Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA): Core Principles for Reauthorization - Página 2

While each of these provisions is of concern, the latter two are paramount. The current ESEA inadequately addresses the pressing need for accessible assessment systems that reach the broadest range of learners that are based on the principles of universal design (UD)¹ and that reflect the best practices in test design. Outdated test design has resulted in significant numbers of students with disabilities not having access to the general curriculum due to their instructional ‘placement’. This may also affect a student’s access to a regular diploma. The outdated tests have also increased the need for extensive test accommodations and alternate assessment policies for students with disabilities. Improved test design would allow us to assess the majority of today’s students with the same test. By presenting material through several means, assessments that are based on UD allow several types of learners to access the material and demonstrate their knowledge. A UD approach will eliminate the need for many test accommodations required in traditional testing situations.

As reported by National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO):

“…though many state data show recent gains in the percentage of students reaching proficiency, educators are aware that there is a segment of students who are performing far below proficiency year in and year out (which includes students with and without disabilities). Findings indicate that male students, minority students and students from low socio-economic backgrounds were more likely to be to be persistently low performers.” ²

As a result, many states have decided not to develop the AA-MAS (which only applies to students with disabilities). Largely, it’s because they cannot distinguish between the persistently low performers and these students may have not had access to adequate grade level instruction.

Eligibility for special education must not be viewed as a reason to deny students with disabilities access to the same benefits of school accountability systems enjoyed by other students. Rather, special education must be viewed as a set of individualized supplemental services that ensures eligible students are provided access to the general curriculum so that they have an equal opportunity to meet the same educational standards that apply to all students. Accountability for the academic achievement and outcomes of students receiving special education should remain squarely within the nation’s main education law. In fact, the U.S. Department of Education articulated this expectation upon release of the final federal regulations governing IDEA in 2006 when it stated that “Accelerated growth toward, and mastery of State-approved grade-level standards are goals of special education.” (71 Fed. Reg. 46,653)

Principle 2: Graduation Rates Must Be Dramatically Improved

An improved ESEA must include dramatically stronger graduation components, including a focus on those groups of students that need substantial improvement, such as students with disabilities. The tragically high dropout rate of students with disabilities must become part of the larger conversation about our national drop out crisis. College and career-ready students are students who complete school. Therefore, school completion (i.e., graduation with a standard diploma) must be the goal for all students—not just those who are easiest to teach.

An improved graduation rate for vulnerable student groups depends on several key elements, including:

• adopting and using a consistent calculation of graduation rate
• disaggregating the graduation rate for all student groups, as required for performance and participation
• setting goals for improving graduation rates annually, both overall and for all student groups.

Many of the same provisions that have resulted in positive trends in academic achievement must be incorporated into graduation requirements in order to push the nation’s graduation rate to an acceptable rate. Just as academic achievement for students with disabilities must not be inflated by expecting less of them or holding them to different performance standards, the graduation rate must not be improved by counting diploma options other than the regular or advanced diplomas.

The goal of “college and career-ready” students will only be realized by improving school completion through earning a regular school diploma. As with all other aspects of standards-based system accountability, students with disabilities must have full and equal opportunity to benefit from graduation provisions. As with academic achievement, special education services must be viewed as mechanisms that support school completion. In amending the IDEA in 2004, Congress found that “improving educational results for children with disabilities is an essential element of our national policy of ensuring equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency for individuals with disabilities.”