Re: IEPs, IDEA, and NCLB

["George K Cunningham" <gkc@louisville.edu>]

I won't claim total expertise, but I know a little about the subject. 
In addition, I am on a state committee in Kentucky that deals with these
subjects.  At a meeting last week this topic came up and I probed the
expert there with some of the same questions you have.

1.  IDEA is about inclusion so the underlying philosophy is that all
students should be included in testing and no students can be excluded.

2.  It is important to distinguish between accommodations and
modifications.  An accommodation is a alteration in a test or testing
procedure that does not change the underlying construct being measured. 
A modification is a change that alters the underlying construct being
measured.  The criteria used to distinguish between the two is whether a
non-disabled student would benefit.  For example allowing a visually
impaired student to use braille or giving test directions with sign
language for a hearing impaired student would be an accommodation rather
than a modification because non-disabled students would not benefit.  In
practice states tend to decide what sort of alterations they want to use
and call them accommodations and those they don''t want to use
modifications.

3.  NCLB allows 1 percent of students to take an alternative
assessment, which is usually some sort of portfolio.  More than the 1
percent can use this "modification," but only that 1 percent can count
towards the AYP.  This has been part of NCLB from the start. It is
intended to be used with severely developmentally disabled students.

4.  A new changes is to allow a state to create a modified assessment
and an additional 2 percent can count towards a state's AYP.   More
students can be given this assessment but any number over the 2 percent
will be counted as non-proficient.  

5.  In addition to this 3 percent, a student with an IEP can use any
test accommodations on the regular state tests that are specified in the
IEP.  These can be as minimal as more test taking time or as extreme as
what we do in Kentucky, which is have a teacher (called a reader) read
the reading passages on a reading comprehension test and have the
teacher (a scribe) write the answers down for open ended questions. 
This seems like a modification to me, but this is each state's call.  I
have written a bit about accommodations and no matter how extreme, they
will not solve the problem of high failure rates for special ed kids.


George K. Cunningham
Professor, Ret.

>>> campbellp@mail.montclair.edu 04/02/06 3:04 PM >>>
I'm not an expert in the realm of IEPs and IDEA and how they connect  
to NCLB, so I would greatly appreciate someone who is an expert to  
look at this message carefully and tell me if I understand this  
correctly.

I just read a disturbing document from the Federal Dept of Ed. It can 

be found at http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/speced/toolkit/faqs.doc 

What I found most relevant was the following: (1) the Feds figure  
that app. 10% of all students with disabilities can be categorized as 

having "severe cognitive disabilities" and (2) the Feds also figure  
that app. 20% of the learning disabled population "are not likely to  
achieve grade-level proficiency within the school year covered by the 

students' IEPs."

The documents I read all say that this 30% figure is based on  
research, yet I did see a single reference to any study or finding  
that shows this to be the case. So who knows where these numbers come 

from . . . Does anyone know?

The students with "severe cognitive disabilities" are to be given  
alternative assessments. Their proficient and advanced scores can be  
used to report AYP. But only 1% of these scores for the entire  
student population of the state or the district can be counted.  
According to the above document, "If more than 1.0 percent of  
proficient scores come from such assessments, then the state must  
establish procedures to count those scores as non-proficient for the  
purposes of school accountability." Translation? These kids above the 

1% threshold are reported as "not proficient," i.e., as failing the  
test.

The students who "are not likely to achieve grade-level proficiency  
within the school year covered by the students' IEPs" are to be given
 
"modified assessments." According to the document, states are to "(1) 

develop modified achievement standards, that is, standards that are  
aligned with the state's academic content standards for the grade in 

which a student is enrolled, but may reflect reduced breadth or depth 

of grade-level content, and (2) develop assessments to measure the  
achievement of students based on such modified achievement  
standards ." The proficient and advanced scores of these students can 

be used to report AYP. But only 2% of these scores for the entire  
student population of the state or the district can be counted. If  
more than 2% of proficient scores come from such assessments, then  
the state must establish procedures to count those scores as non- 
proficient for the purposes of school accountability." Translation?  
These kids above the 2% threshold are reported as "not proficient,"  
i.e., as failing the test.

According to the Feds, therefore, app. 30% of all students with  
learning disabilities who are given some kind of modification in  
their assessment can be counted towards AYP. However, the remaining  
70% of the population of all students with learning disabilities  
CANNOT be counted towards AYP if any modifications are made in their  
assessments. So 7 out of 10 kids with learning disabilities have to  
score proficient or advanced on the state test without any  
modifications in order to make AYP. If only 6 out of 10 score at the  
proficient or advanced level, the IEP subgroup fails to make AYP. And 

here come the sanctions . . .

Since this is the first year that all children in grades 3 - 8 will  
be taking their states' reading and math tests, there will be a  
greater number of students with learning disabilities taking the  
tests. The odds that 70% of them will score at the proficient or  
advanced level seems remote.

"Soft bigotry of low expectations" or "The Emperor has no clothes"?

Peter Campbell