Thank you, Chairman McKeon, Chairman Castle, Congressman Miller, and members of the Committee.
Our daughter Alma who has Down syndrome was born 31 years ago on this Friday, the year that P.L. 94-142 was passed, and the doors to the public school were opened to her. I am grateful for the opportunity to thank each of you for the support and leadership you and your predecessors have shown to ensure Alma and other students with disabilities have a free appropriate public education.
Although Congress has made it clear for almost a decade that this free appropriate education is to be based on high expectations and challenging standards, the IDEA 97 focus on access to and progress in the general curriculum was ignored by some educators. It took NCLB accountability to trigger profound shifts in access and opportunity to learn for students with disabilities in some schools, districts, and states.
I work at the National Center on Educational Outcomes assisting states in building strong assessment and accountability systems. We have been observing the shifts in access and achievement of students with disabilities for the past 16 years. In 1990, only 10% of students with disabilities participated in assessments in many states. Although IDEA 97 required including all in assessments, NCLB requirements finally brought participation rates up. We know that the children we measure get taught – so this change is extremely important and welcome.
Since 2003, we have tried to document how states are including students with disabilities in NCLB accountability systems. The picture is not always clear – often, publicly posted state accountability plans and actual state reports do not match. Thus, we have found it impossible to describe or verify state practices based on publicly available reporting. We know from research done by colleagues using modeling approaches that given many state accountability strategies, many students with disabilities have disappeared from school AYP calculations or public reporting.
Along with this murky view of current accountability practices, we hear grossly inaccurate statements about the purpose of IDEA, with educators and policymakers demonstrating erroneous beliefs that a student eligible for special education services could or even should be placed in a separate curriculum on a lower expectation track in the name of “individualization.” Even in state offices of special education, not all leaders seem to understand that Federal IDEA requirements, strengthened through the 2004 reauthorization, 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.
These erroneous assumptions underlie our discussions today. It is puzzling to hear this confusion given the plain and consistent 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.”
Disabilities may affect HOW a student learns but should not dramatically affect WHAT the student learns. We have research and practice tested methods to teach all children well, but we have not seen the commitment to do so in some states, districts, and schools.
How can you judge whether a state, district, or school 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? Blaming and excuse-making reflects a lack of commitment to the goal of success for all students. Instead, you should see and hear state leaders support, train, and EXPECT educators at all levels to bring 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. What do you see and hear in your states?
B. WHAT DOES THE ASSESSMENT SYSTEM LOOK LIKE? Do you see evidence of a commitment to high standards for all students in your state assessments? Testing students on the curriculum they should be taught ensures they will be taught.
C. WHAT DOES THE ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM SUGGEST? Why do some states require large “n” sizes and other strategies when other states protect the privacy of the student, but expect the schools to be transparent in their performance?
D. WHERE ARE THE SUCCESS STORIES AND WHY? Studies are showing that in schools with high achievement of students with disabilities they are systematically supporting intensive, targeted, research-based instruction through training, resources, and other supports for highly qualified teachers and their students. Is that happening in your state?
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.
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? Do they have highly qualified teachers providing varied instruction in the challenging content? 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 do they use IDEA categories to justify shunting children into a separate curriculum?
How do you know? We must “trust but verify” - public and transparent reporting of these complex issues, with independent verification, is an essential part of discussions about accountability systems.
We are five years into meaningful reform under NCLB. Many students with disabilities have just recently been given access to the challenging curriculum. We need to stay the course to overcome years of low expectations and limited opportunities. 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.
Written Testimony provided to committee prior to hearing
Webcast of the committee hearing, July 12, 2006