This week, the Kentucky Board of Education banned the use of readers on state tests. A reader can be another person or computer software that reads text aloud, and is an accommodation used by some students with disabilities, who also use this kind of help in class every day. The switch affects end-of-year state exams and the National Assessment of Educational Progress, or NAEP.

The shift has some people alarmed, especially about the effect on students whose education plans (IEPs) require the use of a reader. Apparently, the switch was driven in part by the goal of reducing how many students' scores are eliminated when calculating NAEP scores. State exclusion rates on NAEP, often called the nation's report card, have dropped recently, but some state exclusion rates remain high. When students are excluded, there are obvious questions about whether a state's scores actually reflect all of the state's students.

Special education advocates opposed the move, including hundreds of Kentucky teachers. The Kentucky Department of Education wanted to delay the elimination of readers, but the state board didn't agree.

In particular, the change is expected to affect students with specific learning disabilities such as dyslexia. One end-of-course state exam counts for 20 percent of a student's grade in that course. Taking that test without a reader— either another person or computer software— could be devastating, advocate Cindy Baumert said.

Using a reader or assistive technology that works like a reader isn't allowed on NAEP, she said, but NAEP scores aren't tied to specific schools or students, while state exams are. (Exclusions on NAEP have even been the subject of a Government Accountability Office report.)

She told the board about a member of her family who is dyslexic and is in college studying engineering. He often relies on a computer program to read aloud for him. His dyslexia is not going to go away, Ms. Baumert said.

Some board members said they understood concerns that students who truly need the accommodations won't get them, but several also said students' dependence on readers on exams points to flaws in instruction and enables students to never learn to read fluently.

"All of us have struggled with this. This is a case of bad practices in the field has gotten us to this point where we have to do something to provide an incentive not to continue that poor practice," Board Vice Chairman Roger Marcum, a former teacher and superintendent, said. "The struggle for me is that we have large numbers of students who are receiving accommodations and it makes sense to me that many of them could be more independent in reading skills. But students who legitimately need the accommodations, I struggle with saying we're going to pull it away from them."

But Martha Thurlow, director of the National Center on Educational Outcomes, said states don't have to eliminate reading accommodations on testsall together to address NAEP exclusion rates.

Instead, they can carefully define who qualifies for this accommodation, define the construct of reading differently by grade level, require IEP teams to make separate decisions for the state tests and NAEP, and increase professional development about the read-aloud accommodations.

Posted by Nirvi Shah at 10:02 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

New York City failed to provide special education services to about one in four students who were entitled to them during the 2009-10 school year, the city comptroller has found, and the city's most elite high schools need to admit more students with disabilities.

In an audit this month, New York City Comptroller John Liu found that speech, occupational and physical therapy, vision and hearing services weren't provided to 72,306 of 285,736 students referred for such help, the New York Daily News reported.

He found that the city's education department doesn't have enough contractors to provide these therapies."As a result, (the department) is authorizing the use of independent consultants ... to provide these services, which may result in higher rates paid under lesser performance standards, monitoring constraints, and insurance requirements," he wrote in the audit.

Preschool students in particular didn't get services. The audit found that only 34 percent of the city's 43,000 preschoolers received the therapy they needed, and youngsters in the poorest school districts were the most neglected.

At the same time, city Schools Chancellor Dennis Walcott has issued a notice to some of New York's most prestigious high schools.

Walcott told administrators to admit as many students with special needs as neighboring schools or the Department would place the students for them, the Daily News wrote.

"We recognize that this transition is a substantial one," wrote Walcott in an email to principals. He said the department would expand support for students with disabilities to help them make the transition to the high-performing schools.

An analysis by the Daily News found that last year, 11 of the city's selective high schools had fewer than three students with special needs and fewer than half of the city's 103 high schools with some admissions requirements took as many students with disabilities as schools without admissions requirements.

The newspaper reported that Walcott's demands are part of his agency's effort to improve outcomes for all students.

Still, eight city high schools are exempt from his request because they admit students based solely on scores on the city's Specialized High Schools Admissions Test.

Posted by Nirvi Shah at 10:36 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Parents and students with disabilities aren't as involved in the process of mapping out their goals with schools as much as they should be, although federal law intends for parents and school staff to work together on these plans, a new study finds.

The study, published this month online in the Journal of Disability Policy Studies, found that participation in IEP (Individualized Education Program) meetings varied based on the type of disability a student has, their family income, and their racial or ethnic background. Parents of students who had demonstrated "challenging" behavior at school, or who had poor social skills, reported they found meetings about their IEPs or transition from high school to college or work less than satisfactory, the authors found.

"These findings raise questions about whether schools are doing enough to engage the diversity of children and parents who are part of their communities," the study concludes.

The IEP, with its technical name, is a source of angst for both schools and families of children with disabilities. Meetings can be difficult to coordinate, and schools and parents, as well as the students in question, may not agree on reachable goals and the services needed to reach those goals, as well as the setting in which a student will be taught.

The study found that schools could make this bureaucratic process easier on parents and students by addressing obstacles to productive meetings. For example, for low-income families, schools might need to adjust meeting times and locations. For parents who are less well educated, schools could take measures to avoid using special education jargon.

The plans could become even more important as states shift to adopt and incorporate the common core standards.

"How welcoming are schools to parents whose children struggle academically and/or behaviorally? Findings presented here that parents of students with negative events in their educational histories or with factors associated with behavior issues are as likely as others to attend IEP/transition planning meetings but are less likely to be satisfied with their inclusion in decision making are troubling," the study found. "The students whose parents come to meetings to represent [them] may be the ones who most need and could benefit from a strong parent-school alliance in support of their educational success, yet that alliance seems elusive."

Posted by Nirvi Shah at 10:01 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

A few years ago, the San Diego school district found that too many of its students with disabilities were spending their school days in segregated settings. Of one group of students, those with mental retardation, 85 percent took classes exclusively with students just like them.

A consultant's report included an account of how these students were sequestered, even at lunch.

"A special education professional commented, 'Look at this!' as she pointed to the students with mental retardation who were sitting at a separate table, each accompanied by a paraprofessional. "These kids need typical language models and they are not getting them. Talk about a lost opportunity." We approached the students and asked them some basic questions like 'What is your name?' In each case, the paraprofessionals answered for the child while declaring them 'nonverbal.' The professional accompanying us questioned how they would ever become verbal if adults were constantly answering for them."

After that report, the district decided to make a huge shift in the placement of students with disabilities, and cut its special education budget significantly at the same time.

As a reporter from the Voice of San Diego quickly found, no one was critical of the idea of inclusion at the time the district wanted to make the shift. In fact, inclusion is widely regarded as the attitude districts should have and what is best for students, and when districts segregate too much, they may be punished. But San Diego parents, who had advocated for more inclusion, were alarmed by the district's approach, which has turned out to be problematic in practice.

Now three years into the shift to inclusion, parents and educators are wondering: Did San Diego move too fast? One parent, who oversees special education in a nearby district, reacted by plucking his young son with autism out of the district before the switch.

The district tried to train its teachers to work with students with disabilities, but it made the training optional. The teachers' union president—the union had a hand in the training being optional—told reporter Will Carless that brief training wasn't enough, and some of the students should be segregated because they pose a danger to teachers. (I sense a vicious cycle here.)

One principal told him that teachers and principals set in their ways decided they didn't need to change—and kids have suffered the consequences. An example: One teacher was told that he needed to give extra time for homework to a child with autism. A teacher's aide reported that the teacher's attitude was "I don't give extra time to anybody."

Mr. Carless concluded that individual schools were left to figure out how to become more inclusive on their own, affecting the education of students with disabilities and their classmates in the process. And some principals told him that three years into the district's shift to more inclusion for its students with disabilities, they still struggle with the mandate. Each year they must learn to teach children with disabilities they have not encountered at the school before. But principals said they were too busy to be trained at the time.

Now, in retrospect, one principal said that definitely was not the way to go.

"That's certainly not the way this should have happened with such a huge transition. I would have expected an army of special ed. experts being available to us," the principal told Carless.

As for students who may need a specialized setting? (I know some people would disagree that any child needs such a placement.) That, principals said, isn't really an option anymore.

Posted by Nirvi Shah at 10:48 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

An Arizona law providing private school tuition to students with disabilities has been ruled constitutional by a county superior court judge, the Arizona Republic and Associated Press report.

Arizona's scholarship program pays up to 90 percent of what a school district or charter school would have received to educate a student. Parents can use the money for private school tuition, textbooks, online classes, and other expenses.

Gov. Jan Brewer applauded the ruling, which comes after a previous Arizona voucher program for students with disabilities was ruled unconstitutional. The current program revamped the old model, expanding the uses of the money from only tuition to a list of options.

"I'm especially supportive of these accounts because they put funding directly in the hands of parents, allowing them to choose the school that best serves their child," the governor said in a statement.

Already, Arizona lawmakers have drafted bills to expand the voucher program. One house bill would provide vouchers to all students, not just those with disabilities.

The Arizona Republic reported that some of the groups that sued to end the program said they will appeal.

About 100 students use the program, and more are waiting for their paperwork to clear. On average, students' debit cards were loaded with about $13,000, the state department of education told the newspaper.

Several other states allow public money to be used on private school tuition for students with disabilities, including Florida, Georgia and Utah. Ohio allows students diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder to use a voucher for education services from a private provider.

As I've written before, many special education advocates caution parents to think carefully before sending their children to private schools, where federal laws' protection of their educational rights disappears.

Posted by Nirvi Shah at 9:34 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

UPDATED

A proposed new definition of autism could exclude many people now classified as having the disorder.

News reports from around the country say that the definition of the disability is being reassessed by a panel appointed by the American Psychiatric Association. The group is wrapping up work on the latest edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, which The New York Times reports is the manual's first major revision in 17 years.

The Times talked to Dr. Fred R. Volkmar, director of the Child Study Center at the Yale School of Medicine and an author of a new analysis designed to weigh the potential effect of the proposal.

He said the changes would narrow the diagnosis so much that it could effectively end the autism surge.

"We would nip it in the bud," he told The Times.

The proposed change would consolidate the autism spectrum, which now includes people with Asperger syndrome and pervasive developmental disorder, not otherwise specified (PDD-NOS). They and those now diagnosed with autism would all be under one label—autism spectrum disorder. The Times said under the manual's current criteria, a person may qualify for the diagnosis by exhibiting six or more of 12 behaviors. The proposed definition would require people to exhibit three deficits in social interaction and communication and at least two repetitive behaviors—a narrower interpretation.

In the new analysis, Dr. Volkmar and others used data from a large 1993 study that were used to develop the current criteria. They focused on 372 children and adults who were among the highest functioning and found that overall, only 45 percent of them would qualify for the proposed autism spectrum diagnosis by the definition now under review, The Times said.

Some advocates told The Times they fear the effects of the new definition, should it become final later this year.

"If clinicians say, 'These kids don't fit the criteria for an autism spectrum diagnosis,' they are not going to get the supports and services they need, and they're going to experience failure," Lori Shery, president of the Asperger Syndrome Education Network, told The Times.

I asked whether the change, if it takes effect, means that all the students who receive special education services now based on a diagnosis of Asperger syndrome or PDD-NOS would suddenly lose those services.

Not exactly, Sonja Trainor, a senior staff attorney at the National School Boards Association, told me.

She said to keep in mind that medical or other diagnoses are different from a determination about whether a student needs special education services at school.

Federal special education law—the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act—doesn't rely solely on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Ms. Trainor said.

"That diagnosis may have some bearing, but it's not the sole determining factor," she said.

Posted by Nirvi Shah at 12:34 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

A new letter from the Office for Civil Rights at the federal education department details how school districts should act on some changes to federal law regarding people with disabilities. The way I'm reading it, the letter expands the range of students to whom school districts' may have to provide special education services and accommodations, including some who in the past may have been found not to need those services.

The letter is intended to clarify school districts' obligations following amendments made to the Americans with Disabilities Act that took effect in 2009. Those amendments say school districts should define disability very broadly, writes Russlynn Ali, the assistant secretary for civil rights, in a set of questions and answers that accompany the letter.

"Students who, in the past, may not have been determined to have a disability under Section 504 [of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973] and Title II [of the Americans with Disabilities Act] may now in fact be found to have a disability under those laws," the guidance says. "A student whom a school district did not believe had a disability, and therefore did not receive...special education or related services before passage of the Amendments Act, must now be considered under these new legal standards. The school district would have to evaluate the student, as described in the Section 504 regulation, to determine if he or she has a disability and, if so, the district would have to determine whether, because of the disability, the student needs special education or related services."

It goes on: "Specifically, Congress directed that the definition of disability shall be construed broadly and that the determination of whether an individual has a disability should not demand extensive analysis. In most cases, application of these rules should quickly shift the inquiry away from the question whether a student has a disability [and thus is protected by the ADA and Section 504], and toward the school district's actions and obligations to ensure equal educational opportunities."

That last part may raise the ire of school districts who increasingly have been griping about their special education costs rising. In recent years, states have said they are having trouble meeting their financial obligation to special education, too.

Ms. Ali's guidance also says districts should revise their policies and procedures regarding who should get special education services and what those services are if their current policies and procedures don't incorporate the amendments to the ADA. "As noted above, the definition of disability is to be interpreted broadly, so determining whether one has a disability should not demand extensive analysis."

There is a lot more to this guidance. For instance, the guidance points out that a student has a disability under Section 504 and Title II if a major life activity is substantially limited by his or her impairment—but those impairments aren't limited to ones involving learning. An example: "A student with ulcerative colitis is substantially limited in the operation of a major bodily function, the digestive system. These students would have to be evaluated, as described in the Section 504 regulation, to determine whether they need special education or related services."

For students found not to need special education or related services, Ms. Ali's guidance goes on to say that the district must still consider whether a student is entitled to a reasonable modification of policies, practices, or procedures. An example: A student who has a physical disability based on a lung condition that substantially limits walking and mobility should be allowed to use the faculty elevator because the student needs assistance in traveling between classes, even though the school rule generally prohibits student use of the elevator.

Laura Kaloi, public policy director for the National Center for Learning Disabilities, praised the new guidance—at least in general.

"OCR has issued much-needed guidance to help schools implement the provisions of the ADA Amendments Act and how schools identify and serve individuals with disabilities," she said.

But the guidance doesn't go far enough, she said. The OCR stopped short of clarifying an issue that has arisen since the Education Department's office of special education issued regulations in 2007 regarding revocation of parental consent for services under the IDEA. She said some states have taken the position that an OCR letter from 1996 can be used to avoid an examination of potential 504 eligibility if a parent has revoked consent for services under IDEA. "This is an incorrect use of the letter and OCR should make that clear."

Her organization provides its own guidance on the ADA Amendments and Section 504.

Posted by Nirvi Shah at 4:32 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Wisconsin's legislature will consider a law restricting how students are restrained or secluded, a second attempt at such a law after a bill proposed in 2011 failed to pass.

Reforming how restraint and seclusion are used, or banning them altogether, has been the focus of new laws and regulations around the country, and Congress has proposed legislation to address the issue as well.

A U.S. Government Accountability Office study in 2009 about the use of the measures found some horrific scenarios, many involving students with disabilities. In one case a 7-year-old died after being held face down for hours by school staff. Some 5-year-olds were tied to chairs with bungee cords and duct tape by their teachers, their arms broken and their noses bloodied. A 13-year-old reportedly hung himself in a seclusion room after being confined for hours.

In 2011, a report called "The Cost of Waiting" chronicled additional cases of death and injury because of restraints or seclusion and was intended to nudge the U.S. Senate into action.

The Wisconsin law mirrors some of the provisions in other states' laws and regulations. For example, in cases where a student must be isolated, the law would require a school employee to supervise the student constantly, and the student would have to have access to a bathroom, water, medication, and meals. Some types of restraints, including those that cause chest compression or put pressure on a student's head or neck, or involve giving students drugs, would be banned out right.

The bill, sponsored by the state senate's education committee chair, has the support of state Superintendent Tony Evers. As the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reported, the state education agency worked to get support for the bill from groups that had previously been hesitant, including educators who believe it is occasionally necessary to restrain a child.

The bill also would drop a requirement that the state collect data on incidents of restraint and seclusion, a departure from the federal proposal.

Posted by Nirvi Shah at 9:51 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Although there has been a push to make "the nation's report card"—the National Assessment of Educational Progress—better reflect the academic performance of all children in America's schools, the effort hasn't gone far enough, Florida Education Commissioner Gerard Robinson wrote recently.

As colleague Lesli A. Maxwell and I noted late last year, overall, the numbers of 4th and 8th grade students who took NAEP and were identified as having disabilities or being English-language learners rose in 2011, continuing a long-term trend that began more than a decade ago when NAEP first allowed students to use accommodations, such as additional time, when taking the exams.

As the Tampa Bay Times wrote, last week's letter from Commissioner Robinson comes two months after NAEP results showed Florida's reading and math gains have stalled after years of steep increases. In addition, last week's Quality Counts report showed Florida tumbling from the sixth-ranked state to 11th place among states, with NAEP scores playing a role in that drop.

Maryland, which Robinson pointed out as having among the lowest inclusion rates—
only 31 percent of their identified students with disabilities in 4th grade and 30 percent in 8th grade—was the top ranked state in Quality Counts.

On the most recent NAEP administration, 40 states, plus the District of Columbia, met the goal of including 95 percent of all students in the original testing sample for the reading assessment for grades 4 and 8. In math, Oklahoma was the only state to fall short of the 95 percent inclusion goal for both grades, while Maryland did so in grade 8.

The Times reported that Cornelia Orr, the executive director of NAGB and the former testing honcho in Florida, said that while the percentages of excluded students in some states may appear large, the raw numbers of students are small, so it doesn't make a large difference in the overall scores.

Robinson told NAGB that they should consider a policy of only reporting or using state-level results if the minimum standards of inclusion are met. "This would ensure the validity of the reported results for the nation and for the participating states. States not meeting the minimum standards should face funding sanctions."

Posted by Nirvi Shah at 10:29 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

The new House Republican bills that tackle reforming the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (otherwise known as No Child Left Behind) "represent a full retreat from accountability for students with disabilities and other disadvantaged children," the National Center for Learning Disabilities said this week. (Read what other groups say about the bills here.)

Like the Senate rewrite of NCLB, the Republican bills would do away with adequate yearly progress, the crux of the law and the mechanism by which schools are held accountable for their students' performance.

That's the big problem with the bills, NCLD's executive director, James Wendorf, said.

"Even with its imperfections, NCLB has compelled schools to focus on whether students with disabilities were learning and achieving. Rather than require schools to address these issues, the bills retreat from setting performance goals for students and do not require any meaningful instructional interventions and supports for struggling students," he said.

The proposed Student Success Act would turn accountability over to the states, Mr. Wendorf said, essentially taking schools back to a time when students with disabilities weren't expected to graduate high school or attend college.

(Other proposals to reform NCLB aren't much better from the perspective of advocates for students with disabilities. See thoughts on the NCLB waivers and the Senate proposals.)

Another concern: The bill would eliminate the current cap on the so-called 1 percent rule, which restricts the use of scores on less-challenging tests given to students with severe cognitive disabilities. These tests take students off the track for a standard diploma.

"Rather than continuing to support students with disabilities in achieving a high school diploma and pursuing employment and additional education, the bill virtually encourages schools to expect less from students with disabilities. This will jeopardize their true potential to learn and achieve," Mr. Wendorf said.

The bills, the other is called the Encouraging Innovation and Effective Teachers Act, cut the federal focus on literacy, a hit for students struggling with that skill. The teachers bill would would allow federal education funds to be used for a private school vouchers, which can be risky for students with disabilities.

"Just as school accountability has begun to make the difference for students with disabilities," Mr. Wendorf said, "now is not the time to turn back the clock on our children."

Posted by Nirvi Shah at 9:48 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend