lae.org News

NEA Highlights No Child Left Behind Act’s Impact on Students with Disabilities

WASHINGTON—Patti Ralabate, National Education Association expert on special education, testified today at the fifth roundtable discussion hosted by the Aspen Institute Commission on No Child Left Behind Commission. She highlighted six critical areas for students with disabilities that need improvement in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, up for reauthorization in 2007. No Child Left Behind is the current version of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

“The 2.8 million members of NEA firmly embrace the fundamental belief that great public schools are a basic right for every child,” said NEA President Reg Weaver. “Yet, the development—and in particular the implementation—of the so-called No Child Left Behind Act has left many students with disabilities feeling inadequate, and parents and teachers are frustrated after nearly five years of living with the negative consequences of the law.”

The Aspen Institute Commission on NCLB is conducting a series of hearings in an effort to gather information about how to improve the law. The commission, after a year of hearings, analysis and research, will report its recommendations to Congress and the Bush Administration in early 2007. This is the fourth time an NEA expert has testified before the commission.

“NEA supports the laudable goals of NCLB—closing the gaps in student achievement, raising overall student achievement, and ensuring all students are taught by a qualified teacher,” said Patti Ralabate, NEA Senior Professional Associate for Special Needs. “However, there are six critical areas of NCLB that were, perhaps, not written with students with disabilities in mind.”

Appropriate Alternate Assessments:

NEA recommends significantly more research, technical assistance, and professional development for all educators, including state and district level administrators, about what constitutes valid and reliable assessments for the full range of students with disabilities. It also recommends additional funding for development of high quality tests—resources that have been dwindling over the last two years.

Testing Accommodations:

NEA also is concerned about the lack of guidance and uniformity on allowable testing accommodations for students with disabilities. Major test makers across the country have been particularly slow to write into test administration protocols the various accommodations that can and should be used with many students with disabilities. For example, scores were invalidated for a group of blind students who scored proficient on an NCLB-mandated test because the test was read aloud to them. This accommodation is allowable and widely used in all other testing scenarios but was not part of the test protocol in this instance. As a result, the students’ scores were reported as zeroes in the school’s Adequate Yearly Progress calculation. This illogical consequence could have been avoided with the inclusion of appropriate protocols.

Impact of Sanctions:

NEA is concerned about the heavy-handedness of NCLB sanctions imposed when a subgroup of students, like students with disabilities, does not meet proficiency levels. The punitive, rather than supportive, system is causing some school personnel to engage in pressure tactics that can have serious negative effects on students. For example, school leaders in some districts have required full inclusion of students with disabilities in general education classrooms, regardless of whether it is the most appropriate placement for individual children.

Use of Growth Models:

NEA believes that the use of growth models in NCLB accountability systems will provide a fairer and more accurate way to determine whether all students are learning. NCLB-mandated tests should be used to diagnose learning problems and provide educators with the data to make necessary instructional adjustments to meet the needs of all students. Using a growth model would allow for more timely transmittal of data to educators—which would be particularly helpful for students with disabilities for whom precise instructional strategies are essential to ensure academic progress.

Highly Qualified Teacher (HQT) Requirements:

Implementation of the law’s highly qualified teacher requirements has posed unique problems for special education teachers who may be responsible for teaching multiple core academic subjects. Common-sense flexibility is needed in the HQT definition as it applies to special educators. NEA believes that fully licensed and certified special education teachers should be considered to meet the standard. Special educators must be available to help general classroom teachers adapt instructional strategies and to support the instruction that takes place in general education classrooms.

Professional Development:

Prior to implementation of NCLB, many school districts were moving toward co-teaching and collaborative teaching models. We strongly support high quality professional development programs for both general and special education staff to ensure continuation of these effective practices. Closing the gaps in student achievement requires that all educators know how to work in a collaborative teaching environment and that school leaders can support and facilitate effective teaming. Teacher preparation programs need to prepare both special educators and general educators to be complementary teaching partners for students with disabilities and all students who are struggling to learn. And, recruitment and retention programs for special educators need to provide adequate working and teaching conditions.

Despite the need for additional resources to implement these initiatives, Congress is poised to cut funding for NCLB teacher quality programs, with the House Appropriations Committee recommending a cut of more than10 percent, or $300 million, and the Senate Appropriations Committee proposing a cut of $140 million.

“Today’s testimony reflects not only my nearly 30 years of first-hand, real-life experience teaching thousands of children as a speech pathologist in Connecticut public schools but also the sentiments of the 2.8 million NEA members on the impact of the so-called No Child Left Behind Act on students with disabilities,” said Ralabate. “I respectfully ask the commission to consider the views of our members as it moves forward on recommendations to Congress to improve NCLB.”

###