Recommendations to the U.S. Congress for the Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB)

April 2007

The National Center for Learning Disabilities (NCLD) has a special interest in the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) as the law focuses on improving academic achievement for all children, including improving instructional practice for children who struggle with learning. While the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) mandates the provision of a free appropriate public education (FAPE) for students with disabilities, it contains no provisions setting high expectations and holding schools accountable for their progress. In fact, in its latest reauthorization of IDEA, Congress once again reminded us that "the implementation of the Act has been impeded by low expectations, and an insufficient focus on applying replicable research on proven methods of teaching and learning" (20 U.S.C. §1400(c)(4). It is NCLB that has provided the long needed elements of school accountability and doing what works to improve results for students with disabilities.

Prior to the enactment of NCLB, states failed to include many or most students with disabilities in their statewide assessment systems, despite a provision added to the 1997 reauthorization of the IDEA requiring them to do so. As reported by Dr. Martha Thurlow of the National Center for Education Outcomes in testimony before the bi-partisan Commission on No Child Left Behind, "students with disabilities can achieve proficiency on grade level content standards if individualized services, supports, and specialized instruction are provided and students are making gains." Dr. Thurlow also reported that state directors are reporting to NCEO the improvements that they are seeing in the performance of their students, attributing them to clear participation policies, alignment of Individualized Education Programs (IEP) with standards, improved professional development, development and provision of accommodation guidelines and training, increased access to standards-based instruction and improved data collection (Thompson, Johnstone, Thurlow, & Altman, 2005). Congress must support these two laws working together to maximize resources and expertise in the most effective ways to help all students achieve their academic potential.

The education of students with LD is the responsibility of the total education enterprise, not just special education. Students with disabilities are general education students first. Their disabilities define challenges to be overcome by all of education. The definitional and qualifying criteria establish students with LD as competent to participate in general education curricula and achieve at a proficient level or higher when provided with high quality instruction by trained professionals as well as appropriate accommodations. Yet the academic performance of students with learning disabilities is far lower than would be expected: 45% of secondary students are reading more than three grade levels below their peers and nearly 40% drop out of high school (NLTS2, 2003). These numbers are on par with the national outcomes for African-American and Hispanic students. None of these groups should be marginalized through any relaxation of accountability requirements. It is for these reasons that our organization has been a leading proponent of the No Child Left Behind law (NCLB) and its positive effects for students with disabilities.

NCLD has spearheaded activities in support of No Child Left Behind, including the publication of several documents that have been used to educate and inform policy makers, parents and other stakeholders about the positive and meaningful impact the law is having for students with LD.

We urge Congress to make decisive changes to NCLB that will achieve the following recommendations:

1. Infuse 'evidence-based intervention models' (commonly referred to as Response to Intervention) throughout NCLB to improve access to early intervention, early identification and improved behavior and academic outcomes for students most at risk.

2. Maintain requirements in Early Reading First to allow the use of screening assessments to effectively identify preschool age children who may be at risk for reading failure.

3. Maintain requirements regarding Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP).

4. Allow for the addition of a growth model factor to the existing AYP determination procedure for all students.

5. Require states to develop the capacity to build data systems and other infrastructure necessary to include student growth as a part of NCLB accountability.

6. Require all states to use an N-size of no greater than 20 for all categories of student groups in AYP determinations.

7. Require all states to use a confidence interval of 99 percent in calculating AYP for all categories of student groups in AYP determinations.

8. Include a provision that confidence intervals shall not be permitted in growth model factors.

9. Do not include any aspects of the 1 percent regulation regarding assessment options for children with the most significant cognitive disabilities and the 2 percent regulation regarding assessment option based on modified achievement standards.

10. Provide states with incentives to develop alternate assessments aligned to grade-level academic content and achievement standards. Such assessments should be available to all students.

11. Codify that students to be reported in the student subgroup of "students with disabilities" must be students currently eligible for services under IDEA and have a current Individualized Education Program (IEP) in effect, as required by IDEA.

12. Codify current Title I regulations that require schools to use the student's results from the first administration of the state assessment to determine AYP to prevent repeated re-testing to occur.

13. Add a requirement that every state undergo a federal review of assessment accommodations guidelines.

14. Require all states to adopt the National Governors Association (NGA) compact on graduation rate, disaggregate graduation rate and elementary school indicator data and use this disaggregated data for AYP determinations. Additionally, require all states to set goals for improving graduation rates and elementary school indicator by subgroup at the state, school district and school levels.

15. Replace current requirement for Title I schools "in need of improvement" status to provide opportunities for all students to transfer to another school within the district with robust requirements for the implementation of evidence-based school reform activities such as evidence-based intervention models that include positive behavior intervention supports.

To download a pdf of the full recommendations and rationales, click here.