By Cheryl Temple

Summer 2004

EDUC 872

Adequate Yearly Progress and One Percent of Students with Severe Cognitive Disabilities

How Was One Percent Decided?

Let the Journey Begin!!!!!!!

Definition of severe cognitivedisability

• States can define for themselves whom to count as “students with the most significant cognitive disabilities”

• Initial proposal by the Dept. of Education was students whose intellectual functioning and adaptive behavior are three or more standard deviations below the mean.From National School Boards Association – December, 2003

http://www.nsba.org/site/doc_cosa.asp?TrackID=&SID=1&DID=32690&CID=164&VID=50

Number of population designated as severely

disabledStates may use alternate achievement standards for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities to calculate adequate yearly progress (AYP). The percentage of those students at the district and state level who are considered proficient using assessments aligned to alternative standards may not exceed one percent of all students assessed.

AYP Requirements

• Federal regulations give school districts and states the option of counting the proficient alternate assessment scores of up to 1 percent of students with the most severe cognitive disabilities.

What is Alternate Assessment?• Data collection procedures used in place of the typical assessment when students cannot take standard forms of assessment.

• Determined by IEP team

• Must relate to general curriculum

• Alternate assessments must yield results in at least reading/language arts and mathematics by the 2005-2006 school year, and, beginning in the 2007-2008 school year, science.

States Seeking Exceptionsfrom Education USA, May 2004

• Extraordinarily rural nature

• Requested permanent exception

• 369 out of 439 districts have enrollment of less than 100 students

Montana

States Seeking Exceptionsfrom Education USA, May 2004

• Proposed a 7 percent cap for 2004-2005 school year

• Need more time to align their state testing policy with the federal law

• 9 percent of students take the state’s alternate assessment in reading and 8 percent in math

Texas

States Seeking Exceptionsfrom Education USA, May 2004

• Wants more time to examine existing testing system

• Still trying to define which students have the most significant disabilities

• Seeking a 1.5 percent cap

Minnesota

States Seeking Exceptionsfrom Education USA, May 2004

• Seeking a 3.5 percent cap for three years based on the number of students eligible to take the state’s alternate assessments

• Includes “gap kids” who cannot take grade-level assessments but are not eligible for alternate assessments

Virginia

VIRGINIA LEGISLATIVE ISSUE BRIEF Number 34                  September 2003

•“Virginia has agreed to two NCLB mandates in this area “under protest.” First, the Commonwealth protested the requirement, beginning in 2002–03, to limit to one percent the number of scores from alternate assessments for students with severe cognitive disabilities that can be considered “proficient” for purposes of AYP calculation.”

Virginia

Agency Documents Clarify

Spec. Ed. Assessment Leeway

Olson, L. (2003). Education Week, 28, 20-24.

How Did it Start?

• In a notice of proposed rulemaking last summer, the department had proposed limiting the percent of special-needs students who could be held to other than a grade-level standard to 0.5 percent of the total student population.

How Did it Start?

• People expressed concern that the figure was too low.

• Worried that small rural districts could easily exceed that limit if they had even a few students with severe cognitive disabilities.

How Did it Start?

• Others argued that the provision would be unfair to districts with large populations of students with disabilities

• Also unfair to schools with programs specifically designed to serve such students.

How Did it Start?

• Of the 38 states that provided such data to the federal government in 2000-01, 21 had 5 percent or fewer of students with disabilities who participated in state testing take alternative assessments, or about 0.5 percent of all students.

• But 14 other states had between 5 percent and 10 percent of students with disabilities who took such tests.

Limitations

• Didn’t have a reference list

• Didn’t state where she got her facts from

From: _____________________________________________

__________

Company:____________________________________________

__________

Address:_____________________________________________

__________

Telephone:___________________________________________

__________

Date:_________Time:_________Number of Pages________

To: ________________________________________________

So…..I emailed her

Question:Lynn, I am a Ph.D. student at George Mason University and am taking a Policy class this summer.  I am researching how the decision was made regarding the one percent rule for students with severe cognitive disabilities and AYP.  I came across your article from Education Week on LDOnline and wanted to ask you a question.  I see that you make reference to a proposed rule of limiting the percent to .5 and then it was changed as people expressed concern that the figure was too low.  Can you tell me where you got that information?  That’s what I’m trying to find out – what the percent was based on and who made the decision.  I see that the states provided the data to the federal government but where would I find that document? I would really appreciate any help that you can give me. Thanks,Cheryl TempleEducational SpecialistIntegrated Technology ServicesFairfax County Public Schools703-204-3963

And the answer was…..

Answer: “When the federal government puts out a notice of proposed rulemaking, it's open for public comment, including comments from states. Those comments are all on file at the Education Department and you can make a request to come in and read them.—Lynn”

2003 State Special Education Outcomes:Marching On

Published by the National Center on Educational Outcomes

•Thompson, S., & Thurlow, M. (2003). 2003 State special education outcomes: Marching on. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved [July 14, 2004], from the World Wide Web: http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/2003StateReport.htm./

Alternate AssessmentTable 4. Alternate Assessment Approaches 2000-2003

 YearPortfolio/body

of evidence Rating

Scale/Checklist IEP

analysis Other  In development/

revision

Regular States

2000 28 (56%) 4 (8%) 5 (10%) 6 (12%) 7 (14%)

2001 24 (48%) 9 (18%) 3 (6%) 12 (24%) 2 (4%)

2003 23 (46%) 15 (30%) 4 (8%) 5 (10%) 3 (6%)

Unique States

2003 4 (44%) 0 1 (11%) 1 (11%) 3 (33%)

•In 2003, most of the regular states used a portfolio or body of evidence approach

• Still, the number of states using a portfolio or body of evidence approach decreased from 28 states in 2000 to 24 states in 2001 to 23 states in 2003 (see Table 4).

•The number of states using a rating scale or checklist increased from 4 states to 15 states during the same time frame.

•Three of the regular states were revising their alternate assessment system in 2003.

I’m on the trail

Federal Register – March 20, 2003

“We invite you to submit comments regarding these proposed regulations. We are specifically interested in your comments on the following: (1) Whether, in proposed Sec. 200.13(c)(1), existing scientific research, State/LEA or national data, and the current state of knowledge support setting the cap at 1.0 percent for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities whose achievement can be measured against alternate achievement standards for determining adequate yearly progress (AYP) at the LEA and State levels. “

Federal Register – March 20, 2003

(2) “What, if any, significant implementation issues pertaining to the definition of ``students with the most significant cognitive disabilities'' in proposed Sec. 200.1(d)(2) would arise at the State, LEA, and school levels. Specifically, the Department requests comments on what current recordkeeping and reporting requirements would States and LEAs use to comply with this provision and whether additional information or data will be necessary for compliance. “

Federal Register – March 20, 2003

“Nationally, 1.0 percent of students in the grades assessed represents approximately nine percent of students with disabilities, but the actual percent varies across States.”

Federal Register – March 20, 2003

The Answer!!!!!!!!!!!!

•The original mandate was that only.5 percent of total population could count towards AYP.

• It was because of public comment that it changed to 1.0 percent

•“The .5 percent of total population figure was derived based on converging scientific evidence from multiple sources.”

Federal Register – March 20, 2003

•“ Even though the .5 percent was based on the best available data, those data are limited. We are persuaded by the comments of a number of stakeholders who said that 0.5 percent did not reflect their experience; rather, a one percent limitation would allow for normal State and LEA variations in the occurrence of students with the most significant cognitive disabilities.” p. 13799

Metropolitan Atlanta Developmental Disabilities

Surveillance Program (MADDSP) sponsored by the Centers for Disease Control

(CDC)

Boyle, C., Holmgreen, N., Schednel, D. (1996). Prevalence of Selected Developmental Disabilities in Children 3-10 Years of Age: The Metropolitan Atlanta Developmental Disabilies Surveillance Program, 1991, MMWR Surveillance Summaries, 1996).

Summary

•The Metropolitan Atlanta Developmental Disabilities Surveillance Program (MADDSP) monitors the prevalence of four serious developmental disabilities:

Mental Retardation

Cerebral Palsy

Vision Impairment

Hearing Impairment

Methods• Children are identified through:

• Special education programs at nine public school systems serving the area being studied

• Enrolled in state schools

• Georgia Dept. of Human Resource facilities

• Two metropolitan-Atlanta area pediatric care hospitals, one public hospital, and clinics associated with these facilities

Methods

• Source records are reviewed annually

• Because these are lifelong conditions, once a child is identified they are always included as long as they meet age and residence requirements

• Child’s record is re-examined on the basis of a time schedule to verify and update the child’s diagnostic information

Sample

• Children 3 – 10 years of age

• 3 years is the beginning of age span covered by IDEA and 10 years is the age by which most children should have entered special education program

• Live in five county metropolitan-Atlanta area

• Children who have at least one of the four developmental disabilities are reviewed annually through records at schools, hospitals, and other sources

Reporting Period

•January 1991 – December 1991

(old data for 2003)

Instrument

• Records obtained from the sources listed in Methods

• 1990 U.S. Census data were used to calculate point-prevalence rates for 1991 children 2 – 9 years of age (who were 3 – 10 years of age in 1991) in the five-county metropolitan-Atlanta area.

Results

• During 1991, rates for mental retardation varied by age, race, and sex; rates ranged from 5.2 per 1,000 children (*.5

percent) to 16.6 per 1,000 children

• Severe mental retardation (IQ below 50) accounted for 1/3 of all cases.

• The rates were not adjusted for possible confounding factors (maternal education, family income, etc.)

Results• Overall prevalence of mental retardation was 8.7 per 1,000 children 3-10 years of age

• 2/3 were mild severity (IQ 50 or above)

• Prevalence varied with age increasing from 5.2 per 1,000 children ages 3-4 to 12.3 per 1,000 children ages 9-10.

• Increase in prevalence for mild and moderate but not severe or profound

• Rates of mental retardation for black males were 3.1 times higher than white females, 2.4 times higher than white males, and 1.7 times higher than black females

Discussion• According to the authors, the race-related differences suggest that aspects of the socioeconomic environment that negatively influence the cognitive ability of children need to be addressed.

• Slightly elevated rates of mental retardation among boys may related to sex-linked genetic disorders and more frequent referral and testing of boys due to behavioral problems.

• Etiology of most cases are undetermined

• MADDSP is trying to identify risk factors to reduce the prevalence

Conclusion

• The findings are consistent with findings from previous studies

• Rates concur with previous CDC study

Limitations• Old data

• Some records do not contain the information necessary to determine a child’s eligibility, so they don’t get counted

• Some eligible children may have been excluded because they had not been identified yet

• Biases may increase the likelihood of identifying children who have certain demographic or socioeconomic characteristics.

Limitations• “Demographic patterns described in this report may reflect social or other characteristics unique to the study population.” * Therefore, hard to generalize this study to make decisions for students across the U.S.

The prevalence of mental retardation: a critical review

of recent literature

Roeleveld, N., Zielhuis GA., Gabreels, F. (1997). Developmental Medical Child Neurology, 29, 125-32.

Summary

• The purpose of this review was to establish valid estimates of the true prevalence rates for SMR and MMR in children of school age .

•The methodology of prevalence studies performed since 1960 was critically evaluated

• Distinction was made between ascertained and true prevalence estimates.

Method

• A computerized literature search was conducted on MED-LINE regarding publications from 1981 to 1995, using the keywords MR and occurrence.

• Most papers were traced through references listed in reviews

• The average SMR prevalence rate was calculated by using the inverse variance of the rates as a weighting factor

Sample

• Study was restricted to institutionalized cases

• Excluded if population size was not given

• Excluded if age group exceeded 5 – 19 and no age structure was specified

• Excluded if the IQ levels studied were not specified

• Excluded if MR could not be distinguished from other disabilities

• 43 original articles were included

Sample

• MMR = IQ 50 – 70

• SMR = IQ less than 50

Results

• Prevalence rate for SMR in children of school averages 3.8 per 1,000 (.4 percent).

• Increasing prevalence up to the age of 15 indicating that SMR is not fully assessed in the first few years of life.

• Male to female ratio is remarkably constant

• Only a few studies had higher rates in rural compared to urban

Conclusions

• Revealed an enormous gap in knowledge about MR

• Varied estimates of prevalence rates are scarce

• Need for standardization of definitions and research methods

• Approx. 3 percent of school age children are mentally retarded and a considerable proportion could have been prevented.

• Possibilities for the prevention of SMR are marginal

Limitations

• Revealed an enormous gap in knowledge about MR

• Varied estimates of prevalence rates are scarce

• Need for standardization of definitions and research methods

• For developing countries, showed prevalence rate of between 5 and 16 per 1,000 but changed the definition of SMR to IQ 55 or less.

Mental Retardation

Beirne-Smith, M., Patton,J., & Ittenbach, R.(2001). Mental Retardation, 6th edition. Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall Career and Technnology.

Summary

• The section on Incidence and Prevalence discusses the difference between the two words:

•Incidence – refers to the number of new cases identified within a population over a period of time

•Prevalence – refers to the total number of cases of some condition existing within a population at a particular place or a particular time. Not as useful in determining causal relationships but does help determine need for services.

Summary

• Prevalence rates are represented as percentages

• Prevalence is identified in two ways:

• Identifiable prevalence – cases that have come in contact with some system

• True prevalence – assumes that several people who may meet the definitional criteria exist unrecognized by our system

Factors Associated with Prevalence Rates

• Definitional Perspective

• Gender

• Community Variables

• Sociopolitical Factors

Definitional Perspective

• If IQ were the only criterion for defining mental retardation, approximately 2.3 percent of the population could be considered mentally retarded.

• Most contemporary definitional perspectives of mental retardation suggest a prevalence figure that is below 1%.

Definitional Perspective

• If IQ were the only criterion for defining mental retardation, approximately 2.3 percent of the population could be considered mentally retarded.

• Most contemporary definitional perspectives of mental retardation suggest a prevalence figure that is below 1%.

Gender

• More males than females are identified as mentally retarded at all age levels.

•Biological deficits associated with the X chromosome

•Different child-rearing practices and different social demands

(based on what study?)

• Society’s demands for self-sufficiency is higher for males than females (Robinson & Robinson, 1976).

Community Variables

• More likely to be identified as mentally retarded in urban communities than rural (MacMillan, 1982)

•Have better developed referral and diagnostic systems

•As the severity of mental retardation increases, socioeconomic and cultural factors are less pronounced.

Sociopolitical Factors

• Fewer students are identified since the federal mandate was implemented in the mid-1970’s

• AAMR wants to change the definition so it doesn’t include IQ but rather the adaptations that are needed.

Conclusion

• Prevalence figures in mental retardation have proven to be difficult to establish.

• Three percent used to be cited by the government

• Most professionals suggest prevalence rates of less that one percent.

Conclusion

Taken from American Psychiatric Association, 1994. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, D.C.

Percentages of Population with Mental Retardation

Mild

Moderate

Severe

Profound

Of the 1 to 3 % of the total population who have mental retardation, only 15% need extensive support - 10 % moderate, 3% severe, 2% profound

Limitations

• According to the March 20, 2003, Federal Register, “Another study indicates that students with severe to profound mental retardation are estimated at somewhat less than .13 percent of the total population.” However, the page number of this quote is not given and so difficult to find in the book. I was never able to find this specific study.

Implications for Policy Change

• Need to define mental retardation so that the definition used is consistent

• Need to measure using the same terminology. Incidence (number of new cases) and prevalence (number of existing cases) refer to different types of statistical concepts and should not be used interchangeably

Implications for Policy Change

• Need to consider those students who are functioning below grade level and are unable to complete standardized tests.

• For example, if “Severe cognitive disability” refers to students with an IQ of 50 or below, then students like my daughter would be ineligible for alternate assessments. However, she is unable to read or write so how could she possibly take a standardized SOL type of test?

Implications for Policy Change

• There is an unintended consequence of switching the focus of assessment from work-based and alternative forms of assessment to more traditional forms of evaluation and testing.

Is there sufficient evidence to reach consensus on this

matter?

• No, there is not sufficient evidence. Since the definition of “severe cognitive disability” varies, there is no way to determine the actual number of students.

• The three studies used to base this decision on were all limited.

What evidence is missing and what research might be done

to fill the gaps?

• The missing evidence is the actual number of students with severe cognitive disabilities, partially because this term has not been defined.

• Research is needed to determine how many students function at a level that makes it unfeasible for them to take a paper and pencil standardized test.

Digest of Education Statistics 199866 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY: PROGRAMS FOR THE DISABLED Table 53.—Children 0 to 21 years old served in federally supported programs for the disabled, by type of disabilityhttp://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d98/pdfs/table053.pdf - 14.2KB

Number served as a percent of total enrollment

1996-97 Mental Retardation (all) 1.27

Maybe there’s more to adequate yearly progress for

students with severe cognitive disabilities than a test score!