PART II: Citations Related to the Participation of Students with Disabilities in Large-Scale Assessments

PART II TITLE I CITATIONS:

Taken from Document:  Elementary & Secondary Education Act as Amended by the Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994, P.L. 103-382 (1994) (LAW)

·        “Each State plan shall demonstrate that the State has developed or adopted a set of high-quality, yearly student assessments… that will be used as the primary means of determining the yearly performance of each local educational agency and school served under this part in enabling all children served under this part to meet the State’s student performance standards.  Such assessments shall -- (A) be the same assessments used to measure the performance of all children, if the State measures the performance of all children; (B) be aligned with the State's challenging content and student performance standards and provide coherent information about student attainment of such standards; (C) be used for purposes for which such assessments are valid and reliable, and be consistent with relevant, nationally recognized professional and technical standards for such assessments; (D) measure the proficiency of students in the academic subjects in which  a State has adopted challenging content and student performance standards and be administered at some time during--(i) grades 3 through 5; (ii) grades 6 through 9; and (iii) grades 10 through 12; (E) involve multiple up-to-date measures of student performance, including measures that assess higher order thinking skills and understanding; (F)provide for - the participation in such assessments of all students …; (G) include students who have attended schools in a local educational agency for a full academic year but have not attended a single school for a full academic year, however the performance of students who have attended more than one school in the local educational agency in any academic year shall be used only in determining the progress of the local educational agency” (Sec. 1111 (b) (3))

Taken from Document:  Guidance on Standards, Assessments, and Accountability that supplements the Elementary & Secondary Education Act as Amended by the Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994, P.L. 103-382 (1997) (GUIDANCE)

·          “Assessments must meet the following requirements:  Be the same assessments used to measure the performance of all children, if the State measures the performance of all children…Provide for-participation in the assessments of all students in the grades being assessed” (II. Assessments, Statute and Regulations (Section 1111 (b)(3) and Regs. 200.1(b)(2) and 200.4, p. 2 of 16)

·          “If a State and/or LEA measures the performance of all children, such assessments must be used to measure the performance of children participating in Title I.  Moreover, children participating in Title I must be part of any accountability system the State establishes for all children.  Such assessments may be modified to accommodate LEP students and students with disabilities provided they meet standards of comparability.” (II.   Assessments, Question #17, p. 4 of 16)

·          “Students with disabilities must be included in State and local assessments.” (II.  Assessments, p. 10 of 16)

·          “Assessments for Title I purposes focus on whether the yearly performance of each LEA and school served under Title I is enabling all children served to meet the State’s student performance standards.  It is important that students with disabilities be included in these assessments because they are expected to meet the same standards as other students.” (II.  Assessments, Question #42, p. 10 of 16)

·          “Must students with disabilities be included in Title I assessments?  Yes.  Title I and Federal civil rights laws require the inclusion in assessments of all children, including children with disabilities, in the grades being assessed.  For a small number of students with disabilities, the severity of their physical or cognitive limitations prevents them from participating meaningfully in exactly the same assessments as other students, even with the availability of appropriate accommodations.  For this small population of students, appropriate alternatives should be used to assess their educational progress.” (II. Assessments, Question #44, p. 11 of 16)

·        “Which students may an LEA include to determine progress of a targeted assistance school?  Because adequate yearly progress is based primarily on the State’s final assessments, the universe of students is those in the grades included in those assessments.  Within this universe the LEA has three choices:  include performance of all students in the grade assessed who are currently being served by Title I and those that have been served previously by Title I; include performance of all students in the grades assessed who are currently being served by Title I; include performance of all students in the grade.” (III. Adequate Yearly Progress, Question #74, p. 5-6 of 7)

Taken from Document:  Peer Reviewer Guidance for Evaluating Evidence of Final assessments under Title I of the Elementary & Secondary Education Act, P.L. 103-382 (1999) (GUIDANCE)

·          “States should submit three types of documentation as evidence that they have met these requirements.  First, they should describe their analysis of the diverse learning needs of the entire student population (including contextual information such as the number of students with disabilities, the number of students needing accommodations, the languages spoken by students in the State, and the number of students in each language category) and the implications for making assessments accessible.  Second, they should document policies and strategies that they have implemented to ensure that all students are part of the assessment system.  Third, they should submit data on the percentage of students participating in the assessments, explanations for those who were not included, and strategies for including them in the future.” (Part IB.  Inclusion, Question #4, p. 15)

PART II IDEA CITATIONS:

Taken from Document:  Amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, P.L. 105-17 (1997) (LAW)

·          “Children with disabilities are included in general State and district-wide assessment programs, with appropriate accommodations, where necessary.” (Sec. 612 (a) (17) (A))¹

·          The requirements contained in section 612(a)(17) and paragraph (1)(A)(v) of this subsection (relating to participation of children with disabilities in general assessments) [do not apply to children with disabilities who are convicted as adults under State law and incarcerated in adult prisons]. Sec. 614 (6)(A)(i)

¹ Items from Section 612 are eligibility requirements for states to receive assistance under the Grants to States program.

Taken from Document:  Final Regulations for the Amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, P.L. 105-17 (1997) (REGULATIONS, WITH COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION)

·          “Children with disabilities are included in general State and district-wide assessment programs, with appropriate accommodations and modifications in administration, if necessary” (300.138 Participation in assessments, p. 12429)

·          “State and district-wide assessment programs are closely aligned with State and local accountability-based reform and restructuring initiatives.   Therefore, it is important to allow the flexibility needed for State and local school districts to appropriately include disabled children in State and district-wide assessment programs.  Only minimum requirements are included in these regulations for how public agencies provide for the participation of children with disabilities in State and district-wide assessments. “ (Participation in assessments, Discussion, p. 12564)

·          “The IDEA Amendments of 1997 place renewed emphasis on teaching children with disabilities to the general curriculum and ensuring that these children are included in State- and district-wide assessments of educational achievement.” (General LRE   Requirements, p. 12637)

PART III:  Citations Related to Accommodations, Modifications, and Alternate Assessments

 PART III TITLE I CITATIONS:

Taken from Document:  Elementary & Secondary Education Act as Amended by the Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994, P.L. 103-382  (1994) (LAW)

·          “Such assessments shall…provide for…the reasonable adaptations and accommodations for students with diverse learning needs, necessary to measure the achievement of such students relative to State content standards” (Sec. 1111 (b) (3) (F) (ii))

Taken from Document:  Guidance on Standards, Assessments, and Accountability that supplements the Elementary & Secondary Education Act as Amended by the Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994, P.L. 103-382 (1997) (GUIDANCE)

·          “Assessments must meet the following requirements:  Provide for-reasonable adaptations and accommodations for students with diverse learning needs necessary to measure the achievement of those students relative to the State’s standards” (II. Assessments, Statute and Regulations (Section 1111 (b)(3) and Regs. 200.1(b)(2) and 200.4, p. 2 of 16)

·          “Such assessments may be modified to accommodate LEP students and students with disabilities provided they meet standards of comparability.” (II.  Assessments, Question #17, p. 4 of 16)

·          “A State plan can demonstrate that the State has high-quality assessments in some or all the following ways:…The plan describes the technical quality of accommodated or adapted versions of assessments.” (II.  Assessments, Question #20, p. 4 of 16)

·           “What assessment accommodations may be provided for students with disabilities?  Students with disabilities must be provided with appropriate accommodations when necessary to enable participation in the assessments.  Assessment accommodations include changes in the way assessment items are presented, changes in the way a student may respond, changes in the timing or scheduling of an assessment, and changes in the setting that are used to provide an equal footing for students with disabilities who need accommodations.  Assessment accommodations help students show what they know without being placed at a disadvantage by their disability.” (II.  Assessments, Question #45, p. 11 of 16)

·          “Who decides which students with disabilities get assessment accommodations, and how is this decided?  There are no specific Title I regulations that indicate who is to make the decision about which students with disabilities require assessment accommodations during assessments, nor about how the decision is to be made.  Current practice in most States with statewide assessments is to have the student’s Individualized Education Program (IEP) team make the decision about the assessment accommodations that the student needs during assessment.  If a student’s IEP states the assessment accommodations that the student is to receive, then these accommodations must be provided.  Some States, however, have other mechanisms in place for deciding about the use of accommodations.  For best testing practice, it is generally recommended that the decision about the use of accommodations be made by a person or a group of people who knows the student.  Typically, this is assumed to be the IEP team or a group that knows the child as is the case of a child covered by Section 504 that must receive individualized appropriate education but does not have an IEP.  These decisions are to be made on the basis of individual student characteristics and needs, not on the basis of labels (such as category of disability).  In determining which students require accommodations during Title I assessments, it is important to be aware of the role of accommodations in instruction and in assessment.  Although there are exceptions, it is generally held that the accommodations students receive during instruction are the accommodations that they should receive during assessment.”  (II. Assessments, Question #46, p. 11 of 16)   

·          “How do I know which accommodations may affect the validity of assessments?   There are many questions about which accommodations preserve the reliability of test scores and the validity of inferences (whether the test measures the same content standards in the accommodated and non-accommodated versions) based on these scores…In some cases, decisions on allowable accommodations can be based on some logical assumptions about the purpose of the test.  For example, a measure of silent reading comprehension could be invalidated by reading the test items to the student.  On the other hand, providing a quiet setting for highly distractible students could hardly be seen as compromising the test’s validity.” (II.  Assessments, Question #47, pp. 11-12 of 16)

Taken from Document:  Peer Reviewer Guidance for Evaluating Evidence of Final assessments under Title I of the Elementary & Secondary Education Act, P.L. 103-382 (1999) (GUIDANCE)

·        “Decisions on the types of assessment accommodations or adaptations provided to a student with disabilities, or the decision to use an alternate assessment, should follow standard State guidelines that are consistent with IDEA requirements…For some students with disabilities the appropriate law is the reauthorized 1997 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).  Other students with disabilities who are evaluated and determined to be ineligible for special education and related services under IDEA are provided reasonable accommodations in accordance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504), as amended.” (PartIB.  Inclusion, p. 13)

·          “The student who meets the Section 504 definition of disability must be provided reasonable accommodations, which can include special education and related services if determined appropriate by the Section 504 placement team.  Decisions on the types of assessment accommodations or adaptations provided to a student under Section 504 should be documented in the student’s IEP (if the parent and school placement team have agreed upon the IEP option) or 504 Plan, and they should be closely related to procedures used in the student’s instruction.” (PartIB.  Inclusion, p. 14)

Taken from Document:  Letter and attachment (Summary Guidance on the Inclusion Requirement for Title I Final Assessments) from Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education Mike Cohen - April 7, 2000 (GUIDANCE)

·          “Individualized education program (IEP) teams or section 504 placement teams are responsible for determining whether a student is able to participate in the standard assessment, and if so, what (if any) accommodations are appropriate.  The State’s obligation is to provide reasonable accommodations necessary to validly measure the achievement of students with disabilities relative to State standards.  In those infrequent cases when an IEP team or section 504 team determines that standard assessments, even with reasonable accommodations, do not provide a student with an opportunity to demonstrate her or his knowledge and skills, then the State or school district must provide an alternate assessment.”  (Attachment on Summary Guidance, p. 2)

·          “Each State must have a comprehensive policy governing the use of testing accommodations.  While it is important that school and district officials have some flexibility in choosing accommodations, States must develop policies to ensure that local officials use accommodations appropriately and consistently, based on the needs of individual students.  Moreover, States must ensure consistency and appropriateness in the use of accommodations through technical assistance, monitoring and data collection.   A comprehensive State policy is one that makes clear (a) the range of accommodations local officials may use, (b) for what type of student and under what conditions each accommodation may be used, (c) instructions for the proper use of each accommodation, and (d) reporting requirements to enable the State to track and evaluate the use of accommodations.”   (Attachment on Summary Guidance, p. 3)

·          “For students with disabilities whose IEP or Section 504 placement teams have determined that the standard state assessment would not appropriately show what those students know and are able to do, each State must have a Statewide alternate assessment system or a comprehensive State policy governing locally developed alternate assessments.  Alternate assessments must be valid, reliable, and, to the maximum extent appropriate, aligned to State content and performance standards.” (Attachment on Summary Guidance, p. 3)

PART III IDEA CITATIONS:

Taken from Document:  Amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, P.L. 105-17 (1997) (LAW)

·          “Children with disabilities are included in general State and district-wide assessment programs, with appropriate accommodations, where necessary.” (Sec. 612 (a) (17) (A))

·          “As appropriate, the State or local educational agency-develops guidelines for the participation of children with disabilities in alternate assessments for those children who cannot participate in State and district-wide assessment programs;” (Sec. 612 (a) (18) (A) (i))

·          “The term ‘individualized education program’ or ‘IEP’ means a written statement for each child with a disability that is developed, reviewed, and revised in accordance with this section and that includes…a statement of any individual modifications in the administration of State or district wide assessments of student achievement that are needed in order for the child to participate in such assessment; and if the IEP Team determines that the child will not participate in a particular State or districtwide assessment of student achievement (or part of such an assessment), a statement of -why that assessment is not appropriate for the child; and how the child will be assessed” (Sec. 614 (d) (1) (A) (vI) (II) (aa) (bb)

Taken from Document:  Final Regulations for the Amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, P.L. 105-17 (1997) (REGULATIONS, WITH COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION)

·          “The parents of a child with a disability are expected to be equal participants along with school personnel….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” (II.  Involvement of Parents and Students, Question #5, p. 12473)

·          “The IEP meeting serves as a communication vehicle between parents and school personnel, and enables them, as equal participants, to make joint, informed decisions regarding…the extent to which the child will be involved in the general curriculum and participate in the regular education environment and State and district-wide assessments; and services needed to support that involvement and participation and to achieve agreed-upon goals.” (II.  Involvement of Parents and Students, Question #9, p. 12473) 

·          If IEP teams properly make individualized decisions about the participation of each child with a disability in general State or district-wide assessments, including the use of appropriate accommodations, and modifications in administration (including individual modifications, as appropriate), it should be necessary to use alternate assessments for a relatively small percentage of children with disabilities. “(Participation in assessments, Discussion, p. 12564)

·          “Section 300.138 requires the State or LEAs, as appropriate, to develop alternate assessments and guidelines for the participation of children with disabilities in alternate assessments for those children who cannot participate in State and district-wide assessment programs.  Alternate assessments need 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(Participation in assessments, Discussion, p. 12564-12565)

·          As part of each State’s general supervision responsibility under 300.600, it must ensure the appropriate use of modifications in the administration of State and district-wide assessments.” (Participation in assessments, Discussion, p. 12565)

·          “…that out of level testing will be considered a modified administration of a test rather than an alternative test and as such should be reported as performance at grade level at which the child is placed unless such reporting would be statistically inappropriate.” (Participation in assessments, Discussion, p. 12565)

·          “If the individual modifications necessary for a child to participate in the assessment are not known at the time of the IEP meeting, it would be necessary for a subsequent meeting to be conducted early enough to ensure that any necessary modifications are in place at the time the assessment is administered. (Content of IEP, Discussion, p. 12593)

·          “The IDEA Amendments of 1997 require that all children with disabilities be included in general State and district-wide assessment programs, with appropriate accommodations, where necessary.  In some cases, alternate assessments may be necessary, depending on the needs of the child and not the category or severity of the child’s disability.”  (Content of IEP, Discussion, p. 12593-12594)

PART IV: Citations Related to Accountability, Use of Data, and Reporting

PART IV TITLE I CITATIONS:

Taken from Document:  Elementary & Secondary Education Act as Amended by the Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994, P.L. 103-382 (1994) (LAW)

·          Each State plan shall demonstrate, based on assessments described under paragraph (3), what constitutes adequate yearly progress of--
``(i) any school served under this part toward enabling children to meet the State's student performance standards; and
``(ii) any local educational agency that received funds under this part toward enabling children in schools receiving assistance under this part to meet the State's student performance standards.
``(B) Adequate yearly progress shall be defined in a manner--
``(i) that is consistent with guidelines established by the Secretary that result in continuous and substantial yearly improvement of each local educational agency and school sufficient to achieve the goal of all children served under this part meeting the State's proficient and advanced levels of performance, particularly economically disadvantaged and limited English proficient children; and
``(ii) that links progress primarily to performance on the assessments carried out under this section while permitting progress to be established in part through the use of other measures.” (Sec. 1111 (b) (A) (ii))

·          “[Such assessments shall…]enable results to be disaggregated within each State, local educational agency, and school by….students with disabilities as compared to nondisabled students” (Sec. 1111 (b) (3) (I))

·          Each local educational agency receiving funds under this part shall--“ “…publicize and disseminate to teachers and other staff, parents, students, and the community, the results of the annual review under paragraph (2) of all schools served under this part in individual school performance profiles that include statistically sound disaggregated results as required by section 1111 (b) (3) (I)[which specifies students with disabilities]; and provide the results of the local annual review to schools so that the schools can continually refine the program of instruction to help all children served under this part in those schools meet the State’s student performance standards” (Sec. 1116 (a) (3) (4))

·          “A State educational agency shall--…publicize and disseminate to local educational agencies, teachers and other staff, parents, students, and the community the results of the State review, including statistically sound disaggregated results, as required by section 1111(b) (3) (I)” [which states “…enable results to be disaggregated within each State, local educational agency, and school by…students with disabilities as compared to nondisabled students”] (Sec. 1116 (d) (1) (B))

Taken from Document:  Guidance on Standards, Assessments, and Accountability that supplements the Elementary & Secondary Education Act as Amended by the Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994, P.L. 103-382 (1997) (GUIDANCE)

·          “local educational agencies (LEAs) and schools receiving Title I funds will be held accountable for ensuring that all children meet the State’s challenging content and student performance standards” (Overview of Major Provisions, p. 3 of 4)

·          “Assessments must meet the following requirements:…Provide individual student interpretive and descriptive reports that include individual scores or other information on the attainment of student performance standards.” (II. Assessments, Statute and Regulations (Section 1111 (b)(3) and Regs. 200.1(b)(2) and 200.4, p. 2 of 16)

·          “Assessments must meet the following requirements:…Enable results to be disaggregated within each State, LEA, and school by…students with disabilities as compared to students without disabilities” (II. Assessments, Statute and Regulations (Section 1111 (b)(3) and Regs. 200.1(b)(2) and 200.4, p. 2 of 16)

·          “Moreover, children participating in Title I must be part of any accountability system the State establishes for all children.” (II.  Assessments, Question #17, p. 4 of 16)

·          “…Therefore, we encourage States to set rigorous definitions of adequate yearly progress to hold LEAs and schools accountable for ensuring that the lowest-achieving children—be they economically disadvantaged, limited-English proficient, or other special populations—are making continuous and substantial progress.”  (III.  Adequate Yearly Progress, Question #78, p. 6 of 7)

·          “…the definition of adequate yearly progress must be based primarily on the State’s assessment system.  The law allows the use of additional indicators of school success such as attendance, retention, and promotion rates.”  (III. Adequate Yearly Progress, Question #80, p. 7 of 7, Restated IV.  Transitional Assessments, Question #95, p.4 of 4)

·          “The requirement for disaggregation applies only to the final assessment [referring to transitional assessments].  However, States, LEAs, and schools may wish to use this information, as available, in planning programs and to assist schools or LEAs that are in need of improvement  This may be particularly relevant for targeted assistance schools when data for all students are used to measure the progress of the school.” (IV.   Transitional Assessments, Question #91, p. 3 of 4)

·          “Information about academic progress should be carefully evaluated so that the whole system has credibility to LEAs, schools, parents, and students and is perceived as useful and fair in raising standards for every child.” (IV.  Transitional Assessments, Question #94, p. 4 of 4)

·          “The new Title I is designed to strengthen the program improvement requirements of the 1988 law and ensure even greater school and district accountability for high performance of their students.  It does this in a number of ways:  First, as described above, linking Title I accountability to the challenging State standards and assessments that apply to all children in a State is the major strategy to promote high expectations for all children and a culture of accountability and improvement for all Federal programs…Third, Title I establishes, for the first time, that LEAs will also be held accountable for their performance.  Like schools, districts may be rewarded for performance gains of their Title I schools and be subject to sanctions by their States for continuous low performance.  Districts are included in Title I accountability because they are a critical link in the Title I chain….Whether a district effectively carries out its new roles will significantly affect the ability of Title I schools to enable all students to make progress toward meeting challenging State standards” (V.  Accountability and Improvements, p. 1 of 8)

·          “Focusing an accountability system on schools is driven by the belief that as long as schools understand their responsibility to serve every child and expect every child to learn, a strategy for improving schools can most effectively lift the achievement levels of all children.” (V.  Accountability and Improvements, p. 1 of 8)

·          “In conducting its review, an LEA shall:…use the State assessments described in the State plan; and use any additional measures or indicators described in the LEA’s plan; …disaggregate the results of…students with disabilities as compared to students without disabilities…” (V.  Accountability and Improvements, Statute Sec. 116 and Regs 200.5 and 200.6, p. 2 of 8)

·          “The LEA shall publicize and disseminate to parents, teachers and other staff, students, the community and administrators, including principals, the results of the annual review of all schools in individual school performance profiles; and provide results of the annual review to schools, so that they can continually refine the program of instruction to help all participating children meet the State’s student performance standards.” (V.  Accountability and Improvements, Statute Sec. 116 and Regs 200.5 and 200.6, p. 2 of 8)

·          “…an SEA shall:  Disaggregate the results of the review; Consider other indicators, if applicable; and Report disaggregated data to the public only when those data are statistically sound.  The LEA shall publicize and disseminate to LEAs, teachers, and other staff, parents, students, the community, and administrators, including principals, the results of the State review.” (V.  Accountability and Improvements, Statute Sec. 116 and Regs 200.5 and 200.6, p. 5 of 8)

Taken from Document:  Peer Reviewer Guidance for Evaluating Evidence of Final assessments under Title I of the Elementary & Secondary Education Act, P.L. 103-382 (1999) (GUIDANCE)

·          “Raising academic standards for all students and measuring student performance to hold schools accountable for educational progress are central strategies for promoting educational excellence and equity in our schools.”  (p.2)

·          “The intent of these requirements is to help States develop comprehensive assessment systems that provide accurate and valid information for holding districts and schools accountable for student performance against State standards.” (p. 2)

·          “Assessment results must be disaggregated within each school and district by…students with disabilities as compared to students without disabilities…Disaggregated data must be included in annual school profiles.  The assessment system must provide individual student interpretive and descriptive reports that include individual scores or other information on the attainment of student performance standards.” (p. 4)

·          “In determining the progress of schools, States must include scores of all students assessed who have attended the school for at least a full academic year.” (p. 4)

·        “ …schools and districts know how well all of their students are doing in relation to a common set of State standards so that schools and districts can be held accountable and make improvements.” (PartIA.  Content, Grade Levels, and Administration, p. 6)

·          “The purpose of this requirement [referring to disaggregation of students with disabilities’ results] is to ensure that the progress of all student populations is annually and systematically monitored.  This is a critical step in ensuring that all students are meeting challenging standards.  “(Part III.   Reporting and Using Assessment Results in Accountability, p. 48)

·          “States are required to provide State assessment data that are disaggregated for a variety of student subgroups in all schools and LEAs…These data must be included in a public report on school progress that can be produced either by the State or by the school district.” (Part III.  Reporting and Using Assessment Results in Accountability, p. 48)

·          “The law requires that the profiles--…include statistically sound data disaggregated by the groups listed in “F” above [includes Disabled]; and be publicized and disseminated to teachers and other staff, and to parents, students and the community.  The law also permits LEAs to include other appropriate information in the profiles, such as data on teachers’ qualifications; class size; and attendance, promotion rates and retention rates.” Part III.  Reporting and Using Assessment Results in Accountability, pp. 50-51)

·          “These measures for AYP must be primarily based on the State assessment, though the use of other indicators of school performance, including non-academic factors such as attendance rates or graduation rates, is also permitted.” (Part III.  Reporting and Using Assessment Results in Accountability, p. 52)

Taken from Document:  Letter and attachment (Summary Guidance on the Inclusion Requirement for Title I Final Assessments) from Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education Mike Cohen - April 7, 2000 (GUIDANCE)

·          “Statewide assessment systems must satisfy statutory requirements for technical quality, alignment, and disaggregated reporting of results (among other requirements).”  (Attachment on Summary Guidance, p. 1)

·          “Whatever assessment approach is taken [referring to standard assessment, assessment with accommodations, or alternate assessment], the scores of students with disabilities must be included in the assessment system for purposes of public reporting and school and district accountability.”  (Attachment on Summary Guidance, p. 2)

·          “In addition, States must monitor and collect data from school districts to ensure the proper use of alternate assessments; . . . and they must integrate the results of alternate assessments into their accountability systems.” (Attachment on Summary Guidance, p. 3)

·          “Each State must include in its accountability system all students in the grades being assessed.  State assessment systems must assign a score, for accountability purposes, to every student who has attended school within a single school district for a full academic year.  If a student has attended multiple schools within a district during a single academic year, the student’s score shall be used only for purposes of district (not school) accountability. “ (Attachment on Summary Guidance, p. 3)

·          “In their submissions of evidence, States must explain how scores from alternate assessments are integrated into their accountability systems.  Furthermore, assessment results for LEP students and students with disabilities must be disaggregated and reported publicly.” (Attachment on Summary Guidance, p. 3) 

PART IV IDEA CITATIONS:

Taken from Document:  Amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, P.L. 105-17 (1997) (LAW)

·          [The State--…]“will, every two years,  report to the Secretary and the public on the progress of the State, and of children with disabilities in the State, toward meeting the goals established under subparagraph (a) of this section [subparagraph (A) states “[The State]-has established goals for the performance of children with disabilities in the State that-…are consistent, to the maximum extent appropriate, with other goals and standards for children established by the State;”]; and based on its assessment of that progress, will revise its State improvement plan under subpart 1 of Part D [refers to a 2 page section on State Improvement Grants for Children with Disabilities, in which a section states “maintain high academic standards and clear performance goals for children with disabilities, consistent with the standards and expectations for all students in the educational system, and provide for appropriate and effective strategies and methods to ensure that students who are children with disabilities have maximum opportunities to achieve those standards and goals” Sec. 651 (a) (6) (A)]of the Act as may be needed to improve its performance, if the State receives assistance under that subpart.” (Sec. 612 (a) (16) (D))

·          “The State educational agency makes available to the public, and reports to the public with the same frequency and in the same detail as it reports on the assessment of nondisabled children, the following:  the number of children with disabilities participating in regular assessments.  The number of those children participating in alternate assessments.  The performance of those children on regular assessments (beginning not later than July 1, 1998) and on alternate assessments (not later than July 1, 2000), if doing so would be statistically sound and would not result in the disclosure of performance results identifiable to individual children” (Sec. 612 (a) (17) (B) (i) (ii) (iii) (I)

·          “INFORMATION FOR STATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY.-The local educational agency shall provide the State educational agency with information necessary to enable the State educational agency to carry out its duties under this part, including, with respect to paragraphs (16) and (17) of section 612(a), information relating to the performance of children with disabilities participating in programs  carried out under this part.” (Sec. 613 (a) (6))

Taken from Document:  Final Regulations for the Amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, P.L. 105-17 (1997) (REGULATIONS, WITH COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION)

·          “In implementing the requirements of §300.138, the SEA shall make available to the public, and report to the public with the same frequency and in the same detail as it reports on the assessment of nondisabled children, the following information:  The number of children with disabilities participating-in regular assessments; and in alternate assessments.  The performance results of the children described in paragraph (a) (1) of this section if doing so would be statistically sound and would not result in the disclosure of performance results identifiable to individual children-On regular assessments (beginning not later than July 1, 1998); and On alternate assessments (not later than July 1, 2000)..” (300.139 Reports relating to assessments (a) (1, 2) (i) (ii)

·          “Reports to the public under paragraph (a) of this section must include-Aggregated data that include the performance of children with disabilities together with all other children; and Disaggregated data on the performance of children with disabilities.  (300.139 Reports relating to assessments (b) (1, 2), p. 12429)

·          Data relating to the performance of children described under paragraph (a) (2) of this section must be disaggregated-For assessments conducted after July 1, 1998; and For assessments conducted before July 1, 1998, if the State is required to disaggregate the data prior to July 1, 1998. (300.139, Reports relating to assessments (C) (1, 2), p. 12429)

·          “…an LEA may carry out activities that include-Improving the effectiveness and efficiency of service delivery, including developing strategies that promote accountability for results” (300.244 Coordinated services system (b) (1), p. 12435)

·          “In developing each child’s IEP, the IEP team, shall consider-…As appropriate, the results of the child’s performance on any general State or district-wide assessment programs.” (300.346 Development, review, and revision of IEP (a) (iii), p. 12441)

·           “Further, §300.347(a)(7) sets forth new requirements for regularly informing parents about their child’s educational progress, as regularly as parents of nondisabled children are informed of their child’s progress… One method that public agencies could use in   meeting this requirement would be to provide periodic report cards to the parents of students with disabilities that include both the grading information provided for all children in the agency at the same intervals; and the specific information required by §300.347(a)(7)(ii)(A) and (B)” (II.   Involvement of Parents and Students, Question #10, p. 12474)

·           Part B of the Act does not require that any agency, teacher, or other person be held accountable if a child does not achieve the growth projected in the annual goals and benchmarks or objectives. However, the Act does not prohibit a State or public agency from establishing its own accountability systems regarding teacher, school, or agency performance. (Sec. 300.350 IEP--accountability (b) p. 12443)

·          “…it is important that the parents, participating in decisions made in developing their child’s IEP-including decisions about their child’s educational program (e.g., the types of courses the child will take) and the child’s participation in State and district-wide high stakes assessments-understand the implications of those decisions for their child’s future eligibility for graduation with a regular diploma.” (Exception to FAPE for Certain Ages, Discussion, p. 12556) 

·          “In order to ensure that students with disabilities are fully included in the accountability benefits of State and district-wide assessments, it is important that the State include results for children with disabilities whenever the State reports results for other children.  When a State reports data about State or district-wide assessments at the district or school level for nondisabled children, it also must do the same for children with disabilities.” (Reports Relating to Assessment, Discussion, p. 12565)

·           “Section 300.139 requires that each State aggregate the results of children who participate in alternate assessments with results for children who participate in the general assessment, unless it would be inappropriate to aggregate such scores.  Section 300.139 and the Act neither require nor prohibit States from disaggregating assessment results by disability category in reporting results to the public; this is a matter that should be left to the discretion of each State…  The proposed note clarified that §300.139(b) requires a public agency to report aggregated data that include children with disabilities, but that a public agency is not precluded from also analyzing and reporting data in other ways (such as, maintaining a trendline that was established prior to including children with disabilities in those assessments)”. (Reports Relating to Assessment, Discussion, p. 12565)

·          “It is important that the statement of a child’s present levels of educational performance be based on current, relevant information about the child, that is obtained from a variety of sources, including…assessment results from State and district-wide assessments”  (Content of IEP, Discussion,  p. 12592)

·          “Therefore, a State could elect to ensure that report cards used for children with disabilities contain information about each child’s progress toward meeting the child’s IEP goals, as suggested by commenters, but would not be required to do so.  With respect to the frequency of reporting, the statute and regulations are both clear that the parents of a child with a disability must be regularly informed of their child’s progress at least as often as parents are informed of their nondisabled children’s progress.” (Content of IEP, Discussion, p. 12594)

·          “Generally, reports to parents are not expected to be lengthy or burdensome.   The statement of the annual goals and short term objectives or benchmarks in the child’s current IEP could serve as the base document for briefly describing the child’s progress.” (Content of IEP, Discussion, p. 12594)

·          “…one consequence of heightened accountability expectations may be unwarranted decisions to remove children with disabilities from regular classrooms so as to avoid accountability for their educational performance, the regulations should make clear that the type or extent of the modifications that the child needs to the general curriculum not be used to inappropriately justify the child’s removal from education in regular, age-appropriate classrooms …solely because of the modifications he or she needs to the general curriculum.  This provision should not be read to require the placement of a child with a disability in a particular regular classroom or course if more than one regular age-appropriate classroom or course is available in a particular grade or subject.” (General LRE Requirements, Discussion, p. 12637)

PART V: Citations Related to Standards, Goals, and Performance Indicators

PART V TITLE I CITATIONS:

Taken from Document:  Elementary & Secondary Education Act as Amended by the Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994, P.L. 103-382 (1994) (LAW)

·          “If a State has State content standards or State student performance standards developed under title III of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act and an aligned set of assessments for all students developed under such title, or, if not developed under such title, adopted under another process, the State shall use such standards and assessments, modified, if necessary…”  (Sec. 1111 (b) (1) (B))

·          “If a state has not adopted State content standards and State student performance standards for all students, the State plan shall include a strategy and schedule for developing State content standards and State student performance standards for elementary and secondary school children served under this part in subjects as determined by the State, but including at least mathematics and reading or language arts by the end of the one-year period described in paragraph (6), which standards shall include the same knowledge, skills, and levels of performance expected of all children.” (Sec. 1111 (b) (1) (C))

·          “The State educational agency shall approve a local educational agency’s plan only if the State educational agency determines that the local educational agency’s plan will enable schools served under this part to substantially help all children served under this part meet the standards expected of all children described in section 1111 (b) (1) ” (Sec. 1112 (e) (2))

·          “[Each local educational agency receiving funds under this part shall…] provide the results of the local annual review to schools so that the schools can continually refine the program of instruction to help all children served under this part in those schools meet the State’s student performance standards” (Sec. 1116 (a) (4))

·          “Each State shall designate as a distinguished school…any school in which.virtually all students have met the State’s advanced level of student performance” (Sec. 1117 (C) (2) (A) (i))

·          “…each local educational agency receiving assistance under this part shall provide high-quality professional development that will improve the teaching of the academic subjects, consistent with the State content standards, in order to enable all children to meet the State’s student performance standards.” (Sec. 1119 (a) (1))

·          “…The Secretary shall conduct a national assessment of programs assisted under this title…the assessment shall examine how well schools, local educational agencies, and States are—progressing toward the goal of all children served under this title reaching the State’s challenging State content standards and challenging State student performance standards…promoting schoolwide reform and access for all children served under this title to effective instructional strategies and challenging academic content…” (Sec. 1501 (a) (2) (A)(B) (iii))

Taken from Document:  Guidance on Standards, Assessments, and Accountability that supplements the Elementary & Secondary Education Act as Amended by the Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994, P.L. 103-382 (1997) (GUIDANCE)

·          “By the beginning of the 1997-98 school year, States will develop or adopt challenging State content standards, in at least reading and math, which specify what all children are expected to know and be able to do, and challenging performance standards which show the level children will be expected to attain in mastering the material in the content standards.  To ensure high expectations, States that have developed or adopted standards for all children must use them for Title I purposes.  Only in their absence will States develop or adopt challenging standards for Title I.” (Overview of Major Provisions, p. 1 of 4, refers to Sec. 1111(b)(1) and Regs.200.1(b) (1))

·          “Education leaders and the general public agree that there must be challenging content and student performance standards for every child.  All children should receive instruction both in rich and challenging curricula and the basic skills and benefit from effective assessments that probe their ability to think and solve problems. (Overview of Major Provisions, Introduction, p. 2 of 4)

·          “Operationally, this means—challenging content and student performance standards…will be expected to be achieved by all students.” (Overview of Major Provisions, p. 3 of 4)

·          “The emphasis on challenging content and student performance standards for all children provides a clear goal for the new Title I law:  to enable children served by Title I to meet the challenging standards established by the State for all its children.  States, districts, and schools are called on to break with past practice by replacing minimum standards for some children with challenging standards for all…States that have developed content and performance standards that apply to all children must also use them for Title I purposes.” (I. Content and Performance Standards, Introduction, p. 1 of 8)

·          “Will the standards help raise expectations for all students, particularly…students with limited English proficiency, disabilities, or other special needs?…A State may wish to include in its plan information that responds to these questions.  A number of groups have already developed criteria for determining whether a set of content standards is challenging and of high quality. “ (I. Content and Performance Standards, Question #4, p. 3 of 8)

·          “All children are expected to achieve the proficient and advanced categories of performance.” (I. Content and Performance Standards, Question #5, p. 4 of 8)

·          “What does it mean to say that standards apply to all children?  Whether standards apply statewide or districtwide, all students within that State or district must be held to the same challenging standards.  In other words, All students, including…students with diverse learning needs, are expected to learn the same general high-quality content, rather than a separate curriculum for certain students, although a wide range of instructional methods and strategies could be used.  All students are held to the same high standards of performance, regardless of the assessment instrument used.  Students can and will vary in their performance levels - some students will learn more than others.  However, the performance levels all students need to reach in order to ‘meet the standard’ will be set much higher than at present.” (I. Content and Performance Standards, Questions #12, p. 7 of 8)

·           “A key component of Title I is a high-quality assessment system aligned with the State’s content and performance standards that helps to ensure that the performance expected of children in Title I schools is the same as that expected of all children.”  (II. Assessments, p. 1 of 16, Restated II. Assessments, p. 12 of 16)

·          “Title I requires that content and performance standards apply to  all participating students…”  (II.  Assessments, Question #34, p. 9 of 16)

·          “What if assessments being used to measure the performance of all students do not measure what students with disabilities are currently learning in their programs?   While some students with disabilities may need modified instructional approaches, generally all students need to be working toward the same challenging standards.” (II.  Assessments, Question #43, p. 10 of 16)

Taken from Document:  Peer Reviewer Guidance for Evaluating Evidence of Final assessments under Title I of the Elementary & Secondary Education Act, P.L. 103-382 (1999) (GUIDANCE)

·          “The purposes of these requirements are 1) to ensure that all students are held to the same high standards and appropriately assessed against those standards; and 2) to ensure that the indicators used to hold schools accountable include performance data on all students in the grades being assessed.  States are responsible for assessing all such students relative to proficiency on the State’s content and performance standards in mathematics and reading/language arts.  States must show how they use a variety of strategies to make certain that all students participate in the assessment system.  These strategies may include appropriate accommodations, alternate assessments, assessments in the students’ primary languages, and linguistically simplified assessments (PartIB.  Inclusion, p. 12)

·          “The critical issue to consider in this section is whether the assessment system allows for assessing students with disabilities and limited English proficient students against the same content and performance standards that apply to all students.” (PartIB.  Inclusion, p. 12)

·          “Such assessments will help guide educators in measuring student progress and making necessary alterations in their teaching and learning strategies to help all students master challenging State standards.” (PartII-The Core of the Assessment System, p. 22)

·          “…an aligned assessment that provides all students in the system the opportunity to demonstrate their proficiency relative to the content standards.  It allows students who have learned the content in different ways, students with disabilities, and students who are English language learners to fully demonstrate their knowledge and skills.” (PartII-The Core of the Assessment System, p. 39)

PART V IDEA CITATIONS:

Taken from Document:  Amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, P.L. 105-17 (1997) (LAW)

·          “PERFORMANCE GOALS AND INDICATORS.- The State- has established goals for the performance of children with disabilities in the State that-…are consistent, to the maximum extent appropriate, with other goals and standards for children established by the State…” (Sec. 612 (a) (16) (A) (ii))

·        “has established performance indicators the State will use to assess progress toward achieving those goals that, at a minimum, address the performance of children with disabilities on assessments, drop-out rates, and graduation rates…” (Sec. 612 (a) (16) (B))

Taken from Document:  Final Regulations for the Amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, P.L. 105-17 (1997) (REGULATIONS, WITH COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION)

·          “…an effective educational system now and in the future must maintain high academic standards and clear performance goals for  children with disabilities, consistent with the standards and expectations for all students in the education system, and provide for appropriate and effective strategies and methods to ensure that students who are children with disabilities have maximum opportunities to achieve those standards and goals.” (I. Involvement and Progress of Each Child with a Disability in the General Curriculum , Sec. 651 (a) (6) (A), p. 12470)

·          “…a number of the new IEP requirements focus increased attention on how children with disabilities can achieve to the same level as nondisabled children.” (Exception to FAPE for Certain Ages, p. 12556)

·          As set forth in 300.137(a), each State is required to demonstrate that it has established performance goals that are ‘consistent, to the maximum extent appropriate, with other goals standards [sic]  for all children established by the State.”  However, regardless of whether a State has established goals for all children, it must establish goals for the performance of children with disabilities, and must establish indicators that the State will use to assess progress toward achieving those goals that, at a minimum, address the performance of children with disabilities on assessments, drop-out rates, and graduation rates (300.137(a) and (b)” (Performance Goals and Indicators, Comments, p. 12563-12564)

·          “…each State establish its goals for the performance of children with disabilities with the cooperation and input of parents and children with disabilities, teachers, and members of the community.” (Performance Goals and Indicators, comments p. 12564)

·          “The commenters’ suggestion regarding the IEP team’s consideration of the child’s performance results on any State and district-wide assessment programs is consistent with the emphasis in the Act on the importance of ensuring that children with disabilities participate in the general curriculum and are expected to meet high achievement standards.  Effective IEP development is central to helping these children meet these high standards.  Section 612(a)(17) of the Act and §300.138 of these regulations require, as conditions for receipt of IDEA funds, that States ensure that children with disabilities are included in general State and district-wide assessment programs, with appropriate accommodations where necessary, and must report the performance results of these children on such assessments.  Therefore, §300.346(a)(1) should be amended by adding paragraph (iii) to require that in considering the results of the initial or most recent evaluation of the child, the IEP team also consider, as appropriate, the results of the child’s performance on any general State or district-wide assessment programs.” (Development, Review, and Revision of IEP, Discussion, p. 12588)

·          “…children with disabilities [must] be involved in and progress in the general curriculum and be held to high achievement standards” (IEP-Accountability, p. 12598)

Jigsaw Training Tool: Crosswalk of Title I and IDEA Assessment and Accountability Provisions for Students with Disabilities

Team and Individual Table Instructions

Step 1: Team Assignments
Look at the Crosswalk of Title I and IDEA Assessment and Accountability Provisions for Students with Disabilities. The Crosswalk is divided into five parts:
* PART I: Definition of students with disabilities
* PART II: Participation of students with disabilities in large-scale assessment
* PART III: Accommodations, modifications, alternate assessments
* PART IV: Accountability, use of data, and reporting
* PART V: Standards, goals, performance indicators

A "jigsaw" process is a cooperative learning strategy that allows a group to divide up lengthy or complex text among group members, and each member builds expertise on a small portion of the text. Then the group "puts the puzzle together" sharing knowledge and insight to construct holistic understanding for all group members. "Jigsaw" the content among your team, and decide who will explore each Part of the whole. The first Part is very brief, so you may wish to assign that Part to everyone. If time is limited, you can divide the Title I citations from the IDEA citations within each of the four remaining Parts and assign them to separate people. (The facilitator may suggest that you select specific or limited citations to jigsaw if time is very limited, but it is highly recommended that you review all citations for best understanding.)

Step 2: Individual review of the pieces
Explore your content piece, and take notes on your copy of the jigsaw forms. Think about how you will share the information with your teammates.

Step 3: Team sharing of pieces - Fitting the pieces together
Share your expertise by teaching your teammates what you learned. As a team, fit the pieces of your content puzzle together on the jigsaw forms. Be prepared to share significant insights with the whole group.

Step 4: Sharing with the large group
What does the puzzle look like when complete?
Discuss what you learned, address questions that have come up, and finalize a summary of what Federal law says about all students in assessment and accountability systems.

Federal PARTICIPATION Requirements - Part II of Crosswalk

What do the Federal laws have to say about the participation of SWD in assessment and accountability systems? Fill in your jigsaw findings here.

Federal ACCOMMODATIONS, MODIFICATIONS, ALTERNATE ASSESSMENT   Requirements - Part III of Crosswalk

What do the Federal laws have to say about accommodations, modifications, alternate assessment for SWD in assessment and accountability systems? Fill in your jigsaw findings here.

Federal ACCOUNTABILITY, USE OF DATA, and REPORTING   Requirements - Part IV of Crosswalk

What do the Federal laws have to say about accountability, use of data, and reporting for SWD in assessment and accountability systems? Fill in your jigsaw findings here.

Federal STANDARDS, GOALS, PERFORMANCE INDICATORS Requirements - Part V of Crosswalk

What do the Federal laws have to say about standards, goals, and performance indicators for SWD in assessment and accountability systems? Fill in your jigsaw findings here.