BACKGROUND
In 2003, final regulations under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) 1 were published, which permitted states to use an AA-AAS for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities. At some point in their academic experience, most students with intellectual disabilities take this assessment instead of the general state assessment
—some as early as 3 rd grade
—even though the assessment was designed for a smaller group of students with the MOST significant cognitive disabilities. The 2003 regulations allow proficient and advanced scores on these tests to be used to help local education agencies (LEAs) and State Education Agencies (SEAs) meet annual measureable objectives (AMOs) for accountability purposes. These AMOs, which are set by each state, are based on the percent of students who receive proficient and advanced scores in state math and reading/language arts assessments. There is a cap on the number of proficient and advanced scores from an AA-AAS that can be used for calculating whether the AMOs are met at the LEA and
SEA levels, but there is no cap for schools.
METHODOLOGY OF THE AA-AAS 1% CAP
The number of proficient and advanced AA-AAS scores which can be counted for AYP purposes is calculated by multiplying the number of all students in the grades being assessed by 1% (e.g., the cap number for LEA “A” which has 10,000 students would be 100). However, the AA-AAS can only be taken by students with disabilities. Roughly 10% of the student population has a disability (LEA
“A” would have about 1,000 students with disabilities). Therefore, this 1% cap, which is based on all students, is a number equal to about 10% of students with disabilities (for LEA “A” the cap of 100 would be applied to the 1,000 students with disabilities, so 10% of the 1,000 students with disabilities could have their proficient and advanced scores counted for AYP purposes). There is no limit on the number of students who can take the AA-AAS, but the number of proficient and advanced scores that exceed the cap will be counted, at the LEA and SEA levels, as if they were not proficient. Some states have a much higher percentage than 10% of students with disabilities participating in the AA-
AAS, since there is no limit on the number of students who can take the assessment and not every student will get a proficient or advanced score.
1 NCLB was the name given to the last reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
CPSD P OLICY B RIEF : EDUCATION REFORM (2013)
1

NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES RESULTING FROM AA-AAS POLICY AND IMPLEMENTATION
Currently, students who take this assessment are not necessarily provided with access to the grade- level general education curriculum, may be denied the opportunity to earn a regular high school diploma, and are more likely to be educated in separate classes with teachers who are not required to have grade level content knowledge (though this varies greatly by state). There are even legislative proposals curr ently being considered that would count these students for the school’s graduation rate as getting a regular high school diploma, even though they were not given the opportunity to earn one. Congress has a responsibility to ensure that students from all disability categories, including students with intellectual or developmental disabilities, are not inappropriately placed in the AA-AAS.
Public education systems should presume competence and have the the highest level of expectations for all students. As required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), students with disabilities, including those who take an AA-AAS, should participate and make progress in the general education curriculum and be educated in the least restrictive environment (LRE).
CPSD’S CONCERNS ABOUT ESEA REAUTHORIZATION
FLAWS IN THE AA-AAS IMPLEMENTATION
The No Child Left Behind Act finally sent the message to schools, LEAs, and SEAs that there must be academic accountability for all students, including those with intellectual disabilities. As a result of these raised expectations there has been academic progress for students who historically received little academic instruction. However, there are serious flaws with the current AA-AAS regulations (also called 1% regulations). Any attempt to codify these flawed regulatory provisions would undermine
IDEA’s promise to students with disabilities. This situation would be made even worse if the regulations were codified without the 1% cap, thus exposing even more students to the negative educational and post- school implications that are too often associated with taking an AA-AAS.
A recent study, Characteristics of and Implications for Students Participating in Alternate
Assessments Based on Alternate Academic Achievement Standards 2 , clearly shows the academic competence of most of the students taking the AA-AAS. Many more would be able to show their competence if they received the appropriate communications supports and devices. Proficiency data on the AA-AAS shows that i n many states the students taking this assessment are “topping out”—the percentage of proficient and advanced scores is much higher than the percentage for students taking the general assessment. These data lead us to conclude that academic expectations for students taking the AA-AAS are inappropriately low. These data also support the conclusion that many of the students already taking the AA-AAS are not those with the MOST significant cognitive disabilities. In fact the 1% cap is large enough to put almost every student with an intellectual disability in the
2 Kearns, J. F., Towles-Reeves, E., Kleinert, H. L., Kleinert, J., O’Regan, & Kleine-Kracht
Thomas, M. (2011). Characteristics of and implications for students participating in alternate assessments based on alternate academic achievement standards. Journal of
Special Education, 45, 3-14
CPSD P OLICY B RIEF : EDUCATION REFORM (2013)
2

assessment, even though the regulation was intended to apply to a small subset of these students. In addition, these data support the conclusion that the AA-AAS in many states may not be sufficiently challenging for some of the students who do have the most significant cognitive disabilities.
Originally, the proposed regulations had a cap of .5%, which is more consistent with the incidence of students with the most significant cognitive disabilities than the 1% cap. Despite the incidence data, the cap was doubled in the final regulations as a result of pressure from states and LEAs. If any changes are made to the cap by Congress, we would ask that the cap be lowered to reflect the .5% recommendation that the current body of research on this topic supports. CPSD would be in strong opposition to any attempts to increase or eliminate the current cap of 1%.
LIMITED ACCESS TO THE GENERAL EDUCATION CURRICULUM IN THE LEAST RESTRICTIVE
ENVIRONMENT
Our concerns about the AA-AAS go beyond accountability considerations. For example, the language from the current 1% regulations states that access to the general education curriculum must be promoted . The word “promoted” seemed strong until language in the more recent 2% regulations (for students taking an alternate assessment on modified academic achievement standards-AA-MAS), stated that access to the general education curriculum will be
“provided” for students taking that assessment. Also, the 1% regulations do not clarify that the general education curriculum should be for the grade in which the student is enrolled, as described in the U.S. Department of Education nonregulatory guidance for the AA-AAS. We are also concerned about regulatory language stating that students who take an AA-AAS should be included in the general education curriculum, to the
“extent possible.
”
This language is inconsistent with the definition of special education in IDEA, which states that the purpose of specially designed instruction is to ensure access of the child to the general curriculum, so that the child can meet the educational standards within the jurisdiction of the public agency that apply to all children.
3 These issues must be addressed by any provisions regarding the
AA-AAS in the ESEA reauthorization.
The weakness of the AA-AAS regulatory language regarding access to the grade-level general education curriculum negatively impacts another right under IDEA —the right to an education in the
LRE. Many educators mistakenly believe that these students should have a separate curriculum and, therefore, should be educated in a separate classroom. It is imperative to clarify that the general education curriculum is the same curriculum for ALL students. While it is true that students with disabilities may need modifications and/or accommodations, IDEA makes it clear that a child with a disability must not be removed from education in age-appropriate regular classrooms solely because of needed modifications in the general education curriculum.
4
3 IDEA Regulation 300.39(b)(3)
4 IDEA Regulation Sec. 300.116(e)
CPSD P OLICY B RIEF : EDUCATION REFORM (2013)
3

LACK OF OPPORTUNITY TO EARN A REGULAR HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA
We also believe that the students taking the AA-AAS should have the rights, which were given by regulation to students who take the AA-MAS, to have standards-based individualized educational programs (IEPs) and to have the opportunity to earn a regular high school diploma. The assessment these students take and the way their IEPs are written should not push them off a regular diploma track at an early age, when so little is known about their future development. They should have an equitable chance to earn a regular diploma, which is more important than ever for positive postschool outcomes. Unfortunately, in many states a child is automatically taken off diploma track as soon as he or she is assigned to take an AA-AAS. The regulations that apply to students taking an
AA-MAS require that IEP guidelines ensure that students who take these assessments are not precluded from attempting to complete the requirements, as defined by the state, for a regular high school diploma.
CPSD P OLICY B RIEF : EDUCATION REFORM (2013)
4