Proposed Rule: Elementary and Secondary Education and Special Education and Rehabilitative Services: Children With Disabilities Assistance To States

Thursday,
December 15, 2005
Part VI
Department of
Education
34 CFR Parts 200 and 300
Title I—Improving the Academic
Achievement of the Disadvantaged;
Individuals With Disabilities Education
Act (IDEA)—Assistance to States for the
Education of Children With Disabilities;
Proposed Rule
VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:25 Dec 14, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\15DEP5.SGM 15DEP5
74624 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 240 / Thursday, December 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Management and Budget at the disability who needs assistance to
address listed in the Paperwork review the comments or other
34 CFR Parts 200 and 300 Reduction Act section of this preamble. documents in the public rulemaking
RIN 1810–AA98 You may also send a copy of these record for these proposed regulations. If
comments to the Department you want to schedule an appointment
Title I—Improving the Academic representative named in this section. for this type of aid, please contact the
Achievement of the Disadvantaged; FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: persons listed under FOR FURTHER
Individuals With Disabilities Education Jacquelyn C. Jackson, Ed.D, Director, INFORMATION CONTACT.
Act (IDEA)—Assistance to States for Student Achievement and School Background
the Education of Children With Accountability Programs, Office of
Disabilities Elementary and Secondary Education, These proposed regulations would
Telephone: (202) 260–0826 or via amend regulations in 34 CFR part 200,
AGENCY: Office of Elementary and implementing certain provisions of Title
Internet at jacqueline.jackson@ed.gov,
Secondary Education; Office of Special I, Part A of the ESEA, as amended by
or you may contact Troy R. Justesen,
Education and Rehabilitative Services, NCLB, which is designed to help
Ed.D, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office
U.S. Department of Education. disadvantaged children meet high
of Special Education and Rehabilitative
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. academic standards. They would also
Services, Telephone: (202) 245–7468 or
amend regulations in 34 CFR part 300,
via Internet at troy.justesen@ed.gov.
SUMMARY: The Secretary proposes to implementing programs for students
If you use a telecommunications
amend the regulations governing with disabilities under Part B of the
device for the deaf (TDD), you may call
programs administered under Title I of IDEA.
the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1– These proposed regulations provide
the Elementary and Secondary
800–877–8339. flexibility for some students with
Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as
Individuals with disabilities may disabilities similar to that afforded by
amended by the No Child Left Behind
obtain this document in an alternative the current Title I regulations in 34 CFR
Act of 2001 (NCLB) (referred to in these
format (e.g., Braille, large print, part 200 regarding children with the
proposed regulations as the Title I
audiotape, or computer diskette) on most significant cognitive disabilities.
program) and the regulations governing
request to the contact persons listed Those Title I regulations permit a State
programs under Part B of the
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION to develop alternate academic
Individuals with Disabilities Education
CONTACT. achievement standards for students with
Act (IDEA) (referred to in these
proposed regulations as the IDEA SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: the most significant cognitive
program). The proposed regulations disabilities and to include those
Invitation to Comment
would provide States with additional students’ proficient and advanced
flexibility regarding State, local We invite you to submit comments scores on alternate assessments based
educational agency (LEA), and school regarding these proposed regulations. on alternate achievement standards in
accountability for the achievement of a To ensure that your comments have the measuring adequate yearly progress
group of students with disabilities who maximum effect as we develop the final (AYP), subject to a cap of 1.0 percent of
can make significant progress, but may regulations, we urge you to identify the students assessed at the State and
not reach grade-level achievement clearly the specific section or sections of district levels. The purpose of those
standards within the same time frame as the proposed regulations that each of regulations was to provide flexibility for
other students, even after receiving the your comments addresses and to arrange States and LEAS regarding the
best-designed instructional your comments in the same order as the assessment of a very small group of
interventions from highly trained proposed regulations. students—those students with the most
teachers. We invite you to assist us in significant cognitive disabilities—to
complying with the specific ensure that schools and districts receive
DATES: We must receive your comments requirements of Executive Order 12866 credit for the good work they are doing
on or before February 28, 2006. and its overall requirement of reducing with those students.
ADDRESSES: Address all comments about regulatory burden that might result from In the preamble to the December 9,
these proposed regulations to Jacquelyn these proposed regulations. Please let us 2003 notice announcing the regulations
C. Jackson, Ed.D., Director, Student know of any further opportunities we adopting the flexibility for students with
Achievement and School Accountability should take to reduce potential costs or the most significant cognitive
Programs, Office of Elementary and increase potential benefits while disabilities, the Department indicated
Secondary Education, U.S. Department preserving the effective and efficient that, ‘‘as data and research on assessing
of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, administration of the program. students with disabilities improve, the
SW., room 3C156, FB–6, Washington, During and after the comment period, Department may decide to issue
DC 20202–6132. If you prefer to send you may inspect all public comments regulations or guidance on other related
your comments through the Internet, about these proposed regulations in issues in the future’’ (68 FR 68698).
you may address them to us at the U.S. room 3W100, FB–6, 400 Maryland Since that time, information
Government Web site: http:// Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, between accumulated from the experiences of
www.regulations.gov. the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., many States, as well as recent research,
Or you may send your Internet Eastern time, Monday through Friday of indicates that there are other students
comments to us at the following each week except Federal holidays. who, because of their disability, have
address: TitleIrulemaking@ed.gov. You significant difficulty achieving grade-
must include the term ‘‘proposed 2% Assistance to Individuals With level proficiency, even with the best
rule’’ in the subject line of your Disabilities in Reviewing the instruction. This information and
electronic message. Rulemaking Record research indicate that there is a group of
If you want to comment on the On request, we will supply an students with disabilities whose
information collection requirements, appropriate aid, such as a reader or progress in response to high-quality
you must send your comments to the print magnifier, to an individual with a instruction, including special education
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 240 / Thursday, December 15, 2005 / Proposed Rules 74625
and related services designed to address include this new flexibility to assess achievement standards possible for
the student’s individual needs, is such students with disabilities based on those students. An alternate
that the student is not likely to achieve modified achievement standards. This achievement standard is an expectation
grade-level proficiency within the coordination of the regulations for the of performance that differs in
school year covered by the student’s IDEA and Title I programs will avoid complexity from a grade-level
individualized education program (IEP). confusion among parents, teachers, and achievement standard.
The proposed regulations would administrators, and reinforce IDEA’s Proposed Regulations: Similar to the
provide States with additional and Title I’s shared goal of high flexibility afforded to States and LEAs
flexibility in measuring the achievement expectations and accountability for all for students with the most significant
of this group of students with students. We will issue a final § 300.160 cognitive disabilities, proposed
disabilities who do not meet State at the same time that we issue the final § 200.1(e) would allow a State to use a
guidelines to participate in an alternate Title I regulations proposed in this documented and validated standards-
assessment based on alternate notice. setting process to define modified
achievement standards, which is achievement standards for some
appropriate only for students with the Significant Proposed Regulations students with disabilities. Proposed
most significant cognitive disabilities. We discuss substantive issues under § 200.1(e)(1)(i) through (iii) would
Specifically, the proposed regulations the sections of the proposed regulations require that modified achievement
would permit States to develop to which they pertain. Generally, we do standards provide access to grade-level
modified achievement standards (and not address proposed regulatory curriculum; be aligned with the State’s
assessments that measure achievement provisions that are technical or academic content standards for the
based on those standards) that are otherwise minor in effect. grade in which the student is enrolled,
aligned with grade-level content Section 200.1 State Responsibilities for although the modified achievement
standards, but are modified in such a Developing Challenging Academic standards may reflect reduced breadth
manner that they reflect reduced Standards or depth of grade-level content; and not
breadth or depth of grade-level content. preclude a student from earning a
At the same time, the proposed Statute: Section 1111(b)(1) of Title I regular high-school diploma.
regulations would include several requires each State to adopt challenging Proposed § 200.1(e)(2) would require
safeguards to ensure that students are academic content standards and student a State to adopt specific criteria for IEP
not inappropriately assessed based on academic achievement standards in teams to use in determining whether a
modified achievement standards, mathematics, reading/language arts, student is eligible to be assessed based
including requirements that each State and, beginning in the 2005–2006 school on modified achievement standards.
develop guidelines defining which year, science. These standards must be Proposed § 200.1(e)(2)(i) through (iii)
students with disabilities are eligible to the same for all public elementary and provides that, in order for an IEP team
be assessed based on modified secondary schools and all public school to determine that a student is eligible to
achievement standards. Similar to the students in the State. The State’s be assessed based on modified
current regulations, under the proposed academic content standards must achievement standards, the IEP team
regulations, States and LEAs would be specify what all students are expected to must conclude that: The student’s
permitted to include the proficient and know and be able to do, contain disability has precluded the student
advanced scores from assessments based coherent and rigorous content, and from achieving grade-level proficiency,
on modified achievement standards in encourage the teaching of advanced as demonstrated by objective evidence;
AYP determinations, subject to a cap at skills. The State’s student academic the student’s progress in response to
the district and State levels based on the achievement standards must be aligned high-quality instruction, including
total number of students assessed. As with the State’s content standards and special education and related services
described elsewhere in this notice, the must describe at least three levels of designed to address the student’s
best available research and data indicate achievement: advanced, proficient, and individual needs, is such that the
that 2.0 percent, or approximately 20 basic. student is not likely to achieve grade-
percent of students with disabilities, is Current regulations: Section 200.1 of level proficiency within the school year
a reasonable cap. We are also proposing the Title I regulations implements the covered by the IEP; and the student is
other changes that would address the statutory requirements in section receiving instruction in the grade-level
implementation of this cap at the State 1111(b)(1), regarding the development curriculum for the subjects in which the
and local levels. of standards generally. A State must student is being assessed. Proposed
Additionally, to ensure a coordinated apply these standards to all public § 200.1(e)(3) would clarify that students
administration of the IDEA and Title I elementary and secondary schools and eligible to take assessments based on
programs, § 300.160 of these proposed public school students in the State. modified achievement standards may be
regulations would make changes to the Section 200.1 also recognizes that there in any of the 13 disability categories
proposed regulations published in the is a small percentage of students with listed in the IDEA. Proposed
Federal Register on June 21, 2005 (70 disabilities—those with the most § 200.1(e)(4) would provide that a
FR 35839) to implement the IDEA as significant cognitive disabilities—who student may be held to modified
reauthorized by the Individuals with will likely never reach grade-level academic achievement standards in one
Disabilities Education Improvement Act achievement standards, even with the or more subjects for which the State
of 2004, Public Law No. 108–446, very best instruction. Thus, § 200.1(d) administers assessments. Proposed
enacted on December 3, 2004, regarding permits a State to develop alternate § 200.1(e)(5) would require that IEP
inclusion of children with disabilities in achievement standards for students with teams review on an annual basis their
State and district-wide assessment the most significant cognitive decision to assess a student based on
systems in accordance with section disabilities, so long as those standards modified achievement standards to
612(a)(16) of the IDEA. We are are aligned with the State’s academic ensure that those standards remain
proposing regulations that will content standards, promote access to the appropriate.
implement relevant provisions of the general curriculum, and reflect Proposed § 200.1(f), regarding the
recently reauthorized IDEA and will professional judgment of the highest development of State guidelines and
notice to parents, would incorporate the standards. Because assessing a student’s appropriate services and interventions,
provisions of § 200.6(a)(2)(iii)(A) and performance based on modified including special education and related
include references to assessments based achievement standards would not services designed to address the
on modified achievement standards. preclude a student from receiving a student’s individual needs, can be
This provision would require each State regular diploma, students with assessed based on grade-level
to establish and ensure implementation disabilities participating in this type of achievement standards. The effect of
of clear and appropriate guidelines for assessment would not automatically be these proposed regulations and the
IEP teams to use in determining which held to a lower graduation standard. IDEA will put into place four key
students with disabilities may be held to The proposed regulations also are safeguards regarding identification for
either alternate or modified academic necessary to ensure that States have assessment based on modified
achievement standards and to ensure guidelines in place with certain key achievement standards:
that parents of those students, as elements that will help IEP teams 1. Consistent with the IDEA and as a
members of the IEP team and as appropriately determine which students part of the evaluation process, a team of
participants in the IEP process, are should be assessed based on modified qualified professionals and the parent of
informed that their child’s achievement achievement standards. We anticipate the child would ensure that a student is
will be measured based on alternate or that it will be more difficult, in general, not identified for special education
modified achievement standards. for IEP teams to determine the students services due to lack of instruction. That
Reasons: In proposing these with disabilities for whom modified is, the team must demonstrate that the
amendments to § 200.1, we achievement standards would be determining factor for such
acknowledge that, while all children appropriate than it is for IEP teams to identification is not a lack of
can learn challenging content, certain determine the students with the most appropriate instruction in reading and
students, because of their disability, significant cognitive disabilities for math (20 U.S.C. 1414(b)(5)). After a
may not be able to achieve grade-level whom alternate achievement standards child is identified, the special education
proficiency within the same time-frame are appropriate. Students assessed based and related services a child receives
as other students, even after receiving on modified achievement standards under the child’s IEP should be of high
the best-designed instructional would not simply be students who are quality and specially designed to meet
interventions, including special having difficulty with grade-level the unique needs of the individual, and
education and related services designed content or who are receiving instruction move a child closer to grade-level
to address the student’s individual below grade level. Nor would they achievement, if the child is not already
needs, from highly trained teachers. We necessarily be the lowest-achieving two achieving at grade level.
believe it is appropriate for these percent of students, who are not 2. Proposed § 200.1(e)(2)(ii)(A) would
students to be assessed on grade-level students with the most significant ensure that IEP teams examine a
content, but to measure their cognitive disabilities. In fact, based on student’s progress in response to high-
performance based on achievement recent data from the Special Education quality instruction, including special
standards that have been modified and Elementary Longitudinal Study (SEELS) education and related services designed
differ in breadth or depth from grade- funded by the Office of Special to address the student’s needs. The
level achievement standards. The Education Programs (OSEP), we requirement to assess the student’s
proposed regulations would permit anticipate that students from each of the performance using multiple measures
States to establish modified 13 disability categories listed in the over time in proposed § 200.1(e)(2)(ii)(B)
achievement standards, so long as they IDEA will be among those who are would ensure that a student is not given
meet certain requirements under assessed based on modified an assessment based on modified
proposed § 200.1(e)(1) that are designed achievement standards. achievement standards on the basis of
to ensure that these students work Students for whom modified performance on one assessment or
toward mastering grade-level content. achievement standards would be measurement.
The proposed regulation therefore appropriate may require assessments 3. Proposed § 200.1(e)(2)(iii) would
would require that modified that are different both in format or ensure that students are not assessed
achievement standards be aligned with design due to the nature of their based on modified achievement
grade-level content, but adjusted to disability. IEP teams would determine standards if they have not had the
reflect reduced breadth or depth of the appropriateness of modified opportunity to learn grade-level content.
grade-level content so that students with achievement standards based on the Implementing challenging standards,
disabilities participating in an unique needs of each individual student coupled with ensuring that students are
assessment based on modified with a disability. However, because it is receiving grade-level instruction in the
achievement standards would be better of paramount importance to ensure that subjects in which they are assessed,
able to demonstrate what they know and students are not held inappropriately to would provide a safeguard against
can do. standards other than grade-level leaving children behind due to lack of
Although proficient performance achievement standards, the proposed proper instruction.
based on modified achievement regulations would include criteria that 4. As indicated in proposed
standards will not indicate the same we consider critical to support States in 200.1(e)(5), the decision to assess a
level of achievement as proficient their implementation of modified student based on modified achievement
performance based on grade-level achievement standards and to ensure standards would not be a permanent
achievement standards, modified that IEP teams make appropriate one, and would be reviewed on a yearly
achievement standards must be aligned determinations about which students basis as part of the IEP process.
to grade-level content standards. participate in assessments based on Proposed § 200.1(f) emphasizes the
Furthermore, we anticipate that there modified achievement standards. The very important responsibility of each
will be significant overlap between the proposed criteria are designed to help State to establish clear and appropriate
regular and modified achievement IEP teams distinguish between students guidelines, which include the criteria
standards; but there would be no similar whose disability has truly precluded for IEP teams to apply in determining
overlap between alternate achievement them from achieving grade-level whether a student with a disability may
standards and grade-level achievement proficiency and those who, with be held to modified academic
achievement standards. The guidelines significant cognitive disabilities to be § 200.6(a)(2)(iii)(C), regarding

required by proposed § 200.1(f) must measured with alternate assessments documenting that students with the
provide sufficient guidance to ensure that yield results based on alternate most significant cognitive disabilities
that IEP teams (which include parents) achievement standards, the State must are, to the extent possible, included in
make appropriate decisions regarding report, to the Secretary, those results the general curriculum, would be
those students for whom either alternate separately from students with moved to § 200.6(a)(2)(iii).
or modified achievement standards are disabilities who take the regular Reasons: The proposed amendments
appropriate. Moreover, § 200.1(f) would assessment or an alternate assessment to § 200.6 acknowledge the
also safeguard students’ interests based on grade-level achievement appropriateness of allowing a small
because parents, as members of the IEP standards. The State must also percentage of students with disabilities
teams, will participate in and be document that students with the most to be assessed based on modified
informed about the decision to assess significant cognitive disabilities are academic achievement standards
their child’s achievement based on included, to the extent possible, in the aligned with the State’s grade-level
alternate or modified achievement general curriculum and in assessments academic content standards. The
standards. aligned with that curriculum. In proposed amendment does not limit the
addition, the State must promote the use number or percentage of students who
Section 200.6 Inclusion of All Students
of appropriate accommodations to may take assessments based on
Statute: Section 1111(b)(3)(C) of Title increase the number of students with modified achievement standards
I of the ESEA provides that a State’s the most significant cognitive defined pursuant to § 200.1(e) as
academic assessment system must be disabilities who are tested against grade- determined appropriate by their IEP
aligned with the State’s challenging level achievement standards. Finally, teams.
academic content and academic the State must ensure that teachers and The format of the assessment is less
achievement standards and measure the other staff know how to administer critical than the content of the modified
achievement of all students in the assessments, including how to use academic achievement standards.
grades assessed, including students with appropriate accommodations, for
disabilities as defined under section Modified achievement standards may be
students with the most significant expressed in various forms: for example,
602(3) of the IDEA, students covered by cognitive disabilities.
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of as scores from an assessment limited to
Proposed regulations: Section 200.6
1973, as amended (Section 504), and ‘‘core content and achievement’’
would be amended to allow a State to
students with limited English expectations; or as results from an
develop and implement modified
proficiency. With respect to students assessment that includes non-traditional
academic achievement standards
with disabilities in particular, the items based on grade-level content. The
(defined by the State pursuant to
system must provide for reasonable critical characteristic is that an
proposed § 200.1(e)(1)) to assess
accommodations necessary to measure assessment based on modified
students with disabilities who meet the
their academic achievement relative to achievement standards clearly reflects
criteria in proposed § 200.1(e)(2).
the State’s content and achievement grade-level content standards even if the
Proposed § 200.6(a)(3) would allow a
standards that all students are expected breadth or depth of those standards is
State to use its regular assessment, with
to meet. reduced or the format or design is
accommodations if necessary, or an
Current regulations: Section 200.6 of different.
alternate assessment, provided the
the Title I regulations clarifies that a assessment— The current Title I regulations do not
State’s academic assessment system • Is aligned with the State’s grade- prohibit the use of out-of-level
must include accommodations for level content standards; assessments in all cases. They may be
students with disabilities under the • Yields results that measure the used to assess students with the most
IDEA and for students covered under achievement of students separately in significant cognitive disabilities if they
Section 504 to allow the State to both reading/language arts and are aligned with a State’s alternate
measure the academic achievement of mathematics relative to the State’s achievement standards that meet the
these students relative to the State’s modified academic achievement requirements of current § 200.1(d).
academic content and academic standards; However, under proposed § 200.1(e) and
achievement standards for the grades in • Meets the requirements under § 200.6, States would not be permitted
which they are enrolled. In addition, the §§ 200.2 and 200.3, including validity, to use an out-of-level test to measure the
regulations require a State to provide reliability, and high technical quality; achievement of students with
one or more alternate assessments for and disabilities based on modified
students with disabilities who cannot • Fits coherently in the State’s overall achievement standards. The proposed
participate in all or part of the State assessment system required under regulations require that any assessment
assessment, even with appropriate § 200.2. based on modified achievement
accommodations. These alternate Proposed § 200.6(a)(4)(iii) would standards must meet the grade-level
assessments must yield results for the require a State to report separately on alignment requirements of § 200.1(e)(1),
grade in which the student is enrolled the percentage of students with and an out-of-level assessment, by
in at least reading/language arts, disabilities taking assessments based on definition, cannot meet these
mathematics, and, beginning in the modified achievement standards. requirements because it is not aligned
2007–2008 school year, science. Finally, the proposed regulations would with the content being taught at the
Section 200.6 also permits the use of move several similar existing provisions grade-level in which the student is
alternate assessments to measure the to the same location in the regulations. enrolled. It is not acceptable, for
achievement of students with the most Current § 200.6(a)(2)(iii)(D) and (E), example, simply to assess a child who
significant cognitive disabilities based regarding increasing accommodations may be reading at a third-grade level
on the alternate academic achievement and teacher training to ensure that more using a third-grade assessment when the
standards a State adopts under students with disabilities can take a child is actually enrolled in the sixth
§ 200.1(d). If a State permits the State’s regular assessments, would be grade and expected to be receiving
achievement of students with the most moved to § 200.6(a)(1)(ii). Current grade-level content.
Even though modified achievement parents in terms of student their achievement. States also requested
standards differ from grade-level competencies represented by labels to set a higher minimum group size for
achievement standards, the following such as ‘‘basic’’ or ‘‘proficient.’’ LEP students for similar reasons.
protections in the regulation are Setting a different group size,
Section 200.7 Disaggregation of Data however, can lead to unintended
designed to prevent students with
disabilities from being left behind and Statute: Section 1111(b)(2)(C)(iv) of consequences, such as manipulating the
to ensure that these students continue to Title I requires a State’s definition of number of LEP or special education
receive challenging, grade-level AYP to measure the progress of specific students in a particular school to ensure
instruction: subgroups of students, including that the school will not be specifically
1. The modified achievement students with disabilities, unless the held accountable for those students.
standards must be aligned to grade-level number of students in a category is Once these proposed regulations are
content standards. Although the breadth insufficient to yield statistically reliable implemented, we believe that States
or depth of the standards may be information. will have sufficient flexibility to
reduced, it is grade-level content Current regulations: Section measure the achievement of students
standards, not ‘‘extended’’ standards or 200.7(a)(1) of the Title I regulations with disabilities appropriately and will
instructional-level standards, that must prohibits a State from using no longer need a different group size for
be the basis of the assessment and the disaggregated data for one or more this subgroup. States will be able to use
modified achievement standards. subgroups to report achievement results different achievement standards for
(Proposed § 200.1(e)(1)(i)). If a State’s or to identify schools in need of approximately thirty percent of students
content standards include 20 different improvement, corrective action, or with disabilities, which is a significant
statements of what a student should restructuring if the number of students change in how those students are
know, it would not be appropriate to in those subgroups is insufficient to assessed. States have also been offered
reduce the number of standards yield statistically reliable information. flexibility in including the scores of LEP
assessed on modified achievement Section 200.7(a)(2) requires a State to students who have recently arrived in
standards to address only a few of those determine, based on sound statistical the United States, as well as to count in
content standards. Although the methodology, the minimum number of the LEP subgroup for two years the
Department will not set a specific students sufficient to yield statistically scores of students who exit the LEP
numerical goal of how many standards reliable information for each purpose for category. We believe that, in order to
should be addressed, we note that the which disaggregated data are used. ensure that schools are held accountable
modified achievement standards will be Proposed regulations: Section for the achievement of LEP students and
peer-reviewed and we expect States to 200.7(a)(2) would be amended to students with disabilities, the use of
establish meaningful academic prohibit a State from establishing a differentiated group sizes for purposes
expectations for all students. different minimum number of students of measuring AYP must end.
2. The student receives instruction for separate subgroups, regardless of
whether the State chooses to implement Section 200.13 Adequate Yearly
based on grade-level content standards.
modified achievement standards. In Progress in General
(Proposed § 200.1(e)(1)(ii) and (2)(iii)).
3. ‘‘Proficient’’ performance on other words, a State would no longer be Statute: Under section 1111(b)(2)(B)
modified achievement standards does able to set a higher minimum number of Title I of the ESEA, each State must
not preclude a student from earning a for the subgroup of students with define what constitutes AYP of the
regular high school diploma. (Proposed disabilities, for example, than it sets for State, and of all public elementary and
§ 200.1(e)(1)(iii)). all its students or for its other secondary schools and LEAs in the
A State may assess achievement based subgroups. As another example, the State, toward enabling all students to
on modified achievement standards in proposed regulation would restrict meet the State’s student academic
several ways, either by designing an States from setting a higher minimum achievement standards. This definition
entirely new assessment, or by group size for limited English proficient must apply the same high standards of
modifying an existing grade-level (LEP) students. academic achievement to all public
assessment. Modifications might Reasons: Prior to the implementation elementary and secondary school
include: of the regulations on alternate students in the State, be statistically
• Changes to content, such as achievement standards for students with valid and reliable, and measure progress
coverage of a reduced number of grade- the most significant cognitive based primarily on the State’s academic
level content standards that have been disabilities and the announcement of assessments. AYP must also include
identified by the State as essential for these proposed regulations, a State did measurable objectives for specific
progress to the next grade. not have much flexibility in measuring subgroups of students, including
• Changes to test format or the achievement of students with students with disabilities. To make
administration, such as modified item disabilities for AYP purposes. Because AYP, a school must: meet or exceed the
format or response options, or use of of ongoing concerns about how State’s annual measurable objectives
only selected portions of the accurately State assessments measure with respect to all students and students
assessment. the achievement of a very heterogeneous in each subgroup; test at least 95 percent
Regardless of the method employed, a group of students (many of whom were of all students and of the students in
State must limit the use of modified assessed with a range of each subgroup enrolled in the school;
achievement standards to the accommodations and modifications to and make progress on the other
appropriate group of students. As the regular assessment), some States academic indicators determined by the
proposed by these regulations, the State requested permission to use a larger State.
must use a documented standard-setting minimum number of students—group Current Regulations: The current Title
procedure. Results based on modified size—for their students with disabilities I regulations in § 200.13 require that
achievement standards must be valid subgroup. In support of their request, each State demonstrate in its State plan
and reliable to be used as a component these States argued that a larger group what constitutes AYP of the State and
in AYP determinations. Results would size for this subgroup of students would of all public elementary and secondary
also need to be clearly explained to account for the challenges of measuring schools and LEAs in the State in a
manner that applies the same high Proposed Regulations: Proposed on proficient and advanced scores based
standards of achievement to all public § 200.13(c) would specify acceptable on alternate achievement standards, nor
school students; is statistically valid and uses of modified achievement standards would the State be able to request an
reliable; results in continuous and for students with disabilities who meet exception to exceed the 2.0 percent cap
substantial academic improvement for the criteria in proposed § 200.1(e)(2) for on proficient and advanced scores based
all students; measures the progress of all the purpose of determining AYP. on modified achievement standards. A
public schools, LEAs, and the State Specifically, proposed § 200.13(c)(2)(ii) State would still be able to grant an
based primarily on the State’s academic would permit a State to include in its exception to an LEA to exceed the 1.0
assessment system; measures progress calculation of AYP the proficient and percent cap on proficient and advanced
separately for reading/language arts and advanced scores of students with scores based on alternate achievement
for mathematics; is the same for all disabilities on assessments based on standards if the LEA meets certain
public schools and LEAs in the State; modified achievement standards, requirements. A State would not be
and applies the same annual measurable provided the number of such scores able, however, to grant an exception to
objectives for all students and for all does not exceed 2.0 percent of all an LEA to exceed the 2.0 percent cap on
identified subgroups described in students in the grades assessed in proficient and advanced scores based on
§ 200.13(b)(7)(ii). reading/language arts and mathematics, modified academic achievement
separately, at the LEA and State levels. standards. If a State grants an LEA an
Section 200.13(c) contains the rules Although the 2.0 percent cap would not exception to exceed the 1.0 percent cap,
for calculating AYP with respect to apply at the school level, schools should the total number of students with
students with the most significant be mindful of the LEA limit, which may disabilities in that LEA whose proficient
cognitive disabilities. It permits a State restrict the number of proficient scores and advanced scores may be included in
to include proficient and advanced for any one school that the LEA or State calculating AYP would thus exceed 3.0
scores of those students on assessments may include in its AYP calculations. percent by the amount of the exception.
based on alternate achievement Proposed § 200.13(c)(3) would permit a However, the State would not be
standards in determining AYP, subject State’s or LEA’s proficient and advanced permitted to exceed its overall cap of 3.0
to a 1.0 percent cap at the LEA and State scores on assessments based on percent based on exceptions it had
levels. There is no cap at the school modified achievement standards to granted to LEAs. The proposed
level. A State may request from the exceed 2.0 percent of all students in the regulation also would provide that, for
Secretary an exception to exceed the 1.0 grades assessed, without the need for an any proficient and advanced scores of
percent cap if it can document that the exception at the LEA level, if the students with the most significant
incidence of students with the most number of proficient and advanced cognitive disabilities that exceed the
significant disabilities exceeds 1.0 scores on assessments based on caps and authorized exceptions, a State
percent due to such circumstances as alternate achievement standards in would need to count those scores as
school, community, or health programs § 200.1(d) is less than 1.0 percent, non-proficient and redistribute them
that have drawn large numbers of provided the number of proficient and among schools and LEAs responsible for
families of students with the most advanced scores based on modified and students with disabilities who are
significant cognitive disabilities or a alternate achievement standards assessed based on alternate or modified
student population so small that it combined does not exceed 3.0 percent achievement standards.
would take only a very few students to of all students in the grades assessed. The following table provides a
exceed the 1.0 percent cap. A State may Proposed § 200.13(c)(4) would summary of the circumstances in which
grant an LEA’s request for an exception provide that a State would no longer be we are proposing that a State or LEA
to exceed the 1.0 percent cap under able to request from the Secretary an would be permitted to exceed the 1%
similar conditions. exception to exceed the 1.0 percent cap and 2% caps.
WHEN CAN A STATE OR LEA EXCEED THE 1% AND 2% CAPS?

Alternate achievement stand- Modified achievement stand- Alternate and modified achieve-
ards—1% Cap ards—2% Cap ment standards—3% Cap
State ............................................... Never ............................................ Only if State is below 1% cap, but Never.
cannot exceed 3% cap.
LEA ................................................ Only if granted an exception by Only if LEA is below 1% cap. If Only if granted an exception to
the SEA. not below 1% cap, never. the 1% cap by the SEA, and
only by the amount of the ex-
ception.
Reasons: To ensure that modified proficient and advanced scores based on likely to be predominantly from a few
achievement standards are used alternate achievement standards for disability categories, as is the case with
appropriately, the proposed regulations students with the most significant students with the most significant
would set a cap of 2.0 percent on cognitive disabilities, we primarily cognitive disabilities. Therefore, in
proficient and advanced scores based on relied upon disability incidence rate order to set an appropriate cap, we
modified achievement standards that data. Incidence rate data, however, are considered other sources of data from
may be included in AYP not as helpful in establishing a cap on research and State experiences. This
determinations. In addition to the the number of students who would be numerical limit is set at 2.0 percent
guidelines in proposed § 200.1(f), a appropriately assessed based on because we do not believe it is
numerical limit protects students from modified achievement standards necessary or appropriate for more than
being held to lower standards. In because students assessed based on 3.0 percent of students to be assessed
establishing the 1.0 percent cap on modified achievement standards are less based on alternate or modified
achievement standards. For example, we believe it is not necessary or if the percentage of students in that
the Department reviewed several studies appropriate at the State level for the group who are not proficient decreased
that indicate 2.0 percent is an proficient and advanced scores of more by 10 percent from the preceding school
appropriate cap when States, districts, than 3.0 percent of students who are year and the group made progress on
and schools work to ensure that assessed based on alternate or modified one or more of the State’s other
students receive high-quality achievement standards to count in AYP academic indicators. Section
educational services and interventions.1 determinations. We recognize, however, 1111(b)(2)(J) of Title I permits a State, in
In particular, research that has recently that there may still be significant local determining whether schools or LEAs
been summarized by Reid Lyon, Jack variation in the number of students with are making AYP, to establish a uniform
Fletcher, Lynn Fuchs and Vinata Chabra the most significant cognitive procedure for averaging data from one
in a literature review (currently in press) disabilities, and that is why we are school year with data from one or two
indicates that a 2.0 percent cap is proposing to allow States to continue preceding school years, and to average
appropriate, based on the percent of granting LEAs exceptions to the 1.0 data across grades in the school or LEA.
students who may not reach grade-level percent cap on proficient scores based If a State wishes to use a uniform
achievement standards within the same on alternate achievement standards. averaging procedure, it is not required
time frame as other students, even after We know that it may be difficult to to include the new NCLB assessments in
receiving the best-designed instructional distinguish with absolute precision its annual AYP decisions until the State
interventions from highly trained between the achievement levels of the has acquired two or three years of data
teachers.2 two groups of students (students taking from those assessments.
Further, we believe 2.0 percent is a assessments based on modified Current regulations: Section 200.20 of
reasonable cap when one takes into achievement standards and students the Title I regulations implements these
consideration that the cap does not need taking an alternate assessment based on statutory provisions. In addition, with
to equal the total number of students alternate achievement standards). respect to any student who takes the
that may meet the criteria for this Therefore, the proposed regulations State assessment for a particular subject
assessment. The cap is only a cap on the would permit States and LEAs to or grade level more than once,
number of proficient scores that may be include proficient and advanced scores § 200.20(c)(3) requires a State to use the
included in calculating AYP. In based on modified achievement student’s results from the first
addition, we expect that over time State standards in excess of 2.0 percent, if the administration of the assessment to
assessments will improve, as well as State’s or LEA’s proficient and advanced determine AYP.
interventions and services for students scores on alternate assessments based Proposed regulations: Proposed
with disabilities. The gains we have on alternate achievement standards are § 200.20 would make several significant
less than 1.0 percent of the students changes. First, current § 200.20(c)(3),
seen thus far when disabled students are
assessed, and so long as the total which requires a State to use the
expected to meet high standards should
number of proficient and advanced student’s results from the first
continue.
scores based on modified and alternate administration of the State assessment
The proposed regulations would not
standards does not exceed 3.0 percent. to determine AYP, would be removed.
permit States to request exceptions to
No exception is needed in this instance. With this removal, a State could
the 1.0 or 2.0 percent caps. Under our
We would like to underscore that the administer its State assessments to a
current regulations that provide
decision about which achievement student more than once and include the
flexibility with respect to students with
standards to use when evaluating the student’s best score in determining
the most significant cognitive
achievement of a student with AYP. This practice, however, could not
disabilities, we allow States to request disabilities is an individual result in delaying the State’s ability to
an exception to exceed the 1.0 percent determination made by the IEP team, make timely AYP determinations.
cap if they can demonstrate that there following the State guidelines. The Second, proposed § 200.20(c)(3)
are exceptional circumstances in their Department expects that there will be would make clear that, to count a
State that would account for higher States that will assess fewer than 1.0 student who is assessed based on
numbers of students with the most percent of their students based on alternate or modified achievement
significant cognitive disabilities. alternate achievement standards or standards as a participant for purposes
However, with the proposed modified fewer than 2.0 percent based on of meeting the 95 percent participation
achievement standards and a 2.0 modified achievement standards. requirement, a State must have
percent cap, we do not believe it is guidelines for IEP teams to use to
necessary for States to exceed the 1.0 Section 200.20 Making Adequate determine appropriately which students
percent cap. The vast majority of Yearly Progress should participate in assessments based
students with disabilities can, and Statute: Under Section 1111(b)(2)(I) of on alternate or modified achievement
should, be assessed based on grade-level Title I, a school or LEA makes AYP if standards in accordance with proposed
achievement standards and, therefore, each group of students described in § 200.1(f). If a State does not have
section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v) of the statute guidelines or those guidelines do not
1 For example, see: McMaster, K.L., Fuchs, D.,
meets or exceeds the State’s annual meet the requirements in § 200.1(f),
Fuchs, L.S., & Compton, D.L. (2005). Responding to
nonresponders: An experimental field trial of measurable objectives in reading/ students inappropriately assessed based
identification and intervention methods. language arts and mathematics, on alternate or modified achievement
Exceptional Children, 71, 445–463; Torgensen, J.K., separately; not less than 95 percent of standards would be considered non-
Alexander, A.W., Wagner, R.K., Rashotte, C.A., the students in each group participates
Voeller, K.K.S., & Conway, T. (2001). Intensive
participants for purposes of calculating
remedial instruction for children with severe in the State assessments required in participation rates.
reading disabilities; Immediate and long-term section 1111(b)(3); and the school or Third, proposed § 200.20(f) would be
outcomes from two instructional approaches. LEA as a whole meets the other added to provide additional flexibility
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 33–58. academic indicators selected by the in calculating AYP for the students with
2 Lyon, G.R., Fletcher, J. M., Fuchs, L.S., &
Chhabra, V. (in press). Learning Disabilities. In E.

State. If students in any group do not disabilities subgroup. Under this
Mash & R. Barkley (Eds.), Treatment of Childhood meet the State’s annual measurable proposed section, a State would be able
Disorder (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press. objectives, a school or LEA makes AYP to include, for a period of up to two
years, the scores of students who were standards, each State must have no longer receive IDEA services. States
previously identified with a disability guidelines that meet the requirements of may not include the scores of these
under section 602(3) of the IDEA, but § 200.1(f)(1) to instruct its IEP teams. students for reporting purposes under
who have exited from special education The current Title I regulations permit Section 1111(h) apart from AYP,
services. In addition, if a State includes only students with the most significant because it is very important to have
the scores of these students in AYP, the cognitive disabilities to be assessed information about the achievement of
State would not be required to include based on alternate achievement students with disabilities who are
those students in the students with standards. These regulations propose to currently receiving services under the
disabilities subgroup in determining if permit a second group of students with IDEA.
the number of students with disabilities disabilities to be assessed using Finally, to further ensure a
is sufficient to yield statistically reliable modified achievement standards. coordinated administration of Title I
information under § 200.7(a). As However, both current and proposed and IDEA, we proposed to define in
indicated in proposed § 200.20(f)(3), for regulations make clear that only certain § 200.103 student with a disability to
the purpose of reporting information on students may be appropriately assessed mean child with a disability as defined
report cards under section 1111(h) of based on either standard. Therefore, if a in section 602(3) of the IDEA.
the ESEA, a State and its LEAs would State has IEP team guidelines in place
be able to include the scores of former Part 300
that permit the use of alternate
students with disabilities as part of the achievement standards for students Section 300.160 Participation in
students with disabilities subgroup for without the most significant cognitive Assessments
the purpose of reporting AYP, but disabilities, or if the guidelines are used Statute: Under section 612(a)(16) of
would not be able to include the scores to determine that modified achievement the IDEA, a State must ensure that all
of former students with disabilities as standards are appropriate for students children with disabilities are included
part of the students with disabilities who do not meet the requirements of in all general State and district-wide
subgroup in reporting any other proposed § 200.1(e)(2), those students
information under section 1111(h) of the assessments with appropriate
would not be considered participants accommodations and alternate
ESEA. when determining whether the 95
Reasons: The Secretary proposes to assessments, if necessary, as indicated
percent participation requirement has in their respective IEPs. The State (or
remove current § 200.20(c)(3), which been met. For example, if a State
requires a State to use a student’s results LEA, for district-wide assessments)
decides to measure the performance of must develop guidelines for the
from the first administration of the State a population of students based on
assessment to determine AYP, because provision of appropriate
modified achievement standards that is accommodations and must develop and
the Secretary believes that it is possible broader than the group of students
to grant flexibility to States to determine implement guidelines for the
described in proposed § 200.1(e)(2), participation of children with
which score to count in AYP only those students who meet the
determinations without compromising disabilities in alternate assessments for
criteria under proposed § 200.1(e)(2) those children who cannot participate
the integrity of the State accountability would be considered participants for
system or the timing of AYP decisions. in the regular assessments, even with
AYP purposes. accommodations, as indicated in their
Since the publication of this regulation
on December 2, 2002, the Secretary has The proposed amendments to IEPs. A State’s alternate assessment
learned from several States that they § 200.20(f) would allow a State, in guidelines must provide for alternate
wish to administer their assessments to determining AYP for the students with assessments that are aligned with the
students more than once during the disabilities subgroup, to include in that State’s challenging academic content
school year for differing reasons. For subgroup any student tested in the and achievement standards and, if the
example, one State is required by law to current year who had exited special State has adopted alternate academic
offer multiple opportunities to students education within the prior two-year achievement standards permitted under
to take and pass the State-mandated period. Students are identified as a the Title I regulations, measure the
graduation exam. In taking advantage of student with a disability based on two achievement of children with
this flexibility, we emphasize that States factors: first, that they have a disability, disabilities against those standards.
should take care not to establish an as defined under the IDEA; and second, The State (or LEA, for a district-wide
administrative schedule in which that they need special education and assessment) must make available to the
students are repeatedly taking the State related services. Educators and parents public data on the participation of
assessment in order to improve their consider it a success when students children with disabilities and report to
scores. succeed to such an extent that special the public, with the same frequency and
Proposed § 200.20(c)(3) clarifies that, education services are no longer needed. detail as it reports on the assessment of
to consider a student as a participant for Because students with disabilities exit nondisabled children,
AYP purposes under the State this subgroup once special education • The number of children with
accountability system, the student must services are no longer needed, school disabilities participating in regular
be assessed with assessments that meet assessment results for that subgroup do assessments, and the number of those
the requirements of section 1111 of Title not reflect the gains that these students children who were provided
I of the ESEA and the Title I regulations. with disabilities have made in academic accommodations to participate in the
That is, the student must be assessed achievement or the work that schools regular assessment,
based on grade-level achievement and teachers have done to achieve this • The number of children with
standards unless the student qualifies success. Recognizing this, the proposed disabilities participating in alternate
under § 200.1(d) or proposed regulations would allow a State, for assessments based on grade-level
§ 200.1(e)(2) to be assessed based on purposes of making AYP academic achievement standards, and
alternate or modified achievement determinations, to include the scores of • The number of children with
standards, respectively. To determine students previously identified as disabilities participating in alternate
which students qualify to be assessed students with disabilities within the assessments based on alternate
based on alternate or modified subgroup for up to two years after they academic achievement standards.
A State must also report on the alternate academic achievement district wide assessments.’’ 5 State and
performance of children with standards apply only to assessments of LEA guidelines thus need to identify,
disabilities on regular assessments and student academic progress under Title I for IEP teams, those accommodations
on alternate assessments, compared to of the ESEA. that will maintain test validity.
the achievement of all children. Proposed § 300.160(e) would Similarly, under Title I, the concept of
Reporting on performance is not incorporate the statutory requirements ‘‘appropriate accommodations’’ in the
required if the number of children with regarding reporting on assessments, context of assessments must be thought
disabilities is not sufficient to yield would clarify in proposed of as accommodations that are needed
statistically reliable information or if § 300.160(e)(1) that reports must include by the individual child and that
reporting that information would reveal only the number of children provided maintain test validity. The Title I
personally identifiable information. The accommodations that did not invalidate
State (or LEA, in the case of a district- regulations would only consider a
the score, and would add a requirement, student to be a participant for AYP
wide assessment) must, to the extent in proposed § 300.160(e)(4), that States
feasible, use universal design principles purposes if his or her assessment results
(or LEAs, in the case of district-wide
in developing and administering any in a valid score.
assessments) also must report on the
State or district-wide assessments. number of children with disabilities If a State adopts modified academic
Current regulations: On June 21, 2005, who are assessed based on modified achievement standards under Title I, it
we issued a notice of proposed academic achievement standards. also must have guidelines for the
rulemaking (NPRM) to implement Proposed § 300.160(f) would adopt the participation of children with
section 612 and other provisions of the statutory requirement regarding use of disabilities in assessments based on
IDEA, as recently amended and universal design principles in those modified academic achievement
authorized by the Individuals with developing and administering standards. State guidelines will ensure
Disabilities Education Improvement Act assessments. We are also proposing to that IEP teams in that State have
of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108–446. The IDEA revise the authority citation for part 300 information about the range of methods
NPRM included proposed language in to be consistent with the proposed
§ 300.160, that would implement the of assessment under the State
regulations in the IDEA NPRM. assessment system when making
provisions of section 612(a)(16) of the
Reasons: Under IDEA, States have a assessment decisions for individual
IDEA regarding assessments, and we
duty to ensure that children with children. Consistency in the assessment
indicated in the preamble to the IDEA
disabilities are validly assessed. The and reporting requirements of children
NPRM that proposed § 300.160 would
House Committee Report on the with disabilities under Title I and IDEA
replace §§ 300.138 and 300.139 of the
reauthorization of the IDEA emphasizes will reinforce NCLB’s and IDEA’s
current regulations. The language we
the importance of ensuring that shared goal of high expectations and
propose in this notice would supercede
accommodation guidelines identify
the language we proposed in the IDEA accountability for all students and will
accommodations that do not affect test
NPRM. avoid confusion among parents,
Proposed regulations: Proposed validity:
teachers and administrators.
§ 300.160(a) and (b)(1) would The bill also makes clear that States have
incorporate the statutory requirements an affirmative obligation to determine what Executive Order 12866
regarding the participation of children types of accommodations can be made to
assessments while maintaining their 1. Potential Costs and Benefits
with disabilities in State and district-
reliability and validity * * *. The Committee
wide assessments and the development Under Executive Order 12866, we
is intent on ensuring that each child with a
of guidelines for the provision of disability receives appropriate have assessed the potential costs and
appropriate accommodations. Proposed accommodations, but is equally intent that benefits of this regulatory action.
§ 300.160(b)(2) would require that State these accommodations not invalidate the The potential costs associated with
(or, in the case of a district-wide particular assessment. In developing the
assessment, LEA) guidelines require that guidance on accommodations, the Committee
the proposed regulations are those
each child be validly assessed and encourages States to work with test resulting from statutory requirements
identify any accommodations that publishers, assessment experts, special and those we have determined to be
would result in an invalid score. education teachers, and other experts to necessary for administering the Title I
Consistent with the changes to the Title maximize the opportunities for children with and IDEA programs effectively and
disabilities to participate in regular efficiently. Elsewhere in this
I regulations regarding modified
assessments.3 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
achievement standards, proposed
§ 300.160(c) would require that States Similarly, the Senate Committee under the heading Paperwork Reduction
that have adopted modified academic Report acknowledges that appropriate Act of 1995, we identify and explain
achievement standards as permitted accommodations to a test will not affect burdens specifically associated with
under the Title I regulations have the test’s validity.4 information collection requirements.
guidelines for the participation of Tests administered with In assessing the potential costs and
children with disabilities in assessments accommodations that do not maintain benefits—both quantitative and
based on those modified achievement test validity are not measuring academic qualitative—of this regulatory action,
standards. Proposed § 300.160(d) would achievement under the State’s we have determined that the benefits
incorporate the statutory requirements assessment system. Under the
would justify the costs.
regarding alternate assessment reauthorized IDEA, each IEP now must
guidelines and requirements for indicate ‘‘appropriate accommodations We have also determined that this
conducting alternate assessments. It also that are necessary to measure the regulatory action would not unduly
would clarify that the requirements for academic achievement and functional interfere with State, local, and tribal
alternate assessments aligned to performance of the child on State and governments in the exercise of their
challenging academic content standards governmental functions.
and academic achievement standards 3 H. Rep. No. 108–77, at 97 (2003).
and alternate assessments based on 4 S. Rep. No. 108–185, at 30 (2003). 5 20 U.S.C. 1414(d)(1)(A)(VI)(aa).
Executive Order 12866 Economists and other social scientists was $11.4 billion, and States could
have found repeatedly that better reserve more than $900 million for such
1. Potential Costs and Benefits
education results in major benefits, both activities as the development and
Under Executive Order 12866, we economic and non-economic, not only provision of appropriate
have assessed the potential costs and for the individuals who receive it but for accommodations and assessments of
benefits of this regulatory action. society as a whole. Nations that invest children with disabilities under Title I.
The potential costs associated with successfully in better education enjoy For State Assessment Grants, the
the proposed regulations are those higher levels of growth and appropriation was $412 million. The
resulting from statutory requirements productivity, and a high-quality Department believes that the regulations
and those we have determined to be education is an indispensable element will not impose a financial burden that
necessary for administering the Title I of a strong economy and a successful States and LEAs will have to meet from
and IDEA programs effectively and civil society. Census Bureau data non-Federal sources.
efficiently. Elsewhere in this demonstrate that individual income For purposes of the Unfunded
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section increases with the level of educational Mandates Reform Act of 1995, these
under the heading Paperwork Reduction attainment. More educated individuals regulations do not include a Federal
Act of 1995, we identify and explain also tend to have higher lifetime mandate that might result in increased
burdens specifically associated with earnings and higher savings rates, and to expenditures by State, local, and tribal
information collection requirements. lead healthier lives. governments, or increased expenditures
In assessing the potential costs and As the proposed regulations make by the private sector of more than $100
benefits—both quantitative and clear, a State could elect to develop new million in any one year.
qualitative—of this regulatory action, modified achievement standards and
new assessments to measure 2. Clarity of the Regulations
we have determined that the benefits
would justify the costs. achievement based on those standards, Executive Order 12866 and the
but no State would ever be required to Presidential memorandum on ‘‘Plain
We have also determined that this
do so. Thus, the proposed regulations Language in Government Writing’’
regulatory action would not unduly
would impose no direct costs on States, require each agency to write regulations
interfere with State, local, and tribal
LEAs, or other entities or individuals. that are easy to understand.
governments in the exercise of their Most implementation costs will stem
governmental functions. The Secretary invites comments on
from the underlying statute, which how to make these proposed regulations
Summary of Potential Costs and requires each State to have academic easier to understand, including answers
Benefits content and academic achievement to questions such as the following:
These proposed regulations would not
standards and aligned assessments that • Are the requirements in the
measure the achievement of all proposed regulations clearly stated?
add significantly to the costs of students, including students with • Do the proposed regulations contain
implementing either the Title I or IDEA disabilities. States that decide to adopt technical terms or other wording that
programs or alter the benefits that the modified achievement standards and interferes with their clarity?
Secretary believes will be obtained implement assessments aligned with • Does the format of the proposed
through successful implementation. those standards will be able to use funds regulations (grouping and order of
As noted elsewhere in this notice, the from Title I, Title VI State Assessment sections, use of headings, paragraphing,
proposed regulations would provide Grants, and IDEA to finance those etc.) aid or reduce their clarity?
States with additional flexibility activities. The costs of developing and • Would the proposed regulations be
regarding State, LEA, and school implementing assessments vary easier to understand if we divided them
accountability for the achievement of considerably but are modest when into more (but shorter) sections? (A
students with disabilities who qualify to compared to the amounts available ‘‘section’’ is preceded by the symbol
be assessed based on modified under Federal programs that States can ‘‘§ ’’ and a numbered heading; for
achievement standards and with respect draw on for test development and example, § 200.13 Adequate yearly
to students with disabilities who no implementation. In a 2003 report titled, progress).
longer receive special education ‘‘Title I: Characteristics of Tests Will • Could the description of the
services. The major benefit of this Influence Expenses: Information proposed regulations in the
approach is that it will permit States to Sharing May Help States Realize ‘‘Supplementary Information’’ section of
develop and implement modified Efficiencies,’’ the Government this preamble be more helpful in
achievement standards and aligned Accountability Office found that the making the proposed regulations easier
assessments for the group of students State of Massachusetts had spent to understand? If so, how?
with disabilities, for whom, according to approximately $200,000 to develop each • What else could we do to make the
recent research, assessments aligned of its assessments, while Texas had proposed regulations easier to
with modified achievement standards spent $60,000 and Maine had spent understand?
are appropriate, and then to use the $22,000 for their assessments.6 By Send any comments that concern how
results from those assessments in comparison, the fiscal year 2005 the Department could make these
making AYP determinations. appropriation for Title I Grants to Local proposed regulations easier to
Implementation of these assessments Educational Agencies was understand to the person listed in the
and standards would be an element of approximately $12.7 billion, and States ADDRESSES section of the preamble.
State and local efforts to improve could reserve approximately 1 percent
educational outcomes for this group of Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
of this amount for administrative
students, consistent with the principles expenses, including paying the costs of The Secretary certifies that these
and objectives of NCLB. The benefits of developing assessments. The proposed regulations would not have a
higher educational achievement and appropriation for IDEA Grants to States significant economic impact on a
better outcomes for the students in substantial number of small entities.
question are the same as those that are 6 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Report These provisions require States and
obtained for students in general. 03–389, pg. 17. LEAs to take certain actions to improve
student academic achievement. The Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
Department believes that these activities Attention: Desk Officer for U.S. Numbers: 84.010 Improving Programs
will be financed through the Department of Education. You may also Operated by Local Educational Agencies;
appropriations for Title I and IDEA and send a copy of these comments to the 84.027 Assistance to States for the Education
of Children with Disabilities)
that the responsibilities encompassed in Department’s representative named in
the law and regulations will not impose the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. List of Subjects
a financial burden that States and LEAs We consider your comments on this
will have to meet from non-Federal 34 CFR Part 200
proposed collection of information in—
resources. • Deciding whether the proposed Administrative practice and
collection is necessary for the proper procedure, Adult education, Children,
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Education of children with disabilities,
performance of our functions, including
Sections 200.6 and 300.160 contain whether the information will have Education of disadvantaged children,
information collection requirements. practical use; Elementary and secondary education,
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of Eligibility, Family-centered education,
• Evaluating the accuracy of our
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), the Grant programs—education, Indians
estimate of the burden of this proposed
Department of Education has submitted education, Institutions of higher
collection, including the validity of our
a copy of this section to the Office of learning, Local educational agencies,
methodology and assumptions;
Management and Budget (OMB) for its Nonprofit private agencies, Private
review. • Enhancing the quality, usefulness,
and clarity of the information we schools, Public agencies, Reporting and
Collection of Information: Improving the collect; and recordkeeping requirements, State-
administered programs, State
Academic Achievement of the • Minimizing the burden on those
Disadvantaged and Assistance to States educational agencies.
who must respond. This includes
for the Education of Children With exploring the use of appropriate 34 CFR Part 300
Disabilities automated, electronic, mechanical, or Administrative practice and
The proposed regulations make other technological collection procedure, Education of individuals
changes in reporting requirements techniques or other forms of information with disabilities, Elementary and
already required under both Title I, Part technology, e.g., permitting electronic secondary education, Equal educational
A, of the ESEA and the IDEA for States submission of responses. opportunity, Grant programs—
that voluntarily take advantage of the OMB is required to make a decision education, Privacy, Private Schools,
new flexibility. States already report the concerning the collection of information Reporting and recordkeeping
number of students with disabilities contained in these proposed regulations requirements.
participating in assessments and the between 30 and 60 days after
type of assessments these students take. Dated: December 12, 2005.
publication in the Federal Register.
The proposed regulations would add Therefore, to ensure that OMB gives Margaret Spellings,
one additional category for students your comments full consideration, it is Secretary of Education.
with disabilities who are assessed based important that OMB receives the For the reasons discussed in the
on modified academic achievement comments within 30 days of preamble, the Secretary proposes to
standards. States would be required publication. This does not affect the amend parts 200 and 300 of title 34 of
annually to report separately the deadline for your comments to us on the the Code of Federal Regulations as
number and percentage of students with proposed regulations. follows:
disabilities taking assessments based on
the modified achievement standards Intergovernmental Review PART 200—TITLE I—IMPROVING THE
under § 200.1 and § 300.160(e). Each of This program is not subject to ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT OF THE
the 50 SEAs, Puerto Rico and the Executive Order 12372 and the DISADVANTAGED
District of Columbia would report this regulations in 34 CFR part 79. 1. The authority citation for part 200
data a single time each year. However, continues to read as follows:
Electronic Access to This Document
there is no appreciable burden
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6301 through 6578,
associated with the collection as States You may view this document, as well unless otherwise noted.
already report on the number and as all other Department of Education
percentage of students with disabilities documents published in the Federal 2. Section 200.1 is amended by:
participating in State assessments under Register, in text or Adobe Portable A. Revising paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2),
1810–0614 and 1880–0541. The total Document Format (PDF) on the Internet and (b)(1)(i).
number of students with disabilities at the following site: http://www.ed.gov/ B. Redesignating paragraphs (e) and
being reported does not change as a news/fedregister. (f) as paragraphs (g) and (h),
result of this collection. The cost for this To use PDF you must have Adobe respectively.
C. Adding new paragraphs (e) and (f).
collection also is minimal as it is simply Acrobat Reader, which is available free The revisions and additions read as
a matter of coding on the test document, at this site. If you have questions about follows:
something the SEA is already doing to using PDF, call the U.S. Government
report the data under 1810–0614 and Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1– § 200.1 State responsibilities for
1880–0541. We estimate annual 888–293–6498; or in the Washington, developing challenging academic
reporting and recordkeeping burden for DC area at (202) 512–1530. standards.
this collection of information to average (a) * * *
Note: The official version of this document (1) Be the same academic standards
1 hour for 52 respondents. is the document published in the Federal
If you want to comment on the Register. Free Internet access to the official
that the State applies to all public
information collection requirements, edition of the Federal Register and the Code schools and public school students in
please send your comments to the Office of Federal Regulations is available on GPO the State, including the public schools
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Access at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/ and public school students served under
OMB, room 10235, New Executive index.html. subpart A of this part, except as
provided in paragraphs (d) and (e) of curriculum for the subjects in which the (B) For each student covered under
this section; student is being assessed. section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of
(2) Include the same knowledge, (3) A student eligible to be assessed 1973, as amended (Section 504),
skills, and levels of achievement based on modified academic appropriate accommodations that the
expected of all students, except as achievement standards may be in any of student’s placement team determines
provided in paragraphs (d) and (e) of the 13 disability categories listed in the are necessary to measure the academic
this section; and IDEA. achievement of the student relative to
* * * * * (4) A student may be assessed based the State’s academic content and
(b) * * * on modified academic achievement academic achievement standards for the
(1) * * * standards in one or more subjects for grade in which the student is enrolled,
(i) Specify what all students are which assessments are administered consistent with § 200.1(b)(2), (b)(3), and
expected to know and be able to do, under § 200.2. (c).
except as provided in paragraphs (d) (5) The decision to assess a student (ii) A State must—
and (e) of this section; based on modified academic (A) Develop, disseminate information
achievement standards must be on, and promote the use of appropriate
* * * * *
reviewed annually by the student’s IEP accommodations to increase the number
(e) Modified academic achievement
team to ensure that those standards of students with disabilities who are
standards. (1) For students with
remain appropriate. tested against grade-level academic
disabilities under section 602(3) of the
(f) State guidelines. If a State defines achievement standards; and
Individuals with Disabilities Education
alternate or modified academic
Act (IDEA) who meet the State’s criteria (B) Ensure that regular and special
achievement standards under paragraph
under paragraph (e)(2) of this section, a education teachers and other
(d) or (e) of this section, the State
State may, through a documented and appropriate staff know how to
must—
validated standards-setting process, (1) Establish and ensure administer assessments, including
define modified academic achievement implementation of clear and appropriate making appropriate use of
standards, provided those standards— guidelines for IEP teams to apply in accommodations, for students with
(i) Are aligned with the State’s determining— disabilities and students covered under
academic content standards for the (i) Students with the most significant Section 504.
grade in which the student is enrolled, cognitive disabilities who will be (2) * * *
although the modified academic assessed based on alternate academic (iii) If a State permits the use of
achievement standards may reflect achievement standards; and alternate assessments that yield results
reduced breadth or depth of grade-level (ii) Students with disabilities who based on alternate academic
content; meet the criteria in § 200.1(e)(2) who achievement standards, the State must
(ii) Provide access to grade-level will be assessed based on modified document that students with the most
curriculum; and academic achievement standards; and significant cognitive disabilities are, to
(iii) Do not preclude a student from (2) Ensure that parents of students the maximum extent possible, included
earning a regular high-school diploma. selected for assessment based on in the general curriculum.
(2) A State must include the following alternate or modified academic (3) Assessments that measure
criteria in the guidelines for defining achievement standards under the modified academic achievement
which students with disabilities are guidelines in this paragraph (f) are standards. A State may use the
eligible to be assessed based on informed that their child’s achievement assessments described in paragraph
modified academic achievement will be measured based on alternate or (a)(1) or (2) of this section to assess
standards that the State establishes modified academic achievement students with disabilities based on
under paragraph (f) of this section: standards. modified academic achievement
(i) The student’s disability has standards pursuant to § 200.1(e)(1),
* * * * *
precluded the student from achieving 3. Section 200.6 is amended by: provided the assessments—
grade-level proficiency, as demonstrated A. Revising paragraph (a)(1) and (i) Are aligned with the State’s grade-
by such objective evidence as— (a)(2)(iii). level academic content standards;
(A) The State’s assessments described B. Adding paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(4). (ii) Yield results that measure the
in § 200.2; or The revisions and additions read as achievement of those students
(B) Other assessment data that can follows: separately in reading/language arts and
validly document academic
§ 200.6 Inclusion of all students. mathematics relative to the modified
achievement.
academic achievement standards;
(ii)(A) The student’s progress in * * * * *
response to high-quality instruction, (a) Students eligible under IDEA and (iii) Meet the requirements in §§ 200.2
including special education and related Section 504. (1) Appropriate and 200.3, including the requirements
services designed to address the accommodations. (i) A State’s academic relating to validity, reliability, and high
student’s individual needs, is such that assessment system must provide— technical quality; and
the student is not likely to achieve (A) For each student with a disability, (iv) Fit coherently in the State’s
grade-level proficiency within the year as defined under section 602(3) of the overall assessment system under
covered by the student’s individualized IDEA, appropriate accommodations that § 200.2.
education program (IEP). the student’s IEP team determines are (4) Reporting. A State must report
(B) The determination of the student’s necessary to measure the academic separately, under section 1111(h)(4) of
progress must be based on multiple achievement of the student relative to the Act, the number and percentage of
measurements, over a period of time, the State’s academic content and students with disabilities taking—
that are valid for the subjects being academic achievement standards for the (i) Regular assessments described in
assessed. grade in which the student is enrolled, § 200.2;
(iii) The student is receiving consistent with § 200.1(b)(2), (b)(3), and (ii) Regular assessments with
instruction in the grade-level (c); and accommodations;
(iii) Assessments based on the achievement standards described in (C) The LEA documents that it is
modified academic achievement § 200.1(e)(1), provided that the number implementing the State’s guidelines
standards described in § 200.1(e). of those scores at the LEA and at the under § 200.1(f).
(iv) Alternate assessments based on State levels, separately, does not exceed (ii) The State must review regularly
the grade-level academic achievement 2.0 percent of all students in the grades whether an LEA’s exception to the 1.0
standards described in § 200.1(c); and assessed in reading/language arts and in percent cap is still warranted.
(v) Alternate assessments based on the mathematics. (6) A State may not grant an exception
alternate academic achievement (3) A State’s or LEA’s number of to an LEA to exceed the 2.0 percent cap
standards described in § 200.1(d). proficient and advanced scores on the on proficient and advanced scores based
* * * * * modified academic achievement on modified academic achievement
4. In § 200.7, redesignate paragraph standards described in § 200.1(e)(1) may standards under paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of
(a)(2) as (a)(2)(i) and add a new exceed 2.0 percent of all students in the this section.
paragraph (a)(2)(ii) to read as follows: grades assessed if the number of (7) In calculating AYP, if the
proficient and advanced scores on the percentage of proficient and advanced
§ 200.7 Disaggregation of data.
alternate academic achievement scores based on alternate or modified
(a) * * * standards described in § 200.1(d) is less
(2) * * * academic achievement standards under
than 1.0 percent, provided the number § 200.1(d) or (e) exceeds the caps in
(ii) A State may not establish a of proficient and advanced scores based
different minimum number of students paragraph (c) of this section at the State
on modified and alternate academic or LEA level, the State must do the
under paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section achievement standards combined does
for separate subgroups under following:
not exceed 3.0 percent of all students in (i) Consistent with § 200.7(a), include
§ 200.13(b)(7)(ii). the grades assessed.
* * * * * all scores based on alternate and
(4) A State may not request from the modified academic achievement
5. Section 200.13 is amended by: Secretary an exception permitting it to
A. Revising paragraph (c). standards.
exceed the caps on proficient and
B. Adding an appendix at the end of (ii) Count as non-proficient the
advanced scores based on alternate or
the section. proficient and advanced scores that
modified academic achievement
The revisions and addition read as exceed the caps in paragraph (c) of this
standards under paragraph (c)(2) and (3)
follows: section.
of this section.
(5)(i) A State may grant an exception (iii) Determine which proficient and
§ 200.13 Adequate yearly progress in
general. to an LEA permitting it to exceed the 1.0 advanced scores to count as non-
percent cap on proficient and advanced proficient in schools and LEAs
* * * * * responsible for students who are
(c)(1) In calculating AYP for schools, scores based on the alternate academic
achievement standards described in assessed based on alternate or modified
LEAs, and the State, a State must, academic achievement standards.
consistent with § 200.7(a), include the paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section only
if— (iv) Include non-proficient scores that
scores of all students with disabilities.
(2) With respect to scores based on (A) The LEA demonstrates that the exceed the caps in paragraph (c) of this
alternate or modified academic incidence of students with the most section in each applicable subgroup at
achievement standards, a State may significant cognitive disabilities exceeds the school, LEA, and State level.
include— 1.0 percent of all students in the (v) Ensure that parents of a child who
(i) The proficient and advanced scores combined grades assessed; is assessed based on alternate or
of students with the most significant (B) The LEA explains why the modified academic achievement
cognitive disabilities based on the incidence of such students exceeds 1.0 standards are informed of the actual
alternate academic achievement percent of all students in the combined academic achievement levels of their
standards described in § 200.1(d), grades assessed, such as school, child.
provided that the number of those community, or health programs in the * * * * *
scores at the LEA and at the State levels, LEA that have drawn large numbers of
Appendix to § 200.13—When Can a
separately, does not exceed 1.0 percent families of students with the most
State or LEA Exceed the 1% and 2%
of all students in the grades assessed in significant cognitive disabilities, or that
Caps?
reading/language arts and in the LEA has such a small overall
mathematics; and student population that it would take The following table provides a
(ii) The proficient and advanced only a few students with such summary of the circumstances in which
scores of students with disabilities disabilities to exceed the 1.0 percent a State or LEA may exceed the 1% and
based on the modified academic cap; and 2% caps described in § 200.13.
WHEN CAN A STATE OR LEA EXCEED THE 1% AND 2% CAPS?

Alternate achievement Stand- Modified Achievement Stand- Alternate and Modified Achieve-
ards—1% Cap ards—2% Cap ment standards—3% Cap
1. State .......................................... Never ............................................ Only if State is below 1% cap, but Never.
cannot exceed 3% cap.
2. LEA ............................................ Only if granted an exeception by Only if LEA is below 1% cap. If Only if granted an exception to
the SEA. not below 1% cap, never. the 1% cap by the SEA, and
only by the amount of the ex-
ception.
6. Section 200.20 is amended by: section as part of the students with CFR 200.1(e), the State must have
A. Revising the introductory text of disabilities subgroup for the purpose of guidelines for the participation of
paragraph (a)(1). reporting AYP at the State level under children with disabilities in assessments
B. Revising the introductory text of section 1111(h)(1)(C)(ii) of the Act; based on those modified academic
paragraph (b). (ii) An LEA may include the scores of achievement standards.
C. Revising the introductory text of the former students with disabilities (d) Alternate assessments. (1) A State
paragraph (c)(1). described in paragraph (f)(1) of this (or, in the case of a district-wide
D. Revising paragraph (c)(3). section as part of the students with assessment, an LEA) must develop and
E. Adding a new paragraph (f). disabilities subgroup for the purpose of implement alternate assessments and
The revisions and addition read as reporting AYP at the LEA and school guidelines for the participation of
follows: levels under section 1111(h)(2)(B) of the children with disabilities in alternate
Act; but assessments for those children who
§ 200.20 Making adequate yearly progress. (iii) A State or LEA may not include cannot participate in regular
* * * * * the scores of former students with assessments, even with
(a)(1) A school or LEA makes AYP if, disabilities as part of the students with accommodations as indicated in their
consistent with paragraph (f) of this disabilities subgroup in reporting any respective IEPs, as provided in
section— other information under section 1111(h) paragraph (a) of this section.
* * * * * of the Act. (2) The alternate assessments and
(b) If students in any group under 7. Section 200.103 is amended by guidelines in paragraph (d)(1) of this
§ 200.13(b)(7) in a school or LEA do not adding a new paragraph (c). The section must provide for alternate
meet the State’s annual measurable addition reads as follows: assessments that, in the case of
objectives under § 200.18, the school or assessments of student academic
§ 200.103 Definitions.
LEA makes AYP if, consistent with progress under Title I of the ESEA—
paragraph (f) of this section— * * * * * (i) Are aligned with the State’s
(c) Student with a disability means challenging academic content standards
* * * * *
child with a disability, as defined in and challenging student academic
(c)(1) A school or LEA makes AYP if,
section 602(3) of the IDEA. achievement standards; and
consistent with paragraph (f) of this
section— PART 300—ASSISTANCE TO STATES (ii) If the State has adopted alternate
* * * * * FOR THE EDUCATION OF CHILDREN academic achievement standards
(3) To count a student who is assessed WITH DISABILITIES permitted in 34 CFR § 200.1(d), measure
based on alternate or modified academic the achievement of children with
achievement standards described in 8. The authority citation for part 300 disabilities against those standards.
§ 200.1(d) or (e) as a participant for is revised to read as follows: (e) Reports. An SEA (or, in the case
purposes of meeting the requirements of Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e–3, 1406, 1411– of a district-wide assessment, an LEA)
this paragraph, the State must have, and 1419, unless otherwise noted. must make available to the public, and
ensure that its LEAs adhere to, report to the public with the same
9. Add a new § 300.160 to read as
guidelines that meet the requirements of frequency and in the same detail as it
follows:
§ 200.1(f). reports on the assessment of
* * * * * § 300.160 Participation in assessments. nondisabled children, the following:
(f)(1) In determining AYP for the (a) General. A State must ensure that (1) The number of children with
subgroup of students with disabilities, a all children with disabilities are disabilities participating in regular
State may include, for a period of up to included in all general State and assessments, and the number of those
two years, the scores of students who district-wide assessment programs, children who were provided
were previously identified under including assessments described under accommodations (that did not result in
section 602(3) of the IDEA but who have section 1111 of the ESEA, 20 U.S.C. an invalid score) in order to participate
exited from special education services. 6311, with appropriate accommodations in those assessments.
(2) If a State, in determining AYP for and alternate assessments, if necessary, (2) The number of children with
the subgroup of students with as indicated in their respective IEPs. disabilities participating in alternate
disabilities, includes the scores of the (b) Accommodation guidelines. (1) A assessments described in paragraph
students described in paragraph (f)(1) of State (or, in the case of a district-wide (d)(2)(i) of this section.
this section, the State is not required to assessment, an LEA) must develop (3) The number of children with
include those students in the students guidelines for the provision of disabilities participating in alternate
with disabilities subgroup in appropriate accommodations. assessments described in paragraph
determining if the number of students (2) The State’s (or, in the case of a (d)(2)(ii) of this section.
with disabilities is sufficient to yield district-wide assessment, the LEA’s) (4) The number of children with
statistically reliable information under guidelines must — disabilities who are assessed based on
§ 200.7(a). (i) Require that each child be validly modified academic achievement
(3) For the purpose of reporting assessed; and standards described in paragraph (c) of
information on report cards under (ii) Identify valid accommodations. this section.
section 1111(h) of the Act— (c) Assessments based on modified (5) The performance results of
(i) A State may include the scores of academic achievement standards. If a children with disabilities on regular
the former students with disabilities State has adopted modified academic assessments and on alternate
described in paragraph (f)(1) of this achievement standards permitted in 34 assessments if—
(i) The number of children information about an individual student developing and administering any
participating in those assessments is on those assessments. assessments under this section.
sufficient to yield statistically reliable (f) Universal design. An SEA (or, in (Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(16))
information; and the case of a district-wide assessment,
(ii) Reporting that information will an LEA) must, to the extent possible, [FR Doc. 05–24083 Filed 12–14–05; 8:45 am]
not reveal personally identifiable use universal design principles in BILLING CODE 4000–01–P

Proposed Rule: Elementary and Secondary Education and Special Education and Rehabilitative Services: Children With Disabilities Assistance To States

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Proposed Rule: Elementary and Secondary Education and Special Education and Rehabilitative Services: Children With Disabilities Assistance To States

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Thursday,

December 15, 2005

achievement standards. The guidelines significant cognitive disabilities to be § 200.6(a)(2)(iii)(C), regarding

WHEN CAN A STATE OR LEA EXCEED THE 1% AND 2% CAPS?

Chhabra, V. (in press). Learning Disabilities. In E.

WHEN CAN A STATE OR LEA EXCEED THE 1% AND 2% CAPS?

You might also like