No Child Left Behind Act of 2001: Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
 

The Council for Exceptional Children has engaged in a detailed review of the information available on the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (P.L. 107-110).  Because of the importance of this legislation, we have prepared this comprehensive set of resources concerning the law, and its implications for the special education field.  Included in this package of resources are the following: 

 

ÿ    CECís Summary of the Act

ÿ    An Overview of the Regulatory and Guidance Processes

ÿ    Guidance

ÿ    Regulations ‚ Final and Proposed

ÿ    Announcements from the U.S. Department of Education

ÿ    CECís No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 ‚ Implications for Special Education Policy and Practice

 

You should also refer to the Department of Educationís NCLB Web site for ongoing information for training and technical assistance materials.  http://www.nochildleftbehind.gov/ and http://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/asst.html

 

Summary of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001

 

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) passed by Congress late last year is a compromise version of many of President Bushís education reform proposals intended to hold schools accountable for the academic achievement of their students.  Below is a summary of the major highlights of the law.  Following the summary of NCLB is a discussion of its major implications for special education policy and practice.

 

Annual Testing

The law now requires annual testing of children in grades 3 though 8, at a minimum, in reading and math.  States are allowed to design and select their own tests.  While some states already have developed such tests, the law gives states until the 2005-2006 school year to develop and implement the math and reading tests for every child in grades 3 though 8, and science must be assessed by the 2007-08 school year.  In addition, the new law requires a small biennial sample of students in each state to take part in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) test.  This test, which is administered to a sample of 4^th through 8^th grade students, would be used as an ìindependent benchmarkî against which the rigor of state standards, tests and accountability mechanisms can be measured.  The federal government will cover the costs of state participation in NAEP, and no federal rewards or sanctions would be based on the NAEP results.  In addition, the law prohibits federally sponsored national testing and federally controlled curricula, as well as any mandatory national teacher test or certification.

 

 

Fiscal Flexibility Provisions

Local fiscal flexibility.  In terms of local school district flexibility, schools may transfer up to 50% of the federal funds they receive among a variety of programs (excluding federal IDEA funds) in exchange for improved educational results for children. [1]   School districts can transfer funds between the following programs: Title II teacher quality programs; the Safe and Drug Free Schools Program; the Technology Grant Program, and the Title V block grant-program.  In addition, up to 50% of the funds from any of the above programs could be transferred into the Title I compensatory education program.  The law does not, however, permit school districts to transfer money out of Title I Programs.

 

State fiscal flexibility.  The law permits states to transfer up to 50% of its state activity funds (i.e., funds reserved for use at the state level) between formula grant programs, such as Teacher Quality, Technology, Safe and Drug Free Schools, 21^st Century Community Learning Centers, and Innovative Programs Block Grant Programs.

 

Demonstration Projects

Local demonstration projects.  The law permits 150 school districts to enter into performance agreements with the US Department of Education in order to combine funds from specified non-Title I formula grant programs (i.e., Teacher Quality, technology, Safe and Drug Free Schools, and Innovative Program Block Grant programs) in order to improve the educational achievement of students.  In exchange for this flexibility, districts would be held accountable for improving academic achievement and would continue to be bound by current laws regarding civil rights and fiscal integrity.

 

State demonstration projects.  The law also includes a state flexibility demonstration program under which 7 states would be given additional flexibility in the use of federal funds for state administration and state activities consistent with the local demonstration projects discussed above.

 

Low Performing Schools

NCLB authorizes financial and technical assistance to school districts to help them improve student achievement at low performing schools.  The law requires schools to show adequate yearly progress (AYP) towards meeting the goal of 100% proficiency in reading, math, and science for ALL students within 12 years.  States set the achievement level that must be reached in intervening years and are required to raise these interim goals gradually, but in equal increments.  That is, a state cannot propose, for example, to make minimal improvement in student performance in the early years in anticipation of later dramatic gains in performance by the end of the 12-year timeline.  Instead, states and individual schools must demonstrate linear incremental improvement in student performance toward meeting 100% proficiency in reading and math for all students in the state by 2012.

 

Public School Choice

NCLB requires a school that fails to make AYP for two consecutive years to offer parents of the students the option to transfer to another public school, although the requirement would not apply if state law prohibited public school choice.  Under this provision, districts must pay the costs of transporting students to the other public school and must use up to 5% of their Title I funds for that purpose.  In addition, the law permits school districts to use an additional 10% of their Title I funds for transportation or pay for supplemental instructional services required after three years of failing to make APY (see below).  The school district is required under NCLB to provide technical assistance to the school to help it improve.  The school is also eligible to receive federal funds for school improvement.

 

Supplemental Instructional Services

NCLB requires that if a school fails to meet AYP for three consecutive years, the school district must provide supplemental instructional servicesósuch as tutoring, after school classes, and summer classesóto students who are disadvantaged and low achieving, from a provider chosen by the parents.  These supplemental services could be offered by a variety of providers, including faith-based providers.  The law also requires that districts use 5% of their Title I funds to pay for these supplemental services.  As noted above, districts would also be able to use an additional 10% of their Title 1 funds for transporting students to other public schools to pay for supplemental instructional services.

 

Corrective Actions

NCLB requires that if a school fails to make AYP for 4 consecutive years, the school district must implement certain corrective actions to improve the school, such as replacing certain staff or implementing a new curriculum.  The district must continue to offer public school choice and provide supplemental services as discussed above.

 

Restructuring Activities

Under NCLB, if a school fails to make AYP for 5 consecutive years, the school district must implement a plan for significant changes in how the school is run, such as a state takeover, hiring a private management contractor, converting to a charter school or overseeing restructuring of the staff.  The requirements to offer public school choice and to provide supplemental instructional services would continue to apply.

 

Schools Currently Needing Improvement

Schools currently needing improvement since enactment of NCLB must offer public school choice during the current 2001-2002 school year, while schools in the second year of school improvement or in corrective action must offer supplemental services no later than the 2002-2003 school year.

 

Duration of Corrective Action and Restructuring

Under NCLB, once a school makes AYP for two consecutive years, it is no longer required to undertake corrective actions or restructuring activities.

 

Other Accountability Provisions

• Report cardsóNCLB requires states, school districts, and schools to issue report cards to parents and the public on aspects of student performance and teacher qualifications.  State and school districts that already have report cards may continue to use them, as long as they are modified to contain the required information.
• Funds for annual testingóNCLB authorizes $400 million in FY 2002 and such sums as may be necessary in each of the following 5 years, for a program to help states develop and administer their own tests.  The law allows states to defer beginning, or suspend, the annual tests if the appropriation to pay for the test does not reach certain specified levels.  Under the law, states would not be required to administer these tests if the appropriation for FY 2003 is less than $370 million.  This ìtriggerî level increases by $10 million each year until it reaches $400 million in FY 2005.  It would remain at $400 million after FY 2005 (Note: The FY 2002 federal appropriation exceeded the minimum $370 million requirement).
• Funding for NAEPóNCLB authorizes $72 million in FY 2002, and such sums as may be necessary in each of the following 5 years, for states to administer the NAEP for 4^th and 8^th graders in reading and math proficiency.

 

Title I, Compensatory Education Grants to School Districts

NCLB reauthorizes through FY 2007 the programs of basic, concentration, and target grants to school districts previously authorized under ESEA, and raises the authorized funding levels more than 57% for FY 2002 and triple the current appropriation in FY 2006.

 

Teacher Qualifications

NCLB requires states to develop a plan for ensuring that all teachers will be highly qualified by the end of the 2005-2006 school year.  In addition, all new teachers leaving teacher preparation programs must fully meet highly qualified standards. [2]   NCLB also increases qualifications for teachersí aids.  Under NCLB, no later than 3 years from now all teachersí aids must have at least 2 years of study at an institution of higher education, have an associateís degree or have met a rigorous quality standard by demonstrating knowledge of, and ability to instruct in, reading, writing and math or math readiness.

 

Teacher Training and Recruitment

Under NCLB, a number of teacher training and recruitment programs are consolidated into a singly state grant program, with the exception that separate authorizations for the State Grant program, Math and Science Partnership Program, and the Troops-to-Teachers & Transition-to-Teaching programs.

 

State GrantsóNCLB authorizes $3.2 billion in FY 2002, and such sums as may be necessary in the 5 succeeding years, to fund a state grant teacher training program.  The new state grant program funds activities previously authorized under the Eisenhower Professional Development and Class Size Reduction programs, both of which are discontinued under NCLB.  States will receive grants under a formula that is based 65% on poverty and 35% on student population.  No state will receive less under this program than under its FY 2001 allotment under the Eisenhower and Class Size Reduction programs.  After reserving funds for state administration and state activities, states are required to distribute no less than 95% of funds to school districts.

 

Math and Science Partnership ProgramóNCLB authorizes $450 million in FY 2002, and such sums as may be necessary in the 5 succeeding years, for this program.  This program will provide grants to partnerships between states, local institutions and institutions of higher education to offer summer and distant-education workshops for math and science teaching, establishing strategies to recruit teachers, and provide other career development for teachers.

 

Troops to-Teachers & Transition-to-Teaching Programs

NCLB authorizes $150 million in FY 2002, and such sums as may be necessary in the 5 succeeding years, for these programs.  The law reserves up to $30 million for the Troops-to-Teachers program, which helps former members of the armed services obtain certification or licensing as teachers.  The Transition-to-Teacher program is intended to help qualified mid-career professionals as well as recent college graduates make the transition to teaching in high-needs schools.

 

New Reading Programs

NCLB authorizes the following 2 new reading programs as part of Title I:

 

• Reading FirstóNCLB authorizes $900 million in FY 2002, and such sums as may be necessary in each of the following 5 years, for the Reading First program, which will distribute grants to states and then states will award funds, on a competitive basis, to school districts.   The reading program replaces the Reading Excellence Program and will serve children in kindergarten through 3^rd grade.
• Early Reading FirstóNCLB authorizes $75 million in FY 2002, and such sums as may be necessary in each of the following 5 years, for a new program that will provide competitive grants to school districts or private organizations to develop and implement preschool reading programs.

 

Other Title I Programs

NCLB includes increased authorization of funds for Even Start, Migratory Children, and Neglected or Delinquent Youth.

 

Bilingual Education

NCLB consolidates previous bilingual and immigrant education programs into one state program for state formula grants once appropriations reach $650 million (Note: the FY 2002 appropriation exceeds this amount), with subsequent yearly increases of the 5 succeeding years.  The US Department of Education will distribute funds to states according to a formula based 80% on the number of children with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) in the state, and 20% on the number of immigrant children in the state.  Parents have the right under NCLB to choose among instructional programs if more than one type is offered.  They also have the right to immediately remove their child from a LEP program.  NCLB also eliminates the previous requirement that 75% of funds be used to support programs in which the child is taught in his or her native language.  Instead, it lets the local school district decide on the method of instruction used to teach children with LEP.  Finally, the law requires that all children who have attended school in the United States for at least 3 consecutive years and are enrolled in programs funded under this program must be testing in English in reading and language arts, although waivers to this rule may be granted on a case-by-case basis.

 

Innovative Programs

NCLB authorizes $450 million in FY 2002, with $25 million annual increases through FY 2007 for the existing education block grant program known as the Innovative Education Program.  In addition, NCLB authorizes $300 million in FY 2002, and such sums as may be necessary thereafter, for the charter school program; and $125 million for the Magnet Schools Assistance Program.

 

Technology Education

NCLB created a single education-technology program to replace several smaller programs.  The law authorizes $1.0 billion in FY 2002, and such sums as may be necessary in the succeeding 5 years, for a new Enhancing Education Through Technology Program.

 

21^st Century Learning Centers

The law authorizes $1.0 billion in FY 2002, $1.5 billion in FY 2003, and subsequent $250 million annual increases through FY 2007 for the 21^st Century Learning Centers.  This program will provide grants to school districts or nonprofit organizations (including community-based organizations) to provide after-school programs.

 

Safe and Drug Free Schools

NCLB authorizes $650 million in FY 2002, and such sums as may be necessary in the succeeding 5 years, for the Safe Schools state grant program, which provides grants to school districts to ensure that schools are free of drugs and that schools are safe for all children.

 

Immunity for Teachers

NCLB includes a provision that exempts teachers, principals, school board members, and other school professionals from liability if the teacher or other professional was acting within the scope of his or her duties related to providing educational services; applying student discipline procedures consistent with federal, state, and local laws and regulations; and that harm was not caused by willful or criminal misconduct, or gross negligence.

 

Implications for Special Education

The enactment of NCLB has significant implications for special education policy and practice, mainly in the areas of accountability and personnel certification/licensure issues. 

 

Accountability

CEC believes that one of the most significant implications of NCLB in terms of special education policy and practice are found within the requirements of average yearly progress (AYP) and the set of graduated accountability measures that flow from NCLB when students fail to meet AYP.  As discussed above, the law requires schools to show adequate yearly progress (AYP) towards meeting the goal of 100% proficiency in reading and math for all students, in grades 3 through 8, within 12 years.  States set the achievement level that must be reached by schools in intervening years and are required to raise these interim goals gradually, but in equal increments.  That is, a state cannot propose, for example, to make minimal improvement in student performance in the early years in anticipation of later dramatic gains in performance by the end of the 12-year timeline.  Instead, states must ensure and demonstrate linear incremental improvement in student performance toward meeting 100% proficiency for all students in the state by 2012. 

 

The performance of students is disaggregated based on a host of identifying factors, including race, ethnicity, and disability status.  If children with disabilities (grades 3 through 8) within a school fail to make adequate yearly progress toward reaching 100% proficiency in reading and math by 2012, the school will face a host of accountability measures intended to improve performance of students failing to make AYP, including being required to provide supplemental instructional services, public school choice (if allowed under state law) corrective actions (such as replacing school staff), and reconstitution of the school by allowing outside parties, such as a private contract manager, to operate the school.

 

Because of these new provisions, the performance of children with disabilities on statewide and district wide assessments will partly determine whether a school faces possible remedial action in the future, although it is not entirely clear how these new accountability measures will effect special education practice.  In general, however, it seems likely that these accountability measures will create an even greater impetus than does IDEA í97 to link special education IEP goals with the content standards of the general education curriculum.

 

Related to AYP and student proficiency levels is the participation of students with disabilities in general and alternative statewide assessments.  IDEA í97 requires the participation of children with disabilities in statewide and district wide assessments, with appropriate accommodations as necessary, or their participation in appropriate alternative assessments.  NCLB requires that all students participate in annual state performance assessments, at a minimum in reading and math, in grades 3 through 8.  Early indications from the Negotiated Rule Making process currently taking place on NCLB (i.e., development of implementing regulations) is that the guiding regulations will only judge a student to have participated in the general statewide assessment if his or her score is counted in the new accountability system.  That is, if accommodations provided to a student with a disability results in his or her test scores being deemed unreliable or invalid, the student shall not be considered as having participated in the assessment.  If the participation rate does not meet the minimum requirement (i.e., 95% participation rate for all students) the state will be judged out of compliance with the law and subject to appropriate sanctions. [3]

 

Thus, the extent to which current state performance assessment tools sufficiently allow for individualized accommodations for children with disabilities while ensuring continued reliability and validity of results is critical. In other words, states will need to ensure that their standards and assessment tools are sufficiently inclusive to allow and account for individualized accommodations determined by a childís IEP team without watering-down the standards or jeopardizing the credibility of the results.

 

Personnel Certification/Licensure

In order to ensure that all students, including children and youth with disabilities, achieve 100% proficiency in reading and math by the 2012 school year, NCLB requires that every teacher hold full state certification or licensure by 2005.  NCLB precludes states from providing teachers with emergency, temporary, or provisional certification or licensure.  In addition, NCLB requires that all first year teachers hold full state certification or licensure during the 2002-03 school year.  Although the final implementing regulations have not yet been issued, CEC interprets the NCLB statute as holding the same requirement for special education teachers and related services providers, and early intervention teachers.  In this era of personnel shortages in special education, meeting the requirements of NCLB with regard to highly qualified personnel will be a major undertaking and will likely require a dramatic expansion of teacher preservice and inservice training to ensure that all special education personnel are highly qualified by the 2005-06 school year.

 

An Overview of the Regulatory and Guidance Processes

 

With any new law, a standard process is followed for the development of the implementing regulations.  Certain titles will have regulations that will be proposed, with an opportunity for the public to provide comments.  These notices of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) are published in the Federal Register. With a few exceptions, federal agencies are then required to publish final regulations in the Federal Register 30 days before they take effect. 

 

Guidance for NCLB

 

Although states were required to begin implementing the changes made under NCLB immediately after the law was passed, the Education Department was not planning on issuing formal regulations for NCLB until late summer or early fall.  However, school administrators began requesting guidance from the Department on various aspects of the act.  Over the course of the summer, Secretary Paige issued a variety of policy guidance letters and documents to clarify the actís requirements.

 

v    High Quality Teachers.  On June 6^th, the Education Department issued draft guidance on Title II, Part A of NCLB, which concerns the preparation, training, and retention of high-quality teachers and principals, as well as requires states to develop plans with annual measurable objectives that will ensure that all teachers teaching in core academic subjects are highly qualified by the end of the 2005-2006 school year.

 

On June 13^th, Secretary Paige issued a ìDear Colleagueî letter to school superintendents and state education chiefs outlining preliminary guidance on three aspects of the law: the public school choice, supplemental education services, and collective bargaining provisions.  These three programs must be implemented during the upcoming 2002-2003 school year.  Because of this approaching deadline, Paige said his guidance was intended "to give initial direction" to school officials as they proceed this summer to carry out the measure. 

 

v    Public School Choice.  "The new choice requirements must be implemented beginning this fall," Paige said.  In general, for any Title I elementary or secondary school identified for school improvement, the school district must provide all students enrolled in the school with the option to transfer to another public school in the district.  "As you continue your planning, I strongly encourage you to provide several choice options for parents," the secretary said.  "Parents should be provided a reasonable amount of time to consider their options, be given concise but detailed information on the performance and overall quality of the receiving schools, and be provided an opportunity to visit potential schools of choice."  He said school districts should begin planning now, if they have not already, to make choice available for students in any school that was in school improvement status as of Jan. 7, 2002. If a student exercises the option to transfer to another public school, the school district has certain obligations to provide or pay for with federal funds the student's transportation to the new school.  Schools will have flexibility in the use of their federal funds to pay for transportation costs.

 

v    Supplemental Education Services.  For Title I schools in the second year of school improvement, the district must arrange for the provision of supplemental education services for eligible students enrolled in the schools, such as private tutoring, after-school services, and summer school programs.  Parents must be notified about the availability of supplemental services.  And, states must provide a list of organizations that are on a roster of "preferred providers" and their record of success.  Service providers can include public schools, faith-based operations, distance learning services, for-profit and non-profit concerns.

 

v    Collective Bargaining Agreements.  The act "does not operate to invalidate employee protections that exist under current law and collective bargaining and similar labor agreements.  However, it does not exempt state education agencies, local education agencies and schools from compliance with Title I based on prospective collective bargaining or similar agreement or prospective collective bargaining or similar agreements or changes in state or local law."    

 

v    Adequate Yearly Progress.  On July 24^th, the Secretary issued a letter that provided guidance on the ìadequate yearly progressî requirements under the new law.  ìAYP should be used to target the unique needs of schools to improve student achievement,î Secretary Paige explained.  ìIt does not necessitate a ìone size fits allî response without regard to how well a school is doing overall. However, any Title I school in which any group of students fails to meet the AYP goal must be identified as in need of improvement, and all such schools that are identified are subject to the timeline for improvement required under Section 1116.  Regardless of the degree to which a school is not making AYP, an LEA must take actions to address the needs of the school and improve achievement, provide public school choice for all students in any school that is identified for improvement, and provide supplemental education services for eligible students in schools that continue to not make AYP, as required under Section 1116.î 

 

v    School Choice and Assessment Data.  On August 16^th, Secretary Paige issued a letter that provided guidance on the timing of school choice/supplemental educational services and 2001/2002 assessment data.

 

For the full text of these three letters, go to: http://www.ed.gov/news/letters.jsp

 

v    Unsafe School Choice Option Provisions.  In late July, the Secretary issued draft guidance on the Unsafe School Choice Provisions under the NCLB law.  The Unsafe School Choice Option (USCO) [section 9532 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001] requires that each state education agency (SEA), as a condition of receiving ESEA funds, has to develop a policy to identify "persistently dangerous public schools," and "identify types of offenses that are considered to be violent criminal offenses."  Students who attend such identified schools or who are victims of such offenses now have a new federal right to transfer to another public school within the LEA (including a public charter school) that has not been identified as unsafe.  While not required, ED says students who have this transfer right should be allowed to transfer to a safe school that is also making AYP.

 

Local education agencies (LEAs) are not required to pay for these transportation costs.

 

In addition to providing this safe school transfer option, LEAs with identified persistently dangerous schools must also take "corrective action."

 

Each State must certify to ED that it is in compliance on an annual basis and submit the numbers of schools identified.  States were supposed to have submitted their initial certification of compliance as part of their ESEA consolidated application.  If a State has not yet fully complied with these provisions, it must submit a statement to ED by 8/15/02 that specifies what steps it still has to take to be in compliance and certify it will do so by 7/1/2003. Required transfer of students must start no later than the 2003-04 school year.

 

According to Secretary Paige, this guidance highlights some important aspects of USCO, and provides guidance on some provisions that may be useful in administering these requirements.  States may rely on this guidance in administering these requirements.  U.S. Department of Education officials, including the Inspector General, will consider State recipients that follow approaches contained in this guidance to be in compliance with the applicable Federal requirements that govern this program.

 

Paige noted that the Education Department intends to develop regulations concerning implementation of USCO ìin the near future,î but, in the meantime, states may rely on this guidance.

 

Regulations ‚ Final and Proposed

 

Final Regulations on Standards and Assessment Requirements

 

On July 5^th, the Department issued final regulations outlining the requirements states must fulfill under Title I of the NCLB, ìImproving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged.î  These regulations became effective on August 5^th.  (Note: the NPRM for these requirements was issued on May 6^th.)  To review the final regulations, go to: http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/finrule/2002-3/070502a.html

 

Proposed Regulations for Title I

 

On August 6^th, the Secretary of Education issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend the regulations governing the programs administered under Title I, Subparts A, B, C, and D and E of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA). These proposed regulations are needed to implement recent changes to Title I of the ESEA made by the NCLB.

Word File:  http://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/SASA/nprmtitleifinal.doc

PDF File:  http://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/SASA/nprmtitleifinal.pdf

 

Comments are due by September 5, 2002.  CEC is reviewing the NPRM and will be sending its comments to the Department. 

 

Announcements from the Department of Education

 

Identifying Failing Schools Under School Choice

 

U.S. Secretary of Education Rod Paige on July 1 announced that students in an estimated 8,600 schools nationwide, according to state reports, will have the option to choose and attend a higher-performing school in their school district if the school they currently attend has failed to meet state academic standards for two consecutive years. 

 

The new options are available to parents of students in Title I-funded schools, and were established under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, which was signed into law by President Bush on January 8, 2002.  The new educational options must be provided at the start of the 2002-2003 school year. 

 

ìThis is a new day in education and opportunity for the nationís neediest children,î Paige said.  ìFor the first time, school districts must tell, and parents will know, which schools are not making sufficient academic progress.  Parents will now have new options to give their child a quality education.  And new requirements for reporting on student and group progress will shine a light on achievement gaps that may have been masked in the past.î

 

The data covers schools in which students have not made adequate yearly progress (AYP).  AYP is a stateís annual measure of school progress toward achieving state academic content standards.

 

Under the 1994 Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the precursor to the No Child Left Behind Act, each state was responsible for developing state content standards, assessments and definitions of AYP.  In each state, schools that failed to make state-defined AYP for two or more years were identified as in need of school improvement.  States reported the numbers to the U.S. Department of Education this spring.  Because of differences in the ways each state defines school progress, state comparisons are not valid.

 

Under NCLB, the data on school progress will be more meaningful.  Unlike the 1994 law, there are consequences for schools that fail to improve and educational options for students who attend schools that are not improving under NCLB:

…      States must have one accountability system for all students including academic standards, assessments and proficiency levels.

 

…      All schools will be expected to reach 100 percent proficiency by the end of the 2013-14 school year.

 

…      State test results must be broken out by major racial and ethnic groups, disadvantaged students, students with disabilities and limited English proficient students.   Each group must show improvement. 

 

…      Information on student progress and school success must be shared annually with parents.

 

School districts are required to help cover the costs of transportation for students who exercise their choice option.  To assist parents in obtaining supplemental services, states will prepare a list of approved service providers that can provide after-school, before-school, summer school or weekend help in reading and math.  Providers are to provide high-quality, research-based instruction in line with state standards, and services can come from school districts, non-profit and for-profit organizations, faith-based groups and charity organizations. 

 

Also, to help prepare states and districts to implement the new provisions, Paige recently hosted state and local education officials for a conference about the supplemental services requirements during which he shared a letter to states that included preliminary guidance, available at http://www.ed.gov/PressReleases/06-2002/06142002.html

 

States and most high-poverty districts are receiving significant increases in Title I funding to help support activities to improve school, Paige said.  State Title I allocations can be viewed at http://www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/Budget03/03StateTables/index.html

 

CECís No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 -

Implications for Special Education Policy and Practice

 

CEC has done an analysis of Title I and Title II of No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and its implications for special education policy and practice.  To view this document, please go to:

http://www.cec.sped.org/pp/side-by-side09_04_02.pdf