Illinois PTA Statement on SB1947

Illinois PTA Statement on SB1947

Source: One Voice Illinois

Today, Governor Bruce Rauner signed Senate Bill 1947 (SB1947), the negotiated agreement of Senate Bill 1 (SB1), into law. While Illinois PTA supported SB1, we called for an override of the governor’s amendatory veto of SB1 and did not support SB1947.

Illinois PTA has long supported adequate, equitable, and sustainable funding of public schools, and SB1 was an important first step in improving the most inadequate and inequitable state education funding in the country. The process that resulted in SB1 took several years of research, negotiations, and public hearings. The result was a school funding formula that would put Illinois on a path towards guaranteeing every child in Illinois a high quality education regardless of their zip code.

After the Senate overrode the governor’s amendatory veto, the House was unable to do so, and a new agreement was negotiated over the weekend. This agreement was amended into SB1947, the details of which were not made public until Monday, just hours before the vote was taken. The Senate passed the new SB1947 on Tuesday.

While Illinois PTA applauds the new funding formula included in SB1947, which was essentially that of SB1, and believes it will begin the process of improving education funding in Illinois, there are items included in the agreement that Illinois PTA could not support:

  • The creation of a $75 million scholarship tax credit for private schools, which diverts public funds for non-public schools (see Illinois PTA Legislative Platform 3.a.). With Illinois schools receiving the worst level of state funding in the country and the state of Illinois having $15 billion in unpaid bills (a significant fraction of which are due public schools), Illinois PTA believes that any “extra” funding for education that the state “finds” should go to public schools.
  • Mandate relief that allows school districts to reduce the required number of days for physical education from five days per week to three. With childhood obesity continuing to grow, Illinois PTA believes that schools should be instrumental in helping children develop healthy habits such as daily exercise. In addition, as schools cut recess time, PE increasingly becomes the only time children have during the school day to be active, which is critical not only for their health but helps improve student achievement.
  • The creation of a Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Reform Task Force, while an important first step in discussing the effect TIF districts have on school funding, will not be subject to the Illinois Freedom of Information or Open Meetings requirements. Illinois PTA believes that this discussion deserves to be visible to the public and not hidden behind closed doors.

The new education funding formula is a significant victory for the children of Illinois, and Illinois PTA is proud to have been a leading advocate on their behalf. We are, however, disappointed that a crisis manufactured by the governor’s amendatory veto was used to create a scholarship/voucher program with no public hearings or debate, and we strongly encourage the General Assembly to not renew the program when it sunsets in five years.

Aligning National PTA and Illinois PTA Legislative Priorities: School Funding

Aligning National PTA and Illinois PTA Legislative Priorities: School Funding

Source: One Voice Illinois

Primary goals of both the National PTA and Illinois PTA are the adequate funding of education programs.

The National PTA puts funding front and center in the 2017-18 Federal Public Policy Agenda Checklist with a call for a regular appropriations process replacing the current practice of sequestration “with a balanced approach to deficit reduction that does not further cut education funding and invests in key programs.” One current initiative is the Stop Cuts to Classrooms campaign.

The Illinois PTA Legislation Platform addresses education funding that is “adequate, equitable and sustainable.” Item 2 of the Platform addresses tax considerations by calling for revision of the revenue article of the state constitution, legislative revision of the taxation processes, new sources of revenue which might expand the sales tax base, modifications of the existing taxation processes, appropriation of taxes to best meet the needs of Illinois citizens, removal of unjust tax limitations on unit districts, and removal of the limitations on bonding power of school districts.

Why? To provide the best possible education for every child in every public school in Illinois. Without adequate, equitable and sustainable funding, Illinois will continue to lag behind much of the nation in providing the kind of education our children deserve. Currently, one of the hottest topics in the Illinois legislature is the revision of the school funding formula, Senate Bill 1 (SB1), which was passed by both chambers of the Illinois legislature. The Governor issued an amendatory veto to the bill, which the Senate has overridden, and now the fate of SB1 is in the House as of this writing. Our Legislation Platform allows us to take a position to support SB1.

The National PTA provides its most current legislative priorities in its Federal Public Policy Agenda found at www.pta.org under the Advocacy menu. The Illinois PTA Legislation Platform is on our website in both full and brief form at www.illinoispta.org under Advocacy.

Want to know more? Go to the Illinois PTA website advocacy page. Be a champion for children, join the Illinois PTA Takes Action Network, and join us in Springfield to be a part of “advocacy in action” on November 14, 2017.

Survey: Public Wants Course Correction on Schools, Says No to Vouchers

Survey: Public Wants Course Correction on Schools, Says No to Vouchers

How wide is the disconnect between the public and the current administration on what should and shouldn’t be done to strengthen our schools? According to the 2017 Phi Delta Kappa International (PDK) Poll of the Public’s Attitudes Toward the Public Schools, the gap is significant. A majority of Americans opposes using taxpayer funds to pay for private school tuition and supports a reduced role for standardized tests. An overwhelming percentage also want local school districts to provide “wraparound services” and favors increased funding to pay for them.

“These and other results suggest that some of the most prominent ideas that dominate current policy debates – from supporting vouchers to emphasizing high-stakes tests – are out of step with parents’ main concern: They want their children prepared for life and career after they complete high school,” said Joshua P. Starr, the chief executive officer of PDK International.

Where does a potential national expansion of private school vouchers fit in? Vouchers have never been a popular idea with the American public who have long recognized the danger of siphoning off money for public schools to pay for private school tuition. According to the PDK survey, by a margin of 52% to 39%, Americans oppose this idea, consistent with results from previous year’s polls.

Given the current spotlight on vouchers, PDK dug a little deeper on the issue this year, asking respondents if they supported using public funds to pay for religious private school tuition. Presented with this detail, opposition to vouchers surged to 61%.

According to the 2017 PDK survey, a majority of Americans oppose using public funds to pay for private schools. If the question is expanded to include religious schools as an option, opposition rises to 61 percent.

In addition, when told that a voucher system either could help public schools by making them compete or hurt them by reducing their funding, support for only funding public schools increases to 67%, compared to 26% support for vouchers – a 41-point gap.

Support for standardized testing as a measure of student success continues to decline. According to the poll, 42% see student performance on standardized tests as “highly important,” scoring significantly lower than art and music classes, extracurriculars, advanced academics, career-focused technology and engineering classes, and interpersonal skills. Only 6 % rated standardized tests as the “most important” factor in determining school quality.

The lack of confidence in standardized tests can be attributed to the public’s growing unease over the narrow path our schools have been forced to follow over the past 15 years. By overwhelming margins, Americans want schools to educate students more than just academically. Eighty-two percent of respondents support job or career skills classes – even if it means some students might spend less time on academics. The public believes it is highly important for schools to help students develop interpersonal skills, such as being cooperative, respectful of others, and problem-solving.

Large majorities also said schools should offer certificate or licensing programs that qualify students for employment upon graduation. Furthermore, 82% see technology and engineering classes as “extremely or very important” measures of school quality.

“Taken as a whole, the American public is saying it thinks public education has tilted too far in pushing or emphasizing academics to the detriment of vocational or career skills classes,” Starr added. “They support the academic mission but they also want local schools to position students for their working lives after school.”

2017 pdk poll school quality

Click to Enlarge

The PDK poll also reveals high level levels of support for “wraparound services,” such as health and after-school programs – a central tenet of the community school model that is taking root across the nation. Ninety-two percent favor after-school programs, and 87% support providing mental health services to students who can’t get this help outside of school.

Starr says it’s clear from the results that the public wants balance. “Americans want a course correction.”

Here are some additional highlights from the 2017 PDK International poll:

  • 49% of Americans give their local public schools an A or B grade. Among public school parents, the approval increases to 62%.
  • 70% of parents say they’d prefer to have their child in a racially diverse school, including equal numbers of whites and nonwhites. But the PDK survey notes that this may “reflect a socially desirable answer,” instead of a  commitment to act or support policies that might decrease segregation. For example, very few parents say they would accept a longer commute for their children to attend a more diverse school.
  • 61% of public school parents expect their child to attend college full time, while 22% expect a mix of part-time study and part-time work. Seven percent expect their child to seek a full-time job after high school.
VIDEO: Ensuring Every Student Succeeds: Opportunities and Challenges of ESSA

VIDEO: Ensuring Every Student Succeeds: Opportunities and Challenges of ESSA

Originally Published on Oct 4, 2016

This keynote address provided a high-level overview of major reauthorizations since the passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. It focused on the key priorities of the new Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), looking particularly at accountability systems, school improvement, teacher and leader quality, data collection and reporting, educational technology, and regulation. Maureen Wentworth, Director of the Education Data and Information Systems of the Council of Chief State School Officers, gave this address at the 2016 Pennsylvania Department of Education Data Summit.

The content of these videos does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Institute of Education Sciences or the U.S. Department of Education, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

WEBINAR: League of Education Voters: Washington’s Plan for the Every Student Succeeds Act

WEBINAR: League of Education Voters: Washington’s Plan for the Every Student Succeeds Act

Published on Aug 25, 2017

The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), which goes into full effect in the 2018–19 school year, rolled back much of the federal government’s big footprint in education policy, on everything from testing and teacher quality to low-performing schools. And it gave new leeway to states in calling the shots. ESSA’s goal is ensure that every student, regardless of race, income, disability, ethnicity, or proficiency in English, is ready for a fulfilling career, college, and life.

Gayle Pauley, Assistant Superintendent for Special Programs and Accountability at the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI), outlines Washington’s ESSA plan and how you can get involved.

Moderated by LEV communications director Arik Korman.

NEW YORK: Parent Update from Commissioner Elia

NEW YORK: Parent Update from Commissioner Elia

Dear Parents,

Earlier this week, the State Education Department released the results of the 2017 Grades 3-8 English language arts (ELA) and mathematics tests. Overall, there was a modest improvement in scores statewide, which means we’re moving in the right direction. In ELA this year, the percentage of students in grades 3-8 who scored at the proficient level (Levels 3 and 4) increased by 1.9 percentage points to 39.8, up from 37.9 in 2016. In math, the percentage of students who scored at the proficient level increased this year to 40.2, up 1.1 percentage point from 39.1 in 2016.

This progress is a result of the hard work and dedication of our teachers, students, and parents. Thank you for all you do.

The achievement gap between black and Hispanic students and their white peers also narrowed slightly statewide for both ELA and math. For ELA, black students saw a 2.8-percentage-point increase in those achieving proficiency while Hispanic students experienced a 2.4-percentage-point increase. In both cases, the increases were greater than those seen by white students, who saw a 1.1-percentage-point increase statewide.

Math scores tell a similar story with increases made by black and Hispanic students outpacing those made by white students. Proficiency rates in math for black and Hispanic students went up by 1.4 and 1.3 percentages points, respectively, while proficiency rates for white students increased by only 0.4 percentage points. While these improvements are encouraging, we know there is still more work to be done to close these gaps.

Every Big 5 City made progress this year, with New York City’s ELA proficiency rate (40.6) now slightly exceeding the statewide rate (39.8). Of the Big 5, Yonkers made the biggest gains in proficiency in ELA and math, with a 3.6-percentage-point increase in ELA and a 3.7-percentage-point increase in math.

Charter schools and students who received ELL services prior to, but not during, the 2016-17 school year (“Ever ELLs”) had some of the largest gains in proficiency this year. ELA proficiency rates for Ever ELLs rose 5.5 percentage points to 45.2 percent, more than 5 points higher than the statewide rate. In math, Ever ELL proficiency increased by 3.2 percentage points to 46.8 percent, nearly 7 points higher than the statewide rate. Statewide proficiency rates for charter schools in ELA and math are now 45-percent and 48.2-percent, respectively, also above the statewide rates.

Overall, this news is promising – our students are moving in the right direction. However, black and Hispanic student scores still trail those of white and Asian students, and the ELA and math proficiency rates for English Language Learners and students with disabilities, while up, are still far too low. Our work to diminish these troubling gaps will continue by expanding prevention, early warning, and intervention programs through My Brother’s Keeper; implementation of the state’s ESSA plan; and our equity initiative.

Still, it is clear we must do more. It is also clear that test results don’t give us the complete picture of how well our schools are doing. For that reason, our draft ESSA plan takes a more holistic approach to accountability and considers multiple measures of school and student success, not just test results. We developed our draft plan in a way that was deliberate, inclusive, and transparent, and we took the same approach in making changes to our standards and assessments.

The press release about the 2017 results has more information, including data on 2017 test refusals, which dropped by 2 percentage points. Additionally, a video of me discussing the results  is available as well as district- and school-level results.

I hope you enjoy the rest of your summer vacation. Savor the remaining days as much as possible because the first day of school will be here very soon.

As always, thank you for reading.

Sincerely,

MaryEllen Elia
Commissioner

Here’s What States Are Doing With Their ESSA Block Grant Money

Here’s What States Are Doing With Their ESSA Block Grant Money

UPDATED

For decades, district leaders have been clamoring for more say over how they spend their federal money. And when the Every Student Succeeds Act passed back in 2015, it looked like they had finally gotten their wish: a brand-new $1.6 billion block grant that could be used for computer science initiatives, suicide prevention, new band instruments, and almost anything else that could improve students’ well-being or provide them with a well-rounded education.

But, for now at least, it looks like most district officials will only get a small sliver of the funding they had hoped for, putting the block grants’ effectiveness and future in doubt.

The Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants, ”or Title IV of ESSA, ”only received about a quarter of the funding the law recommends, $400 million for the 2017-18 school year, when ESSA will be fully in place for the first time…

Read the full article here. May require an Education Week subscription.

New Federal Rule Could Force States to Lower Graduation Rates

New Federal Rule Could Force States to Lower Graduation Rates

By

August 25, 2017

A little-noticed change in the country’s main federal education law could force many states to lower their high school graduation rates, a politically explosive move no state would relish.

Indiana is the first state to be caught in the crosshairs of the law’s new language, but other states are likely to be affected soon. The resulting debate could throw a sharp spotlight on a topic that’s been lurking in the wings: the wildly varying levels of accomplishment signified by a high school diploma.

“This is about to become a national issue,” said Phillip Lovell, the policy director of the Alliance for Excellent Education, an advocacy group that focuses on high school issues.

In Indiana, the state faces the prospect of having to lower its graduation rate from 89 percent to 76 percent, a move its state superintendent fears could harm its economy and reputation.

The state’s in a bind because it offers several types of high school diplomas, and some are easier to earn than others. Half of Indiana’s students earn the default college-prep diploma, known as the Core 40. Thirty-eight percent earn the Core 40 with honors, and 12 percent earn the “general” diploma, which has lesser requirements.

Diplomas with less-rigorous requirements are the target of new language in the Every Student Succeeds Act. The law requires states to calculate their graduation rates by including only “standard” diplomas awarded to a “preponderance” of students, or diplomas with tougher requirements.

For Indiana, that means the state might not be able to count its general diplomas. State officials are in talks with the U.S. Department of Education about that prospect. Indiana Superintendent of Schools Jennifer McCormick also reached out to Indiana’s congressional delegation for help, saying in a letter last month that the lower graduation rate will put Indiana “at a national disadvantage” and would “not reflect well upon our state and could negatively impact our economy.”

Officials from the federal Education Department declined to discuss how they would interpret the ESSA language. In an email to Education Week, a spokesman said only that the department would provide “technical assistance” to states as they complied with the law, and that states can consult federal guidance issued in January on the law’s graduation-rate provisions.

The preponderance language in ESSA is only now beginning to creep onto states’ radars. The exact number that could be affected isn’t clear, although a recent report found that 23 states offer multiple pathways to a diploma. Many states offer multiple types of high school diplomas, though most don’t track—or publicly report—how many students earn each type.

In Arkansas, two-thirds of students graduate with the state’s “smart core” diploma, and one-third earn its less-rigorous “core” diploma.

In New York state, 4 percent of graduates get a “local” diploma, which isn’t as rigorous as its “regents” and “advanced” diplomas. In Oregon, 3.7 percent of students earn a “modified” diploma, which is intended for students with a “demonstrated inability” to meet all the state’s academic expectations.

“The idea is to create a pathway toward a diploma for students with significant challenges,” Jennell Ives, a program specialist with Oregon’s department of education, explained in an email.

Diplomas that signify less-than-rigorous academic preparation, however, were the express target of the new requirement in ESSA. No such language was in the previous version of the law, the No Child Left Behind Act.

“We were trying to address concerns about those weaker diplomas, to put a signal in there to drive states to make sure that diplomas were really preparing students for success,” said a Senate aide who helped draft the Every Student Succeeds Act.

‘Make the Most Difference’

Advocates for lower-income and minority students, and those with disabilities, were key voices at the table when that section of the bill was being drafted. Those students tend to earn disproportionate shares of the lower-level diplomas.

“We wanted the language in ESSA to make the most difference for those students,” said Laura Kaloi, who participated in the talks on behalf of the Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, a special-education advocacy group.

By inserting the preponderance language into ESSA, its authors pushed federal law into a new area: linking graduation rates to the quality of the diplomas, not just to how many diplomas are awarded.

A 2008 regulation broke new ground by requiring all states to calculate graduation rates the same way: by counting the proportion of entering freshmen who completed school four years later.

That regulation also ventured into new territory by tackling the related idea of which diplomas should be counted. It said states could count only “regular” diplomas, not alternative or equivalency credentials.

The concept of diploma quality was on policymakers’ minds as they sat down to write the accountability section of the Every Student Succeeds Act. There was “a lot of bipartisan agreement” that the idea of counting only regular diplomas should finally be written into federal law, the Senate aide said.

“You could see this as being about states that have to lower their graduation rates, or about trying to be honest about our graduation rates.”Phillip Lovell, Alliance for Excellent Education

“This is new. For a long time, federal officials have been focusing on graduation rates without caring what a diploma actually means,” said Michael Cohen, who was the assistant secretary of elementary and secondary education under President Bill Clinton and now heads Achieve, a group that has researched the wide variety in states’ diploma requirements.

Allowing states to report graduation rates based only on regular diplomas, and diplomas that require more rigorous study, is long overdue, according to Lovell of the Alliance for Excellent Education.

States could well feel the sting of public disapproval if they have to revise their graduation rates downward, but the resulting shift in message justifies the discomfort, he said.

“The statute calls for honesty,” he said. “We’re finally being honest about what a diploma means.”

But Lovell also worries that an unintended consequence of the law is that states could lower their regular-diploma requirements to keep their graduation-rate numbers high.

‘Perverse Incentives?’

Other consequences are already unfolding, showing up first in Indiana.

The state has long been recognized as a leader in getting students to complete college-prep courses of study: 88 percent take the four years of English and three years of math—through Algebra 2—that are widely viewed as a “college-ready” curricula.

Yet Indiana might have to pay the price of lowering its graduation rate because it chose not to require college-prep study for all. That situation strikes Cohen as creating “perverse incentives” for states to award less-rigorous diplomas to a “preponderance” of their students.

“States that do the best job of getting kids to take advanced coursework could be the ones at greatest risk under this policy,” he said. “They’ve succeeded their way into trouble.”

Lovell begs to differ. “You could see this as being about states that have to lower their graduation rates or about trying to be honest about our graduation rates,” he said. “Indiana is stepping up and being honest.”

Activists may differ on whether the preponderance requirements in ESSA are a step in the right direction. But they agree on another, more ironic truth, which is that the law will fall short of ensuring that all high school diplomas mean students are ready to do well in college.

Even among the many states that offer only one type of diploma, what students achieved to earn that diploma can vary wildly. Still, those states are unlikely to be affected by the preponderance requirement of ESSA, since all students earn the same diploma.

In Massachusetts, for instance, 77 percent of students complete a course of study that reflects the expectations of the University of Massachusetts. The rest finish high school with other assortments of courses. Yet all students earn the same diploma, said state education department spokeswoman Jacqueline Reis.

The same situation holds true in Maryland, where most students finish coursework geared to state university requirements, and the rest don’t, but all walk across the graduation stage with the same type of diploma.

In Oklahoma, students are automatically placed in the college-ready curriculum and remain there unless they opt into a less-rigorous one. But only the tougher course of study requires three years of math—through Algebra 2. And all Oklahoma students earn the same high school diploma, a state education department spokeswoman said.

Colorado asks Feds for More Time

Colorado asks Feds for More Time

BY NIC GARCIA  –  AUGUST 25, 2017

Chalkbeat.org

Colorado is asking for more time to figure out how to meet federal requirements for giving students standardized tests while respecting the rights of parents who don’t want their children to take them.

In a letter Thursday, Commissioner Katy Anthes told the federal government that the state needs until October to reconsider how Colorado holds schools and districts accountable when they fail to meet federal requirements for student participation on state tests.

The federal education department earlier this month told state officials that Colorado’s approach of not penalizing schools that fall below the 95 percent participation threshold doesn’t align with the nation’s updated education law, the Every Student Succeeds Act.

The federal pushback came as part of the department’s formal review of states’ education plans that detail how they will comply with the new law. Colorado was one of the first states to submit its plan.

The reviews are being watched for clues of how the federal department under Education Secretary Betsy DeVos interprets a law that was intended to shift more decision-making to states.

Colorado was required to by Thursday either submit new language in its federally required education plan or ask for an extension. Officials chose the later.

“Because our board has a strong commitment to Colorado’s parental opt-out rights, it will need to carefully consider how best to address your concerns without designing a system that will be perceived by parents and educators as punitive,” Colorado Education Commissioner Katy Anthes said in the letter. “We are optimistic that the various interests here can be addressed in a manner that complies with ESSA and is in the best interest of Colorado students, parents, and educators.”

Colorado’s response follows a trip by one state official to Washington, D.C., to discuss the issue in person.

Alyssa Pearson, Colorado’s associate commissioner for accountability and performance, flew to the Capital Aug. 18 in an effort to better understand what changes the federal department is seeking from Colorado.

Pearson, in an interview with Chalkbeat, said the department made it clear: The first 5 percent of students at a school who do not take the test get a pass. However, any student who skips the tests beyond that line must be counted as non-proficient.

So if 10 percent of kids at a school opt out, the first 5 percent won’t count against a school. The remaining 5 percent must count as non-proficient, dragging down the school’s scores.

Pearson said federal officials will require Colorado to use this number it its school quality ratings. It can’t just be a number it submits to the U.S. education department and then ignores.

Schools and districts with large numbers of students who are labeled as non-proficient on state tests are likely to receive low quality ratings from the states. Schools that receive the lowest quality ratings for five years in a row are targeted for state intervention.

In Colorado, the largest volume of opt-outs involve mostly white and middle- and upper-class students at schools with traditionally high quality ratings.

“While we don’t know how the schools are performing today,” Pearson said, “historically schools with parental refusal rates have performed pretty well in the past.”

Before 2015 when the opt-out movement gained traction, nearly all Colorado schools met the federal testing requirement.

The prescribed changes to how Colorado calculates how many students are meeting proficiency could lead to more schools being identified as low-performing — even if they don’t need help.

“We raised that issue,” Pearson said. She added that federal officials recognized the dilemma and offered suggestions on how the state can separate schools with truly low academic performance and those with artificially deflated scores.

State officials will present a variety of options to the State Board of Education in September, Pearson said.

Those options include asking state lawmakers to rewrite the state’s school accountability system to fully comply with federal law, or running two accountability systems — one that follows state law and the other that follows federal law.

The board must sign off on any policy changes included in the state’s education plan. A decision is expected in October.

New Federal Limits under ESSA Impact Some Special Education Students in MA

New Federal Limits under ESSA Impact Some Special Education Students in MA

By Gerry Tuoti
Wicked Local Newsbank Editor
Posted Aug 25, 2017 at 12:30 PM
Updated Aug 25, 2017 at 3:23 PM

THE ISSUE: Some students with severe disabilities take an alternative to the MCAS. THE IMPACT: A new federal requirement caps the number of students who can take the alternative assessment, and Massachusetts is over that limit.

New federal limits on the number of students allowed to take an alternative to the state’s MCAS exam could have significant impacts for some special education students in Massachusetts.

The federal Every Student Succeeds Act, the successor to No Child Left Behind, includes a requirement that no more than 1 percent of public school students in any state take the alternative assessment instead of the state’s standardized exam. Proponents of the cap say the vast majority of special education students are able to take the standard exam with accommodations, and that taking the alternative assessment in early grades could put students on a track that could delay or hinder the eventual attainment of a high school diploma.

In Massachusetts, more than 1.6 percent of students currently take the alternative assessment, or MCAS-Alt, primarily due to severe cognitive disabilities.

“Obviously, if a student is required to take MCAS, even with accommodations, if it’s not developmentally appropriate for the student, it’s going to have an impact on them,” said Jim Major, executive director of the Massachusetts Association of Approved Private Schools, an organization of schools that educates severely disabled students whose educational needs cannot be met by their public schools.

Massachusetts is seeking a one-year waiver from the cap on the number of students taking the alternative assessment. The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education expects to hear a decision from the federal government in early fall.

“I think what they’re proposing is not a fix; it’s another delay,” said Kathleen Boundy, executive director of the Boston-based Center for Law and Education.

When a student has special needs or a disability, a team meets to create an individualized education program, or IEP, that outlines how the public school can best accommodate him or her. The IEP team, which includes educators, psychologists and parents, is responsible for deciding, among other issues, whether the student will take the standard MCAS exam.

Roughly 10 percent of special education students are designated for the alternative assessment, which is intended for students with the most severe cognitive disabilities, such as nonverbal impairments, traumatic brain injury…

Read the full story here…