What is the difference between idea and nclb

Alternate assessments are assessments designed to measure the performance of students with disabilities who are unable to participate in state and district assessments even with appropriate accommodations. These alternate assessments are typically designed for students with complex disabilities and probably would not be appropriate for most students with learning disabilities. IDEA specifically provides services to students with disabilities. NCLB holds schools accountable for the educational outcomes of those children, as well as all others.

In the past, students with disabilities were frequently left out of state and district level assessment and accountability systems; and in many cases did not have access to the general curriculum on which these assessments are based. Because this type of access and assessment did not happen, there was no external measure to indicate whether special education students were learning enough to move on to a post-secondary education or to get a job.

The IEP that is designed for each individual IDEA-eligible student must address how that student will participate in state assessments. Students with disabilities may participate in state assessments in the same way as other students, or with accommodations or by participating in alternate assessments.

No Child Left Behind is intended to improve the education of all children. As part of the law, all states are required to release easy-to-read, detailed report cards every year that provide parents and the general public with a measure of how schools are doing. States also offer an alternate assessment for students with severe cognitive disabilities. States vary in the level of technical assistance they provide to IEP teams that decide which test a student should take.

Some states, like Michigan, post their policies and list of acceptable accommodations online. Technical assistance varies from state to state for teachers and administrators in charge of administering and grading the general assessment with accommodations and the alternate assessment.

Most states post a manual or training documents online. Some states send representatives to districts that provide training. Michigan has posted a podcast online to provide information to districts that administer the alternate assessment. A positive outcome of alternate assessments has been the increase in participation rates in state assessments of students with severe cognitive disabilities. According to some state staff members, this increase is a direct result of NCLB.

It became a high priority when NCLB was implemented because of the 95 percent participation requirement.

As far as participation goes, prior to NCLB, there was little or no push at the local level to have students with severe cognitive disability take the alternate assessment. So, that's a big difference between then and now. As discussed in the previous section, because states are required to include students with disabilities in state assessments, they are gaining wider access to the general education curriculum.

Their teachers are experiencing favorable results from the inclusion model as well. Special education teachers now have access to the general education curriculum and are frequently included in development and planning meetings with general education teachers.

When I was developing the alternate assessment, I was in the special education department. When I would go out into the field and talk to special education teachers about the state curriculum framework, they would draw a blank. They were not included in that area. Now, more people are familiar with the curriculum framework, and schools and districts are finally including the special education teachers in professional development activities.

The same thing is happening with assessments. In the past, schools would pull general education teachers into a meeting to discuss the results of MAEP [Michigan's state assessment] but [would] exclude the special education teachers. Now, both general and special education teachers are included in those types of meetings.

Including students with disabilities in general education classrooms and exposing them to the general education curriculum gives them the chance to perform better on assessments. As one Florida staff member pointed out,. The laws have emphasized the need for students with disabilities to be included in general education. It's not just inclusion in general education classes but exposing these kids to the general education curriculum. They all have to take the assessment on grade level, so it can only help them to have exposure to the curriculum.

It gives them the chance to do well on the assessment, whereas before, they may not have ever seen some of the material included on the test. Most state staff members we spoke with viewed the increased inclusion of students with disabilities on state assessments as a positive outcome of NCLB and IDEA. A few staffers mentioned concerns regarding over-testing students and the fear that focusing too much on assessments can limit creativity in the classroom.

These concerns are not unique to the special education population; however, they have been brought up on the general education side as well.

Are states complying with the laws, and where are they struggling with the laws' requirements? Accountability is a key component of standards-based reform. According to NCLB and IDEA, states must establish standards for student achievement, communicate those standards to students and educators, measure student progress in reference to the established standards, and apply consequences when schools and districts do not meet those standards. Our interviews with state staff members revealed how different each state was in its approach to developing and maintaining its accountability system.

Some states, like Illinois, had developed accountability systems prior to the implementation of NCLB. In order to be in compliance with NCLB, Illinois had to make considerable changes to its assessment system. One Illinois staffer pointed out that although they made the necessary changes, those changes may not have been to the benefit of the students.

Because we already had an assessment system, we were forced to go back and revise what we had, unlike some states that did not have accountability and assessment systems set up. That put more of our schools in jeopardy. We have more grades participating in the assessments. Previously, we had a writing assessment that was very integral to the testing process, but our legislators looked at it and said we couldn't afford to do it anymore. Teachers indicated that we were testing too many content areas.

It's had some curricular impact. Many states must deal with specific issues, problem areas, or populations of students that require targeted attention in order to boost academic performance. For example, staff members in a few states discussed the issue of disproportionality, which refers to the disproportionate representation of minority students placed in special education.

States must monitor districts and schools and pinpoint those that overidentify or under-identify certain populations for special education services. States like Georgia send education department representatives to train school teams to resolve their disproportionality issues. The trainings are ongoing and aim to teach schools how to assist students without labeling them disabled. Though many improvements have been made since NCLB and IDEA began emphasizing accountability for all students, some staffers worried that some regulations could actually harm students with disabilities.

Several staff members expressed concern regarding rules for graduation requirements included in NCLB. According to the law, a state may count as high school graduates only those students who received regular diplomas in the standard number of years. Some state staffers felt this stipulation put students with disabilities at an unfair disadvantage, since many states had created modified graduation standards or allowed students to take longer than four years to complete their course requirements.

Under the new definition, schools do not receive credit for students who graduate using modified standards or take longer than four years to graduate, so there is no motivation to maintain these alternate routes to graduation.

Florida is one state that had separate general and special education diplomas before NCLB. Each diploma had different requirements. Because NCLB prohibits the use of separate standards for general and special education students, Florida eliminated its special education diploma. In its place, the state developed a system that uses access points to focus on a student's ability to function.

Access points exist at each grade level to show how students with disabilities can make contact with the general education curriculum and retain the implications of the material, but at a lower complexity level. Schools and districts that struggle with the graduation issue receive targeted interventions and technical assistance from the state.

The state continues to provide remediation for students with disabilities who do not pass the state assessment on the first try.

Additionally, a student's IEP team is allowed to determine whether or not the graduation requirements have been met even if the student failed the assessment required for graduation. One complaint that came up several times during our interviews was the issue of timing in regard to when the Education Department makes changes to regulations and when the states receive the guiding documents necessary to implement those changes.

As one staff member noted,. There are a few examples of ED issuing guidance documents after or at the same time states are supposed to be implementing policies or changes. Although states are always aware that new regulations or changes to existing regulations are coming out, not having the guidance documents can make things difficult. Staffers pointed out that it is unfair of ED to make changes to the regulations and expect states to comply, but then fail to provide guidance on what these changes entail.

Without guiding documents and a short implementation time line, states are often left guessing what is expected of them. Schools and districts must now pay attention to the performance of all students, which means students with disabilities now get attention they did not have before.

This attention is not always positive, however. Some schools and community members worry that the performance of students with disabilities on assessments may negatively affect the school's ability to meet AYP goals. In general, however, holding schools accountable for students with disabilities has made people more aware of how talented these students are. Standards-based educational reform requires the collection of data to determine whether or not progress is being made. The quality and sophistication of data collection and management systems vary from state to state.

Some states, like Georgia, maintain separate systems for general and special education data. Staff members explained that this separation was necessary due to the extra reporting requirements under IDEA and the different monitoring activities the state performs with that data. A number of factors affect data quality. These include the skill level of local staff performing the actual collection; the interoperability among school, district, and state data systems; and the data verification. As a conference call with New Jersey staff members revealed, states spend a significant amount of money and time training staff and verifying data.

We offer training for districts on an annual basis for everyone at every level of data collection. We give definitions and examples and help them figure out how to code certain incidences.

We walk them through the system. Through our new Title IV data grant, we're working on an instructional video to help in the training. We update the training materials and presentations every year and post the PowerPoint presentation on the Web. But, as more than one state staff member mentioned, training is expensive, and states do not have people or the capacity to supply one-on-one support to every district and school. Therefore, states do what they can with the resources they have.

Most try to cut costs by posting training and technical assistance materials online. Some sponsor a call center for districts and schools to contact for guidance. Providing individualized training is a difficult and expensive task, especially when most districts choose their own data collection systems and come up with their own procedures for data entry.

In addition, the expertise of data collection staff at the local level can vary from district to district. States also struggle to make sure that districts understand the connection between the data they collect and the results the states report to ED.

Errors at the local level affect the accuracy of state-level data. The interview with New Jersey also revealed the importance of collaboration among departments and divisions to guarantee data quality throughout the entire collection process.

We work with the assessment officials and request information about how they code certain answers. We give information to the grants office when they do their consolidated applications so they can give districts information about data collection. Every county has a data collection specialist. A number of data collection experts we interviewed for this study mentioned that OSEP often did not give them sufficient time to implement changes to the system.

As one expert explained,. In Florida we have a very sophisticated [data collection] system. We are confident in our data quality. When we add a data element, it takes about two or three years to implement the change. The Department of Education does not give us enough time. The turnaround time is never long enough. They want us to accomplish the changes in six months when we know it takes longer than that to do it right.

We had a situation recently regarding the State Performance Plan [that] we submit for IDEA, where we have to calculate data on [the] progress students have made. ED changed the definitions and we'd already collected the data.

In the end, they're going to end up with something that they can't disaggregate. Not only do states need time to make the appropriate changes to the data collection system to ensure that they are collecting the proper data, but also districts need advance notification to train their employees on the new requirements.

In Massachusetts, a state with a fairly sophisticated data collection system, changes are made to the collection system on an annual basis. The state gives districts six months' advance notice when changes are coming and conducts training for the district each year to prepare them for modifications to the system.

In multiple interviews, data experts mentioned the need to streamline state and federal data collection requirements. A negative impact is the complexity, time, and energy that go into working out glitches in data and data that don't seem to mean anything. There is a need for greater alignment. We've continued in New York to look at requirements that we don't need. We want to put more time and money into getting achievement levels up, instead of collecting data twice. It is evident from our interviews that all 10 states are at various stages of upgrading their data collection systems.

It is not clear, however, whether those changes are the direct result of NCLB. Some staff members were careful to note that their state was already in the process of updating their system when the law came out, while others thought NCLB gave their state the extra push to make much-needed changes.

Ultimately, most states would like to track students from pre-K through college. Massachusetts is one state that is already able to link the secondary and college systems with a 95 percent match rate. As data collection and tracking systems become more sophisticated, the range of possible applications continues to expand.

States may someday be able to link student, teacher, and course data. State staff members pointed out that data are useful only if people know how to use them.

States are aware of this fact and, consequently, provide training and professional development to districts and schools on how to use the data to identify areas where they can make improvements. For example, teachers can use performance data to tailor their instruction to the needs of individual students. They suggested that collaboration, particularly between NCLB and IDEA, was needed to develop clear definitions for data collection that would result in gathering information truly useful to ED and the states.

It was clear from speaking with these experts that even though states continue to struggle with data quality and reporting requirements, they have nonetheless made significant progress in past years. But, the data experts warned, only accurate data will show a real picture of what educational systems are accomplishing. Our conversations with staff members at the state level highlighted some best practices that are being implemented in an attempt to achieve this goal.

States are working toward comprehensive systems that 1 are linked across schools and other agencies; 2 are from the classroom level up to the federal level; and 3 are able to track students from preschool through college. By creating data systems with these linkages embedded in them, states can streamline test reporting, reduce errors, and help identify problem areas. Changes are constantly being made to state data systems as state and federal indicators are added, taken away, or modified.

Many states have established verification processes that allow them to test the accuracy of new elements added to the data collection system. The verification process can take at least two years to complete. States therefore need sufficient time from ED to make changes to the system in order to properly train their local staff on the changes and test the accuracy of the added element. States spend substantial amounts of time and money training data collection staff on proper methods in order to guarantee the accuracy of the data.

States also spend a lot of time and money training administrators and teachers on how to use that data to identify problem areas and target interventions to correct those issues. Collaboration is a key component of increasing the academic achievement of students with disabilities. The difficulty lies in how to organize the departments, divisions, districts, schools, teachers, parents, and other stakeholders into a cohesive unit that ultimately leads to the creation of positive and effective educational experience for the student.

State Level. Collaboration at the state level can be difficult depending on how the state education department is organized and what duties and responsibilities are linked to specific departments or divisions. Since NCLB, some states have undergone a reorganization to promote collaboration between general and special education staff. When the standards and assessment division realized they needed our assessment, they moved the special education division not only on the work chart, but also physically into the mainstream of curriculum and instruction.

Before, the special education division was in a separate building. We were in a specialized programs branch and they weren't sure what to do with us. We were isolated on the work chart and physically. Now we actually see each other in the elevator. All of this change happened at the same time that NCLB came out. A specific example of how collaboration can be complicated at the state level came from an interview with one of Georgia's data collection experts.

To track students from pre-K through 12th grade, the Office of Standards, Instruction, and Assessment, located within the Georgia Department of Education, had to work with the Department of Human Resources, a separate department in Georgia's government structure.

Despite these challenges, states continue to promote collaboration from all divisions. By working together, these divisions are able to create more effective educational programs for students. District and Regional Levels. Collaboration between the general and special education sectors is also important at the district and regional levels. Oftentimes, states provide similar services for general and special education students through separate divisions or agencies.

The challenge, therefore, is to ensure that the activities of one agency complement the work of others in the department. Some states sponsor special education resource centers that offer training, professional development, and technical assistance. Ohio is one state that has used the regional resource center model to support special education since the s. The mission of the resource centers has evolved since the s to become much more prescriptive in determining which activities receive funding.

The centers have begun to direct their professional development toward principal-led teams to promote shared responsibility at the building level for the performance of all students. One problem for SERRCs, as one state staff member warned, is that the name can be both a resource and a barrier in that some people think the centers serve only special education providers.

The ERSS will unify professional development and technical assistance activities to target the individual needs of the state's districts. Georgia is another state with a long history of providing training and assistance to special education teachers through resource centers. As in Ohio, the purpose of Georgia's Learning Resource Centers GLRCs has evolved over their year existence to focus more on coaching and support-based activities for teachers and parents.

The parents of students with disabilities can be a valuable resource, and states are beginning to take advantage of this fact. Some states have started programs that train parents how to be advocates for their children and make them aware of the resources that are out there for them.

Support for parents is available from various sources, from resource centers like GLRCs to local or state advocacy organizations. Other states are involving parents in the accountability of LEAs and districts by letting them serve on accountability committees and in other ways. Where parents were an external part of the accountability process before NCLB and the reauthorization of IDEA, they are now deeply involved in many states. Ensuring that all students with disabilities receive instruction from a highly qualified teacher is a goal for each of the 10 states whose representatives we spoke with for this project.

Preservice training. Meeting that goal starts at the preservice level, where state departments and boards of education must work with local colleges and universities to create rigorous programs that adequately prepare general and special education teachers for the classroom.

For example, Florida has created Professional Development Plans based at universities that provide preservice training.

A major concern for educators and administrators is that new teachers enter their first year of teaching with all the tools they need to succeed. Florida allows students who majored in subject areas other than education to obtain their teaching certificate by taking a test once they have received their college degree.

This is not an ideal situation, however, as one staff member pointed out. A worry is that the new generation of teachers are students who majored in business and passed a test at the end of their college career to certify that they are ready to teach special education classes.

They do not have the training or experience that our older teachers have. Even if the new graduates are in a or hour program, they do not have the depth of learning.

It's a huge issue over who is going to be left and what their knowledge level is. Co-teaching models and mentoring programs have also been widely implemented across the nation. Veteran teachers are an important resource for schools to use in providing support for new teachers. One-on-one guidance from experienced teachers can help new teachers develop their skills and techniques.

Highly Qualified Teacher Requirement. A significant problem for districts and schools is NCLB's requirement that all students be taught by highly qualified teachers.

The highly qualified teacher HQT requirement in NCLB comes at a time when most states are struggling with massive teacher shortages, not just in the area of special education, but in general education as well. In many cases, veteran special education teachers have the skills but not the certification. Therefore, many states have used alternative approaches to ensure that all their special education teachers are highly qualified.

One popular approach for states was to use high, objective, unified state standards of evaluation otherwise known as HOUSSE to verify that experienced teachers had sufficient content area knowledge to be considered highly qualified.

The HQT requirement becomes a particularly difficult issue at the high school level for special education teachers. A special education teacher may be certified in one content area but may also teach other subjects. These goals should help close the gap with other students. There are no federal penalties for struggling schools. Instead, these schools will get more funding and will have to develop a plan to improve. This included students in special education.

States also had to set targets for improvement, called adequate yearly progress AYP. Decisions about what to do may be made by the state, or by local school districts and schools. But ESSA requires states to use evidence-based methods to help these struggling schools and students. If a school or subgroup of students was struggling, the federal government offered the state a specific set of actions to take to improve the school.

There was limited local decision-making. Schools must publicly report test results, other measures of student achievement, and information about how much funding they are receiving. The reporting has to show the performance of students in special education, minorities, those in poverty and those learning English.

The reporting had to show the performance of students in special education, minorities, those in poverty and those learning English. ESSA calls for the creation of a national center focused on literacy and reading issues for kids with disabilities.

This includes dyslexia. ESSA has a literacy education grant program. The grants fund evidence-based instruction in literacy skills, including writing, phonological awareness and decoding. This approach to teaching aims to meet the needs of all students, including those with learning and thinking differences.

The law also encourages states to expand personalized learning for students. Assessment Invite students to agree or disagree with the following statement:The early explorers were surprised by many of the foods they saw in the New World. Have students write a paragraph in support of their opinion. Click here to return to this week's World of Learning lesson plan page. Where Did Foods Originate? Foods of the New World and Old World.

Check out our helpful suggestions to find just the right one! The following statements will help you tailor your comments to specific children and highlight their areas for improvement. Related: Report Card Comments for positive comments!

Needs Improvement- all topics is a hard worker, but has difficulty staying on task. Additional work on these topics would be incredibly helpful.

Practicing at home would be very beneficial. Slowing down and taking more time would help with this. We are working on learning when it is a good time to share and when it is a good time to listen. Talking through the classroom routine at home would be helpful.

Practicing these at home would be very helpful. Active participation would be beneficial. Paying closer attention to the class discussions and the readings that we are doing would be beneficial. Intervention is required. Practicing this at home would be helpful. Student Award Certificates! Back to Top. Receive timely lesson ideas and PD tips. Sitemap Close Sitemap.