ALIGNMENT WITH THE NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT - Statute

10. Alignment of personnel development plans.
The application [for a state personnel development grant] shall include a plan that identifies and addresses state and local needs for preparation and professional development of personnel, as well as individuals who provide direct supplementary aids and services to children with disabilities, and that … is integrated and aligned, to the maximum extent possible, with state plans and activities under ESEA, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Higher Education Act of 1965. [653(a)(2)(C) of IDEA]

Dialogue Starter - Cross-stakeholder

Reaction Questions

  1. How can the perceptions about training needs by become better aligned with the perceptions of the state education agency?


  2. Who should be involved in determining what the training needs of teachers, related service providers, and support staff are?


  3. What role might families play in the professional development of school staff/


  4. What special training needs do families have?


Application Questions

  1. Who should be involved in determining the nature and design of personnel development to ensure it reflects best practices?


  2. Is there consensus about what constitutes best practices?


  3. How might staff development plans better reflect best practices?


  4. How might staff development plans bring special and general educators together around instruction?


  5. How might the staff in alternative programs be included in staff development and accountability plans?


  6. Why do you think that IDEA 2004 change to a state grant application for personnel development as opposed to state formula funding?


  7. How might the nature of personnel development change as a result of these provisions to access dollars?



    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


ALIGNMENT WITH THE NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT - Statute

3. Allows the use of funds in schoolwide programs.
… [A] local education agency (LEA) may use funds received under Part B for any fiscal year to carry out a schoolwide program under Section 1114 of ESEA, except that the amount so used in any such program shall not exceed:
  • The number of children with disabilities participating in the schoolwide program, multiplied by
    • The amount received by the LEA under this part for that fiscal year, divided by
    • The number of children with disabilities in the jurisdiction of that agency.

[613(a)(2)(D)(i) and (ii)(I)-(II) of IDEA]

Dialogue Starter - Cross-stakeholder

Reaction Questions

  1. What have been your experiences with school-wide programs?


  2. When do you feel it is an appropriate time to use special education funds for school-wide programs?


  3. How might reallocating funds to school-wide programs affect special education programs?


  4. Given your experience with inclusive education and school-wide programs, will students in special education benefit from participation in school wide programs?


  5. What are the implications for use of funds in school-wide programs:
    • Your school/district?
    • For you and your child/students?


  6. Are there attitudinal barriers to using IDEA funds in school wide programs?
    • Are there program barriers?
    • What impact might these barriers have on decisions about use of funds in school-wide programs?


Application Questions

  1. School wide programs aim to reduce time out of the classroom and provide services to all students without eligibility issues. What impact might a school-wide reading or math intervention have on the performance of students with disabilities? What impact might it have in meeting Adequate Yearly Progress?


  2. What training must be provided to maximize the school wide option
    • for general educators?
    • for special educators?
    • for families?


  3. What discussions must be held in advance of any decision to use IDEA funds in school-wide programs?
    • with general educators?
    • with special educators?
    • with families?




    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


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


ALIGNMENT WITH THE NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT - Statute

6. Requires reporting.
[The state] will 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 Section 612(a)(15)(A) of IDEA, that may include elements of the reports required under Section 1111(h) of ESEA. [612(a)(15)(C) of IDEA]

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 strategy important?
    • in human terms?
    • in terms of programs and resources?


  2. What are your experiences in examining the progress of children with disabilities toward meeting established standards in your school/district/state?
    • Does your school/district/state conduct routine progress monitoring?
    • What impact might progress monitoring have on the strategies used by systems?
    • What impact might progress monitoring have on the kinds of reporting used by systems?


  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 the useful to report strategies for achieving adequate yearly progress (AYP)?


  4. Why should an annual report of outcomes and specific strategies be linked to achieving AYP and other NCLB requirements? How might they be linked?


  5. What strategies have made a positive impact on adequate yearly progress (AYP) of students with disabilities in your (school/district/state)? If you do not know, how can you find out?


  6. How will the time devoted to progress monitoring impact the quality of instruction?
    How will data reporting impact the quality of instruction?


Application Questions

  1. How might educators respond to addressing more specific progress monitoring?


  2. Recall from your experience a specific strategy for monitoring and reporting progress. Drawing on your experience,
    • how might specific intervention strategies serve to preempt special education referrals ?
    • how might specific intervention strategies serve to positively impact outcomes?


  3. What kind of training will be useful in helping educators and families become more comfortable with progress monitoring?
    • With data reporting?
    • With data interpreting?




    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


ALIGNMENT WITH THE NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT - Statute

7. Provides for the measurement of the achievement of children with disabilities on alternate assessments against alternate achievement standards.
If the state has adopted alternate academic achievement standards permitted under the regulations promulgated to carry out Section 1111(b)(1) of ESEA, the guidelines developed and implemented under Section 612(a)(16)(c)(i) of IDEA shall provide for alternate assessments that … measure the achievement of children with disabilities against those standards. [612(a)(16)(C)(ii)(II) of IDEA]

Dialogue Starter - Cross-stakeholder

Reaction Questions

  1. Why is it necessary to have alternate achievement standards for some students?


  2. Why are alternate achievement standards important:
    • in human terms ?
    • in terms of programs and resources?



  3. What are the implications for alternate standards for:
    • the student ?
    • the school system?
    • you and others in your role?


  4. What are the advantages and disadvantages of alternate achievement standards?


Application Questions

  1. What are alternate standards?


  2. What is the impact of alternate standards and assessments on graduation for children with disabilities?


  3. How do we determine the validity of alternative assessments?


  4. What systemic barriers exist within the educational process which make it difficult to develop alternate standards?


  5. How do we currently measure performance against alternate assessment standards in your state?


  6. How can we develop assessment tools to better measure performance against alternate achievement standards?



    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