ALIGNMENT WITH THE NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND (NCLB) ACT - Regulations

1. Add new definitions.

“Core academic subjects.” The term “core academic subjects” means "English, reading or language arts, mathematics, science, foreign languages, civics and government, economics, arts, history, and geography."
[34 CFR 300.10] [sec. 9101(11) of ESEA] [20 U.S.C. 1401(4) of IDEA]

“Limited English proficient.” Limited English proficient has the meaning given the term in section 9101(25) of the ESEA.
[34 CFR 300.27] [9101(25) of ESEA]

“Highly qualified.” For a complete definition of the term “highly qualified,” refer to the “Highly Qualified Teachers” topic brief. The definition of "highly qualified special education teacher" in the final Part B regulations contains requirements for special education teachers teaching core academic subjects, special education teachers teaching to alternate achievement standards, and special education teachers teaching multiple subjects, which cross-reference the requirements in section 9101(23) of the ESEA and 34 CFR §200.56 of the ESEA regulations.
[34 CFR 300.18] [20 U.S.C. 1401(10)] [sec. 9101(23) of the ESEA]

"Scientifically based research." Scientifically based research has the meaning given the term in section 9101(37) of the ESEA.
[34 CFR 300.35] [20 U.S.C. 1411(e(2)(C)(xi)] [sec. 9101(37) of the ESEA]

“Scientifically based research” (as defined in the ESEA): (a) Means research that involves the application of rigorous, systematic, and objective procedures to obtain reliable and valid knowledge relevant to education activities and programs; and (b) Includes research that (1) Employs systematic, empirical methods that draw on observation or experiment; (2) Involves rigorous data analyses that are adequate to test the stated hypotheses and justify the general conclusions drawn; (3) Relies on measurements or observational methods that provide reliable and valid data across evaluators and observers, across multiple measurements and observations, and across studies by the same or different investigators; (4) Is evaluated using experimental or quasi-experimental designs in which individuals, entities, programs, or activities are assigned to different conditions and with appropriate controls to evaluate the effects of the condition of interest, with a preference for random-assignment experiments, or other designs to the extent that those designs contain within-condition or across-condition controls; (5) Ensures that experimental studies are presented in sufficient detail and clarity to allow for replication or, at a minimum, offer the opportunity to build systematically on their findings; and (6) Has been accepted by a peer-reviewed journal or approved by a panel of independent experts through a comparably rigorous, objective, and scientific review.
[34 CFR 300.35] [20 U.S.C. 1411(e(2)(C)(xi)] [sec. 9101(37) of the ESEA]

An LEA may not use more than 15 percent of the amount the LEA receives under Part B for any fiscal year, less any amount reduced by the LEA under §300.205 for adjustment of local fiscal effort in certain fiscal years, if any, in combination with other amounts (which may include amounts other than education funds), to develop and implement coordinated, early intervening services, which may include interagency financing structures, for students in kindergarten through grade 12, (with a particular emphasis on students in kindergarten through grade three) who are not currently identified as needing special education or related services, but who need additional academic and behavioral support to succeed in a general education environment. (See Appendix D for examples of how §300.205(d), regarding local maintenance of effort, and §300.226(a) affect one another.) In implementing coordinated, early intervening services under this section, an LEA may carry out activities that include: (1) Professional development (which may be provided by entities other than LEA's) for teachers and other school staff to enable such personnel to deliver scientifically based academic and behavioral interventions, including scientifically based literacy instruction; and (2) Providing educational and behavioral evaluations, services, and supports, including scientifically based literacy instruction. Funds made available for early intervening services may be used to carry out coordinated, early intervening services aligned with activities funded by, and carried out under the ESEA if those funds are used to supplement, and not supplant, funds made available under the ESEA for the activities and services assisted under this section.
[34 CFR 300.226(a)-(b)] [20 U.S.C. 1413(f)]


Dialogue Starter - Cross-stakeholder

Reaction Questions

  1. The term “core academic subjects” has not previously been included in IDEA. The definition is consistent with the definition located in NCLB. What relationship do you see between “core academic subjects” and the role of the teacher under the definition of a “highly qualified” special education teacher?


  2. How might the addition of “core academic subjects” affect students and their families?


Application Questions

  1. How might a school district address the requirements of a highly qualified teacher for each core academic subject for students with disabilities?


  2. How can a district locate and access resources on scientific, research-based interventions for use in schools?


  3. What practices need to be in place to inform students and families of the requirements of core academic subjects?

    These questions were developed by the following stakeholders working together:

    Role: TA Provider
    Location: California

    Role: Teacher
    Location: Florida

    Role: General Education Administrator
    Location: Illinois

    Role: Family Member
    Location: West Virginia

    Role: Related Service Provider
    Alaska

    Role: General Education Administrator
    Location: Wyoming

    Role: Special Education Administrator
    Florida

    Role: Higher Education
    Location: Indiana

    Role: Related Service Provider
    Location: Kentucky

    Role: Special Education Administrator
    Location: Georgia



ALIGNMENT WITH THE NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND (NCLB) ACT - Regulations

10. Provide a special rule for eligibility determination.

A child must not be determined to be a child with a disability under 34 CFR Part 300 if the determinant factor for that determination is lack of appropriate instruction in reading, including the essential components of reading instruction (as defined in section 1208(3) of the ESEA);lack of appropriate instruction in math; or limited English proficiency.
[34 CFR 300.306(b)(1)] [20 U.S.C. 1414(b)(5)]

Dialogue Starter - Cross-stakeholder

Reaction Questions

  1. IDEA asserts that a child should not be determined to be a child with a disability if the determinant factor is a lack of appropriate instruction in reading. Why was it necessary to make this distinction between reading difficulties that result from lack of appropriate reading instruction and those that result from disability?


  2. How does the requirement for appropriate instruction align with current eligibility determination practices? What are the implications of this change for schools and students in eligibility determination?


  3. How is special education eligibility determined in your district? How does your eligibility determination address appropriate instruction in reading and math; or limited English proficiency?


Application Questions

  1. What procedures and resources might facilitate more accurate eligibility determinations?


  2. How can schools provide appropriate math and reading instruction, including the essential scientifically-based components of reading for all students?


  3. How will the lack of appropriate instruction in reading and math be determined?
    • How will behavioral challenges impacting the delivery of appropriate reading and math instruction be addressed?
    • What role, if any, might the community play in addressing barriers for these behaviorally challenged students?


  4. What data should be collected and analyzed in the determination of a lack of appropriate instruction?

    These questions were developed by the following stakeholders working together:

    Role: TA Provider
    Location: California

    Role: Teacher
    Location: Florida

    Role: General Education Administrator
    Location: Illinois

    Role: Family Member
    Location: West Virginia

    Role: Related Service Provider
    Alaska

    Role: General Education Administrator
    Location: Wyoming

    Role: Special Education Administrator
    Florida

    Role: Higher Education
    Location: Indiana

    Role: Related Service Provider
    Location: Kentucky

    Role: Special Education Administrator
    Location: Georgia




ALIGNMENT WITH THE NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND (NCLB) ACT - Regulations

 

3. Allow the use of funds in schoolwide programs.

…Notwithstanding the provisions in §§300.202 regarding use of amounts and 300.203 regarding maintenance of effort or any other provision of Part B of the Act, an LEA may use funds received under Part B for any fiscal year to carry out a schoolwide program under Section 1114 of the ESEA, except that the amount so used in any such program may not exceed:
  • The amount received by the LEA under Part B of the Act for that fiscal year; divided by
  • The number of children with disabilities in the jurisdiction of the LEA; and multiplied by
  • The number of children with disabilities participating in the schoolwide program.
Funding conditions. The funds described in §300.205(a) are subject to the following conditions:
  • The funds must be considered as Federal Part B funds for purposes of the calculations required by §300.202(a)(2) (only to pay the excess costs of providing special education and related services to children with disabilities) and (a)(3) (must be used to supplement, and not supplant, State, local, and other Federal funds).
  • The funds may be used without regard to the requirements of §300.202(a)(1) (requiring LEAs to expend Part B funds in accordance with the applicable provisions of 34 CFR Part 300).
  • (c) Meeting other Part B requirements. Except as provided immediately above, all other requirements of Part B of the Act must be met by an LEA using Part B funds in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section, including ensuring that children with disabilities in schoolwide program schools-
  • (1) Receive services in accordance with a properly developed IEP; and
  • (2) Are afforded all of the rights and services guaranteed to children with disabilities under Part B.
[34 CFR 300.206(a) and (b)] [20 U.S.C. 1413(a)(2)(D)]


Dialogue Starter - Cross-stakeholder

Reaction Questions

  1. Schoolwide programs aim to reduce time out of the classroom and provide services to all students. What impact might a schoolwide reading or math intervention have on the performance of students with disabilities? What impact might it have in meeting Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)?


  2. What experiences have you had regarding schoolwide programs? Please share some of your experiences with schoolwide programs with which you have been involved.


  3. Can you give an example of when you feel it is appropriate to use special education funds for schoolwide programs?


  4. In your opinion, how might allocating funds to schoolwide programs affect special education programs and/or the achievement of students with disabilities?


  5. What might be the implications for use of funds in schoolwide programs. . . .
    • for your school/district?
    • for school staff?
    • for families and students?

Application Questions

  1. What discussions should be held in advance of any decision to use IDEA funds in schoolwide programs?
    • With general educators?
    • With special educators?
    • With students and families?
    • With the community and all stakeholders?


  2. What training or technical assistance might be needed to maximize the effectiveness of schoolwide interventions for general educators?
    • for special educators?
    • for students and families?
    • for administrators?
    • for related service providers


  3. How can the community support schoolwide programs? How can efforts be linked so that interventions in the school and community support each other?


  4. How can various funding sources, including available IDEA funds, be combined to benefit all students?


  5. What barriers, including attitudinal and programmatic, might various stakeholder groups face in using IDEA funds in schoolwide programs?
    • What impact might these barriers have on decisions about use of funds in school-wide programs?
    • What recommendations might be implemented to overcome these barriers?


  6. How might schoolwide programs be used to address educational goals in the student’s IEP?


  7. How could schoolwide programs connect with family needs?

    These questions were developed by the following stakeholders working together:

    Role: TA Provider
    Location: California

    Role: Teacher
    Location: Florida

    Role: General Education Administrator
    Location: Illinois

    Role: Family Member
    Location: West Virginia

    Role: Related Service Provider
    Alaska

    Role: General Education Administrator
    Location: Wyoming

    Role: Special Education Administrator
    Florida

    Role: Higher Education
    Location: Indiana

    Role: Related Service Provider
    Location: Kentucky

    Role: Special Education Administrator
    Location: Georgia

ALIGNMENT WITH THE NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND (NCLB) ACT - Regulations

6. Require performance goals and indicators.

The State must have in effect established goals for the performance of children with disabilities in the State that:
  • Promote the purposes of IDEA as stated in §300.1 of the final Part B regulations and Section 601(d) of the Act;
  • Are the same as the State's objectives for progress by children in its definition of adequate yearly progress (AYP), including the State's objectives for progress by children with disabilities, under Section 1111(b)(2)(C) of the 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 must have in effect 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 the ESEA.
[34 CFR 300.157(a) and (b)] [20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(15)(A) and (B)]

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. How might the required performance goals and indicators affect expectations for performance and outcomes for special education students?


  3. Where are the local/state AYP data located?
    • Are you familiar with how AYP data are reported?
    • In what ways have you used this data?


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


  5. When the performance of children with disabilities is measured, why is it important to consider graduation and dropout rates?
    • What is the graduation rate for your state/district for all students?
    • For students with disabilities?
    • Is graduation rate impacted by the use of alternate assessments?


  6. What strategies are used in your district/school to increase graduation rates, decrease dropout rates, and promote increased achievement for students with disabilities?


Application Questions

  1. Given your current district’s progress toward state performance goals, what can the district do to address improved achievement for all students, including the achievement of students with disabilities?


  2. What are some examples of effective research-based interventions that increase graduation rates, decrease dropout rates, and promote increased achievement for students with disabilities?


  3. How can schools and families use performance indicators to improve results for students with disabilities?


  4. What training or technical assistance might be needed to support schools and families in using AYP data more effectively to impact improved student achievement?

    These questions were developed by the following stakeholders working together:

    Role: TA Provider
    Location: California

    Role: Teacher
    Location: Florida

    Role: General Education Administrator
    Location: Illinois

    Role: Family Member
    Location: West Virginia

    Role: Related Service Provider
    Alaska

    Role: General Education Administrator
    Location: Wyoming

    Role: Special Education Administrator
    Florida

    Role: Higher Education
    Location: Indiana

    Role: Related Service Provider
    Location: Kentucky

    Role: Special Education Administrator
    Location: Georgia




ALIGNMENT WITH THE NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND (NCLB) ACT - Regulations

7. Require reporting.

[The State] must annually report to the secretary and the public on the progress of the State, and of children with disabilities in the State, toward meeting the goals established under §300.157(a) for the performance of children with disabilities in the State, that may include elements of the reports required under Section 1111(h) of the ESEA.
[34 CFR 300.157(c)] [20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(15)(C)]

Dialogue Starter - Cross-stakeholder

Reaction Questions

  1. IDEA addresses annual reports to the secretary and public on progress of children with disabilities toward meeting the goals. Why is this requirement important?
    • During the time that this reporting has been required, have you observed any impact on students?
    • On their families?
    • On your local school?
    • On the community?
    • What data in the report seems to be most helpful?


  2. In monitoring the progress of children with disabilities toward meeting established standards in your school/district/state, what have you determined as positive/negative?
    • Does your school/district/state conduct routine progress monitoring?
    • What impact might progress monitoring have on the programmatic strategies used by your district?
    • What impact might progress monitoring have on the kinds of reporting used by your district?
    • How has progress monitoring involved students, families and communities?


  3. Many schools, districts and states are looking for continuous improvement in their approach to school performance. If a school is following a continuous improvement model, why is it useful to report strategies for achieving adequate yearly progress (AYP)?


  4. What programs/instructional methods are included in progress monitoring under this section in your district?


  5. Why should an annual report of outcomes and specific strategies be linked to achieving AYP and other NCLB requirements
    • How might they be linked?
    • How does this linkage benefit students?


Application Questions

  1. How might educators address the specific progress monitoring procedures?


  2. What process will be needed in order to ensure students, families and the community are involved in reviewing and evaluating the current progress monitoring system?


  3. What strategies have improved adequate yearly progress (AYP) of students with disabilities in your school/district/state?


  4. How might the time devoted to progress monitoring impact the quality of instruction? How might data reporting impact the quality of instruction?


  5. Recalling from your experience a specific strategy for monitoring and reporting progress, how did this the strategy inform instruction?
    • How might specific intervention strategies serve to avert special education referrals?
    • How might specific intervention strategies impact outcomes for students with disabilities?


  6. What training might be useful to assist educators and families in becoming more informed with state data reporting and interpretation?


  7. What data will be included in the annual report?
    • What office is responsible for generating the report?
    • How will the report be disseminated?

    These questions were developed by the following stakeholders working together:

    Role: TA Provider
    Location: California

    Role: Teacher
    Location: Florida

    Role: General Education Administrator
    Location: Illinois

    Role: Family Member
    Location: West Virginia

    Role: Related Service Provider
    Alaska

    Role: General Education Administrator
    Location: Wyoming

    Role: Special Education Administrator
    Florida

    Role: Higher Education
    Location: Indiana

    Role: Related Service Provider
    Location: Kentucky

    Role: Special Education Administrator
    Location: Georgia