[IEP_guide] Re: No Child Left Behind: Implications for Assistive Technology

[Guest guest]

No Child Left Behind: Implications for Assistive

Technology

(Article in PDF Format)

Wahl

Signed by President Bush in January of 2002, the No Child Left

Behind Act (NCLB) is recognized as a truly significant shift in

overall federal education policy. The education of many students

has

> already been affected and there will be a cumulative impact as time

> goes on. There are several areas of NCLB that may relate to

> assistive technologyin the education of students with

> disabilities.

>

> Accountability is one of the core features of NCLB, which has

paired

> increased accountability with parental choice in the case of low-

> performing schools. NCLB requires annual testing for all students

in

> grades 3-8, including those with disabilities. Whereas in the past

> some students with disabilities were actually discouraged from

> taking standardized tests, now school districts and schools will

> fail to make adequate yearly progress (AYP) unless the children

with

> disabilities also make progress. (They fail to make AYP if any

> significant group, including minorities, economically-

disadvantaged,

> and ELL, does not make progress.) Parents can choose to transfer a

> child out of a low performing school after a single year without

> progress, and the school faces restructuring measures if no

progress

> is made in 5 years. Ironically, parents can also choose to exempt

> their child from testing and if enough do so, then the school will

> fail to make AYP because too few students will be tested.

>

> Testing Exemptions: In general, only students with the most

> significant cognitive disabilities (up to a 1% cap) are exempt from

> standard testing and thus eligible for an alternate assessment.

This

> is equal to approximately 9 % of students with disabilities. States

> must still document that students with the most significant

> cognitive disabilities are, to the extent possible, included in the

> general curriculum and participating in assessments aligned with

> content standards. States may also apply to the Secretary for

> exceptions in order to exceed slightly the 1.0 percent cap.

>

> The implications for assistive technology relate to the need for

> more students with disabilities to have access to both standard

> curriculum and testing. In terms of access to standard curriculum,

> children with disabilities cannot do well on state testing without

> access to the general education curriculum, so there is a stronger

> focus on bringing standard curriculum to these students. (Endnote

1)

> For some, no access is possible without AT. For others, as has been

> demonstrated through research, appropriate AT can greatly enhance

> access and learning.

>

> NCLB states that children who need accommodations including AT in

> order to participate in testing are to be provided with them,

> however it's up to individual states to determine what

> accommodations are allowed without rendering the results unreliable

> or invalid. NCLB also encourages the development, dissemination,

and

> promotion of appropriate accommodations to increase the number of

> students with the most significant cognitive disabilities who are

> tested against grade-level academic achievement standards.

>

> With states preparing to test so many more special education

> students who would otherwise have been exempt from the process,

some

> states are already coming up with innovative technological

> accommodations. Oregon

is devising a test that would allow hearing-

> impaired students to use American Sign Language. By clicking on

> either English or ASL, the students could choose to read the

> problems in English text or see a pair of hands signing the

> questions—or even split the screen with both English and ASL.

> (Endnote 2)

>

> In Massachusetts,

students with reading disabilities or visual

> impairments who use the text readers for their regular classroom

> work will be eligible to take statewide assessments using the text

> readers. In California,

those with an IEP or 504 plan can use

> Braille or large print, while other accommodations are only

> available to those who regularly use them in the classroom.

(Endnote

> 3) The Council on Exceptional Children (http://www.cec.sped.org/)

> has adopted a policy on assessment and accountability that

expresses

> support for the inclusion of all students in testing and describes

> the implications of this policy.

>

> According to Dave Edyburn, associate professor at the University of

> Wisconsin-Milwaukee, there is an urgent need to norm the use of AT

> on standardized tests. Students with disabilities need these

special

> devices and services in order to learn, and in order to demonstrate

> their true abilities. The use of AT should not be banned because it

> is considered by some to be an unfair advantage.

>

> Highly qualified teachers: NCLB requires that all teachers in core

> academic areas be " highly qualified " not later than the end of

the

> 2005–06 school year. It's up to individual states to define

> certification levels. This is having the effect in some states of

> moving away from certification based on number of courses completed

> towards certification based on skills and knowledge.

>

> To the extent that the ability to be effective in teaching students

> with disabilities is included in revised certification processes,

AT

> may be included in a more integrated fashion in teacher

professional

> development. Unfortunately, one review of the teaching quality

> mandates of NCLB done in the fall of 2003 indicates that NCLB may

be

> lowering the bar for teacher credentialing in some states. (Endnote

> 4) The definition of highly qualified can be honed with research at

> the national level, and activism at the state level.

>

> Research-based practice: Spurred, in part, by requirements in the

> Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the No Child

> Left Behind Act (NCLB), the use of scientifically derived

> information—or data—has become a significant part of

educational

> programming for children with disabilities. (Endnote 5) With the

> NCLB emphasis on research-based practice, there may be more

interest

> and dissemination of AT research. For instance, research indicates

> that talking word processors and word prediction increase the

> quality of written work for students with learning disabilities.

> (Endnote 6) One could assume that this would support the increased

> use of such tools in classrooms. Research also shows how AT can be

> most effective. For instance, simply hearing written text read

aloud

> does not increase comprehension unless supporting questions and

> organizational supports have been added. (A number of strategies

> that can be considered AT are described in Learning to Read in the

> Computer Age available at http://www.cast.org.)

>

> Looking Forward: Details of implementing NCLB continue to evolve,

> with the issuance of policy letters from the U.S. Secretary of

> Education. In February of 2004, a number of policy changes were

> announced related to ELL students, that reflect a response to

> feedback from the field. A similar refinement could occur related

to

> the use of AT in testing students with disabilities.

>

> In addition, IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) is

> up for reauthorization (H.R.1350 and S.1248) in the spring of 2004.

> Some fear that changes in IDEA, made in part to align it with NCLB,

> will have a negative impact on students with disabilities. (Endnote

> 7) Flexibility in how schools spend federal funds for IDEA could

> have a negative impact on the use of assistive technology.

>

> Dave Edyburn points out that there is little evidence to suggest

> that all students who could benefit from AT have access to it.

> (Endnote 8) " As a result, renewed efforts must be focused on the

use

> of technology to enhance academic performance. We must commit to

> collecting evidence about how AT enhances academic performance. A

> question I increasingly ask, " How much failure data do we need to

> collect before we know a student can't do a task? " Even prior to

> NCLB we knew many students with disabilities were failing to make

> academic progress. New accountability measures don't change that.

> However, what is being obscured in the current NCLB era is–what do

> we do about deficits in performance? A particularly divisive and

> unresolved issue concerning assistive technology and reading is:

> when do we give kids AT to compensate for the inability to read at

> grade level? 4th grade, 9th grade, never? (Endnote 9) Again, how

> much failure data do we need before we know a student can't do a

> given task? And, what do we do about it to make them successful?

> Remember, NCLB says that failure is not an option. "

>

> Role for advocates: What can parents, teachers, and other AT

> advocates do to use NCLB to promote an increase in both universally

> designed technology and AT?

>

> 1. Volunteer to serve on the local educational agency committee

that

> has drafted and will be revising the local plan for implementation

> of NCLB to advocate for best practices related to students with

> disabilities.

>

> 2. Inquire with your state department of education as to ways in

> which you can have input to master plans related to NCLB and/or

> teacher credentialing.

>

> 3. Become knowledgeable about your state's testing accommodations

so

> that you can help disseminate this information.

>

> 4. Keep up on research that demonstrates that AT and features of

> universally designed software are effective strategies.

>

> NLCB Resources

> U.S. Department of Education website on NCLB, including new policy

> updates:

> http://www.ed.gov/nclb/

>

> School Choice Opportunities under No Child Left Behind discusses

the

> implications of school choice for students with disabilities.

> http://www.schwablearning.org/articles.asp?r=778

>

> Quality Counts 2004: Count Me In, Special Education in an Era of

> Standards, Education Week Special Report, January 2004,

> http://www.edweek.org/sreports/qc04/article.cfm?slug=17exec.h23

>

> Implementing the NCLB Act: What It Means for IDEA, June 2002

> http://www.nasdse.org/downloadncb.htm

>

> The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001:Implications for Special

> Education Policy and Practice: Selected Sections of Title I and

> Title II September 2002.

> http://www.ideapractices.org/ideanews/files/issue.php?iss=14#105

>

> No Child Left Behind Act of 2001: Reauthorization of the Elementary

> and Secondary Education, A Technical Assistance Resource, December

> 2003, Council on Exceptional Children

> http://www.cec.sped.org/pp/OverviewNCLB.pdf

>

> Resources for Research-based Practices

> Involving Assistive and Educational Technology

> CAST, http://www.cast.org

>

> U.S. Department of Education, What Works Clearinghouse,

http://www.w-

> w-c.org/

>

> U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology,

> http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/os/technology/index.html?exp=0

>

> Quality Indicators for Assistive Technology Services in School

> Settings, http://sweb.uky.edu/~jszaba0/QIAT.html

>

> EdTechNot links to research on Educational Technology, including

Ask

> ERIC, http://www.edtechnot.com/notresearch.html

>

> Thanks to Dave Edyburn, editor of Special Education Technology

> Practice, Marcia J. Scherer, author of Connecting to Learn:

> Educational and Assistive Technologies for People with Disabilities

> (2004) and Chauncy N. Rucker, Publisher of the ConnSENSE Bulletin,

> for their review and comments.

>

> Support provided by the WestEd RTEC LeaFE initiative and especially

> Duffield.

>

> Feedback

> WestEd and ATA welcome your feedback on this article, which

> addresses changing situation. Any comments can be sent to

> jduffie@... and/or to lisawahl@...

>

> Author Information

> Wahl is working as a consultant for the Alliance for

Technology

> Access in collaboration with the WestEd RTEC Learning for Everyone

> (LeaFE) initiative, after having served as director of the Center

> for Accessible Technology for ten years. A recent journal article

on

> the impact of Section 508 in K-12 education, appeared in

Information

> Technology and Disability, " From Policy To Practice: Achieving

> Equitable Access To Educational Technology " , which can be found at

> http://www.rit.edu/%7Eeasi/itd/itdv09n1/contents.htm.

>

> ENDNOTES:

> Endnote 1 - Council for Exceptional Children, No Child Left Behind

> Act of 2001: Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary

> Education, A Technical Assistance Resource, December 2003,

> http://www.cec.sped.org/pp/OverviewNCLB.pdf

>

> Endnote 2 - Goldstein, Fine. " Special Education Tech Sparks

> Ideas. " Education Week. 21 Jan. 2004

> http://www.edweek.org/sreports/tc03/article.cfm?slug=35speced.h22

>

> Endnote 3 - California Special Education Accommodation/Modification

> for Statewide Testing can be downloaded from

> http://www.cde.ca.gov/statetests/

>

> Endnote 4 - NCLB Teaching Quality Mandates: Findings and Themes

From

> the Field, Southeast

Center for Teaching

Quality, December 19,

2003,

> http://www.edpolicy.org/research/nclb/index.php

>

> Endnote 5 - Research Connections in Special Education, Number 13,

> Fall 2003 " Using Data

Innovative Ways to Improve Results for

> Students with Disabilities "

> http://ericec.org/osep/recon13/rc13cov.html

>

> Endnote 6 - MacArthur, C. A.(1998). Word processing with speech

> synthesis and word prediction: Effects on the journal writing of

> students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly,

> 21, 1-16.

>

> Endnote 7 - See http://www.wrightslaw.com/news/idea2002.htm

and

> http://www.ourchildrenleftbehind.com

>

> Endnote 8 - Edyburn, D.L.(2003). Rethinking assistive technology.

> Special Education Technology Practice, 5(4), 16-22.

>

> Endnote 9 - Edyburn, D.L.(2003). Learning from text. Special

> Education Technology Practice, 5(2), 16-27.

>

> http://www.ataccess.org/resources/nochild.html

>