- ED Offers States Additional Guidance to Help Students with
Significant Cognitive Disabilities
- House Committee Holds Hearing on NCLB and Children with Disabilities
- Senate Committee Holds Hearing on Higher Education Accreditation
- Center on Personnel Studies in Special Education
- FY ı05 Budget Update
- Special Education Funding Opportunities
- Miscellaneous Information
ED Offers States Additional Guidance to Help Students with Significant Cognitive
Disabilities
On March 2, the U.S. Department of Education provided states with additional
guidance to help them meet the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act
(NCLB) for students with significant cognitive disabilities. The policy guidance
outlines the means by which states can seek an exemption to the 1 percent cap
on the number of proficient scores from alternate assessments that may be included
in calculations for determining adequate yearly progress (AYP) under the new
law.
Under NCLB, all students including students with disabilities must be tested
annually using statewide assessments in reading and math in grades 3 -8 and
at least once in high school. Students with disabilities must be included in
all aspects of state assessment and accountability systems. Their performance,
as a subgroup, must be disaggregated and reported at the state, district, and
school levels. All students, including those with disabilities, need to show
³adequate yearly progress (AYP)² toward meeting the stateıs proficiency goals.
By the 2013-2014 school year, 100 percent of students, including students with
disabilities, must be proficient in reading and math.
Under final rules published in the December 9th Federal Register, states,
school districts and schools will have the flexibility to count the 'proficient'
scores of students with the most significant cognitive disabilities who take
assessments based on alternate achievement standards. Without this flexibility,
those scores would have to be measured against grade-level standards and considered
'not proficient' when states measure adequate yearly progress (AYP).
Under the rule, which went into effect on January 8, 2004, these students would
be tested against standards appropriate for their intellectual development and,
for accountability purposes, their scores would be counted as part of their
school's performance. The intent is two-fold: to protect children with disabilities
from being excluded from accountability systems that provide valuable information
to parents and educators and to ensure that schools receive credit for the progress
of all children. The number of "proficient" scores counted for adequate yearly
progress (AYP) may not exceed one percent of all students in the grades tested
(nearly nine percent of students with disabilities), although states may appeal
for a higher limit if they can demonstrate that they have a larger population
of students with the most significant cognitive disabilities. Individual schools
are not subject to the one-percent cap as it applies only to district and state
accountability decisions. For more information about the final rule, see CECıs
December 12, 2003 Policy Update http://www.cec.sped.org/pp/legislative_update/modules/news/article.php?storyid=45
and December 23, 2003 Policy Update
http://www.cec.sped.org/pp/legislative_update/modules/news/article.php?storyid=46
and the December 9 Federal Register notice at: http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/finrule/2003-4/120903a.html
The March 2 guidance, which was contained in a letter that went to all Chief
State School Officers, describes the process states need to follow if they seek
to request an exception to the 1% rule. In order to exceed the exemption cap,
states must provide the following information, including:
v An explanation of circumstances that result in more than 1 percent of all
students statewide having the most significant cognitive disabilities and who
are achieving a proficient score on alternate assessments based on alternate
achievement standards;
v Data showing the incidence rate of students with the most significant cognitive
disabilities; and
v Information showing how the state has implemented alternate achievement standards.
A district may initiate an exception request, or a state may apply for an exception
on behalf of a district. In either case, the district should provide evidence
that explains why more than 1 percent of all students in the district's tested
grades have the most significant cognitive disabilities.
To read the letter to the state school officers, go to: http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/csso030204.html
House Committee Holds Hearing on NCLB and Children with Disabilities
The day after the release of EDıs additional guidance to help states meet the
requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) for students with significant
cognitive disabilities (see above), the House Committee on Education and the
Workforce held a hearing March 3 on how NCLB improves educational results for
children with disabilities. Providing testimony at the hearing were:
v Ms. Ricki Sabia, a parent from Silver Spring, MD
v Dr. Pia Durkin, a School Superintendent from Narraganset, Rhode Island
v Dr. Jane Rhyne, an Assistant Superintendent from Charlotte, North Carolina
v Dr. Martha Thurlow, Director of the National Center on Education Outcomes
(NCEO) in Minneapolis, Minnesota
Many governors and state officials are complaining that with NCLB comes increased
federal oversight of public education, less than adequate levels of federal
aid to implement the lawıs requirements, unreasonable teacher-quality rules,
and test-score goals that label many schools as failing. Some members of Congress
are even considering introducing legislation designed to lessen some of those
burdens.
In January, Senator Edward M. Kennedy (MA), chairman of the Senate's Health,
Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, and Rep. George Miller (CA) wrote to
Secretary of Education Rod Paige that states and schools ³have been undermined
by the failure to provide the necessary funding and proactive and timely assistance
on a variety of levels.²
In early February, Kennedy said further, ³We're seeing a series of rules and
regulations promulgated by this administration that are in conflict with the
law and are ideologically based. That is going to have to change or I am going
to, with others, introduce legislation to change it legislatively. The Department
of Education is feeling pressure from both Congress and states on various issues
related to NCLB. We'll be watching closely to see what steps are taken to address
some of the many concerns related to implementation of NCLB.²
Despite the myriad naysayers speaking out against the law, all of the testifiers
at this weekıs hearing urged Congress to ³stay the course² on NCLB standards,
insisting that states donıt need more money to adequately implement NCLBıs requirements
for students with disabilities, they need only to be more creative.
³A big obstacle right now in the implementation of NCLB, is that many states
and districts are focusing more resources on efforts to weaken the accountability
in NCLB than they are on promoting the development of a range of appropriate
assessment options,² said Ms. Sabia, mother of a 5th grade student with Down
Syndrome and Associate Director of Public Policy for the National Down Syndrome
Society. ³If NCLB seems one size fits all,ı it is not a problem with the law,
it is a failure to design and develop appropriate assessments.²
She added that there are many different assessment options available under NCLB.
³There are the regular grade level assessments taken with or without a variety
of accommodations, and there are assessments on grade level content that can
be given in alternate formats.²
Dr. Thurlow stated that since NCLB was passed, more and more students with disabilities
are not only participating more in assessments now than were tested a mere three
to five years ago, but theyıre also achieving success. She pointed to data from
three states (New York, Massachusetts, and Kansas) that distinctly confirmed
the benefits of the inclusion of students with disabilities in assessments and
accountability systems.
³Kansas, as a result of its emphasis on reform, has reported that the overall
percentage of students with disabilities who are proficient in reading has increased
from 26% in 2000 to 50% in 2003,² Thurlow explained. ³The percentage who are
proficient in math has increased from 36% in 2000 to 58% in 2003.²
³These data show what can be,² Thurlow added. ³Staff at NCEO talk to state directors
nearly every day, and they tell us that they are seeing positive changes. Of
course, they also tell us about the challenges. The challenges are not necessarily
due to the assessment or the accountability system, however. The assessment
system and its results serve as a warning flag. They tell us when we need to
do something about our instruction, our resources and supports. Making changes
to the assessment or accountability system is not the answer.²
To read the full testimony of the four presenters, go to the House Committeeıs
Web site at: http://edworkforce.house.gov/hearings/108th/fc/nclb030304/wl030304.htm
Senate Committee Holds Hearing on Higher Education Accreditation
On Thursday, February 26, the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions (HELP) held a hearing on how the higher education accreditation
system can better ensure teacher quality and accountability. Providing testimony
at the hearing were:
v Dr. Jeffrey D. Wallin, President of the American Academy for Liberal Education
v Dr. Steven Crow, Executive Director of the Higher Learning Commission of the
North Central Association of Colleges and Schools
v Dr. Robert L. Potts, President of the University of North Alabama
v Dr. Jerry L. Martin, Chair of the American Council of Trustees and Alumni
With the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act (HEA) on Congressı horizon,
much discussion is taking place about whether our nationıs colleges and universities
are doing all they can to provide students with a world-class education that
will allow them to be competitive in todayıs job market. Serious questions have
been raised about whether the quality of higher education has kept up with its
growth in access and in expense.
Acknowledging that an ever-increasing number of the nationıs students are taking
advantage of a college education, Dr. Wallin stated that ³[c]onsiderable pressure
has been brought to bear on higher education to account for the rising costs
of higher education that have accompanied its growth; this, coupled with repeated
revelations of what is not being learned at the undergraduate level has resulted
in the rapid spread of learning assessment in recent years.²
Wallin added that funding provides one of the few levers by which one may attempt
to prod higher education, accreditation, which acts as a ³gatekeeper² to federal
funds, has been required by law to develop or at least monitor outcomes assessment
at its member institutions.
Although the hearing focused on the accreditation of colleges and universities
as a whole, one aspect that greatly impacts student learning is the level of
expertise and experience that todayıs professors have in the field that theyıre
teaching. Another point of concern will ring a bell with those in the field
of special education: the diminishing number of specialists with advanced degrees
available to teach our nationıs ever-increasing student population.
To read the complete testimony provided at the hearing, go to the Senate Committeeıs
Website at: http://health.senate.gov/bills/edu_33_bill.html
Center on Personnel Studies in Special Education (COPSSE)
The problem of providing adequate numbers of qualified professionals for special
education and other disciplines that serve students with disabilities is the
focus of The Center on Personnel Studies in Special Education, or COPSSE. COPSSE,
which is directed by Drs. Paul Sindelar and Mary Brownell, is a research and
dissemination project supported by a cooperative agreement between the U. S.
Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), and the
University of Florida (UF).
The research content of the Center is organized into three different areas:
certification and licensure, quality and effectiveness of professional preparation,
and supply and demand. The project has three phases: conducting a ³tiered² synthesis
of relevant research, developing and prioritizing research questions, and designing
studies to address them. The research program will be reviewed and approved
by a panel of design and evaluation specialists. In the second phase, studies
will be conducted, data analyzed, and findings organized and synthesized according
to a conceptual framework. Policy implications and dissemination strategies
will also be developed. In the final phase, a policy and dissemination panel
will review and approve the plan and disseminate it through an extensive network
of professional organizations and other dissemination outlets.
In addition to Drs. Sindelar and Brownell, scholars from UF, Johns Hopkins University,
and Vanderbilt University contributed to the project's Phase I agenda. Ten teacher
education research syntheses were written, and, with the assistance of a Research
Design Panel (RDP), these syntheses were used to develop a research agenda in
special education personnel preparation. In Phase I, the Project also solicited
syntheses of research in 10 related service disciplines and conducted a design
panel with these authors in February.
RDP members represented the essential disciplines of teacher education research:
special education teacher educators and policy experts, teacher education content
specialists, and quantitative and qualitative methodologists. They helped identify
four guiding questions for our research, presented below ranked by importance
and feasibility.
* What characterizes efficient and effective practice in initial preparation
as measured by beginning teacher quality and retention?
* How do school and district context influence beginning teacher quality and
retention?
* How does state policy context affect the shortage of qualified special education
teachers?
* How does policy context affect the content and process of teacher education?
In Phase II, in collaboration with colleagues at Johns Hopkins University, the
University of Colorado at Boulder, and the Instructional Research Group of Long
Beach, California, the Project will conduct research drawn from these guiding
questions. The initial work will focus on validating measures of beginning teacher
quality using measures of student performance as criteria. Next year, these
measures will be used in studies of initial preparation with a larger sample
of beginning teachers. By doing so, the Project hopes to identify teacher preparation
practices associated with beginning teacher competence as well as improved student
outcomes. Project staff is also planning a study of the cost effectiveness of
training options.
For more information about COPSSE, see their Web site at: http://www.copsse.org/
FY ı05 Budget Update
The Senate Budget Committee on Wednesday began marking up the FY ı05 Budget
Resolution, and was expected to vote on amendments the following day.
The 13 House Appropriations cardinals and top aides were scheduled to meet with
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Josh Bolten today to discuss
FY 05 spending and the President's FY 05 budget proposal.
The Senate's FY 05 Budget Resolution is expected to include a total discretionary
spending ceiling of $814 billion, $9 billion lower than the President's $823
billion request, as scored by the CBO. Apparently, Senate Budget Committee Chairman
Nickles (R-OK) is expected to cut defense spending by $7 billion and non-defense
spending by $2 billion, without touching homeland security. Reportedly, Nickles
will freeze non-defense and non-homeland security discretionary spending at
FY 04 levels and assume $30 billion for an Iraq supplemental. Nickles, like
President Bush, hopes to cut the deficit in half in five years.
Senate Budget Committee Ranking Member Conrad (D-ND) mentioned that he would
offer amendments at markup to increase spending on popular domestic programs
with offsets. Senate Floor action is expected as early as this Monday, March
8th. Conrad reportedly mentioned that Republican moderates and Democrats may
offer ³piecemeal² amendments, such as one to revive pay-as-you-go for spending
and taxes.
The problem with these amendments will be finding offsets that will pass with
some Republican support and avoiding across-the-board cuts. 60 votes are needed
to win any education amendment in the Senate. Moderate Republicans will play
a critical role again this year in both houses.
Reportedly, Senate Appropriations Chairman Stevens (R-AK) is predicting deadlock
over domestic discretionary spending this year. Stevens also asserted that if
the budget committee cuts defense he would take it to the President's level
in the defense bill and or the supplemental request.
Reportedly, the House Budget Resolution would cut the President's FY 05 budget
request by 0.5 percent. It is unknown at this time what the House's overall
discretionary spending ceiling will be. However, House Budget Chairman Nussle
(R-IA) has also been advocating a freeze in non-defense, non-homeland security
discretionary spending. He is also proposing a one-year moratorium on earmarks,
which appropriators are opposing.
In addition, Rep. Nussle's budget would freeze unauthorized spending; include
a one-year moratorium on new entitlement spending, put an end to the waiving
of budget rules, and require offsets to pay for emergency spending. The House
Budget Resolution would assume an FY 05 Iraq supplemental of $50 billion. Nussle's
budget may cut the deficit in half in four years.
House floor action is expected the week of March 15th.
Special Education Funding Opportunities
The following two Request for Proposals (RFPs) related to special education
appeared in the March 3 Federal Register.
Vocational Rehabilitation Services Projects for American Indians with
Disabilities
Purpose of Program: To provide vocational rehabilitation services to American
Indians with disabilities that reside on or near Federal or State reservations,
consistent with their individual strengths, resources, priorities, concerns,
abilities, capabilities, & informed choices, so that they may prepare for &
engage in gainful employment, including self-employment, telecommuting, or business
ownership.
Applications Available: March 3, 2004.
Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: July 9, 2004.
Eligible Applicants: Applications may be submitted only by the governing bodies
of Indian tribes (and consortia of those governing bodies) located on Federal
& State reservations.
Estimated Available Funds: $5,290,000.
Estimated Range of Awards: $250,000-$400,000.
Estimated Average Size of Awards: $325,000.
Maximum Award: We will reject any application that proposes a budget exceeding
$400,000 for a single budget period of 12 months. The Assistant Secretary for
Special Education & Rehabilitative Services may change the maximum amount through
a notice published in the Federal Register.
Estimated Number of Awards: 13.
Additional Information: Applicable regulations, priorities, & other information
are available in the Federal Register notice.
Additional information is available online at:
www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/announcements/2004-1/030304f.html
Personnel Preparation to Improve Services & Results for Children with Disabilities
Purpose of Program: The purposes of this program are to (1) help address State-identified
needs for qualified personnel in special education, related services, early
intervention, & regular education -- to work with children with disabilities;
& (2) ensure that those personnel have the skills & knowledge -- derived from
practices that have been determined through research & experience to be successful
-- that are needed to serve those children.
Preparation of Special Education, Related Services, & Early Intervention Personnel
to Serve Infants, Toddlers, & Children with Low-Incidence Disabilities
Applications Available: March 4, 2004
Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: June 15, 2004
Eligible Applicants: Institutions of higher education (IHE).
Estimated available funds: $6,000,000
Estimated Range of Awards: $200,000-$250,000
Estimated Average Size of Awards: $224,440
Maximum Awards: $250,000
Estimated Number of Awards: 24
Preparation of Leadership Personnel
Applications Available: March 4, 2004
Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: June 8, 2004
Eligible Applicants: Institutions of higher education (IHE).
Estimated available funds: $3,174,000
Estimated Range of Awards: $171,969-$200,000
Estimated Average Size of Awards: $196,200
Maximum Awards: $200,000
Estimated Number of Awards: 16
Preparation of Personnel in Minority Institutions
Applications Available: March 4, 2004
Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: June 8, 2004
Eligible Applicants: Institutions of higher education (IHE).
Estimated available funds: $2,000,000
Estimated Range of Awards: $186,234-$200,000
Estimated Average Size of Awards: $196,450
Maximum Awards: $200,000
Estimated Number of Awards: 10
Improving the Preparation of Personnel to Serve Children with High-Incidence
Disabilities
Applications Available: March 4, 2004
Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: June 1, 2004
Eligible Applicants: Institutions of higher education (IHE).
Estimated available funds: $3,026,796
Estimated Range of Awards: $163,848-$200,000
Estimated Average Size of Awards: $196,840
Maximum Awards: $200,000
Estimated Number of Awards: 15
Additional Information: Applicable regulations, priorities, & other information
are available in the Federal Register notice.
Additional information is available online at:
www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/announcements/2004-1/030304g.html
Miscellaneous Information
v Reportedly, Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee
Chairman Gregg (R-NH) is considering giving up his chairmanship to replace retiring
Senate Budget Committee Chairman Nickles (R-OK). Senator Allard (R-CO), a budget
committee member, is also interested in replacing Nickles. Neither has made
an official decision about running for the post, but are the only two members
who have voiced interest in the position.
v Beginning March 3 through April 1, the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Humans
Services, and Education (Regula, R-Ohio) of the House Committee on Appropriations
will hold a series of hearings on Department of Education programs; 2358 Rayburn.
Secretary Paige will testify at the hearing on Thursday, March 11 at 10:00 AM.
(The full schedule of Subcommittee hearings for March can be viewed at
http://appropriations.house.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=AboutTheCommittee.Events&SubcommitteeId=11
v On March 8, the House Committee on Education and the Workforce (Boehner, R-Ohio)
will hold a field hearing on proposals to revise elementary and secondary education
policy and programs; 10:00 AM at the State Library of Ohio, 274 East First Ave.,
Columbus, Ohio.
