from early childhood to
secondary education. Several factors have led the faculty to rethink
the University's traditional approach to teacher education, including
the increasing number of students in public education with unique
educational needs who come from diverse cultural, linguistic, and
socioeconomic backgrounds and are now learning together in inclusive
classrooms. The critical shortages continue in the supply of teachers
and the university faculty needed to prepare them, particularly in the
areas of special education, math, and science. These shortages are
fueled by inadequate salaries and high attrition rates in the first
five years of employment. Finally, universities and colleges must find
new and innovative ways to meet the challenge of preparing highly
qualified teachers under the mandates of NCLB and IDEA 2004.
The design of our new teacher education programs reflects the
vision of the University of Utah to attract and retain a diverse
faculty of the highest quality who have the desire and responsibility
to provide both general and special education teachers with the
mentoring, coursework, and field experiences that are rigorous and
relevant for successful careers in today's schools. Our program design
is based on three critical elements:
Universal design for learning within the framework of a
three-tier model for evidence-based instruction that provides teachers
with the tools for data-based decisions.
An extensive professional education core of knowledge and
skills that is required for every general and special education teacher
candidate attending the university.
University courses directly linked to continuous field
experiences in inclusive classrooms and schools.
Universal Design for Learning (UDL). Teacher candidates at the
University of Utah develop the skills to create instructional programs
and environments that work for all students, to the greatest extent
possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design. UDL,
adapted from architecture where buildings are created from the
beginning with diverse users in mind, is intended to make curriculum
and instruction accessible and to every student, regardless of their
abilities or learning styles. A range of options are available to each
student that supports access to, and engagement with learning
materials. (Rose & Meyer).
In the teacher education program at the University of Utah, UDL is
incorporated into a three-tier model of instruction and teacher
candidates are provided with the progress monitoring tools that are
needed for data-based decisions in terms of selecting, using, and
adapting instruction. Data are used to guide instruction, appropriate
intervention and practice, parent involvement, and other research-based
practices. (Utah State Office of Education; Vaughn, Bos, & Schumm).
Tier I focuses on core classroom instruction that is provided to all
students using evidence-based practices to teach the critical elements
within a core curriculum. The general education teacher and special
education teacher in conjunction with a school-wide support team (such
as speech language professional, paraeducators, and school
psychologists) provide instruction to students who are at various
levels of development in critical skills. Most students will
demonstrate proficiency with effective Tier I instruction. These
students are able to acquire skills through the core (standard)
instruction provided by the teacher, whereas others require more
intensive instruction in specific skill areas. Using universal design
for learning, differentiated instruction, multi-level learning and
targeting specific skills classroom teachers in conjunction with the
school-wide support team are able to meet the needs of most students.
Tier II provides supplemental targeted instruction in addition to
evidence-based practices taught at the Tier I level. For some students,
core classroom instruction in the general classroom is not enough for
them to demonstrate proficiency. These students require targeted
supplemental instruction in addition to the skills taught through core
instruction. Tier II meets the needs of these students by giving them
additional time for intensive small-group instruction daily. The goal
is to support and reinforce skills being taught by the general and
special education teachers as well as the school-wide support team at
the Tier I level. At this level of intervention, data-based monitoring
is used to ensure adequate progress is being made on target skills. The
frequency, intensity, and duration of this instruction vary for each
student depending on the assessment and progress monitoring data.
A small number of students who receive targeted supplemental
instruction (Tier II) continue to have difficulty becoming proficient
in necessary content skills. Tier III provides intensive targeted
instruction to the most at-risk learners who have not adequately
responded to evidence-based practices. These students require
instruction that is more explicit, more intensive, and specifically
designed to meet their individual needs. Additional sessions of
specialized one-to-one or small-group instruction are provided with
progress monitoring of specific skills.
The key components of the three-tier model are (1) the use of
evidence-based instruction designed to meet the needs of students at
each level, and (2) assessment and progress monitoring procedures that
measure current skills and growth over time and that are used to
provide new instruction to individual students. The three-tier model
provides a system that is responsive to students' changing needs.
A professional education core required for general and special
education teacher candidates. Traditional teacher education programs
reinforce student differences by separating teacher candidates into
isolated preparation programs, each with their own unique perspective
and curricula. Such a structure makes little sense in today's schools
where there is a need for a collaborative approach to teaching and
every educator must have a core skill set of knowledge and skills to
improve the performance of every student. The professional education
core at the University of Utah is intended to develop a common
understanding of the goals and purposes of schooling, knowledge and
skills to meet the educational needs of all students, collaboration
across educators in a school-wide support system, and the use of
evidence-based instruction leading to advanced skills. Interstate New
Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC) calls for a cross-
disciplinary core in which every teacher candidate develops
understanding of content and content-specific pedagogy. Using the
INTASC framework and its principles for student-centered learning, the
program at the University of Utah prepares every new teacher with
knowledge and skills the following content areas:
Child, Adolescent, and Human Development
Safe Schools, Character Education, and Professional Ethics
Ethnic Studies, Multicultural/Multilingual Education, and
Effective Instructional Approaches for English Language Learners
Foundations of Exceptionality and Effective Instruction
for Students with Disabilities in Inclusive Classrooms
Research and Inquiry in Education
Principles of Assessment and Data-Based Decision-Making
Positive Behavior Support
Communication and Language Development
Reading and Writing Foundations and Methods
Math Foundations and Methods
Integrated Curriculum Methods (Across Fine Arts, Health,
and Physical Education)
Effectively Using Technology in Diverse Classrooms
Education Law and Policy for Classroom Teachers (NCLB and
IDEA)
International Education
Linking university coursework to continuous field experiences.
Teacher candidates must continuously demonstrate the knowledge and
skills learned in coursework in actual classroom and school settings.
Field experiences are viewed as an extension of university courses in
which students translate research and theory into practice. Faculty and
school district/agency cooperating teachers regularly observe,
evaluate, and provide feedback to teacher candidates regarding their
classroom performance. Each candidate's performance is evaluated in
regard to (a) measurable gains in applying knowledge and skills from
coursework, and (b) whether students with whom the candidate is working
learn the content.
Recommendations
Implicit in the call by federal policymakers to reform education
and improve student achievement is the critical need for effective and
qualified general and special education teachers, as well as a re-
examination of their preparation. To guide this effort in the future,
recommendations are proposed for the preparation of general and special
education teachers.
Recommendation 1. Federal policy should ensure that any teacher who
is deemed highly qualified has demonstrated evidence-based pedagogical
skills necessary to teach students with disabilities and English
language learners in inclusive classrooms.
Effective teacher preparation is based on a careful analysis of the
competencies needed for new teachers to improve student performance.
The curriculum should include approaches, methods, and techniques that
have been validated through research; are effective across students
with diverse needs; and can be implemented successfully in a general
education classroom and school setting. Teacher preparation programs
must set content standards that describe the specific skill set
expected of new teachers as well as performance standards describing
how they will demonstrate mastery. Course work and field experiences
are then structured to these content and performance standards.
Fortunately, there is a robust research base on effective strategies to
support student learning. Effective preparation programs must anchor
their curriculum to these evidence-based practices and teacher
candidates must be able to demonstrate that they can implement them
successfully.
Recommendation 2. Teacher education programs should require a
professional education core for all their teacher candidates in order
to ensure these individuals have demonstrated knowledge and skills to
continuously assess student performance, adjust the learning
environment as needed, modify instructional methods, adapt curricula,
use positive behavior supports and interventions, and select and
implement appropriate accommodations to meet the individual needs of
students. Title II of No Child Left Behind can provide support to
universities in partnership with public schools to develop this core.
Through coursework and field experiences, teacher candidates
acquire a common core of knowledge and skills designed to ensure
educational programs and services are accessible and applicable to
every student, regardless of ability, cultural background, or learning
style. The core is grounded in the three-tier model of instruction,
universal design for learning and evidence-based practice as a
foundation for further preparation in a teaching specialization.
Recommendation 3. Teacher education must include a balance of
coursework and field experiences that are consistent with teacher roles
in inclusive general education schools and classrooms.
Effective teacher education programs use field experiences as a
tool to push teacher candidates to translate theory into practice and
advance their learning to a higher level. In order to accomplish this
task, teacher preparation programs must work with local schools to
identify evidence-based instructional techniques. Schools must also be
willing to collaborate with teacher preparation programs to create
opportunities for candidates to receive the practice necessary to
cumulatively develop essential instructional and classroom management
skills across time. This is critical for new teachers who have to apply
increasingly complex formats in order effectively teach students who
require frequent and intense instruction.
Recommendation 4 Teachers should not be considered highly qualified
until they have successfully completed their initial preparation
program. Following initial preparation, every teacher must have the
opportunity to continuously participate in professional development and
improvement.
Current federal regulations allow states to immediately deem
teachers as ``highly qualified'' when they have enrolled in an
alternative preparation program for up to three years but have not
completed all program requirements. Only teachers who have successfully
completed approved preparation programs and are fully certificated by
state agencies should be considered ``highly-qualified'' special
education teachers.
Additionally, our understanding of effective instruction has
expanded dramatically in the last three decades. In order for new
teachers to be successful, they must be able to keep pace with
research-based developments in curriculum design, instruction, behavior
support, and program management. They need to be taught how to be
critical consumers of research and use it to inform their practice. Put
simply, new teachers and the schools they teach in must have a
commitment to career professional development. Teacher education
programs and schools must nurture and reinforce this commitment as a
critical component of their overall mission.
Partnerships are fostered among teacher preparation programs and
schools to support the professional development of newly prepared and
career teachers of students with disabilities. Effective teacher
preparation programs develop close partnerships with schools that are
structured to improve the quality and effectiveness of their graduates.
At the heart of these partnerships is the development of shared views
about the design of educational services for students with disabilities
and the importance of career teacher professional development. Teacher
preparation programs and schools must work together to establish
initiatives that focus on real challenges facing today's schools,
including innovative and efficient ways to prepare, mentor, and retain
qualified teachers. Concurrently, schools must take advantage of
teacher preparation program faculty expertise to promote research-based
practices in the education of all students.
Recommendation 5. Teacher education, including university and
alternative preparation programs, must be held accountable for the
performance of their graduates.
Effective teacher preparation programs routinely evaluate the
quality and impact of their graduates beyond measuring whether they
demonstrate mastery of professional competencies at the time of program
exit. Teacher preparation programs must be involved with the schools in
a joint preparation, mentoring and evaluation process that begins at
the time teacher candidates begin their initial preparation, continue
during an induction period of no less than three years, and is
maintained throughout their career. It is important to measure how
effectively programs graduates successfully fill entry level roles and
responsibilities through valid and reliable performance assessments.
Preparation programs must also be accountable for how effectively they
work with schools to mentor and support new teachers, as well as their
efforts to systematically follow-up and evaluate their graduates'
performance over time.
Recommendation 6. NCLB Title II funds need to address the critical
shortage areas of highly qualified teachers and the university faculty
who prepare them.
Title II funds should be directly targeted to address critical
shortage areas, including special education. The shortage has been
persistent and pervasive for decades and the attrition of new special
education teachers is of great concern. Approximately half of all new
special education teachers leave the field within three years. Title II
funds should support higher education partnerships with local school
districts designed to address chronic shortages and support the
preparation, induction, mentoring, and retention of highly qualified
special education teachers. Additionally, while the national focus is
on the critical shortages in special education teachers and related
services personnel (and rightfully so), little attention has been paid
to the shortage of special education faculty in higher education
(Smith, Pion, Tyler, Sindelar, & Rosenberg) In the last two decades,
special education doctoral degrees have decreased by 30%. In addition,
one third of all vacancies for special education faculty remain
unfilled every year. This exacerbates the special education teacher
shortage, which has now become as critical as the shortages of math and
science teachers (American Association for Employment in Education).
references
American Association for Employment in Education, (2000). Teacher
supply and demand in the United States. Columbus, OH: American
Association for Employment in Education.
Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC)
(2001, May). Model standards for licensing general and special
education teachers of students with disabilities: A resource
for state dialogue. Washington, D.C.: Council of Chief State
School Officers.
Pugach, M.C. (2005). Research on preparing general education teachers
to work with students with disabilities. In M. Cochran-Smith &
K.M. Zeichner, Studying teacher education: The report of the
AERA panel on research and teacher education (pp. 549-590).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Smith, D.D., Pion, G., Tyler, N.C., Sindelar, P., & Rosenberg, M.
(2001a). The shortage of special education faculty. Why it is
happening, why it matters, and what we can do about it.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of
Special Education Programs.
Study of Personnel Needs in Special Education (SPeNSE, 2000). General
education teachers' role in special education (fact sheet).
Retrieved 30 May, 2006, from http://ferdig.coe.ufl.edu/spense/
The National Commission on Teaching and America's Future. (1996). What
matters most: Teaching for America's future: Summary report.
New York: Author.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs.
(2004). Twenty-Sixth Annual Report to Congress on the
Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act. Washington, DC: Author.
Utah State Office of Education (2006). Three Tier Model of Reading
Instruction. Salt Lake City, Utah: Author
Vaughn, S., Bos, C.S., & Schumm, J.S. (2007). Teaching exceptional,
diverse, and at-risk students: IDEA 2004 update edition.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
1Portions of this testimony were excerpted from Hardman, M., &
McDonnell, J.M. (in press). Teachers, pedagogy, and curriculum.
In L. Florian & M. McLaughlin (Eds.). Perspectives and Purposes
of Disability Classification Systems in Research and Clinical
Practice. London: Sage Publications and The Higher Education
Consortium for Special Education and the Teacher Education
Division of the Council for Exceptional Children. (2006).
Recommendations to the NCLB Commission for the Reauthorization
of No Child Left Behind. Washington, D.C: Author.
______
Chairman Kildee. Thank you. Good. Right on time.
We will take 5 minutes, though, to hear Dr. Henderson. And
we will still be able to make it in time to vote and come back
here.
Dr. Henderson, you may proceed.
Thank you, Dr. Hardman.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM HENDERSON, ED.D., PRINCIPAL, THE O'HEARN
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Mr. Henderson. Chairman Kildee, Ranking Member Castle and
members of the committee, it is a privilege to be here. I am
principal of the O'Hearn School, which is in Boston,
Massachusetts.
Our students reflect the diversity of our community,
approximately 45 percent African-American, 30 percent
Caucasian. The remaining 25 percent come from countries all
over the world. The majority of our students qualify for free
and reduced lunch.
The O'Hearn is an inclusive school. Thirty-three percent of
our students have a disability. At the O'Hearn, students
involved in general education, students with mild, moderate and
very significant disabilities, and students considered talented
and gifted learn together and from each other.
We are a very popular school under the choice program in
Boston. Overall, our students' performance has been successful.
For the first time, though, last year we did not make AYP. We
need to do better, and we will.
I would like to briefly highlight the situations of four
students and then suggest some ways that NCLB has benefited and
some ways that it could be more helpful to these children. I
have changed their names and the details, but these situations
are real.
William came to the O'Hearn when he was 3 years old. He has
autism. His pediatrician wanted him to attend a school with
just autistic children. But the parents insisted that he be
with his peers, although he certainly exhibited some social
quirks and communication issues. And we worked with a
behavioralist and a speech pathologist. He excelled
academically. We have involved him in drama, both during and
after school. And he is an outstanding student academically.
Kaylo is a boy born to a mom who had some drug addiction,
has some cognitive delays, emotional disorders, entered our
school in kindergarten. We gave him some speech and O.T.
services. He was behind academically, although up there
physically, we retained him in kindergarten, did some early
intervention, language-based programs and we also gave him
universal design and access to books and cassettes.
But as he got older, the skill level of the material became
increasingly frustrating to him. And we had more behavior
problems in class due to his frustration. Just last year his
IEP team decided to modify his skill level. And he is now
performing much better. He is also a great athlete and involved
in the school store.
Maria is a girl who was born blind. She started out in a
substantially separate school for kids who are blind. Her
mother wanted her to make more academic rigor, and transferred
her to the O'Hearn. Like her principal, she is learning to use
Braille mobility. She reads using a Kurzweil. She sings. And
she is a very popular student at our school.
And Carla is a student who came to us in kindergarten, very
active physically, having some problems with letter
recognition. We did a lot of phonetic awareness programs with
her. For some kids, this makes a real impact and difference.
For her, she is still struggling. We switched her to Kurzweil
and assistive technology. She has been thriving, and is also a
very great visual artist.
How has NCLB helped these students?
First, all of these children have access to highly
qualified teachers, support staff who collaborate extensively
and have very deep conversations now about what we can do and
what strategy we can use to help them perform at higher levels.
All of these children have access to universally designed
curriculum with extensive accommodations to help them access
text books and books, instruction, and current assessments. And
all these children also have participated in additional
instructional time and not sacrificed in the arts, which is so
important to all children, particularly for kids--and physical
education--for kids with disabilities.
My recommendations for improving NCLB would be the
following.
First, considering asking states to conduct a federal
review of the accommodations standards. We have to safeguard
accommodations for our children with disabilities. I am very
concerned that two of the children I mentioned and perhaps
their principal could not get a high school diploma in some
states, yet we could do fine and get degrees in colleges.
Secondly, we want to make sure we don't get involved in a
testing frenzy. Nine days of testing is too much for our 5th-
graders, value added.
And finally, I wanted to say that parent involvement is
critical, not just being involved in IEPs, but seeing what
strategy is used to help children be successful, offering
suggestions what parents can do, and reinforce these strategies
at home.
Thank you very much.
Chairman Kildee. Thank you very much, Dr. Henderson.
And we apologize. We will repair to the chambers to vote. I
ask all members to vote at the door and run right back here.
So you can take a break. But thank you very much. This is a
day we are passing the budget, and ordinarily we don't have
hearings. But this hearing was so important we decided to go
ahead with it even though we are passing the budget.
So if you pray, pray that we pass a good budget over there.
[Recess.]
Chairman Kildee. We have finished the vote on--I think we
have four different budgets we are voting on today, at least
four. So we have started one. We will probably have some time
now for a while again.
I have been here 30 years, but Dr. Boustany and I ran
together back over here. Some of the other younger members are
still making their way over here.
I really appreciate the testimony. It has been excellent.
I would like to ask a few questions.
Dr. Rhyne, you testified about different states having
different N-sizes. And that has kind of puzzled us a bit, too.
I think Maryland has an N-size, except for these students, of
five. It varies in Texas. It can go as high as 200. And I think
California has 100.
What should we do, and how does that wide disparity affect
what is happening out there?
Ms. Rhyne. With that wide disparity, a lot of students with
disabilities are being left out of the accountability system.
Over half of the states have N-sizes that are over 40. And if
you look, for example, an elementary school, an average
elementary school might be somewhere between 450 and 500
students. You are leaving out those children.
We do have five states in the nation that have
differentiated N-sizes. So the N-size for one sub-group of
children is different from another sub-group of children. So I
believe the Council of Great City Schools recommends that we
have N-sizes of about 20 and, with a waiver, maybe 30. And then
we would be catching and putting in all of the students with
disabilities and being accountable for them.
Chairman Kildee. Do you think it would be prudent and wise
for this committee to standardize that N-size, perhaps along
the lines of the Great City Schools you mentioned?
Ms. Rhyne. Absolutely, I do, absolutely.
Chairman Kildee. All right. Very good.
Dr. Cort, with reference to the subset of the so-called 2
percent students who are able to progress toward their regular
diploma, you testified that they ought to be allowed to proceed
at a slower but equally rigorous pace.
Since these students are generally starting at below grade
level to begin with, how does this translate to progress toward
that regular diploma?
Ms. Cort. Well, I think the entire process is likely to
take longer. And that is why under IDEA the ability to stay in
school until you are 21 years old is of great benefit. I don't
think that all of these students will be able to master high
school within the 4 years expected or that they will graduate
at the same time as their non-disabled peers. And I think if we
do move to some growth models, I think we will be able to see
how fast we can have students make progress.
With really intensive special education services, the hope
would be that some students can actually gain more than a year
in a year's period of time. But those are the kinds of things
we need to evaluate.
Chairman Kildee. Okay. Thank you very much.
You know, when I wrote the law back in Michigan, I put the
years 0 to 26 as the ages to be covered. And I remember the
superintendents called me in in August just before the bill was
to take effect begging me, first of all, to give them 1 more
year, secondly, to change 0 to 5 and 26 to 18. But we retained
the 0 through 26.
The 0 was very important because certain disabilities
require--I used to think more simply in those days--just
deafness would require that you break that communication
barrier. But we know now that the very physical development of
the brain requires that early stimulation. We have learned so
much since the days that we first passed special education.
But thank you for your input here.
Dr. Henderson, in your written testimony you testified that
in some states your blindness would prevent you from receiving
a high school diploma. Could you elaborate on that?
Mr. Henderson. Sure. Even in Massachusetts when the MCAS
test was first administered for the English language arts
section of the test one had to read it with their eyes and
answer with a pencil and paper. Am I an illiterate principal
because I can't read the information the same way that most of
the people here can?
I think not only for blind children but also for children
with significant learning disabilities we ought to have the
opportunity to access information in multiple formats, whether
it be with our eyes, our ears or our fingers, and to
demonstrate our understanding and knowledge of that
information, those rights and protections that were provided to
me as a teacher who became blind and an administrator under
section 504 and the ADA national safeguards.
We need to look at national safeguards for accommodations
for children who need access to the curriculum and to
assessments.
Chairman Kildee. Certainly, we know that the nature of God
gave us at least five senses. Right? I know we are able to use
all those senses. And I appreciate your response.
Dr. Boustany?
Dr. Boustany. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Rhyne, you state that you support the growth models but
that tying them to proficiency will not recognize growth that
is achieved below that level. My concern is that we will
recognize growth below proficiency without ever being
accountable for ensuring that the child can perform
commensurate with his or her grade ability or level.
Do you have a recommendation for how a growth model could
be established and would encourage growth toward a proficiency
target and recognize growth below that level?
Ms. Rhyne. Yes, I do. I think there are several ways that
this could be addressed. For example, children who we could
measure the growth in their scale score and compare that scale
score to the scale score of the state, for example. We could
look at movement from below proficient to the proficiency
range. So that is one way to do that.
Dr. Boustany. I thank you.
Dr. Cort, within the subset of the 2 percent population
that you feel does not need modified standards but freedom to
progress at a slower pace what kind of guidelines would need to
be put into place to help IEP teams determine what level of
instruction and assessment would be appropriate for each
student?
Ms. Cort. Well, there is a great deal of work that is done
as you develop your annual review and the triennial evaluations
are conducted under IDEA to determine the current and
functioning levels of students with disabilities.
I think this is an area, though, that really requires a
good deal of intensive research identifying which is a true
student who is learning at a slower pace because of their
disability versus a student who looks similar in performance
but it is because they haven't gotten appropriate instruction
that they are not making that progress is a tough distinction
to make.
And I think that we do have to help IEP teams understand
different evaluation techniques to determine some of those
things and also to be looking better at a record. I think if we
move to some growth models and if we look at something like
response to intervention, which is talking about good
instruction and constant progress monitoring, then you can tell
are students responding to instruction, should they be able to
move more quickly or is it truly a result of their disability.
So I do believe that we don't have sufficient research or
enough information here and that NCLB and IDEA could help
contribute to that process by putting some dollars into that
kind of research.
Dr. Boustany. I thank you.
Ms. Quenemoen, you discussed the impact that high quality
instruction can have on a student achievement for this sub-
group. What is being done to share this information? And are
states and school districts receptive to this approach?
Ms. Quenemoen. Well, that is an interesting question,
whether they are receptive or not. We are certainly seeing
spotty patterns of where full states, in some cases, but
certainly even within states where the leadership is
systematically developing staff development rollouts, if you
would, of these best practices.
I think some of the concern is a centuries-old bias and
assumption about what students with disabilities or what people
with disabilities can and should be doing. So in some cases
there is resistance that even administrators aren't aware of.
And that is very difficult. Attitudes are very, very difficult
to change.
However, I think Dr. Hardman's testimony about an
institution of higher education really rethinking the whole way
they prepare teachers is probably our longest-term opportunity
for really ensuring what we understand about effective
instruction and high expectations is embedded in our teaching
force.
So I credit many states for systematic and long-term
commitment to higher expectations and support through
professional development. Ultimately I think our institutions
of higher education bear a huge burden in order to get that
fully institutionalized.
Dr. Boustany. Thank you.
One last question, Mr. Chairman, if I might, for Dr.
Hardman.
You criticize the flexibility that the department has
allowed for teachers going through alternative certification
programs. States and school districts are telling us that
alternative certification programs are an absolutely critical
tool for meeting the demand for teachers in the classroom.
Are you concerned that eliminating this flexibility would
only exacerbate shortages that we are already seeing with
teachers?
Mr. Hardman. The concern about alternative preparation
programs--first let me say that the range of quality
alternative preparation programs varies considerably from state
to state and from area to area, as does the range, by the way,
of university programs.
I think that the issue is that when you are preparing
teachers, every teacher, every institution, every program
should be held to the same high quality standards so that we
have a consistent understanding that schools have a good,
consistent knowledge that the teachers that they are receiving
from wherever they are coming from, alternative or traditional
university programs, meet those standards.
When you allow teachers to move into classrooms who have
not completed those standards and have up to 3 years to
complete them, you have a different teaching force moving into
the schools.
And I also think that there are some concerns about higher
attrition and documented evidence that indicates that you have
a much greater chance of losing teachers who are not well-
prepared, whether they be in a university or an alternative
preparation program.
Dr. Boustany. Certainly. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Kildee. Thank you, Dr. Boustany.
Mr. Hare?
Mr. Hare. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing
today.
And I have found that we seldom address or fully fund
programs to support the population of people with disabilities.
Over the February recess, I toured Roosevelt Junior High
School in Monmouth, Illinois, which is in my congressional
district, to see the successes the school has had with its
positive behavior intervention and support programs, also known
as PBIS.
Through positive behavioral practices in which students
were taught leadership, teamwork, and were rewarded for good
decisions and good behavior, Roosevelt Junior High has seen a
drastic decrease in disciplinary measures and increases in
academic, social, and emotional function among its students.
More amazing is the fact that the schools in Illinois that
have implemented the PBIS have seen lower rates of special
education testing and placement of students.
And I ask for unanimous consent to submit the Illinois case
study example into the record.
Chairman Kildee. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Hare. And then, according to a statement by the
American Occupational Therapy Association, which I also ask for
unanimous consent to submit, early intervening services under
IDEA provide school-wide targeted and individual interventions
for children who are struggling academically and behaviorally.
The implementation of school-wide support programs such as PBIS
improves academic and behavioral outcomes for students with
disabilities in both general and special education.
Chairman Kildee. Without objection to your second request.
[The information follows:]
Prepared Statement of the American Occupational Therapy Association
(AOTA)
The American Occupational Therapy Association (AOTA) submits this
statement for the record of the March 29, 2007 hearing. We appreciate
the opportunity to provide this information regarding the relationship
of occupational therapy services to improving results for children with
disabilities under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB).
Occupational Therapy Services under IDEA and NCLB
Occupational therapy is concerned with an individual's ability to
do everyday activities, or occupations, so that they can participate
fully in school, at home, and in the community. Occupational therapy
practitioners use purposeful activities as therapy to help children
bridge the gap between their capacity to learn and full, successful
participation in education, work, and play.
Occupational therapy services in schools are intended to help
children succeed academically and behaviorally. Intervention strategies
focus on information-processing, academic skill development, social
interactions and the ability to function in the school environment. For
adolescents, occupational therapy focuses on preparation for work, life
choices, improvement of social and work skills, and learning how to
create or alter the environment to maximize productivity.
The advent of early intervening services under IDEA 2004 provide
for the funding of school-wide, targeted and individual interventions
for children who are struggling academically and behaviorally.
Implementation of models of school-wide support such as Response to
Intervention (RtI) and Positive Behavioral Supports (PBS) are general
education initiatives that have demonstrated the ability to improve
academic and behavioral outcomes for students with disabilities in both
general and special education. AOTA believes that early intervening
funds support student achievement in a very similar way to how Title I
funds support improvements of academic achievement for the
disadvantaged and that Congress should designate a portion of Title I
funds to expand early intervening services to provide additional tiered
supports to struggling students at risk of failure or special education
identification.
How Occupational Therapy Helps Students with Disabilities
Occupational therapy intervention for children and youth is planned
in consultation with parents and families, teachers, and other
professionals, and is directed toward achieving successful educational
outcomes. Depending on the student's age, the presence of learning
difficulties or behavioral issues may have debilitating effects on his
or her sense of accomplishment or social competence. Occupational
therapy intervention for these students can address these stresses by
identifying psychosocial problems and appropriate strength based coping
strategies.
Occupational therapy can have a significant supportive role in
assessment of students with disabilities under NCLB. The occupational
therapists' expertise can help teachers and IEP Teams to identify
appropriate accommodations needed to support the student's skill level.
This includes identification of and training in the use of assistive
technology or other aids that will help the student to more
successfully participate in state and district assessments.
Occupational therapy expertise in function and performance can also
contribute to the identification of children who need modified
assessments in order to more effectively demonstrate their academic
progress.
AOTA believes that occupational therapy is an underutilized service
that can meet and address children's learning, social and behavioral
needs. This limited access affects both IDEA-eligible students as well
as students in general education. Often, this limitation is due to a
lack of understanding about how occupational therapy can help or
because of perceptions that therapists only address ``motor'' issues.
Occupational therapy can be invaluable in helping parents and school
staff to understand the relationship between the physical and
psychosocial aspects of development and performance, and developing
strategies to improve academic and behavioral outcomes for children
with disabilities
Again, we thank you for the opportunity to comment on the important
issue raised by this hearing and look forward to continue working with
the Committee to improve outcomes for all students
______
Mr. Hare. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
So, Dr. Hardman, if I could ask, you testified about the
need to target Title II funds to address the shortage of
special education teachers and special ed faculty shortages.
However, secondary intervention systems have shown to lower the
rates of special education testing and placement of students.
So could programs like this PBIS solve the problems or help
to solve the problems of teacher shortages by decreasing the
population of students identified by IDEA?
Mr. Hardman. I think, the first part of your question, the
answer is yes, but for all the right reasons. And that is that
these students are receiving appropriate education, whether
they meet a general or special education program. And that is
the issue. And the answer is yes.
Our model universal design for learning and response to
intervention all fit into that same model of prevention and
allowing us to provide the kinds of services that will allow
students to move forward and not need necessarily over time the
intensity of instruction that has been associated with special
education.
Historically we are a field, special education, that waits
for children to fail. We are now a field that is thinking much
more about prevention. So the answer is absolutely yes.
Mr. Hare. Thank you very much.
Dr. Rhyne, you testified in support of the growth program
and model for students with disabilities. Can you describe what
that model might look like?
Ms. Rhyne. Yes. Rather than students meeting absolute
standards, we have many, many students with disabilities who
teachers, principals, schools--they are getting no credit for
the tremendous growth that individual students are showing. And
there needs to be some way that schools and teachers can
receive credit for that growth rather than meeting an absolute
standard.
And as I indicated before, something like growth and scale
scores, for example, as compared to the growth at the state,
some way to acknowledge that students are making progress. But
as Dr. Cort has recommended and has testified, it is going to
take longer for some students.
Mr. Hare. Another question I have, Dr. Rhyne, is, do you
have specific recommendations on how we can improve the
recruitment and retention of special ed teachers?
Ms. Rhyne. Yes, I do.
Mr. Hare. I thought you might. [Laughter.]
Ms. Rhyne. Yes, I do.
You had mentioned PBIS in a question, your former question
to Dr. Hardman. And the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools has
embarked on a multi-year project of putting PBIS in our
schools.
And like the example that you gave, we have seen dramatic
results in our schools. For example, when we looked at all
elementary schools that were implementing PBIS during the 2005,
2006 school year, I believe we had a 40 percent reduction in
referrals to the office.
We have done PBIS. We have got everybody in a school
working on PBIS, from cafeteria workers to bus drivers to
custodians. And a key to its success is that everybody is
implementing it the same way and that the adults get together,
agree and then are consistent.
So that is a roundabout answer to one of the reasons that
people leave the field, that have been indicated to our school
district is over the area of discipline and behavior of all
students in a school.
And so, with a process like PBIS where teachers could be
assured that there is a very systematic way of teaching
children about behavior--when a child can't read, what do we
do? We teach him to read. When a child is going to learn to
drive, we teach them to drive. But when a child can't behave,
we traditionally punish them. And so, PBIS is a teaching
method.
So I think programs like PBIS would be incredibly important
for a school district to implement. I think anything that we
can do where we provide comprehensive intervention, for
example, comprehensive intervention in reading, so that we have
more children performing on grade level.
And I think for children with disabilities and for general
ed children as well, what we have found in Charlotte-
Mecklenburg to be extremely important and extremely successful
is pairing general ed and special ed teachers to co-teach in a
classroom. And we are influencing the success of not only the
children with disabilities in that classroom, but also general
ed children as well.
So it is multiple things.
Chairman Kildee. The gentleman's time is expired.
The gentleman from Puerto Rico, Mr. Fortuno?
Mr. Fortuno. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And again, I thank
you for today's hearing. I believe we are examining today a
very important issue to the children of America, including
those living in Puerto Rico.
First today, I would like to share with you all some
concerns that I do have with the Department of Education in
Puerto Rico, which I believe is falling short in its oversight
responsibilities by neglecting its students with disabilities.
To illustrate this, I am sharing a letter to the committee
addressed to Chairman Miller and Ranking Member McKeon from Mr.
Alpidio Rolon, who is the president of the Puerto Rico chapter
of the National Federation of the Blind. In his letter he
outlines important issues that deeply affect those with
disabilities and details the shortcomings of the Puerto Rico
Department of Education.
Mr. Chairman, I am asking unanimous consent to include this
letter as part of our record.
Chairman Kildee. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
San Juan, Puerto Rico,
(Sent via email), March 28, 2007.
Hon. George Miller, Chairman,
Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, Ranking Member,
House Committee on Education and Labor, Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Chairman Miller and Ranking Member McKeon: ``No Child Left
Behind.'' Would that it were true for children in Puerto Rico.
Especially for blind children.
According to the Puerto Rico Department of Education's 2005 ``Child
Count'' data, 673 students were classified as blind or visually
impaired. Of these 35 received Braille books. The Department of
Education states that 29 blind students ot of 439 receive Braille books
during 2006-2007.
NCLB emphasizes that good reading and writing skills ensure the
advancement in life. For blind children, learning to read and write
Braille is the gateway to success. Dr. Ruby Ryles, Louisiana Tech
University professor, has stated in her study ``The Impact of Braille
Reading Skills on Employment, Income, Education, and Reading Habits'',
that there is a direct correlation between good reading and writing
Braille skills and good gainful employment. In Puerto Rico, the
Department of Education pays little or no importance to Braille.
Two weeks ago, a teacher of blind children came to one of the
Braille classes that NFB teaches at the Puerto Rico Regional Library
for the Blind and Physically Handicapped. I say came to one class,
because she never came back. The teacher who shall remain nameless,
read Braille with her eyes and not her fingers as a blind person does.
I should add that most sighted Braille teachers in Puerto Rico read
Braille with their eyes. Obviously, they cannot transmit to blind
students what NCLB states about establishing a relation between the
grapheme and phoneme. Any child, whether blind or sighted, must learn
to connect in his or her mind, the relation between form and sound.
Most blind students in Puerto Rico are not getting that. Mind you,
under section 614 (d) (3) (B) (iii) of IDEA, Braille is the fundamental
system for teaching blind children how to read and write. On the other
hand, Puerto Rico's 2002 Public Law 240--Braille Literacy Act--states
that Braille is the fundamental reading and writing method for blind
children. It also establishes that Braille teachers should be certified
by the National Library Service for the Blind and Physically
Handicapped. Regretably, Article 9 of the law states that the law will
enter into effect when the Department of Educacion requests funds for
its implementation. It still has not seen fit to do so.
Two weeks ago, a local bank announced the installation of speaking
automatic teller machines for the blind. Present at the inauguration,
were a group of blind children from the Instituto Loaiza Cordero, a
school for blind children. One can only say they were there for show
because their main contribution was to sing. According to people
present at the inauguration, none of the children carried a cane. An
indispensable instrument if a blind person hopes to be successful in
life. Children at Loaiza Cordero--a deplorable excuse for a public
school--are not given a real chance to succeed. They are not taught to
use a cane from early childhood. Students with residual vision although
legally blind are not taught Braille. Orientation and mobility as
Braille, is one of the basic skills that all blind persons should learn
if they wish to succeed. It is also established as a must have skill in
IDEA. Blind children, if taught O and M, should be able to move from
place to place independently. Too many times we see--even in regular
schools--how blind children are moved from classroom to classroom by
teachers or assistant.
In 1980, MS Rosa Lydia Velez--mother of a disabled child--sued the
Department of Education because it was not providing her daughter the
necessary special education services. By 2003, the suit had become a
class suit, and the Department of Education finally decided to enter
into stipulations on how to remedy the abominable special education
situation. Four years later, and millions of dollars paid in fines, the
Department of Education has yet to settle the case. Obviously, the
thousands of children for whom the Department of Education has not
provided adequate services since 1980 have been left behind.
Lastly, it seems to us that if NCLB's basic principles--
accountability for results, emphasizes on doing what works based on
scientific research, expanded parental involvement and options, and
expanded control and flexibility--are to work, there should be more
stringent Federal regulations and supervision. As the old United Negro
College Fund ad says: ``A mind is a terrible thing to waste.''
Hoping that my comments have in some way contributed to the
reauthorization of NCLB process, I am,
Respectfully,
Alpidio Rolon,
President.
______
Mr. Fortuno. Thank you.
Actually, in his letter he states, for example, that,
according to the Puerto Rico Department of Education 2005 child
count data, 673 students were classified as blind or visually
impaired. Of this, only 35 received Braille books. The
Department of Education states that 29 blind students out of
the 439 received Braille books during 2006 and 2007. More
details are included in that letter.
Actually, I should point out that in 1980 Ms. Rosa
Lilavelez, the mother of a disabled child with whom I have met
several times, sued the Puerto Rico Department of Education
because it was not providing her daughter the necessary special
education services. Ever since the 1980s on, what we have had
is a bunch of lawyers becoming rich just handling what became a
class action suit that to this day is not resolved.
Another letter I would like to include for the record, if I
may, Mr. Chairman--and for that I also ask unanimous consent--
is a letter from Ms. Maria Miranda, who is the director of the
technical assistance program at the University of Puerto Rico.
Chairman Kildee. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
------
Mr. Fortuno. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In her letter, Ms. Miranda points to serious problems such
as a lack of teacher training in the use of technology in the
schools. Some of the funds diverted from these same programs in
the last 2 years would have actually addressed these issues.
As I previously stated, it is a great disservice to those
who need to benefit from the education the most, the children
from my district--in this case, Puerto Rico--especially those
with disabilities.
I will ask the panel, if I may, if they know of any similar
situations anywhere else in the country. And I have heard,
actually, the passion which you all discussed different models
and how you are handling these different challenging situations
in your own districts. I would like for any insights that you
may have regarding a very unique situation, as I see it, in my
district.
So I open it up. And maybe, Dr. Rhyne, you may want to
start.
Ms. Rhyne. Yes, sir. I think in order to improve special
education in a school district it is imperative that the
importance of educating all students be communicated from the
school board through the superintendent and down all levels of
the organization. And I don't believe you can make significant
progress unless you have that.
Additionally, I think it is incredibly important that
general education, general educators receive more training and
professional development on teaching students with
disabilities. And I think our special education teachers need
to become more adept at standard content.
Our special ed teachers have traditionally been great at
modifying and making adaptations in curriculum and instruction.
And our general ed teachers have been masters at the specific
content area. And so, if we can educate both groups and improve
their skills or if we can do that through a co-teaching model,
then all children benefit.
Mr. Fortuno. Thank you.
Ms. Cort. I think that the importance of partnerships comes
in here very strongly. And when we have schools that are under-
performing or that don't have the knowledge base that they need
to provide the services, we have to look at the university
system, the linkages with the mental health systems and other
systems in the community and, of course, the communication with
parents.
I don't think most teachers leave their institution of
higher ed even with certification with all the skills or
knowledge that they need to be good teachers. That happens as
they are teachers and as they receive professional development
and assistance from the leaders within those schools. So those
are important pieces.
And one of your first issues relative to Braille and
services for students with severe physical disabilities, the
technology now and the availability of adaptive equipment is
just skyrocketing, given the systems that are going on
technologically. But a lot of schools and families don't know
that these things exist. There are new requirements in IDEA,
like now publishers have to begin submitting their texts in a
format that can be converted.
And I think we are going to see a great advancement in the
availability of universal design for learning and of materials
that are appropriate to the needs of students with
disabilities. But everyone needs to be educated on what is
available. Some of it is more easily accessed than others. And
some of it is expensive. And so, the dollars and the training
need to go into this.
Chairman Kildee. The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Payne?
Mr. Payne. Thank you very much.
In regard to the growth model, I know, Dr. Henderson, you
testified in support of a growth model. And I was wondering and
listening to Dr. Rhyne if you could describe what the model you
would have in mind, what it would like. Are you for the growth
model?
Thank you.
Mr. Henderson. Yes, particularly one example. In Boston
this year on the front page of the Boston Globe, they
highlighted two high schools, particularly where you see a lot
of stratification of students. One of the high schools was an
exam school and only students get in who score high on exams.
And the other high school was one that serves students with
significant behavior problems and many involved with the law.
To compare these two schools' performance on the same test
is not fair. And for that school that has the students that
have had difficulty throughout elementary and middle school
years who are going to an alternative school--we are trying to
keep them in school--dealing with a range of issues for the
hope and sake of the hard working teachers and staff and
children and families there, we have to be able to show some
kind of growth, also in schools that are dealing with children
with mild cognitive delays.
We have got a little bit of a problem here. If children are
truly cognitively delayed, are they truly ever going to become
proficient? Now, there are many children who are classified as
being cognitive delayed who are not. And it is important that
we provide opportunities for rigorous standards and instruction
so we can achieve as much as the potential as we can. But for
those children with cognitive delays, it is important, again,
for those children, their parents, their teachers, and schools
that we can demonstrate the hard work and growth and strides
that are taking place.
Mr. Payne. Thank you very much.
While your microphone is on--or you can put it back on--you
talk also about the importance of parental involvement. And I
just wonder if you can describe your school's effort in this
area and any specific efforts targeted at parents of students
with disabilities.
Mr. Henderson. Yes, we are striving to show parents of kids
with disabilities, who also need to be helped with high
expectations, seeing their children successful in academics and
the arts. So we have publishing parties where we invite parents
and do outreach, and they see and hear their children reading
their stories or using communication devices to share their
stories.
We have math family nights--and the new math instruction is
hard for many families to understand--where we have math games.
We are not just lecturing, but they experience, and they see
their children in action. And we do performances, African-
American history. There is a biography day going on in our 3rd-
grade classroom today.
Parents yearn to see their children successful. And they
want to learn about strategies that they can use in their homes
to enforce them.
But we are also struggling, in addition to some of the
techniques we use, to provide the resources. There is a digital
divide. And some of the children at our school don't have
access to the computers at home. And even though we have the
great federal law, we also have to have technology that can
work. And we now have partnered with CVS and Easter Seals.
And they are sending parents into the homes of children
that do not have some of the same technology and same
educational background. We are showing them what they can do to
help their children with Braille instruction, with reading,
with math problems. It takes a lot of energy, and we need all
the partnerships we can to do a better job.
Mr. Payne. Thank you very much.
Dr. Cort, you testified that many supplemental educational
service providers do not provide services to students with
disabilities. How difficult is it for students with
disabilities to find these services? And why do so many
providers not work with these students?
Ms. Cort. Well, there currently isn't any requirement that
they work with these students. And I think that the needs of
students with disabilities are more intensive, and some
providers don't believe that they have the capacity to do it
and may not want to do it. Certainly, the amount of funding
that is available for supplemental education services isn't
extensive. And even for those serving students who aren't
disabled there isn't a requirement for teacher certification.
Many of these programs use college students or tutors who
are trained minimally. So I think that that is part of the
reason why it is so difficult. There is a shortage of special
education teachers even within the regular day in the
classroom. And supplemental providers often don't have access
to the equipment, to the materials, don't understand the needs
of students with disabilities.
And that is why, I think, we believe that having some
alternative to how those dollars could be spent and focused and
targeted on students with disabilities in some cases, during
the school day and in other cases, by the school district
before or after school, weekends, that that would be a more
productive way to deal with an issue when it is the subset of
students with disabilities who are not making AYP.
Chairman Kildee. The gentlelady from California, Ms. Davis?
Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you to all of you for being here. I know we are
all grappling with how we do this better. And I appreciate the
fact that you have certainly been looking at this seriously.
I wanted to turn to one of the issues about the
accommodations that are considered acceptable under NCLB. We
had a situation in one of the schools in San Diego where
students whose IEP called for their opportunity to use
calculators that was actually considered out of compliance as a
result of that.
And I wondered if you could discuss a little bit more--I
think it was Dr.--who mentioned just the number of
accommodations that you have looked at.
Could you talk about these a little bit and how the
Department of Education is assisting states in developing these
accommodations, again, these allowable accommodations under
IEPs and whether you think there has been a real inconsistency
in the way states have dealt with it?
Ms. Quenemoen. Determining the appropriateness of the use
of accommodations on a particular assessment or portion of an
assessment is a fairly complex technical challenge. The use of
some change in administration in order to either take in or
give back the content on the test can change what, in fact, is
being tested. So states have an obligation to think very
carefully what kind of content do we really want to hold as
essential for all of our children and then on those tests
represent that content well.
If students take a test that, in fact, changes the content,
then you have lowered the standard of accountability. On the
other hand, if a student does not have access to any portion of
the test, then you have a question of whether or not the
student has really been able to show you what they do, in fact,
know.
Mrs. Davis of California. Could you just--calculators, for
example.
Ms. Quenemoen. Calculators are a pretty common discussion
these days. The use of a calculator on problem solving items,
for example, may, in fact, be a very appropriate way for a
student to demonstrate that they have, in fact, developed high
order problem solving and thinking skills using mathematical
concepts, even though they may not have mastered automatically
adding, subtraction, multiplication, and division.
There are students with math challenges based on their
disabilities who do not do math timing tests well but, in fact,
go around the affects of those disabilities to very complex
mathematical content. So in many states, they have a portion of
the mathematics test, especially at the lower grade levels,
where they are measuring whether or not a student can do
computation with automaticity, they call it, quickly and
respond easily.
And these children are not allowed to use calculators on
those items. And no one is surprised when they don't do well on
those items.
But if they are allowed to use calculators on the portions
of the test that help them show the very complex and abstract
problem solving that they have been taught, then very often in
states that have designed their tests thoughtfully, those
students can compensate for the inability to do the computation
items. That is true in instruction as well.
And the bad news is that we have found through surveys that
many teachers don't understand the difference between use of
accommodations for instructing that interesting material that,
in fact, prevents the student from learning other content as
well.
Mrs. Davis of California. As we think about a growth model,
improvement model, I think one of the other things is that
actually the number of districts that have been considered not
qualifying under AYP is actually relatively small when it comes
to some of these issues with the use of accommodations.
But I am also wondering, as we move to a growth model, do
you think that would change?
Ms. Quenemoen. It is really important, using any kind of
growth model, to make sure that the affects, positive and
negative for all sub-groups of students, are carefully
analyzed. Growth models are only as good as the underlying
assessment on which they are based. Not all assessments may be
up for the purpose of really showing what a variety of learners
who take different paths.
The example I used of a student who doesn't do the
computation pieces but has learned to do the abstract math--
many growth models don't pick that up. So we are very happy
that the states in the growth model pilots are very carefully
analyzing the affects of their growth models. We are also very
interested in continued research on what growth really means in
the academic domain and how a variety of students yield it.
If growth is built on what historically a sub-group has
done, students with disabilities and many of the other students
that are on the bad side of the achievement gap could be held
to a lower standard because we don't really know, as Dr. Cort
said, it is very difficult to discern between a student who is
getting high quality instruction and moving very slowly versus
a student who has not been getting instruction in the
challenging content. So growth models are tricky.
Chairman Kildee. The gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes?
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I wanted to follow up on the discussion relating to teacher
preparation. And I spent 8 years working with the Baltimore
city school system. And there were severe shortages there of
special education teachers, as well as in the other subjects
that you have mentioned.
But I am trying to get my head around what I think I hear
being described as a kind of new kind of teacher. And, I mean,
50 years from now, 25 years from now or 5 years from now are we
talking about a teacher who, as part of their basic preparation
in education, become so skilled--I mean, is this the desire--
become so skilled in the delivery of differentiated instruction
that their ability to handle all challenges within a classroom
is such that the number of ``special education'' teachers that
we need in the education system is going to go down or they are
going to become reserved for just special circumstances?
I mean, if you could just speak to that issue a little bit
more. Because we may be standing sort of on the verge of a
whole new concept of what the typical teacher is in our system.
And if that is really what we are getting at, I think to say
that explicitly is useful and to think about the implications
of it. So if you could speak to that.
Mr. Hardman. Well, I think that is an excellent question.
First let me say that looking at teachers, whether they be
general or special education, in isolation of a school-wide
support system and their role within that system is what is
really important. It is not going to be a decline in the number
or the need for special education teachers.
It is going to be role differentiation and how you work
with children based upon their individual need. That is why RTI
becomes so important.
We are building our program off of the base that every
teacher needs a core of knowledge. Every teacher, in order to
work together, has to have a basic understanding, particularly
now under No Child Left Behind in reading, math, and science,
they need to understand. Historically special education, to be
quite honest with you, was very good at collaborating with
teachers but was often not meeting what general education
teachers said they really needed, which was content.
They need to understand how to work with children, both
content and pedagogy, that is how to work with children who
have reading difficulties in an inclusive classroom in which
there are a variety of different learners that not only include
students with disabilities, but include students from differing
cultural and linguistic backgrounds, different socio-economic
backgrounds. The classroom of today looks very, very, very
different than it did even 10, 20 years ago.
And it is a very diverse range of learners which requires a
support system in place, not a single teacher, but a system of
support. And a big part of that support is provided by a
special education teacher who had knowledge, pedagogical
knowledge about how to adapt instruction, modify, support,
positive behavior supports, how to work with students with
challenging behaviors, how to work with children who require
intense instruction.
As a matter of fact, the hallmark of special education is
individualization, intensive instruction, and explicit teaching
of basic skills. That is what they bring into that school-wide
support system. And that is how they help general education
teachers who still are facing classrooms of 30, 40 in Utah, at
least that many, children in the classroom in which there are
diverse learners, in which the teacher really needs a support
system.
There won't be a decline in special education teachers.
There will be a role that they will definitely play as a part
of that team. And that is what we are really trying to focus
on, is that you cannot look at teachers in isolation of a
school-wide support structure.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Kildee. The gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Loebsack?
Mr. Loebsack. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Actually, I don't really have any questions as such. I
apologize for being late. As a new member, I am finding out
what all the veterans know, and that is that you have to be in
four places at one time. So I was at another hearing.
But I just want to briefly state that for the record and
also to all of you on the panel I have been married for some
time to a school teacher, elementary school teacher, who just
retired after over 30 years of teaching at the elementary
level.
So I have heard a lot of stories, as you might imagine,
about No Child Left Behind and its affects and the concerns.
She expressed a lot of concerns and has over the years about
students with disabilities being included in the classroom and
not having enough resources to deal with it and not having been
trained herself.
Long ago, obviously to deal with these kinds of
situations--and I have looked over some of your testimony. I
really appreciate what all of you have had to say.
And it is that I really don't have a question, but I just
want to state for the record to the chair and others here that
we have got to do all we can, certainly on the funding front,
for IDEA, No Child Left Behind. Whatever we end up doing,
whether we adopt a growth model, for example, as well for AYP,
we have got to devote more resources to this.
Resources won't solve the problem. But the problem won't be
solved without the resources. That is for sure, however we go
about doing this.
So, again, I don't really have a question as such. But I do
have some time left. I want to leave it up to any of you. If
you have anything you haven't been able to say yet up to this
point, I want to yield my time to any of you on the panel if
you want to respond to any questions that you haven't had an
opportunity to respond to.
Ms. Cort. I would like to talk briefly about the second
subset within the 2 percent that we haven't really discussed at
any length today, because I don't want to be perceived as
having much difference with my colleague here who was talking
about high expectations for most students.
And I think it is a small subset. But I do think that the
issue of this group who falls between the 1 percent of very
severely profoundly disabled group of students and those
students who are able to get a high school diploma, which is by
far the vast majority. And we must continue to have that as our
high expectation.
I think the issue of program development for this middle
group--and some of them have mild mental retardation. Some are
on the autism spectrum, some traumatic brain injury, severe
traumatic brain injury. There is a group there who need
something distinctly different. And they need preparation for
employment and for independence when they leave the system.
And I think there has to be some incentives to schools to
develop these occupational, technical, vocational programs that
prepare students to leave school ready to be employed, even in
states--and we don't want the answer to be to lower the
standards for a general education diploma, which has happened
in some states. And so the focus on a program for a small band
of students that gives districts credit for the development of
programs that will lead to employment is very important.
As the state director of both special ed and vocational
rehabilitation, I see students exiting school and then needing
to access the vocational rehabilitation system when their
entitlement to service in the 21 years that they could have
been serviced in their school districts hasn't served them as
well as it should. And this is involved in transition planning,
in getting access to the kind of programs that offer work
readiness in a way that we don't have available for many
students now.
Ms. Rhyne. I would like to just comment on that, if I may.
And that is in the state of North Carolina, there are four
pathways to get a North Carolina diploma. One of those pathways
is entitled the occupational course of study. This pathway was
written specifically for the group of children that Dr. Cort
has described.
And it is as you get into high school, it is very focused
on work. Students take occupational English, occupational math,
science, social studies. And then they are required to spend
1,000 hours of work. Work starts out within your school. It
goes out into the community with a job coach. And then there
are 300 some hours of paid employment that you must finish.
When all of those credits have been earned, the student
receives a North Carolina diploma. And this has been incredibly
good for this group of students.
Chairman Kildee. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr.
Sestak?
Mr. Sestak. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. And I apologize for
coming in late.
Can I ask you a question, ma'am? As I go around my district
and go to the intervention units or pathway schools or Easter
seals schools and all, I find there seems to be this dilemma
about IDEA and NCLB feeling that neither of them really had a
strategic plan for all the disabled.
I am concerned about the 1 percent cap because this seems
that IDEA has the focus primarily upon--excuse me if these
questions have been asked already--primarily upon both the IDEA
and NCLB primarily upon those most severely disabled. And the
question I have, as we have shifted from more toward--an idea
that potentially we should have--some said we should have stuck
with IEP.
My question comes back to what does the data show. I am
curious--and you may have already spoken of this--is what is
the research showing about student performance of the severely
disabled. Has there been a measurable improvement? In short,
what accommodations are actually working? And do we have that?
Ms. Quenemoen. I am assuming that your comment is related
to those students who the regulation described as having the
most significant cognitive disabilities. These are really less
than half a percent in terms of incidents in the population.
Mr. Sestak. Unless there is another way that we are
measuring some other group somehow. And so, I am curious of
those we have defined and those that are left out of the
definition--do we have data?
Ms. Quenemoen. We have data based on the student work in
the states that have been, frankly, learning how to assess
their learning. The field of severe disabilities has been in
dramatic turmoil in the last 10 years similar to what it had
gone through shortly after the passage of PL 94-142 back in
1975. At that point, there was an assumption that these
students could only learn what was called the infant curriculum
and that we would systematically move them through stages that
we saw in other children much younger.
And after a number of years, based on what parents,
teachers, professionals knew that these students could do
independently in other settings, they started characterizing
that developmental curriculum as ready meant never. If you had
to go through all the steps that other kids did to get to tying
your shoes, you may never get there.
So a number of researchers shifted to a functional
curriculum. And that has served us very well in the area of
severe disabilities to make sure that students were able to get
through the course of the school day, interact with their peers
somewhat, learn self-care skills.
But in the last 10 years after alternative assessment was
first required by IDEA 1997, states started having evidence of
student works that these students could, in fact, thrive in and
demonstrate, again, pieces and lower levels in a way of the
academic curriculum in ways that they had never been taught and
none of us ever expected. And we were seeing such dramatic
evidence that researchers kicked in--the team at the University
of North Carolina, Charlotte started tracking the instructional
benefits of this method. That discussion is still active.
Mr. Sestak. The reason I am asking is, you know, it seems
to me you can get the data for breaking down the barriers and
access that would show NCLB has improved it from 55 to 62
percent, or whatever--I don't have the exact numbers.
My real question, then, is, because I am talking about data
statistical analysis, are we, therefore, collecting the data
now to determine the best accommodations? And I just don't
know.
Ms. Quenemoen. Yes. And the term ``accommodations''--how
these students interact with the grade level content is very,
very complex. It is more than the typical accommodations. On
the other hand, on the use of accommodations on the general
assessment, we are gathering more and more data to understand
the affects of these accommodations in instruction and then in
assessment over time.
So are we gathering data to understand now that we are
actually assessing all kids well? Yes. Do we understand fully
what works best for each individual student? I don't think we
are to that level yet.
Mr. Sestak. Yes, ma'am?
Ms. Cort. The proof of success and of change comes really
after the student exits school. And IDEA has now started to
assess and gather data on where are students with disabilities
a year after they exit. Are they employed? Are they in higher
education?
And we are certainly seeing in the vocational
rehabilitation side the same kind of shift in expectations from
the sheltered workshops to virtually everyone able to benefit
from some kind of integrated employment. And as we have changed
our expectation and the training program, we are seeing people
in very different places than they were 10 and 20 years ago.
But we do need to look at what happens after students
leave. And the more data systems can be linked--there is so
much data being collected it is so confusing. You want it to be
accurate.
If we can get a mesh between the NCLB data and the IDEA
data so that people can concentrate on common measures that
don't sound almost the same but represent different numbers
between the two laws, this will help us. And if we can get
access to information and data on employment after students
leave, I think it will be very helpful.
Mr. Sestak. My time is up. But that issue is exactly what I
hear. It is the two different numbers. And if there is a beauty
in NCLB, it is this data that all of a sudden you can shape.
And however long that data has to be collected, and when you
have two differing sets, it is so much more than anecdotal. It
means so much more.
Thank you.
Ms. Cort. We are moving in New York state to an individual
student record system. And we are now beginning the process of
a P-16 system that will begin to integrate our city and state
university system data into the same data systems so that we
can see how are students doing when they move onto post-
secondary, even if they graduated with a diploma were they
ready.
Mr. Hardman. May I just add just one very quick point to
that alternative assessment issue? Because I want to concur
very much with what has been said. But I also want to add that
one of the things that we have really got to take a look at
that the reauthorization of these alternate assessments is
anchoring the assessment directly to value post-school
outcomes.
And what we have not done--the good news is these students
are in the accountability system. The bad news is we are not
measuring the right things at all relative to their
independence, interdependence, employment, further education
opportunities and so on as adults. That is where we need to be
anchoring these alternate assessments.
Chairman Kildee. Thank you very much.
I want to thank the panel. This has been a great panel.
Very often, two or three people on the panel get all the
questions. All of you were asked questions here. And you all
responded very specifically to the questions. And I want to
first of all thank the panelists. You have been very, very
helpful.
And I want to thank also Lloyd Horwich of the majority
staff and Brad Thomas of the Republican staff for doing a great
job of assembling a great panel. It has been very, very good.
And this is where Congress does its best work, when we operate
in a bipartisan way.
And it is people like you that bring us together in a
bipartisan endeavor. And this bill passed with very strong
bipartisan support. It is a very controversial bill. But it did
pass in a bipartisan way.
We need your continued input. And we will be calling upon
you, I am sure, between now and the time we mark up the bill.
But I very much appreciate the staff, the members who are
here, and this panel.
And we will have 7 days in which members may submit
additional testimony or submit questions to the panelists.
With that, we stand adjourned.
[Questions for the record submitted to Ms. Quenemoen
follow:]
Committee on Education and Labor,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, March 30, 2007.
Rachel Quenemoen, Senior Research Fellow,
National Center on Educational Outcomes, University of Minnesota,
Minneapolis, MN.
Dear Ms. Quenemoen: Thank you for testifying at the March 29, 2007
hearing of the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and
Secondary Education.
Representative Susan Davis (D-CA), a Member of the Subcommittee,
has asked that you respond in writing to the following questions:
On Page 8 of your written testimony, you discuss the accommodations
that allow special education students to understand and take
assessments. What are some examples of accommodations that are widely
considered as acceptable and examples of accommodations that are
considered as unacceptable under NCLB?
You also mention that states are working ``hard'' to develop
accommodations that ensure standards are not lowered. How do allowable
accommodations vary between the states under NCLB?
How involved is the Department of Education in assisting the states
in developing these accommodations to make sure they are acceptable
under NCLB proficiency testing?
You also mention that some states have defended sometimes
``controversial'' decisions regarding accommodations. What did these
accommodations look like in these controversial cases and how did the
Department of Education rule?
You mention in your testimony that disabled students at a certain
schools are making gains and achieving, based on formal and informal
studies. These schools share certain traits, such as emphasis on
inclusion and effective faculty recruitment. How many studies have been
conducted in this area and are there efforts to replicate the
successful traits in additional schools? That is, is this information
being put to use?
Sincerely,
George Miller, Chairman,
Committee on Education and Labor.
Dale E. Kildee, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary
Education.
______
[Response to questions for the record from Ms. Quenemoen
follow:]
Response to Questions From Mrs. Davis of California
by Rachel Quenemoen
I am pleased to respond to the questions asked by Representative
Susan Davis (D-CA), a member of the Subcommittee on Early Childhood,
Elementary and Secondary Education. I have answered the questions in
narrative form below, citing and providing excerpts from the attached
documents that provide additional information related to the questions.
Neither of these papers is as yet released, so I have taken the liberty
of attaching them for your reference purposes, with permission from the
authors.
The attachments include:
Christensen, L.L., Lail, K.E., & Thurlow, M. L. (2007). Hints and
tips for addressing accommodations issues for peer review. Minneapolis,
MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
To be released in April, 2007.
Thurlow, M. L. (2007). Research Impact on State Accommodation
Policies for Students with Disabilities. Paper to be presented at the
2007 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
April, 2007
1. On Page 8 of your written testimony, you discuss the
accommodations that allow special education students to understand and
take assessments. What are some examples of accommodations that are
widely considered as acceptable and examples of accommodations that are
considered as unacceptable under NCLB?
NCLB does not define which accommodations are acceptable or
unacceptable, nor does Peer Review of state assessment systems make
that determination. Instead, NCLB requires that states develop content
and achievement standards, and then requires that states design their
assessments to ensure that the results will show what students know
compared to those state-developed standards. States use a variety of
steps to ensure that the results of these assessments in fact reflect
what their standards reflect. Peer Reviewers then review the state
documentation of these steps to ensure that they have been done
consistent with accepted professional practice.
The development of thoughtful and defensible accommodations
policies is one important step in ensuring the state assessments
reflect what the state standards reflect, grade by grade. Since states
have defined these standards in slightly or even considerably different
ways, grade by grade, their assessments require slightly or even
considerably different accommodations policies. That is up to the state
to define, and to defend. I provide more information about what
successful defense of state accommodations policies requires, based on
a systematic review of Peer Review documentation and letters to states
from the U.S. Department of Education, in question 3 below about how
the Department of Education is interacting with states on these issues.
There is a summary of the most commonly allowed accommodations in
states in Table 6, followed by the most controversial accommodations in
Table 7, taken from pages 8-9 of the attached paper. (Thurlow, M. L.
(2007). Research Impact on State Accommodation Policies for Students
with Disabilities. Paper to be presented at the 2007 Annual Meeting of
the American Educational Research Association, April, 2007.)
Excerpt from Thurlow, 2007:
Bolt and Thurlow (2004) reported on the research on the most
commonly allowed accommodations in 1999 (Braille, dictated response,
large print, extended time, sign language interpreter), and found that
in the 36 identified studies on these, there was mixed support and
nonsupport for the accommodations for students with disabilities. When
Bolt and Thurlow selected accommodations to include in their study,
they included accommodations both with and without limitations.
In terms of continuing to examine research findings, it might be
useful to make a distinction between those test changes that are
allowed by states without restrictions and those test changes that are
allowed with restrictions. The test changes that, according to state
policies in 2003 and 2005, were the most often allowed without
restrictions, are shown in Table 6. In this table, it is also indicated
whether some states allowed the test change with restrictions and
whether some states prohibited the test change. For some test changes,
more than 5 states (10% of the 50 states) altered their policies--so
that the number of states in 2005 was different from the number in
2003. This occurred for Braille Edition (which increased in the number
of states allowing without restrictions, and decreased in the number of
states allowing with restrictions), separate room (which decreased in
the number of states allowing without restrictions and also was
mentioned by fewer states), and time beneficial to student (which
increased in the number of states allowing without restrictions and
also with restrictions--showing an increase in the total number of
states mentioning the test change). Of interest is the fact that few
studies during this time frame examined the accommodations where
dramatic changes were made in policy. This is true even if one goes
back to the research before the time period of the current policies--if
one assumes that there is more of a lag between research and policy.
TABLE 6.--TEST CHANGES MOST OFTEN ALLOWED WITHOUT RESTRICTIONS*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
States Allowing States Allowing States
Without With Prohibiting
Test Change Restrictions Restrictions -----------------
------------------------------------
2003 2005 2003 2005 2003 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Large Print............................................... 47 48 2 0 0 0
Individualized Administration............................. 46 45 0 0 0 0
Small Group Administration................................ 47 45 0 0 0 0
Magnification............................................. 41 42 0 0 0 0
Braille Edition........................................... 38 46 11 2 0 0
Separate Room............................................. 38 31 0 1 0 0
Write in Test Booklet..................................... 35 35 4 5 0 0
Time Beneficial to Student................................ 35 41 0 4 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*The 2003 information is from Clapper, Morse, Lazarus, Thompson, & Thurlow (2005). The 2005 information is from
Lazarus, Thurlow, Lail, Eisenbraun, & Kato (2006).
Another way to look at research on accommodations in the past five
years is in terms of whether it has addressed those accommodations that
are most frequently allowed with restrictions. These test changes tend
to be the accommodations that are more controversial, and that need
specifications placed on them (e.g., states allow them to be used in
one situation but not another; states allow them to be used by some
students but not other students). Table 7 shows the accommodations that
are most often allowed with restrictions (also including an indication
of the numbers of states that allow without restrictions and the
numbers of states that prohibit). These are the accommodations that
have received attention, either currently or in the past, and many of
the changes reflect both a recognition of research findings and a
policy push.
TABLE 7.--TEST CHANGES MOST OFTEN ALLOWED WITHOUT AND WITH RESTRICTIONS*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
States Allowing States Allowing States
Without With Prohibiting
Test Change Restrictions Restrictions -----------------
------------------------------------
2003 2005 2003 2005 2003 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oral Administration/Read Aloud............................ 3 8 44 37 0 0
Calculator................................................ 15 19 28 22 1 0
Proctor/Scribe............................................ 32 37 17 11 0 0
Extended Time............................................. 29 41 16 4 2 0
Sign Interpret Questions.................................. 13 8 29 25 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*The 2003 information is from Clapper, Morse, Lazarus, Thompson, & Thurlow (2005). The 2005 information is from
Lazarus, Thurlow, Lail, Eisenbraun, & Kato (2006).
2. You also mention that states are working ``hard'' to develop
accommodations that ensure standards are not lowered. How do allowable
accommodations vary between the states under NCLB?
A decade ago, when many states used norm-referenced testing (e.g.,
ITBS, SAT 9, other large-scale ``off-the-shelf'' tests), the purpose
was to compare how their students were doing in the general content of
math or reading with students across the country. These tests were
carefully ``normed'' using specific accommodations and forbidding use
of others. In those days and on those tests, accommodations choices
were typically made by the test publisher, and states simply followed
the test publisher's guidelines.
NCLB, and the earlier IASA 1994, shifted testing away from
comparing students to one another, and toward comparing what students
know to well defined content and achievement standards. States have
considerable flexibility to define these content and achievement
standards, but once they have defined them, they have a responsibility
under NCLB to ensure that their assessment system actually gives them
data that reflects those standards. There are many steps in the
development, administration, and analysis of assessments where the
state has to ensure that the results of the test reflect their
standards, including the test specifications--the design of each grade-
level test.
One of these steps is in determining what accommodations will be
allowed on parts or all of each test. The key for states is to consider
what their own content and achievement standards are supposed to
include. If a proposed accommodation will result in the test results
meaning something different from what their own standards and testing
specifications represent, then they generally do not allow use of that
accommodation. In the case of calculators, many states allow the use of
the accommodation on parts of the test (e.g., problem-solving items),
but do not allow it on other parts of the test (e.g., computation
items), since it clearly does not change the intent of the item for
some items, but clearly does change the intent of the item for others.
Since every state has slightly or even substantially different
content and achievement standards from the other states, all state
accommodations policies differ somewhat. The attached paper provides a
thorough review of how state policies have evolved over the period from
IASA through NCLB. (Thurlow, M. L. (2007). Research Impact on State
Accommodation Policies for Students with Disabilities. Paper to be
presented at the 2007 Annual Meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, April, 2007.)
Here is an excerpt from that paper that summarizes these shifts,
taken from pages 9-11.
Excerpt from Thurlow, 2007
There have been a number of shifts in accommodation policies over
time. These include the steady but dramatic increase in the number of
states with accommodation policies/guidance documents, from 21 in 1993
to 50 for the past several years (see Figure 1).
figure 1. number of states with accommodation policies over time
(Number of States)
Nature of States? Accommodation Policies. States' accommodation
policies themselves have changed in several ways also. When NCEO first
started studying states' policies, we had to contact states to obtain
copies of their documents, and even in 1995, we were still able to
reproduce all of the accommodation policies and guidance in one report
that was less than 175 pages long. This report quoted all the relevant
parts of the policies in all of the states that had them (Thurlow,
Scott, & Ysseldyke, 1995). Today, and for the past several years,
states' accommodation policies have blossomed. They are now available
on the state's Web site in nearly every state, and each one in several
states is more than 175 pages long.
Sophistication of Policies. State accommodation policies are much
more complex than ever before. When NCEO first started summarizing
accommodation policies, we simply indicated an X for a test change that
was ``allowed,'' a blank for one that was not mentioned by the state,
and a P for a prohibited test change. Each time or couple times we
summarized policies an adjustment was made to better reflect the
increasing complexity of the policies themselves. Table 8 reflects the
coding changes that have occurred over time, and in turn provides a
glimpse of the complexity and sophistication of the policies.
TABLE 8.--NCEO CODING SYSTEMS FOR ACCOMMODATION POLICIES OVER TIME
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Coding System
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1993 X = allowed; O = prohibited
1995 Lists of states with certain accommodations
1997 X = allowed; O = prohibited
1999 X = allowed; O = prohibited
2001 X = allowed; X* = score not aggregated if used; O =
prohibited
2003 A = allowed; AC = allowed in certain circumstances; AI =
allowed with implications for scoring and/or aggregation;
P = prohibited
2005, 2007 A = allowed; A* = allowed but called nonstandard (with no
implications for scoring or aggregation); AC = allowed in
certain circumstances; AI = allowed with implications for
scoring and/or aggregation; P = prohibited
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Implications for Aggregation of Scores. The type of sophistication
reflected in recent years indicates that states are attending to what
happens to scores and the aggregation of scores (including the
reporting of scores) when test changes have been introduced. Clarity
about the effects of the test changes on the validity of test results
clearly is of concern to states. This does not mean that all states are
in agreement with respect to aggregation for many accommodations.
NCEO introduced the code AI = allowed with implications for scoring
and/or aggregation in 2003. This was a modification of the code used in
2001, which indicated a more rigid interpretation (score not aggregated
if used). In fact, what is frequently observed is that the implications
for scoring or aggregation may depend on specific circumstances, such
as the content of the assessment or the assessment itself. Table 9
shows several ``allowed with implications for scoring and/or
aggregation'' circumstances from 2005--for the proctor/scribe
accommodation--to give a sense of what the specifications are like.
TABLE 9.--PROCTOR/SCRIBE--IMPLICATIONS FOR SCORING AND/OR AGGREGATION
(2005)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Specifications
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona...................... Dictating to a scribe is considered a non-
standard accommodation when used on the
writing portion of Arizona's instrument
to Measure Standards (AIMS).
California................... Proctor/Scribe--allowed with implications
for scoring if used on the CST, CAHSEE,
or CELDT.
Hawaii....................... Proctor/Scribe--Must be in an individual
setting; Allowed with implications for
scoring if used on any test.
Massachusetts................ Proctor/Scribe--Considered non-standard
if used on the ELA Composition Test (may
alter what the test measures).
Oregon....................... Proctor/Scribe--Considered a modification
if used on writing test (not considered
part of standard administration; scores
obtained under modified conditions do
not allow students to meet content and
achievement standards and the scores
will not appear in school and district
group statistics).
Utah......................... Proctor/Scribe--Considered a modification
on all tests except for the Iowa tests.
Vermont...................... Proctor/Scribe--Allowed with implications
for scoring if used on the writing test.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NCEO Recommendations for Best Practices to Ensure that
Accommodations Use Provides Meaningful Scores and Valid Inferences
about Students' Knowledge and Skills:
Provide a logical and rational argument that demonstrates
why tests administered with specific accommodations that may be
considered controversial do indeed produce scores that are comparable
to nonaccommodated tests, given the standards being assessed.
Identify studies that have been conducted that demonstrate
the comparability of scores obtained with the accommodated and
nonaccommodated assessments.
Provide results by accommodations and modifications, to
clearly distinguish those that are comparable and those that are
noncomparable to results from students who received no accommodations.
Conduct studies in your states on the use of
accommodations by specific groups of students (e.g., category of
disability, ethnic groups, etc.).
Interview students about accommodations (access to,
understanding of purpose, reactions of peers, etc.)--variable that will
help you understand the validity of scores that result from their use
during instruction and assessment.
Interview teachers to better understand the logistical
constraints that impede the provision of accommodations, which in turn
might reduce the validity of assessment results.
Interview decision-making teams to identify factors that
produce a tendency too many accommodations for individual students,
thereby resulting in the provision of unneeded accommodations; produce
a form to aid decision making to avoid students receiving unneeded
accommodations.
Consider further disaggregation of scores by type of
accommodation.
Use established research on accommodations to inform state
policies.
In sum, many states have found that a review of the literature on
the effects of accommodations on comparability of scores, along with a
formal judgmental policy review involving curriculum, assessment, and
special education experts, is an essential part of an acceptable
defense for state accommodations decisions. Again, these decisions must
be related to the state's definition of their content and achievement
standards, and the test specifications that define the specific content
and achievement standards reflected on the grade-level tests.
In addition, the Department of Education has made available another
NCEO-ASES SCASS collaborative product on the OSEP Toolkit. It is a
training package for states on use of accommodations. See Thompson,
S.J., Morse, A.B., Sharpe, M., & Hall, S. (2005). Accommodations
manual: How to select, administer, and evaluate use of accommodations
for instruction and assessment of students with disabilities.
Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers, ASES SCASS.
Also available from OSEP toolkit at--http://www.osepideasthatwork.org/
toolkit/accommodations--manual.asp
Federal staff in the Title I office have also advised on a number
of technical assistance materials for states. For example, I would
highly recommend two briefs prepared to explain the NCLB assessment
requirements for students with disabilities, and the accommodations
decision-making process. Both are written by Candace Cortiella of the
Advocacy Institute. The first is an NCEO product, and is on our NCEO
Web site, NCLB and IDEA: What all parents of students with disabilities
need to know and do, at http://education.umn.edu/nceo/OnlinePubs/
Parents.pdf
The second is on the National Council for Learning Disabilities
(NCLD) Web site, at http://www.ncld.org/content/view/284/322/ and
scroll down to the segment Introduction and Background information to
find the link; OR go to the NCLD document through our NCEO Web link, at
http://education.umn.edu/nceo/OnlinePubs/NCLD/Accommodations.pdf No
Child Left Behind: Determining appropriate assessment accommodations
for students with disabilities. Both have been reviewed by Department
of Education Title I staff for consistency with Title I requirements.
Although they were written for the parent audience, they have been
widely disseminated and used by states, parent organizations, and
policy-makers.
Recently proposed regulatory language has added to the challenge
states are facing, however.
Here is an excerpt from the attached paper that summarizes these
shifts, taken from page 3: (Thurlow, M. L. (2007). Research Impact on
State Accommodation Policies for Students with Disabilities. Paper to
be presented at the 2007 Annual Meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, April, 2007.)
Excerpt from Thurlow, 2007
The federal requirements have ratcheted up the need for states to
attend to the research and to ensure that their students are using
accommodations during assessments that are producing valid scores. In
fact, during the proposal for new regulations in 2005, the Department
of Education attempted to confirm in regulations practice that had been
imposed through non-regulatory guidance--that being that any student
who participated in assessments in a way that produced invalid test
results (and this included using changes in testing procedures
considered by the state to be modifications) would no longer be
considered participants in the assessment. For No Child Left Behind
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) accountability purposes, which require
that each subgroup have at least 95% participation for the school or
district to be eligible for meeting AYP, this posed a serious threat.
The specific words in the Notice of Proposed Rule-Making (December 15,
2005) were as follows:
Tests administered with accommodations that do not maintain
test validity are not measuring academic achievement under the
State's assessment system. Under the reauthorized IDEA, each
IEP now must indicate ``appropriate accommodations that are
necessary to measure the academic achievement and functional
performance of the child on State and district wide
assessments.'' State and LEA guidelines thus need to identify,
for IEP teams, those accommodations that will maintain test
validity. Similarly, under Title I, the concept of
``appropriate accommodations'' in the context of assessments
must be thought of as accommodations that are needed by the
individual child and that maintain test validity. The Title I
regulations would only consider a student to be a participant
for AYP purposes if his or her assessment results in a valid
score.
These developments suggest that there is a whole new set of
pressures in place on research and on policy. They are in the works at
the same time that research and policy are continuing to react to the
need for more information to respond to what is a critically complex
area of study and policy making.
4. You also mention that some states have defended sometimes
``controversial'' decisions regarding accommodations. What did these
accommodations look like in these controversial cases and how did the
Department of Education rule?
The most common ``controversy'' relates to the accommodation of
reading aloud parts of the reading tests. At the 2006 CCSSO Large-scale
assessment conference in San Francisco, two states with varying stances
on this accommodation presented the key issues they have considered.
Dan Wiener of the Massachusetts Department of Education, where they
have successfully defended their decision to allow the read-aloud in
some cases, made the following key points. First, he pointed out that
state accommodations decisions must be made based on the need for:
inclusion; fairness, equity, flexibility; accessibility;
appropriateness for each student; and defensibility. Second, he stated
that states have an obligation to ensure the read-aloud accommodation
will be: used only by small number of students who need it; used as a
last resort, when no other access to the test exists; used only when
already used for routine instruction; used when necessary to allow
participation in grade-level tests, rather than alternate assessments.
He emphasized the necessity of intensive training, materials, and
support for IEP teams to ensure good decisions are being made, and
read-aloud accommodations in instruction OR in assessment are not being
used as an excuse not to teach students the underlying skills. He also
emphasized that even with training in place, close monitoring of the
decisions being made is essential.
However, another key point was made by Mr. Wiener on the effects of
use of this accommodation. He said that states have an obligation to
explain use of this accommodation to the public. This includes an
explanation of why this accommodation is allowed under certain
conditions; who should be considered for this accommodation, including
publicly defining the ``threshold'' for consideration. For example,
``severely limited or prevented'' from reading based on effects of
disabilities does not mean simply reading below grade level. He points
out that struggling readers need extended time, not read-aloud. He also
emphasized that the state has an obligation to communicate clearly to
the public (and to parents) what the results of a reading test mean
when the read-aloud accommodation is used on the Language and
Literature test, specifically that the test results do NOT say that the
students who take the test with this accommodation can in fact read.
Massachusetts' accommodations policies (and their entire assessment
system) have been approved through Peer Review. For more information on
the Massachusetts' accommodations policies see Accommodations Policy,
Participation Requirements, AlternateAssessment on the web:
www.doe.mass.edu/mcas or contact [email protected]
At the same conference session, Dr. Melodie Friedebach from
Missouri explained the decision their state had made on the read-aloud
accommodation in a presentation entitled To read or not to read--that
was our question. The state had decided at one time to allow the read-
aloud accommodation due to impact upon district accreditation, the high
stakes environment, a push to have all students assessed, to
acknowledge that time was needed to improve reading instruction for all
students. Still, the decision was controversial--both in and out of the
state Department of Education.
In 2005, they reviewed this decision to allow the read-aloud
accommodation, and were alarmed to see a very large number of students
with disabilities taking the test with the accommodation. They found
that at grade 3, approximately 50% of students with IEPs had the
Communication Arts assessment (CA) read to them in years 1999-2005, and
at grade 7, percent of students with IEPs that had test read to them
grew from 50% in 1999, to 60% in 2005. The actual incidence of students
who cannot learn to read well even with high quality instruction should
be much smaller than this, and they worried that this accommodation had
the unintended and negative consequence that many students were not
expected to learn to read well. In addition, they found that in fact
the use of this controversial accommodation by so many students did not
result in significant numbers of children scoring at proficient or
above, and had little impact on improving scores for accountability
systems.
In addition to this alarming data, they considered several other
issues. Advice from their Technical Advisory Committee for assessment
was to discontinue practice of reading the CA test, and given this
technical advisor response, they were also concerned about gaining
approval of State Assessment program through the U.S. Department of
Education based on peer review of evidence of use of valid
accommodations. They were also concerned about lowering expectations
for students with IEPs and lack of focus on reading instruction for the
students. Finally, they knew that NAEP and other large scale assessment
measures of student achievement do not ``count'' reading accommodation
as a valid accommodation when construct of reading is being assessed.
Thus, in 2005, they decided to discontinue use of the read-aloud
accommodation for their Communication Arts (CA) assessment beginning in
Spring 2006, deciding that oral reading of the CA assessment will
invalidate test for accountability purposes. All other assessments may
be read to a student. Following that decision, Dr. Friedebach reported
what she called some ``fallout,'' including letter writing campaigns
from certain districts (those with unusually high rates of use of the
oral reading accommodation), but there were no public negative comments
from professional organizations. There was concern regarding the
anxiety and stress created for students who can't read at grade level,
but that was balanced by evidence of greater interest in professional
development regarding reading instruction for primary and middle school
students with disabilities. There was also expressed interest in the
development of additional assessments for 2%. Their ongoing state plans
include to continue to invest in professional development focused on
reading instruction (Reading First, DIBELS), share impact of Reading
First instruction on students with IEPs, and develop a plan for
additional assessments for 2% of the students with IEPs.
5. You mention in your testimony that disabled students at certain
schools are making gains and achieving, based on formal and informal
studies. These schools share certain traits, such as emphasis on
inclusion and effective faculty recruitment. How many studies have been
conducted in this area and are there efforts to replicate the
successful traits in additional schools? That is, is this information
being put to use?
Numerous research organizations have been studying the
characteristics of successful schools for students who have been
affected negatively by achievement gaps for the past 30 years.
Unfortunately, many of these studies do not look at students with
disabilities as a targeted subgroup for their study. The Donahue
Institute at the University of Massachusetts and the ASCD study in
Rhode Island cited in my testimony are two studies focused specifically
on the students with disabilities subgroup. However, it is striking to
compare the research being done on other low-achieving subgroups, since
the findings are remarkably consistent, and suggest that successful
traits in successful schools yield success for ALL students.
NCEO hosted a teleconference in February of 2006 entitled ``Making
good decisions on special education flexibility options,'' and we
included a side-by-side review of the major studies looking at traits
of schools where traditionally low-performing subgroups are succeeding.
I have attached that side-by-side comparison, but the key findings of
the 4 major studies we compared are provided here.
NCEO SIDE-BY-SIDE SUCCESS LITERATURE*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Donahue Institute Ford Foundation Ed Trust December
October 2004 February 2005 EdSource 2005 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE and AUTHORS............. A Study of MCAS Inside the Black Similar Students, Gaining Traction,
Achievement and Box of High- Different Gaining Ground:
Promising Practices Performing, High Results: Why Do How Some High
in Urban Special Poverty Schools: Some Schools Do Schools Accelerate
Education;. A report from the Better?. Learning for
Report of Field Prichard A large-scale Struggling
Research Findings; Committee for survey of Students
and. Academic California This report is
Case Studies and Excellence. elementary available to
Cross-Case Analysis Patricia J. schools serving download for free
of Promising Kannapel and low-income at: http://
Practices in Stephen K students.. www2.edtrust.org/
Selected Urban Clements with Williams, T., NR/rdonlyres/
Public School Diana Taylor and Kirst, M., 6226B581-83C3-4447-
Districts in Terry Hbpshman Haertel, E., et 9CE7-31C5694B9EF6/
Massachusetts. with funding from al. (2005). 0/
This report is the Ford Mountain View, GainingTractionGai
available to Foundation. CA: EdSource.. ningGround.pdf
download for free This report is This report is Accompanying case
at: http:// available to available to studies: http://
www.donahue.umassp. download for free download for www2.edtrust.org/
edu/docs/?item-- at: http:// free at: http:// NR/rdonlyres/
id=12699. www.prichardcommi edsource.org/ 012DC865-97CA-4C2F-
Executive Summary: ttee.org/ pub--abs--simstu 8A04-9924E2F392F0/
http:// Ford%20Study/ 05.cfm. 0/
www.donahue.umassp. FordReportJE.pdf. ThePowerToChange.p
edu/docs/?item-- df
id=12695. The Power to
Change: High
Schools that Help
All Students
Achieve--Karin
Chenoweth
FINDINGS...................... There is no single The eight study Extensive In high impact
blueprint for schools generally analysis of the schools, these
advancing the received high survey findings spheres are
achievement of ratings on the used regression addressed
students with audit, scoring analysis to (examples are
special needs in highest in the determine which provided from many
socio-economically areas of school activities more subsphere
complex urban culture and common at high- information:
areas. However, to student, family, performing than Sphere 1: Culture
the extent that and community at low- For example, a
urban districts support. When performing clear focus in
face a litany of audit results schools were high-impact
common conditions were compared to correlated with schools is on
and problems, the those of low- higher API academics vs. on
practices performing, high- scores.. rules.
identified herein poverty schools, The practices Sphere 2: Academic
may be put to the eight study found to be Core
productive purpose schools scored associated with For example,
in other districts, significantly high performance consistently
as well.. higher on:. were:. higher
1. A Pervasive 1. Review and 1. Prioritizing expectations for
Emphasis on alignment of Student all students,
Curriculum curriculum. Achievement.. regardless of
Alignment with the 2. Individual 2. Implementing a students' prior
MA Frameworks. student Coherent, academic
2. ``Effective assessment and Standards-based performance
Systems to Support instruction Curriculum and Sphere 3: Support
Curriculum tailored to Instructional For example,
Alignment. individual Program.. administrators and
3. Emphasis on student needs. 3. Using teachers take
Inclusion and 3. Caring, Assessment Data responsibility for
Access to the nurturing to Improve ensuring that
Curriculum. environment of Student struggling
4. Culture and high expectations Achievement and students get the
Practices that for students. Instruction.. additional help
Support High 4. 4. Ongoing 4. Ensuring that they need
Standards and professional Availability of Sphere 4: Teachers
Student Achievement. development for Instructional For example, more
5. ``A Well staff that was Resources.. criteria than
Disciplined connected to 5. Principal teacher preference
Academic and Social student leadership in to make teaching
Environment. achievement data. the context of assignments * * *
6. Use of Student 5. Efficient use accountability- Teacher
Assessment Data to of resources and driven reform is assignments are
Inform Decision- instructional being redefined made to meet the
Making. time. to focus on needs of the
7. ``Unified effective students, rather
Practice Supported management of than the desires
by Targeted the school of the teachers.
Professional improvement Sphere 5: Time and
Development. process.. Other Resources
8. ``Access to 6. District For example, a
Resources to leadership, larger fraction of
Support Key accountability, that time [of
Initiatives. and support students in
9. Effective Staff appear to affected
Recruitment, influence subgroups] is
Retention, and student spent in grade-
Deployment. achievement.. level or ``college-
10. ``Flexible prep'' courses,
Leaders and Staff while students in
that Work average-impact
Effectively in a schools spend more
Dynamic Environment. time in
11. Effective ``support'' or
Leadership is ``remedial''
Essential to courses.
Success.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Full document online at http://education.umn.edu/nceo/Teleconferences/tele11/default.html scroll down to
``Additional Resources''
However, you have asked one of the most challenging questions we
are facing in school reform at this time. That is the question of
whether there are efforts to replicate the successful traits in
additional schools? and That is, is this information being put to use?
What is alarming is that many schools and districts have not
committed to evidence-based practices in order to ensure the success of
all the students. In my testimony, I answered a similar question of why
have educational professionals so resisted actually teaching students
with disabilities the challenging content, and expecting them to learn
it. As stated there, part of the answer to this rests in centuries of
fear and bias, or more recently, pity and caretaking toward people with
disabilities, or for that matter, any people who are different from the
typical. Given recent rhetoric and position statements on NCLB
reauthorization among educational organizations, it seems to me that
these attitudes are institutionalized in some professional
organizations, even those representing special education.
However, the literature on change processes suggests that even with
a shift in attitudes and beliefs, we are facing huge challenges in
changing practice in all public schools. States ultimately have the
responsibility to provide leadership on reform strategies that result
in high achievement for all students. NCEO does not focus on this type
of reform question, so in response to your question I asked Dr.
Margaret McLaughlin at the University of Maryland with whom we partner
frequently on the overlap of assessment and standards-based reform
issues, to comment. She said, via email,
The issue of ``scaling up,'' and sustaining progress in
reform, is not well researched in either general or special
education. It is an area where we need to look at what local
education agencies (LEAs) know and can do to support more
schools getting better. My own anecdotal observations, over
about 15 LEAs and about that many years, is that good schools,
that is those getting results for general education students,
are also getting them for students with disabilities. Those
schools that need help for multiple sub groups are turned
around through sustained and focused district support, weekly
if not more, in developing formative/curriculum based
assessments and monitoring student progress; having a well
sequenced standards-based curriculum, not just a bunch of
textbooks; teachers--both general and special education
licensed--who know how to teach that curriculum; and flexible
arrangements and use of special education personnel. This
usually means a school has an effective principal and very good
teachers who can respond to the intensive professional
development. Most of this really only happens in suburban or
small better resourced districts. (Margaret McLaughlin
[[email protected]])
In other words, actually shifting practice is labor intensive,
complex work, and requires resources and leadership. I would also
suggest it takes a long-term commitment to intensive and focused
professional development, both preservice and inservice. Although NCEO
is not charged with working on reform implementation in schools, we do
work with change processes around assessment system design. In that
work, we rely on a research based that suggests these components are
essential to systematic, sustainable change:
access to a research-based knowledge base information
infrastructure to support use of knowledge;
a coaching culture that recognizes natural leaders and
stakeholders as resources;
access to peers, networks, and partners with knowledge and
skills to be shared in a learning community , and
working partnerships across researchers, practitioners,
parents, advocates, and students.
______
[The prepared statement of the National School Boards
Association (NSBA) follows:]
------
[Whereupon, at 12:21 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]