As Congress wrestles with reauthorizing the 5陆-year-old No Child Left Behind Act, some disability-rights advocates fear high standards for students with disabilities could be sacrificed as states seek more flexibility in the law.
Some education groups, as well as lawmakers, have called for more choice in how states can administer , including greater power for school-based teams to decide what type of assessment a student receiving special education services should take.
That鈥檚 a step away from grade-level achievement as a goal for all students, said James H. Wendorf, the executive director of the , a New York City-based group that works to provide opportunities for children and adults with learning disabilities. The law needs tweaks, not wholesale changes to its ambitious achievement goals, he believes.
Mr. Wendorf鈥檚 group advocates on behalf of the largest group of children served under the , the federal law that mandates special education services for some 6.6 million students nationwide. Students with 鈥渟pecific learning disabilities鈥� account for nearly half the students covered under the law.
鈥淣o Child Left Behind has put some real teeth in the IDEA,鈥� Mr. Wendorf said. 鈥淚t鈥檚 given parents some information they wanted desperately, and some information that they didn鈥檛 know how much they needed until it was being provided to them.鈥�
The federal law , along with other subgroups of students, such as those in low-income families and those who are learning English. The performance of such subgroups on annual tests in reading and mathematics helps determine whether their schools have made adequate yearly progress toward proficiency for all students, as required under the law.
The reporting provision has forced administrators to pay attention to a group of students that is too often ignored, disability-rights advocates contend. They point to studies that show that students with disabilities, even those with cognitive impairments, can achieve at higher-than-expected levels when teachers hold them to grade-level standards.
As disability-rights advocates lobby federal lawmakers, their focus has been on maintaining what they see as the strong standards of the law, while allowing schools to get credit for a student鈥檚 academic growth towards proficiency, even if the student occasionally falls short of a particular benchmark.
Hearing 鈥楩rustration鈥�
For instance, the National Center for Learning Disabilities recently the progress students with disabilities have made under the No Child Left Behind law, as well as the challenges that remain.
The group says that Congress should maintain the requirements for ; that all schools should be required to report the performance all student subgroups 20 students or more (current rules allow for a larger minimum); and that students should not be subject to repeated retesting for the purpose of determining AYP. Those recommendations would maintain or tighten existing rules for districts and states.
At the same time, the center supports allowing a 鈥済rowth model鈥� factor to be a part of No Child Left Behind鈥檚 accountability rules. Growth models allow schools to receive credit for improving individual students鈥� academic performance over time.
The 鈥攁 coalition of 100 groups, including the Council for Exceptional Children, the Easter Seals, and the National Disability Rights Network鈥攕tresses in its NCLB recommendations that 鈥渁ll students with disabilities are general education students first,鈥� and argues that the law 鈥渕ust continue to build on IDEA鈥檚 strengths by promoting a learning environment in which all children are expected to become proficient on grade-level content and states, school districts, and schools are accountable for their achievement.鈥�
Advocacy groups have also been calling on legislators to counter what they believe are negative impressions of the No Child Left Behind law, which passed Congress with big, bipartisan majorities in late 2001 but has encountered a host of criticisms during its implementation. Several new members of Congress are serving on the , and those members may be hearing from their school districts that assessment of special education students is a problem, advocates believe.
鈥淚 think they鈥檙e hearing a lot of frustration from schools that don鈥檛 have the capacity to do what they need to be doing,鈥� said Jane E. West, the vice president for government relations for the , in Washington, and a co-chairwoman of the consortium鈥檚 task force on education.
But states already have a tremendous amount of flexibility under the law, said Laura W. Kaloi, another co-chairwoman of the consortium and the public-policy director for the National Center for Learning Disabilities. She noted that under current testing rules, 1 percent of all students, which is equivalent to about 10 percent of students with disabilities, can be counted as proficient when they pass a test specially designed for students with severe cognitive disabilities.
Another 2 percent of all students, equal to about 20 percent of students with disabilities, can be counted as proficient when they take alternate assessments based on modified, but grade-level, academic standards. Those tests can have fewer questions, fewer choices in a multiple-choice section, and require a lower level of reading skill.
In addition, schools can meet AYP under so-called 鈥渟afe harbor鈥� provisions, which permit schools to make adequate progress as long as there were more students who maintained or moved up to proficiency in the current school year than in the prior school year. And, some schools don鈥檛 have to achieve AYP in the subgroup of students in special education because the state has a large minimum subgroup size.
鈥淭o say that we need more flexibility鈥攖o me, it doesn鈥檛 pass the laugh test,鈥� Ms. Kaloi said.
Fear of Flexibility
Other education groups, however, including the National School Boards Association, the American Association of School Administrators, and the National Education Association, have banded together to argue for just that.
A move for greater flexibility acknowledges that special education students are a heterogeneous group of individuals that should be tested at their academic-performance level, those groups contend. Even with the flexibility allowed under the 鈥�1 percent鈥� and 鈥�2 percent鈥� tests, the federal Department of Education has stood firm against testing students with disabilities out of their grade levels, such as giving a 2nd grade reading test to a student in 6th grade. Groups including the NSBA and the AASA find that stance restrictive.
鈥淭hey need to be assessed by an instrument that meets them where they are,鈥� said Bruce Hunter, the associate executive director for public policy for the Arlington, Va.-based AASA. 鈥淵ou start with an assessment that isn鈥檛 built around group norms, and isn鈥檛 built around groups.鈥�
The groups are also calling for an end to the 1 percent and 2 percent caps. 鈥淪tudents with disabilities should be assessed as determined by their Individualized Education Program team and not subjected to arbitrary caps,鈥� said a group statement. The IEP team is required under the special education law to determine the services eligible children must receive. Such groups at the school levels are most often made up of parents, teachers, and administrators.
Reginald M. Felton, the director of federal relations for the Alexandria, Va.-based school boards鈥� association, said he understands the fears of advocates for students with disabilities. But, he said, the law requires valid and reliable assessments, and for some students with disabilities, grade-level tests don鈥檛 yield valid results.
鈥淲hen we reauthorized the IDEA, we talked about the power and the relevancy of the IEP team,鈥� Mr. Felton said. 鈥淭hat鈥檚 the group we should be empowering.鈥�
But Bill East, the executive director of the , also based in Alexandria, said IEP-driven assessments have never worked. Instead, he contended, they鈥檝e allowed a different, lower standard to exist for students with disabilities.
鈥淲e鈥檝e had 30 years of experience using the IEP as an accountability measure. It has failed miserably,鈥� he said.
Predictions vary on how members of Congress eventually may handle the issue of accountability and students in special education under the NCLB law, whose reauthorization is due this year but could be delayed.
鈥淣CLB really shifted the default [for students with disabilities], and no one wants to shift it back,鈥� said Scott R. Palmer, a lawyer with the Washington law firm Holland & Knight and a consultant on special education to the . Students receiving special education services are performing at higher and higher levels.
But when it comes to accountability, 鈥渢his is an area where I don鈥檛 think we have the best answers yet,鈥� he said. 鈥淭he best practice is still evolving.鈥�
Others remain concerned that the revised law will allow too much leeway.
鈥淚鈥檓 very afraid we鈥檙e going to have more flexibility than we think the public schools either should have or deserve,鈥� said Jamie Ruppmann, the associate director of , a disability-rights group in Marshall, Va., that has lobbied Congress along with other organizations.
鈥淭his is so important,鈥� Ms. Ruppmann said. 鈥淭hey鈥檙e saying they shouldn鈥檛 be held accountable for educating our children. Who but our kids would anybody say that about?鈥�
