ODDC-Improving Educational Outcomes for Students with Disabilities, May 17, 2004

ODDC Banner

TITLE: Improving Educational Outcomes for Students with Disabilities, May 17, 2004 http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2004/educationoutcomes.htm#execsumm

Author: National Council on Disability (Katherine Cargill-Willis 5/25/05)

Policies to Support Positive Outcomes for Students with Disabilities: The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA): Passed in 1975, IDEA requires states, districts, and schools to ensure that:

Children with disabilities ages 3 through 21 receive a free, appropriate public education, meeting their unique needs, regardless of type or severity of disability;
Children with disabilities are educated in the least restrictive environment possible;
Each student with a disability is to have an Individualized Education Program (IEP);
The 1997 reauthorization required students aged 14 and older to sit on their own IEP committee; and
Parents of students with disabilities have the right to notification, informed consent, due process, and involvement in key decisions about their child's eligibility, placement, IEPs, and other areas.

The 1997 reauthorization of IDEA: When IDEA was reauthorized in 1997, significant amendments were added to increase emphasis on student outcomes data, reduction of paperwork and procedural complexity, and to reduce or consolidate separately-funded research, training, and support programs. The law also included a stronger focus on transition from high school to postsecondary education or a career as part of their IEP. Since the reauthorization, students served have increased from 3.7 million to over 6.5 million and they are spending more time in inclusive classrooms; in 1997-98 46% of students with disabilities spent at least 80% of their day in a regular classroom, compared to 31% percent a decade earlier.

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act: This legislative act contains four basic education reform principles:

Stronger accountability for results- challenging state standards in reading, math and science; annual testing for all students in grades 3-8 and at least once in grades 10-12; and annual statewide progress objectives.
Increased flexibility and local control;
Expanded options for parents; and
Emphasis on teaching methods that have been proven to work.

The main difference between IDEA and NCLB is IDEA governs services provided to students with disabilities and provides individual accountability through IEPs based on individual needs.

Adequate Yearly Progress: States must bring all students up to the “proficient” level on state tests by 2013-14, and individual schools must meet a measure of adequate yearly progress targets in mathematics and reading or language arts. A school can still make AYP if a subgroup does not make AYP, only if the subgroup in question decreased in size by 10% from the previous year's percentage and makes progress on graduation rates or one other indicator designated by the state. Additionally, 95% of all students within a subgroup are required to take the assessment.

In December 2003, the Department of Education (DOE) offered the “one percent rule” allowing states to “develop and use alternate achievement standards for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities for the purpose of determining the AYP of states, local education agencies, and schools”. The Secretary of Education reserved the right to approve an exception for a specified period of time for a state, and the one percent cap does not pertain to individual schools to allow for flexibility, but only to districts and states. This rule took effect January 9, 2004 and will guide schools, districts and states for the current (2003-04) academic year.

Strong Public Support: Although there appears to be strong support for the principles behind NCLB, the public does not necessarily believe that a “test” is the best means to meet the goals of NCLB. Forty-two of the states surveyed agree that an accountability system based on content and performance standards would have a positive impact on student achievement, and 70% of the states believe that NCLB accountability requirements will help to raise student achievement.

IDEA Reauthorization and Alignment with NCLB: As Congress is reauthorizing IDEA, members are considering amendments to bring it and NCLB into greater alignment. The difference between IDEA and NCLB is how progress is measured. With IDEA an assessment is made by a committee to determine what is appropriate for the child. NCLB says you can do that as long as you meet AYP. Some believe now that children are in the classroom, IDEA needs to reflect more on what gets done for these students.

Perceived Impact of NCLB on Students with Disabilities: Overall, there is a general sense that NCLB can have, and is already having, a positive impact on most students with disabilities. However, the true impact of NCLB will depend on several factors, including the type of disability, how large the unintended consequences are from implementation of the law, how much support states, districts and schools provide for special education teachers and paraprofessionals to meet AYP.

Accountability: By including all students in the calculation of AYP, educators must concern themselves with the treatment and education of students with disabilities. IDEA has been the main legislative instrument to support the teaching and learning of students with disabilities, but NCLB, including all students in AYP calculation, provides the accountability mechanism to supplement the programs and regulations of IDEA.

Unintended Effects of NCLB: Under NCLB, states must determine the size of the subgroup populations that will be included in the measure of average yearly progress (AYP), and it appears that some states and districts are using the size determination to avoid measuring certain categories of students. There is a sentiment that AYP has created an unfair playing field for states that have historically provided proactive legislation and programs for students with disabilities and other subgroups.

Other topics in Section C; included Academics, Data, Increased Dialogue/Knowledge of Standard, Impact of NCLB on the High School Dropout Rate of Students with Disabilities, NCLB’s Impact on Expectations for Students with Disabilities, Professional Development and Highly Qualified Teachers, Achievement Standards, Accommodations, and Assessments.

Several studies suggest that many students with disabilities were being excluded from participation in standards-based curricula and assessments and thus received minimal or no benefit from reform efforts occurring in general education.

Evidence-Based Research and Practice: NCLB includes more than 100 references to “scientifically-based research.” States receiving NCLB funding and providing subgrants to local educational agencies must use the funding to implement a comprehensive school reform program that has been found, through scientifically based research, to significantly improve the academic achievement of students participating in such program as compared to students in schools who have not participated in such program.

Effective Evidence-Based Practices for Students with Disabilities: The use of evidence-based practices in special education is a new initiative, largely due to language authorized during the 1997 reauthorization of IDEA. Practitioners have difficulty finding practices that are based on rigorous evaluation methods, either through the use of random controlled trials or other experimental methods. Of 785 articles reviewed from 1976 to 1995 on students with significant disabilities, fewer than ten percent focused on cognitive/academic skills, instead they focused primarily on social skills and social inclusion.

Other topics included in Section D: Evidence-Based Practices to Reduce Dropout Rates for Students with Disabilities, Evidence-Based Practices in Transition, Evidence-Based Transition Strategies, Evidence-Based Research on Assessments and Accommodations, Turning research into practice for students with disabilities, and Removing barriers to adoption of evidence-based practices.

Fifty-seven percent of youth served under IDEA received a standard diploma and an additional 11% received an alternative credential when they left high school in 2000-2001. From the 300,000 IDEA youth who exited high school, 37% of students with disabilities entered some type of postsecondary education (compared to 78% for all high school graduates). Overall, of an estimated 428,280 students with disabilities were enrolled in colleges; almost half were diagnosed as learning disabled.
Recommendations:

Stay the Course: Congress should not back down on its commitment to helping students with disabilities achieve the same high standards as other students. Students with disabilities have been able to master rigorous curriculum and assessments, and given the necessary supports, these numbers should increase. Individualized needs of students with serious cognitive disabilities need to be recognized.
Capacity Building: General and special education teachers need to learn to team teach, to understand multiple and diverse learning styles, and methods for teaching heterogeneous groupings of students, using data and assessments as instructional management tools. Strong leadership is needed at both the district and school levels to set high expectations, change the culture, and manage the capacity-building process.
Highly Qualified Teachers: Schools and school districts need to encourage team teaching as well as the use of community resources to put a qualified individual in each classroom.
Better Assessment Tools: The Department of Education has an appropriate role to support research and development efforts to create a new generation of assessments that:

Are appropriate for the largest number of diverse students;
Measure more than academic skills;
Can be used more effectively as an instructional management tool; and
Result in a reduction in the number of students who take alternative assessments.

Support and Disseminate Evidence-Based Research and Practices: The Department of Education should bridge research efforts conducted by the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services and the Institute of Education Sciences, and it should support research to understand how to teach more academic rigor to students with disabilities and develop optimal assessment tools.
Supports for Students: Strategies for students to increase engagement in high school, reduce dropout rates, and increase preparation for postsecondary education and careers include higher expectations and goal setting, greater instructional personalization, self-advocacy, ongoing counseling and mentoring, parental involvement, and connections to the community and postsecondary learning options.

Return to the top of the page.