High Stakes Testing Standards for Students with
Disabilities
© 2003 by Neighborhood Legal Services, Inc.
Tim Sindelar, Esq.
Ron Hager, Esq.
Diane Smith, Esq.
I. Introduction
A. Authority to Set Higher Standards for Students with Disabilities
1. "At the outset, we wish to stress that neither the district court nor we are in a position to determine educational policy in the State of Florida. The sate has determined that minimum standards must be met and that the quality of education must be improved. ... As long as it does so in a manner consistent with the mandates of the United States Constitution, a state may determine the length manner and content of any education it provides." Debra P. v. Turlington, 644 F.2d 397, 402-403 (5th Cir. 1981).
2. "The School District's desire to ensure the value of its diploma by requiring graduating students to attain minimal skills is admirable, and the courts will interfere with educational policy only when necessary to protect individual statutory or constitutional rights." Brookhart v. Illinois State Bd. of Ed., 697 F.2d 179, 182 (7th Cir. 1983).
3. "Before turning to the constitutional and statutory issues, the resolution of which are dispositive, we first reject the contention that [the State Education Department does] not have the power to determine educational policy in this State and to establish criteria for high school graduation." Bd. of Ed. Northport-East Northport Union Free Sch. Dist. v. Ambach, 90 A.D.2d 227, 231 (Third Dept. 1982).
4. In all three cases, the courts rejected direct challenges based on Section 504, the ADA and IDEA.
B. Successful Challenges
1. Need to teach what's on the test. Debra P.
2. Need to give adequate notice of the changes
a. One to one-and-one half years of notice of a change in graduation requirements is not enough. Brookhart.
b. Three years notice is enough. Northport-East Northport; Renee v. Reed, below.
II. Rights Under the IDEA
A. Access to/Progress in the General Curriculum
1. Changes made by 1997 amendments to the IDEA (IDEA ‘97) emphasize improving educational results for students with disabilities. Congressional findings note that education of children with disabilities can be made more effective by:
a. having high expectations and ensuring access to the general curriculum to the maximum extent possible;
b. strengthening the role of parents and ensuring that families "have meaningful opportunities to participate in the education of their children";
c. coordinating IDEA requirements with other school improvement efforts to ensure that students benefit from those efforts and that special education becomes a service for children rather than a place where they are sent;
d. "providing appropriate special education and related services and aids and supports in the regular classroom" whenever appropriate;
e. "supporting high-quality, intensive professional development for all personnel working" with children;
f. "providing incentives for whole-school approaches and pre-referral interventions to reduce the need to label children" to obtain services; and
g. "focusing resources on teaching and learning while reducing paperwork and requirements that do not assist in improving educational results." 20 U.S.C. §1400(c)(5)(emphasis added).
2. The IEP must list the student's present levels of performance, including how the child's disability affects the child's involvement and progress in the general curriculum. 20 U.S.C. §1414(d)(1)(A)(i).
3. The IEP must also list annual goals and short-term objectives or benchmarks. They must be measurable and relate to meeting each of the child's educational needs that result from the disability, including those which will enable the child to be involved in and progress in the general curriculum. 20 U.S.C. §1414(d)(1)(A)(ii).
B. Opportunities for Meaningful Participation in the General Curriculum
1. Cedar Rapids Community Sch. Dist. v. Garret F., ___ U.S. ___, 119 S.Ct. 992 (1999).
a. The Court noted that schools "cannot limit educational access simply by pointing to the limitations of existing staff." "[T]he IDEA requires school districts to hire specially trained personnel to meet disabled student needs." Id. at p. 999, fn.8 (citations omitted).
b. IDEA requires that states have what is referred to as a comprehensive system of personnel development to ensure there are sufficient qualified personnel to meet the needs of its students with disabilities. 34 C.F.R. §300.135.
c. In keeping with the theme raised in Garret F., the comments to the new regulations note that "each State must have a mechanism for serving children with disabilities if instructional needs exceed available (qualified) personnel, including addressing those shortages in its comprehensive system of personnel development if the shortages continue." Federal Register, p. 12408, 3/12/99, regarding 34 C.F.R. §300.136(g)(3).
2. OSEP Policy Letter about teacher training on IEP.
3. Increase in results oriented process
a. When developing the IEP, the Team must consider any behavioral interventions needed for students with behavioral needs; the effect of limited English proficiency on a student's special education needs; the use of Braille for blind and visually impaired students; the use of and instruction in the child's language and mode of communication for deaf or hard of hearing students; and, for all students, whether the child requires AT. 20 U.S.C. §1414(d)(3)(B); 34 C.F.R. §300.346(a)(2).
b. When determining a student needs AT, given "the ongoing changes in technology, it may not be necessary for a CSE to specify the model number of each assistive technology device it recommends for a child. However, a specific description of the purpose for which the device is to be used is necessary to provide sufficient guidance to the individuals who must implement the IEP. Application of a Child with a Disability (Mamaroneck UFSD), SRO Dec. No. 99-48 (June 21, 2000). (Handout page 140.)
c. In delineating the purposes of IDEA, Congress enlarged the scope of an appropriate education by requiring that not only should it meet students' unique needs, it should also "prepare them for employment and independent living." 20 U.S.C. §1400(d)(1)(A).
d. This addition is more than mere window dressing, as states must develop goals for the performance of children with disabilities which will promote meeting this requirement. Id. §1412(a)(16)(A)(i).
e. The U.S. Department of Education, in the commentary to its proposed regulations implementing IDEA ‘97, stressed:
This change represents a significant shift in the emphasis of [IDEA]-to an outcome oriented approach that focuses on better results for children with disabilities rather than on simply ensuring their access to education. Federal Register, p. 55029, 10/22/97 (emphasis added).
f. The comments to the final regulations reaffirm this position:
Therefore, it is correct to state that the 1997 amendments [to IDEA] place greater emphasis on a results-oriented approach related to improving educational results for disabled children than was true under prior law. Federal Register, p. 12538, 3/12/99.
4. Use of instructional methodology
a. The regulations implementing IDEA ‘97 amend the definition of special education to include a definition of "specially-designed instruction."
b. Specially-designed instruction includes adapting "methodology or delivery of instruction" to meet the unique needs of a student with a disability and to ensure access to the general curriculum. 34 C.F.R. §300.26(b)(3)(emphasis added).
c. The comments to the regulations note concerns raised in the legislative history to IDEA ‘97, that IEPs should not be overly-prescriptive by including a day-to-day teaching approach or lesson plan. Federal Register, p. 12552, 3/12/99.
d. They also note that while case law has recognized the important role instructional methodology can play in providing a FAPE, courts "will not substitute a parentally preferred methodology for sound educational programs developed by" the school. Id.
e. In discussing the importance of adding "methodology" to the definition of specially-designed instruction, however, the comments note:
[T]here are circumstances in which the particular teaching methodology that will be used is an integral part of what is "individualized" about a student's education and, in those circumstances will need to be discussed at the IEP meeting and incorporated into the student's IEP. For example, for a child with a learning disability who has not learned to read using traditional instructional methods, an appropriate education may require some other instructional strategy. ... There is nothing in the definition of "specially designed instruction" that would require instructional methodology to be addressed in the IEPs of students who do not need a particular instructional methodology in order to receive educational benefit. In all cases, whether methodology would be addressed in an IEP would be an IEP team decision. Id.
5. Increased parental role
a. This is the answer to the question of the role of parents at IEP meetings:
The parents of a child with a disability are expected to be equal participants along with school personnel, in developing, reviewing, and revising the IEP for their child. This is an active role in which the parents (1) provide critical information regarding the strengths of their child and express their concerns for enhancing the education of their child; (2) participate in discussions about the child's need for special education and related services and supplementary aids and services; and (3) join with the other participants in deciding how the child will be involved and progress in the general curriculum and participate in State and district-wide assessments and what services the agency will provide to the child and in what setting. Id. Part 300, App. A, Quest. 5 (emphasis added).
b. IDEA ‘97 strengthened the parents' role even further. Perhaps only making explicit what should already have been obvious, schools must now consider the results of evaluations, the strengths of the child and the concerns of the parents for enhancing their child's education when developing the IEP. 20 U.S.C. §1414(d)(3)(A).
c. Parents must be given the opportunity to participate in meetings regarding the identification, evaluation, educational placement and provision of a FAPE to their children. Id. §1415(b)(1).
d. Finally, parents are now members of the IEP Team. Id. §1414(d)(1)(B).
e. If a different group within a school makes the decision about whether a student has a disability or what the student's actual placement will be, the parents must also be members of that group. Id. §1414(a)(4)(A) and (f).
f. The new regulations strengthen this concept by adding to the definition of "parent counseling and training." The definition now includes "[h]elping parents to acquire the necessary skills that will enable them to support implementation of their child's IEP." Id. §300.24(b)(7)(iii).
g. The comments note that this change is consistent with "the more active role acknowledged for parents" by IDEA ‘97. Federal Register, p. 12549, 3/12/99.
h. It is hoped that teaching parents the skills to help their children reach their IEP goals will:
[A]ssist in furthering the education of their children, and will aid the schools as it will create opportunities to build reinforcing relationships between each child's educational program and out-of-school learning. Id.
6. Involvement of regular education teacher
a. The IEP Team must now include at least one regular education teacher of the child, if the child is or may be participating in "the regular education environment." 20 U.S.C. §1414(d)(1)(B).
b. The purpose of the regular teacher's involvement in the IEP process is, at least in part, to help determine behavioral strategies, supplemental aids and services, program modifications and supports for school personnel. Id. §1414(d)(3)(C).
c. The comments provide extensive guidance regarding which teacher should attend the meeting. For students with more than one regular education teacher, the school can determine which teacher attends, taking into account the best interests of the student. 34 C.F.R. Part 300, App. A, Quest. 26.
d. The teacher:
[S]hould be a teacher who is, or may be responsible for implementing a portion of the IEP so that the teacher can participate in discussions about how best to teach the child. Id.(emphasis added).
e. The school is strongly encouraged to obtain input from any teachers who will not be attending the meeting. Id.
f. The new regulations also clarify that the school representative on the IEP Team must be someone with the authority to commit school resources and who can ensure that the services set out in the IEP will actually be provided. Id., Quest. 22.
7. Increased progress reporting
a. There must be a statement of how the child's progress toward the annual goals will be measured; how the parents will be informed about the child's progress; and the extent to which the child's progress to date is sufficient to enable the child to meet the goals by the end of the year. These progress reports must be at least as frequent as progress reports parents of nondisabled students receive. 20 U.S.C. §1414(d)(1)(A)(viii).
b. Therefore, if a school sends out report cards every 10 weeks, the parents should be notified of their child's progress at least that often. If a school sends out notices when regular education students are in danger of failing at five-week intervals, they could also send out five-week notices to parents of students with disabilities when the student is not performing as expected.
c. If problems arise during the year or if there is any other need to meet to review the student's program, the parents or school may request a meeting before the year is up. Federal Register, p. 12592, 3/12/99.
8. Supplemental aids and services
a. The statute has a definition for "supplementary aids and services." These services include aids, services and other supports, and are to be made available in regular education classes and "other education-related settings" to enable children with disabilities to be educated with their nondisabled peers to the maximum extent appropriate. 20 U.S.C. §1401(29); 34 C.F.R. §300.28.
b. The IEP must list all supplemental aids and services for the student. 34 C.F.R. §300.347(a)(3).
c. Obligation to provide FAPE, including the IDEA disciplinary procedures applies to "mandatory" summer program need for students to prepare to take required tests for grade promotion. LIH v. NYC Bd. of Ed., 103 F.Supp.2d 658 (E.D.N.Y. 2000).
C. Transition services
1. Transition services are defined as a coordinated set of activities for a student, designed within an outcome-oriented process, that promotes movement from school to post-school activities. 20 U.S.C. §1401(30)(C).
2. Beginning at age 14, the IEP must include the transition service needs related to the child's course of study under each of the applicable sections of the IEP, such as "participation in advanced-placement courses or a vocational education program." 20 U.S.C. §1414(d)(1)(A)(vii)(I).
3. Beginning at 16, or younger if appropriate, actual transition services are to begin. 20 U.S.C. §1414(d)(1)(A)(vii)(II); 34 C.F.R. §300.347(b).
4. Because "too many students with disabilities are failing courses and dropping out of school," "it is important that the IEP Team work with each student with a disability and the student's family to select courses of study that will be meaningful to the student's future and motivate the student to complete his or her education. 34 C.F.R. Part 300, Appendix A, Quest. 11.
D. Access to Statewide/Districtwide Assessments
1. Children with disabilities are to participate in general State and district-wide assessments, with appropriate accommodations. 20 U.S.C. §1412(a)(17)(A); 34 C.F.R. §300.138.
2. Students who cannot participate in State and district-wide assessments are to be given alternate assessments. 20 U.S.C. §1412(a)(17(i).
3. The IEP is to indicate why a student will not participate in general State and district-wide assessments and how that student will be assessed. 20 U.S.C. §1414(d)(1)(A)(v)(II); 34 C.F.R. §300.347(a)(5)(ii).
4. OSEP Policy Memo 00-24 (8/24/00), Quest. 10, www.ed.gov/offices/OSERS/OSEP/Products/omip.html. (There are three other OSEP publications at this address with similar provisions.)
a. An alternate assessment is understood to mean an assessment designed for those students with disabilities who are unable to participate in general large-scale assessments used by a school district or State, even when accommodations or modifications are provided.
b. Alternate assessments are to be aligned with the general curriculum standards set for all students and should not be assumed appropriate only for those students with significant cognitive impairments.
c. The alternate assessment is sufficiently flexible to meet the needs of difficult-to-assess students with disabilities who may need the alternate assessment to demonstrate competency for benefits such as promotion or a diploma.
5. Chapman v. California Dept. of Ed., 36 IDELR 91 (N.D.C.A. 2002), rev'd., Smiley v. California Dept. of Ed., 37 IDELR 219 (9th Cir. 2002).
a. Some students are unable to meaningfully access the CAHSEE (the California high stakes exam) regardless of the accommodations and/or modifications offered.
b. Some of these students are performing at a high school level and have mastered the CAHSEE subject matter and some are unable to master a high school level curriculum.
c. Both sets of students are entitled to a valid assessment of their capabilities.
E. Testing modifications/accommodations
1. The IEP is to list any modifications in the administration of State and district-wide assessments of student achievement that are needed for the student to participate in such assessment. 20 U.S.C. §1414(d)(1)(A)(v)(I); 34 C.F.R. §300.347(a)(5)(i).
2. OSEP Policy Memo 00-24 (8/24/00), www.ed.gov/offices/OSERS/OSEP/Products/omip.html. (There are three other OSEP publications at this address with similar provisions.)
a. Students with disabilities must participate in assessments.
b. The IEP Team determines how the student will participate: the regular assessment with or without modifications, or an alternative assessment.
c. "Accommodations" means changes in format, response, setting, timing or scheduling, which do not significantly alter what the test measures or the comparability of scores.
d. "Modifications" means changes in the assessment that alter what the test is supposed to measure or the comparability of scores.
e. Both are required by the IDEA, as needed for individual students as determined by the IEP Team.
f. Neither the SEA nor the LEA may limit the IEP Team's authority to determine the extent of any test accommodations, but there may be consequences of which the IEP Team must be aware, including the effect on promotion or graduation.
3. Chapman, aff'd in relevant part by Smiley.
a. Testing accommodations included use of laptop computer, calculator, spell checker, scanner and tape recorder.
b. Court ordered (preliminary injunction) that these and other accommodations listed on student IEPs be provided in administration of CAHSEE.
c. Court declined to address, at this stage, how the State could treat the scores with the accommodations.
4. Renee v. Reed, 751 N.E.2d 736 (Court of App., Ind., 2001)-court declined to hold that the accommodations listed on student's IEPs must be provided on the state's high stakes exam.
III. Section 504
A. Regulations
1. Discrimination prohibited
No qualified handicapped person shall, on the basis of handicap, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity which receives of benefits from Federal financial assistance. 34 C.F.R. §104.4(a).
2. Free appropriate public education:
For the purposes of this subpart, the provision of an appropriate education is the provision of regular or special education and related aids and services that (i) are designed to meet individual educational needs of handicapped persons as adequately as the needs of nonhandicapped persons are met and (ii) are based upon adherence to procedures. 34 C.F.R. §104.33(b).
3. Evaluation and placement
Tests are selected and administered so as best to ensure that, when a test is administered to a student with impaired sensory, manual, or speaking skills, the test results accurately reflect the student's aptitude or achievement level or whatever other facto the test purports to measure, rather than reflecting the student's impaired sensory, manual, or speaking skills (except where those skills are the factors that the test purports to measure). 34 C.F.R. § 104.35(b)(3).
B. OCR opinions
1. OCR determined that there was no violation of section 504 when a student was not allowed to use an Arkenstone Scanner to read text for a State reading exam because that would supplant the skill which is the object of the test. However, the device could be used for other portions of the State exit exam. Alabama Dept. of Educ., 29 IDELR 249 (OCR, 4/10/98).
2. Requirement of a valid score on a standardized test (ITBS) for admission into a district program, where virtually all modifications in the test result in it being invalidated violates section 504. Chatham (GA) County Sch. Dist., 30 IDELR 727 (OCR 2/12/99).
3. Implication that only test accommodations allowed by the publisher would be required. Palm Beach County (FL) Sch. Dist., 36 IDELR 100 (OCR 11/7/01).
4. Other case
IV. No Child Left Behind
A. Introduction
1. Purpose:
a. "...Title I, Part A, is intended to help ensure that all children have the opportunity to obtain a high-quality education and reach proficiency on challenging state academic standards and assessments...
b. Title I provides flexible funding that may be used to provide additional instructional staff, professional development, extended-time programs, and other strategies for raising student achievement in high-poverty schools.
c. The program focuses on promoting school-wide reform in high-poverty schools and ensuring students' access to scientifically based instructional strategies and challenging academic content.
d. Title I provisions provide a mechanism for holding states, school districts, and schools accountable for improving the academic achievement of all students and turning around low-performing schools, while providing alternatives to students in such schools to enable those students to receive a high-quality education." (emphasis supplied) From the NCLB Desktop Reference.
2. Authority:
a. The statute is found at 20 U.S.C. sec. 6301 et seq. The relevant sections are in Title I, Sec. 6303, Part A.
b. There are two sets of regulations, one issued in July 2002 regarding Standards and Assessments, and a more general set promulgated in November, 2002. Both sets are found at 34 C.F.R. Part 200.
c. Most parts of the law became effective on July 1, 2002.
B. Annual Yearly Progress (AYP)
1. All States, LEAs and schools are rated based on their achievement.
2. AYP is the minimum level of improvement that states, school districts, and schools must achieve each year as they progress toward being 100 percent proficient by 2014.
3. AYP is determined by the state but must include the following:
(i) applies the same high standards of academic achievement to all public elementary school and secondary school students in the State;
(ii) is statistically valid and reliable;
(iii) results in continuous and substantial academic improvement for all students;
(iv) measures the progress of public elementary schools, secondary schools and local educational agencies and the State based primarily on the academic assessments described in paragraph (3);
(v) includes separate measurable annual objectives for continuous and substantial improvement for each of the following:
(I) The achievement of all public elementary school and secondary school students.
(II) The achievement of-
(aa) economically disadvantaged students;
(bb) students from major racial and ethnic groups;
(cc) students with disabilities; and
(dd) students with limited English proficiency;
except that disaggregation of data under subclause (II) shall not be required in a case in which the number of students in a category is insufficient to yield statistically reliable information or the results would reveal personally identifiable information about an individual student;
(vi) in accordance with subparagraph (D), includes graduation rates for public secondary school students (defined as the percentage of students who graduate from secondary school with a regular diploma in the standard number of years) and at least one other academic indicator, as determined by the State for all public elementary school students; and
(vii) in accordance with subparagraph (D), at the State's discretion, may also include other academic indicators, as determined by the State for all public school students, measured separately for each group described in clause (v), such as achievement on additional State or locally administered assessments, decreases in grade-to-grade retention rates, attendance rates, and changes in the percentages of students completing gifted and talented, advanced placement, and college preparatory courses ... 20 U.S.C. §6311(b)(2)(C).
C. Assessment
1. States: Any state that wishes to receive a Title I grant must include in the state plan it submits to the Secretary of Education an assurance that beginning in the 2002-2003 school year the state will participate in the biennial state-level National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in reading and mathematics at grades 4 and 8. State participation in NAEP other than reading and mathematics in grades 4 and 8 shall be voluntary.
2. LEAs: Local education agencies that receive a Title I sub-grant must include an assurance that they will participate in biennial state NAEP assessments of grades 4 and 8 reading and mathematics if they are selected for the NAEP sample. Otherwise, participation in other NAEP assessments is voluntary for students, schools, and local education agencies.
D. There are three levels of involvement. (Note: This is an oversimplification for the purpose of introduction).
1. Step 1--School Improvement: If school has not made Adequate Yearly Progress for two consecutive years. Sec. 1116(b).
a. School choice: "...the local educational agency shall, not later than the first day of the school year following such identification, provide all students enrolled in the school with the option to transfer to another public school served by the local educational agency, which may include a public charter school, that has not been identified for school improvement under this paragraph, unless such an option is prohibited by State law. Sec. 1116(b)(1)).
b. Supplemental Services: "...by the end of the first full school year following such identification the local educational agency serving such school —
(i) shall continue to provide all students enrolled in the school with the option to transfer to another public school served by the local educational agency
(ii) shall make supplemental educational services available
(iii) shall continue to provide technical assistance. Sec. 1116(b)(5).
2. Step 2: Corrective Action: If school fails to make AYP by the end of second full school year after identification for school improvement.
a. ...is designed to increase substantially the likelihood that each group of students ... enrolled in the school identified for corrective action will meet or exceed the State's proficient levels of achievement on the State academic assessments... Sec. 1116(b)(7)(A)(2).
3. Step 3: Restructuring: If any school fails to make AYP after 1 full school year of corrective action, the LEA shall implement one of the listed alternative governance arrangements. Sec. 116(b)(8)(B).
a. Reopening the school as a public charter school.
b. Replacing all or most of the school staff (which may include the principal) who are relevant to the failure to make adequate yearly progress.
c. Entering into a contract with an entity, such as a private management company, with a demonstrated record of effectiveness, to operate the public school.
d. Turning the operation of the school over to the State educational agency, if permitted under State law and agreed to by the State.
e. Any other major restructuring of the school's governance arrangement that makes fundamental reforms.
E. Report Cards
1. Every LEA in the nation must provide a certain amount of extremely useful data to the public, at the start of the 2002-2003 school year, unless it has received a one year extension. Hence, this data should be available right now in any state that does not have an extension at the school district and individual school level.
2. LEAs must include in their report cards (per 20 U.S.C. §6311(h)(1)(C) and 20 U.S.C. §6311h(2) (B)), the following information for the LEA as a whole and for each school in the LEA:
a. Student achievement at each proficiency level on the State academic assessments both in the aggregate and disaggregated by race, ethnicity, gender, disability status, migrant status, English proficiency, and status as economically disadvantaged.
b. A comparison between the actual achievement levels and the annual measurable objectives of the following groups of students: race, ethnicity, disability status, English proficiency, and status as economically disadvantaged.
c. Percentage of students not tested (disaggregated by race, ethnicity, gender, disability status, migrant status, English proficiency, and status as economically disadvantaged).
d. Most recent 2-year trend in student achievement in each subject area, and for each grade level for which assessments are required.
e. Aggregate information on any other indicators used by the State to determine the adequate yearly progress of students.
f. Graduation rates for public secondary school students.
g. Information on the performance of local educational agencies in the State regarding adequate yearly progress, including the number and names of each school identified for school improvement.
h. Number and percentage of schools in the LEA identified for school improvement and how long the schools have been so identified.
i. Professional qualifications of all teachers in the LEA, the percentage of such teachers teaching with emergency or provisional credentials, and the percentage of classes in the LEA not taught by highly qualified teachers, in the aggregate and disaggregated by high-poverty compared to low-poverty schools.
j. Information that shows how students served by the LEA achieved on the statewide academic assessment, as compared to students in the State as a whole; and in the case of a school, information that shows how the school's students achievement on both the statewide academic assessments and other indicators of adequate yearly progress compared to students in the local educational agency and the State as a whole.
F. Conflict Resolution
1. (As far as we know), there is no complaint or due process hearing procedure included in NCLB.
2. There is a federal monitoring program, where by the U.S.D.O.E addresses non-compliance by states, and there are parent involvement requirements (e.g. requirement to involve parents in certain policy activities).
3. However, it may still be possible to bring a claim under Sec. 1983.
G. Resources:
1. Law and regulations: http://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/asst.html.
2. General info.: www.nclb.gov.
3. NCLB Desktop Reference: http://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/reference.html.
4. Parent Resource Centers: http://www.ed.gov/Programs/bastmp/PRC.htm.
5. Articles in TAC Update.
6. Manual on IDEA and NCLB on its way!
Finding the Law
Regulations at 34 CFR Part 200 et seq.
Law, regulations, guidance etc. can be found at http://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/asst.html.
Notice of proposed rulemaking on standards for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities: http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/proprule/2003-1/032003a.html. Comments are due May 19, 2003
Assessment Requirements
34 CFR 200.2(b) State responsibilities for assessment.
"...(b) The assessment system required under this section must meet the following requirements:
(1) Be the same assessment
system used to measure the achievement of all students in accordance with Sec. 200.3 or
Sec. 200.4.
(2) Be designed to be valid and accessible for
use by the widest possible range of students, including students with disabilities
…
(3)(i) Be aligned with the State's challenging
academic content and student academic achievement standards; and
(ii) Provide coherent information about student
attainment of those standards…
(9) Provide for participation in the assessment
system of all students in the grades being assessed consistent with Sec. 200.6.
(10)… enable results to be disaggregated
within each State, LEA, and school by-- (v) Students with disabilities as defined
under section 602(3) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) as compared
to all other students; …"(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(3))
34 CFR 200.6 Inclusion of all students.
" A State's academic assessment system required under Sec. 200.2 must provide for the
participation of all students in the grades assessed.
(a) Students eligible under
IDEA and Section 504. (1) Appropriate accommodations. A State's academic assessment system
must provide—
(i) For each student with disabilities, as
defined under section 602(3) of the IDEA, appropriate accommodations that each student's
IEP team determines are necessary to measure the academic achievement of the student
relative to the State's academic content and achievement standards for the grade in which
the student is enrolled, … and
(ii) For each student covered under section 504 of
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504), appropriate accommodations that each
student's placement team determines are necessary to measure the
academic achievement of the student relative to the State's academic content and
achievement standards for the grades in which the student is enrolled, …
(2) Alternate assessment. (i) The State's academic
assessment system must provide for one or more alternate assessments for a student with
disabilities as defined under section 602(3) of the IDEA who the student's IEP team
determines cannot participate in all or part of the State assessments under paragraph
(a)(1) of this section, even with appropriate accommodations.
(ii) Alternate assessments must yield results in at
least reading/language arts, mathematics, and, beginning in the 2007-2008 school year,
science…"
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1810-0576)
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(3))
Return to Table of Contents | NLS Home Page | Feedback | Search the NLS Website