• Home
ALIGNMENT WITH THE NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT - Statute

5. Requires performance goals and indicators.
The state has established goals for the performance of children with disabilities in the state that:
  • Promote the purposes of IDEA as stated in Section 601(d);
  • Are the same as the state's definition of adequate yearly progress (AYP), including the state's objectives for progress by children with disabilities, under Section 1111(b)(2)(C) of ESEA;
  • Address graduation rates and dropout rates, as well as such other factors as the state may determine; and
  • Are consistent, to the extent appropriate, with any other goals and standards for children established by the state.
In addition, the state has established performance indicators it will use to assess progress toward achieving the goals described in Section 612(a)(15)(A) of IDEA, including measurable annual objectives for progress by children with disabilities under Section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II)(cc) of ESEA. [612(a)(15)(A) and (B) of IDEA]

Dialogue Starter - Cross-stakeholder

Reaction Questions

  1. Why is it important for the state to establish performance goals and indicators for children with disabilities?


  2. Why is it important for the state’s definition of adequate yearly progress (AYP) under NCLB be the same for both regular and special education students?


  3. What is your experience with your (school/district/state) data on AYP progress?


  4. In your experience, how do expectations impact student performance?


  5. When we measure performance of children with disabilities, why is it important to consider graduation rate?


Application Questions

  1. How does your (district/state) measure drop out/graduation rates?
    • What does your data show?
    • Are there contributing factors that need to be measured that drive dropout/ graduation rates? What are they?


  2. How do (districts/states) currently address drop out / low graduation rates problems?
    • What strategies and programs might be implemented to address problems evident in the data?
    • How might you monitor the implementation of the strategies and programs targeted to reducing drop outs and increasing graduation with a diploma?


  3. What does your (school/district/state) use to measure adequate yearly progress (AYP)?
    • How meaningful are those measures to you?
    • How might you use the information provided by these measures?


  4. Why is it important for the state definitions of AYP be the same for all students?


  5. What attitudinal and other systemic barriers to using the same definition of AYP for special education students and regular education students?


  6. How do you think the new law will affect expectations for performance and outcomes for special education students?



    These questions were developed by the following stakeholders working together:


    Role: Administrator
    Location: Illinois

    Role: Family Member / University Faculty
    Location: Florida

    Role: Family Member
    Location: Michigan

    Role: State Policymaker
    Location: Maryland

    Role: Family Member
    Location: Florida

    Role: Technical Assistance Provider
    Location: District of Columbia

    Role: Family Member
    Location: Delaware

    Role: Policymaker
    Location: Colorado

    Role: Policymaker
    Location: Virginia