WHO WE ARE
|
PUBLICATIONS | PRESENTATIONS | PROJECTS
| RELATED SITES | STAFF
| SITE MAP
| SEARCH
| WHAT'S NEW
| HOME
WHO WE ARE
|
PUBLICATIONS | PRESENTATIONS | PROJECTS
| RELATED SITES | STAFF
| SITE MAP
| SEARCH
| WHAT'S NEW
| HOME
Committee on Education and the Workforce Hearing Testimony
“No Child Left Behind: Ensuring High Academic Achievement for Limited English Proficient Students and Students with Disabilities.”
July 12, 2006, 10:30 a.m, Room 2175 Rayburn House Office Building
I. Introduction.
I am the parent of a daughter who has Down syndrome, born 31 years ago this Friday, the year P.L. 94-142 was passed. In my opinion, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) has done more to ensure that students like my daughter will learn the challenging and interesting content expected for all other learners than any single event in those 31 years.
Although the school door was opened in 1975 to children like mine, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) reauthorization in 1997 was necessary to affirm their right to full access to the standards-based general curriculum. Unfortunately, the 1997 IDEA focus on access to the same challenging general curriculum was ignored by many educators. It took NCLB accountability provisions (for example, the requirement that all children are to be assessed on the same content, and schools are held accountable for student achievement) to trigger profound shifts in access and opportunity to learn for students with disabilities in some schools, districts, and states.
In others it has led to public displays of dismay and assertions that educators should not be held accountable for students who are perceived to be difficult to teach. In some cases, it has led to fear and confusion on the part of many parents who see their children being publicly blamed for school problems, instead of seeing strong and clear leadership to empower teachers and parents to ensure success for their children. Leaders in each state and district have direct responsibility for how these shifts to increased access and opportunity occur so that they benefit and not harm children. Not all leaders have stepped up to accept that responsibility.
My personal commitment to high achievement for all students has led me to work during most of the past decade supporting states as they build inclusive assessment and accountability systems. I do this as the team leader for national technical assistance at the National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) at the University of Minnesota, which is funded by the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP). At NCEO we have documented ways students with disabilities are included in educational assessment and accountability systems. I will summarize these briefly here.
II. Documentation of inclusive assessment practices.
In the early 1990s, NCEO began documenting assessment practices in states, and found that most states included 10% or fewer of their students with disabilities in state assessments. Participation and accommodation policies were either non-existent or limiting. Participation rates in state assessments increased steadily during the 1990s, in part because of the light being shed on the previous practices by our studies, and the belief that if students were not included in assessments, they may not be benefiting from school reform efforts taking hold in most states. Even with IDEA 97 requirements that all students were to be assessed, we did not see the push to full inclusion in all states. Today, assessment participation rates of students with disabilities are meeting NCLB requirements. Performance on assessments has also improved over the past three years. According to our survey of state directors of special education, increased access to the general education curriculum is a critical component of the improved performance of students with disabilities on state assessments.
III. Documentation of inclusive accountability systems: Issues and challenges.
Just as all states did not move toward full inclusion of all students in assessment systems even though IDEA 97 required it, not all states were committed to fully including students in accountability systems as required in NCLB. In states and districts where IDEA 97 was not fully implemented, many students with disabilities had not been given access to or made progress in the general curriculum expected for all children. Students who have not been taught what is on the test generally do not perform well on those tests, and states and districts feared the consequences of reporting what they assumed would be poor performance. Some leaders suggested that students with disabilities could not learn the content, even though in many of their schools the approach of actually providing specialized instruction in that content had not as yet been tried. Thus, the shift to full accountability for all children was even more painful in some states and districts than the earlier shift to standards-based instruction and high expectations for all, which some of them had ignored.
After NCLB accountability plans were first submitted and approved in 2003, we began to document how students with disabilities were included in state plans, and to track the data over time, just as we had done in the 1990s with assessment participation. I personally worked with a graduate student for several months, trying to sort out what we saw in the posted approved plans and what we saw in the state public reporting Web sites. We found numerous contradictions and missing data. Instead of the data becoming clear and illuminated, it was clear that accountability systems were opaque when they should have been transparent, and hidden when they should have been public.
In addition we began seeing public statements by some educators and even policymakers that the students with disabilities subgroup was the only group that blocked many, some said most, schools from achieving required adequate yearly progress (AYP). We specifically mined data in the few states where their AYP reporting was clear and found that in schools where the students with disabilities subgroup was the only subgroup that was large enough to meet minimum N requirements for public reporting, that was true. That is, predominantly white, affluent schools had only one subgroup large enough to be reported, students with disabilities. But lack of transparency frustrated our efforts to generate systematic national profiles of what the status of subgroups by schools really was, and thus it was difficult to verify or refute the argument that students with disabilities as opposed to other subgroups were the “cause” or perhaps more aptly stated, the “indicator” of many schools’ need to improve.
Another challenge became evident in the language being used. We heard what appeared to be pervasive misconceptions about who students with disabilities are and confusion about the purpose of IDEA funding for these students. Federal IDEA requirements focus on provision of specialized instruction, services, and supports so that students with disabilities achieve at high levels in the same challenging content as their same-grade peers. That foundational understanding of IDEA was all too often missing in the public discourse. Instead, there was rhetoric based on an erroneous assumption that a student eligible for special education services could be or even should be placed in a separate curriculum on a lower expectation track in the name of “individualization.”
These erroneous assumptions underlie our discussions today. It is puzzling to hear this confusion given the plain language of IDEA and NCLB, but it is alarming given what we understand about the effects of expectations on what children learn. The literature on teacher expectations on student achievement is deep and strong: what teachers expect is typically what students do. For many educators, special education labels have become code words that say “this child can’t learn.” What is frightening is that over the past 30 years that belief has become engrained even among parents, advocates, and policymakers. A few years ago, in a state task force meeting where the state accountability plan was being discussed, I heard a teacher say, “Any fool knows those special ed kids can’t learn the same stuff as other kids.” We know that is not true. We have evidence to the contrary.
We have a colleague at NCEO, Dr. Kevin McGrew, who is one of the authors of the Woodcock-Johnson III tests of achievement. He has tested the assumption that “any fool knows those kids can’t learn” by looking at the academic achievement of students of varying measured IQs, a common measurement used for eligibility for the special education category of mental retardation. He has found, “It is not possible to predict which children will be in the upper half of the achievement distribution based on any given level of general intelligence. For most children with cognitive disabilities (those with below average IQ scores), it is NOT possible to predict individual levels of expected achievement with the degree of accuracy that would be required to deny a child the right to high standards/expectations.”
The bottom line is that 80% of students with disabilities, that is, 98% of all students, do not have cognitive disabilities (called mental retardation in official disability categories) as their primary disability. My 31 year old daughter does have mental retardation, and she is a curious, engaged, life-long learner, so I struggle to understand how educators could systematically make assumptions about her ability to learn. I struggle to understand how educators could make those assumptions about the ability of all students with other disabilities as well, those who may have learning disabilities, speech language disabilities, vision, hearing, or any disabilities that may affect HOW a student learns, but like my daughter, need not dramatically affect WHAT the student learns. We have research and practice tested methods to teach all children well, but in some schools the collective will to do so has not yet been mustered.
IV. Accountability plan modeling: An attempt to generate data.
When we realized that it was not possible to generate good quality data to understand effects of accountability systems on students with disabilities from public reporting documents due to lack of transparency, we turned to colleagues at the National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment, Inc. (NCIEA). They used existing state assessment databases to model the effects of common strategies being used in state accountability plans in the name of technical adequacy. Using actual assessment data from five states, they specifically looked at the practice of increasing the minimum number a state required prior to public reporting, as well as use of confidence intervals. Their central finding was that when the minimum subgroup size was set at 60 students, almost no schools include the performance of special education students, that is, the subgroup disappears from AYP calculations.
Education Week demonstrated this effect by looking at five
specific states: in California, with minimum subgroup of 100, or 50 if that
makes up at least 15 percent of students tested, 92% of schools were able to
report AYP without the disabilities subgroup reported; Florida, with a minimum
subgroup of 100, or 30 if that makes up at least 15 percent of students tested,
had 42% of schools with no disability subgroup reported; Georgia, with minimum
subgroup of 75, or the greater of 40 students or 10 percent of students tested,
had 57% of schools with no disabilities subgroup reported; Ohio, with a minimum
subgroup of 45 for students with disabilities (30 for other subgroups), had 96%
of schools with no students with disabilities subgroup; and West Virginia, with
minimum subgroup of 50, had 80% of schools with no students with disabilities
subgroup. (Education Week, September 21, 2005.) Now, almost a year later and
with another set of proposed changes to accountability plans under
consideration, it remains difficult to determine from publicly available data
which states are truly holding schools and districts (and themselves)
accountable for high achievement for students with disabilities.
V. What are states doing to achieve the goal of all students to high standards?
How can you judge whether a state is committed to the goal of all students being successful when the system is not transparent? Here are some questions you can pose to judge for yourself.
A. WHAT DOES THE LEADERSHIP SAY AND DO? The state director of special education should be carrying the banner of specialized instruction, service, and supports so that all children with disabilities are learning the same challenging content to the same high levels as their enrolled grade peers. HOW students with disabilities learn to high levels may be different; WHAT they learn must be the same. Do you hear that language? Sometimes we hear code words for lower expectations, such as “these children” need a “special curriculum.” We have heard chief state school officers say a variation of “any fool” quote cited above, which as pointed out, we have data to disprove. Consider this quote from a state education chief, which undermines the legal definitions of eligibility in IDEA: “Students who appropriately meet the eligibility criteria for receipt of special education and related services are, by definition [sic, this particular leader’s definition, not the definition in law], unable to reach 100% proficiency.” In that state, determination of eligibility for IDEA services does not open the door to specialized instruction, services, and supports so that the student can achieve; eligibility for IDEA is a life sentence to low expectations and an alternate curriculum. Would you want that for your child?
Instead, you should see and hear state leaders support educators at all levels in bringing every learner to the content, using evidence-based teaching strategies to accelerate and scaffold the student’s learning in order to provide access in spite of the effects of the student’s disability. If schools, teachers, and students are struggling, there should be focused state-wide staff development and coaching to ensure every teacher and every child has the resources and tools needed to be successful.
The Education Trust has quotes from educators that illustrate what I mean. Here are a few that distinguish between different beliefs.
"I have difficulty with the standards because they're so
unattainable for so many of our students . . . We just don't have the same kids
they have on Long Island or Orchard Park.”
Superintendent, New York October 21, 2002, The Buffalo News
Compare that quote reflecting low expectations to the following quote:
“With proper instruction, students here can blow other kids away in the humanities. The more you challenge them, the better they'll do.” Dolores Edwards Sullivan, an English teacher in the predominantly African American Roosevelt school district, whose 11th graders are starting to earn higher marks on state Regents exams.
Then again, listen to the low expectations in the following:
"It is so inflexible. If any group of kids fails to meet
the standard, the whole school is labeled as failing.”
suburban superintendent (used to doing extremely well under old system of
averages)
Compare that to:
"At the end of the day, we are responsible for every
child. Will we do it? Certainly. Will we look good early on? I doubt it."
Superintendent, Wake County June 2, 2002 News and Observer (NC)
Blaming and excuse-making reflects a lack of commitment to the goal of success for all students. Realistic recognition of the challenges of changing ingrained attitudes and beliefs that all children cannot learn, development of strategies for success and systematic implementation of those strategies, and cheerleading by the leadership to spur change reflect the leadership our children require to be successful. We are five years into meaningful reform under NCLB, and for many students with disabilities, they have just begun to be given access to the challenging curriculum. We need to stay the course to overcome years of low expectations and limited opportunities.
B. WHAT DOES THE ASSESSMENT SYSTEM LOOK LIKE? The assessment system is the key building block of the accountability system. Do all the state assessment options support high standards for all students? You should see evidence of stakeholder involvement at all stages of development, documentation of how the state worked to build a system based on the highest expectations possible for your state’s children, including challenging content, clear participation and accommodations guidelines that push high expectations, rigorous achievement standards for both regular and alternate assessments, and thorough reporting of results for all subgroups. Standards and assessment peer review processes do not make judgments of how high the standards are set in a state system. Instead, state citizens must make those judgments, and they need transparency to be able to do so.
Do you see evidence of that involvement in your state system? Do you hear excuses for low level assessment options that have been developed with the rationale that “some children just can’t learn the challenging content” resulting in tests that ensure those children score well to improve school AYP calculations? If this has happened, has anyone asked whether “those children” have been taught the challenging content through research-based teaching methods that allow them to accelerate their learning in order to benefit from the grade-level curriculum to which they are entitled? Testing students on the curriculum they should be taught ensures they will be taught.
C. WHAT DOES THE ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM SUGGEST? Are there separate minimum n sizes for some subgroups under the guise that the numbers are “unstable?” Does independent review of those technical rationales corroborate that understanding? How have the minimum n or percentage rules affected how many schools are actually held accountable for students with disabilities? How do any new proposals affect all subgroups? These are complex issues, but why do some states require large “n” sizes, plus percentages, plus confidence intervals when other states simply protect the privacy of the student, and expect the schools to be transparent in their performance?
D. WHERE ARE THE SUCCESS STORIES AND WHY? WHERE STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES ARE NOT SUCCESSFUL, WHAT ARE THEIR LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES? In the past years, several public groups have conducted studies to find where students are beating the odds of low expectations. These focus on minority and low socioeconomic status students; they do not focus on students with disabilities. The Donahue Institute at the University of Massachusetts specifically looked for schools in Massachusetts where students with disabilities were performing at high levels. They found that “there is no single blueprint for advancing the achievement of students with special needs in socio-economically complex urban areas. However, to the extent that urban districts face a litany of common conditions and problems, the practices identified herein may be put to productive purpose in other districts, as well.” The list below reflects the common themes of practice that emerged from these urban schools where students with disabilities were doing well. You need to ask whether your districts and schools reflect these characteristics, in the context of your state system.
1. A Pervasive Emphasis on Curriculum Alignment with the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks
2. Effective Systems to Support Curriculum Alignment
3. Emphasis on Inclusion and Access to the Curriculum
4. Culture and Practices that Support High Standards and Student Achievement
5. A Well Disciplined Academic and Social Environment
6. Use of Student Assessment Data to Inform Decision-Making
7. Unified Practice Supported by Targeted Professional Development
8. Access to Resources to Support Key Initiatives
9. Effective Staff Recruitment, Retention, and Deployment
10. Flexible Leaders and Staff that Work Effectively in a Dynamic Environment
11. Effective Leadership is Essential to Success
E. WHAT DO DATA ON PERSISTENTLY LOW PERFORMING STUDENTS TELL US ABOUT OUR STATE, DISTRICTS, AND SCHOOLS?
In 2005, staff from NCIEA analyzed data from five states’ assessments. Their analyses also included a closer look at the student performance of two states by categories of disability. They found that on a grade 4 math test, special education students showed performance across the full range of scale scores; a significant number of general education students scored among the lowest three percent of students; the percent of special education students scoring proficient varied significantly across disability categories; and even within disability categories, the percent of students found to be proficient varied dramatically across states.
In summary, the lowest performing students are not all students with disabilities, and students with disabilities perform at all levels of achievement, with performance by category of disability varying dramatically from state to state.
In the fall of 2005, the Colorado Department of Education looked at results from two years of the Colorado Student Assessment Program (CSAP) tests in reading and math. The legislatively-mandated study (HB 05-1246) showed that not all of the lowest performers on the state assessment were students with IEPs, and that many were students without disabilities. Looking at growth over time for the lowest performing students, those with IEPs showed considerable increases in scores, at least for those they were able to match scores for across years. They followed up with site visits to schools where student with IEPs were achieving well versus those where they were not.
They found that schools with high achievement of students with disabilities were systematically supporting intensive, targeted, research-based instruction through training, resources, and other supports for teachers and students.
Ask these kinds of questions in your states. Do your state, districts, and schools know who, by student characteristics, are consistently low performing students, within and across districts? How do these data correlate with the opportunities students have to learn the challenging grade-level content? What training, resources, and other supports are there in these schools for teachers and students? Understanding the answers to these questions is essential for you to know whether your state, your district, your school is doing what it can to achieve the goal of high standards reached by all.
VI. One parent’s conclusion.
Should states, districts, and schools be held accountable for the learning of all students, including students with disabilities? YES!!! Lowering standards for some students cannot be the solution to the challenges educators face in helping them reach proficiency. We have ample research to show that educators do not have the ability to predict which students could learn if taught well. Our only option is to teach them all assuming they can succeed, and finding out whether they all do succeed after we have done all we can do. Pushing children out of the accountability system, or watering it down, is to leave them behind. The questions that I listed are a start for sorting out who really means all when they say all.
If state, district, or school leaders say that they cannot report assessment results for some group because of low numbers, or that they need additional flexibility, I would welcome a full and public report of precisely what opportunities they are providing to ensure that those learners are supported. Is their learning provided on scaffolds to lift them to the content, so that they are all appropriately instructed in their enrolled grade-level curriculum? I would expect to see detailed public reporting of precisely which children they are struggling to teach, by subgroup, and how that changes over time. Is it the same children year after year? Do we see movement in and out of these low-performing groups? How does that relate to their documented interventions and research based teaching? Remember, states like Colorado have analyzed what they call "persistently low-performing" students, and have found many of those students do not have disabilities. Who are these students, and why are they struggling? How would all of these children be affected by any proposed “flexibility?” How will they monitor the effects of this flexibility on these children’s opportunity to learn over time?
Do you recall a president who told us we must “trust but verify” during an important stage of delicate policy negotiations? This is yet another situation where that applies. Have schools in your state implemented systematic prevention and intervention strategies? Have they established progress monitoring procedures K-12 to ensure that not only the basic skills but the full range of the expected content is being taught well in ways all students can demonstrate proficiency? Have they used their IDEA and Title I funding wisely to support the specialized instruction, services, and supports so that the children are successful, or did they use IDEA categories to justify shunting children into a separate curriculum?
How do you know?
Public and transparent reporting of these complex issues, with independent verification, is an essential part of discussions about accountability systems. We are five short years into a robust implementation of a high expectation system for all children. At best, many students with disabilities have had just a few years to overcome many, many years of low expectations and separate curricular targets. Federal IDEA requirements focus on provision of specialized instruction, services, and supports so that students with disabilities achieve at high levels in the same challenging content as their same-grade peers. Students with disabilities may need varied methods in HOW they learn; WHAT they learn must be the same. NCLB requirements have ensured that schools are accountable for that learning, and it is essential for students with disabilities that the requirements of NCLB continue. Together, NCLB and IDEA can help ensure that all of our children succeed.
Oral Testimony provided to committee on July 12, 2006
Webcast of the committee hearing, July 12, 2006
WHO WE ARE | PUBLICATIONS | PRESENTATIONS | PROJECTS | RELATED SITES | STAFF | SITE MAP | SEARCH | WHAT'S NEW | NCEO HOME
SPECIAL TOPIC AREAS: ACCOMMODATIONS | ACCOUNTABILITY | ALTERNATE ASSESSMENTS | GRADUATION REQUIREMENTS | LEP STUDENTS | OUT-OF-LEVEL TESTING | PARTICIPATION | REPORTING | STANDARDS | UNIVERSAL DESIGN
National Center on Educational Outcomes Web
site: http://education.umn.edu/NCEO
© 2006 by the Regents of the University of Minnesota.
The University of Minnesota is an equal opportunity educator and employer.
Online Privacy Statement
This page was last updated on Friday, October 27, 2006.
This Web site is produced by the National Center on Educational Outcomes through a Cooperative Agreement (#H326G050007) with the Research to Practice Division, Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education. Additional support for targeted projects, including those on LEP students, is provided by other federal and state agencies. Opinions expressed in this Web site do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Department of Education or Offices within it.