Aug. 21, 2015 (80 FR 50773)
Home » Aug. 21, 2015 (80 FR 50773)
Aug. 21, 2015 (80 FR 50773)
PDFView PDF
Aug. 21, 2015 (80 FR 50773)
50773 Federal Register/ Vol. 80, No. 162 / Friday, August 21, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
8. Taking of Private Property
This rule will not cause a taking of
private property or otherwise have
taking implications under Executive
Order 12630, Governmental Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally
Protected Property Rights.
9. Civil Justice Reform
This rule meets applicable standards
in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive
Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to
minimize litigation, eliminate
ambiguity, and reduce burden.
10. Protection of Children
We have analyzed this rule under
Executive Order 13045, Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not
an economically significant rule and
does not create an environmental risk to
health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.
11. Indian Tribal Governments
This rule does not have tribal
implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial
direct effect on one or more Indian
tribes, on the relationship between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes,
or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes.
12. Energy Effects
This action is not a ‘‘significant
energy action’’ under Executive Order
13211, Actions Concerning Regulations
That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use.
13. Technical Standards
This rule does not use technical
standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus
standards.
14. Environment
We have analyzed this rule under
Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023–01 and
Commandant Instruction M16475.lD,
which guide the Coast Guard in
complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and
have determined that this action is one
of a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves a safety
zone. This rule is categorically excluded
from further review under paragraph
34(g) of Figure 2–1 of the Commandant
Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist and Categorical Exclusion
Determination was completed for 2015.
The environmental analysis checklist
and Categorical Exclusion
Determination are available in the
docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES . We seek any comments or
information that may lead to the
discovery of a significant environmental
impact from this rule.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation
(water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Security measures,
Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 165 as follows:
PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION
AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
■1. The authority citation for part 165
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 50 U.S.C.
191; 33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and
160.5; and Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.
■2. Add § 165.T07–0276 to read as
follows:
§ 165.T07–0276 Safety Zone, Swim Around
Charleston; Charleston, SC.
(a) Regulated area. The following
regulated area is a moving safety zone:
all waters within a 75-yard radius
around Swim Around Charleston
participant vessels that are officially
associated with the swim. The Swim
Around Charleston swimming race
consists of a 10-mile course that starts
at Remley’s Point on the Wando River
in approximate position 32°48′49″ N.,
79°54′27″ W., crosses the main shipping
channel of Charleston Harbor, and
finishes at the General William B.
Westmoreland Bridge on the Ashley
River in approximate position 32°50′14″
N., 80°01′23″ W. All coordinates are
North American Datum 1983. (b) Definition. The term ‘‘designated
representative’’ means Coast Guard
Patrol Commanders, including Coast
Guard coxswains, petty officers, and
other officers operating Coast Guard
vessels, and Federal, state, and local
officers designated by or assisting the
Captain of the Port Charleston in the
enforcement of the regulated area. (c) Regulations. (1) All persons and
vessels are prohibited from entering,
transiting through, anchoring in, or
remaining within the regulated area
unless authorized by the Captain of the
Port Charleston or a designated
representative. (2) Persons and vessels desiring to
enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area may
contact the Captain of the Port
Charleston by telephone at (843) 740–
7050, or a designated representative via
VHF radio on channel 16, to request
authorization. If authorization to enter,
transit through, anchor in, or remain
within the regulated area is granted by
the Captain of the Port Charleston or a
designated representative, all persons
and vessels receiving such authorization
must comply with the instructions of
the Captain of the Port Charleston or a
designated representative.
(3) The Coast Guard will provide
notice of the regulated area by Local
Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to
Mariners, and on-scene designated
representatives. (d) Effective date. This rule is
effective on September 26, 2015 and
will be enforced from noon until 6 p.m.
Dated: August 3, 2015.
G. L. Tomasulo,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port Charleston.
[FR Doc. 2015–20737 Filed 8–20–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Parts 200 and 300
RIN 1810–AB16
[Docket ID ED–2012–OESE–0018]
Improving the Academic Achievement
of the Disadvantaged; Assistance to
States for the Education of Children
With Disabilities
AGENCY : Office of Elementary and
Secondary Education, Office of Special
Education and Rehabilitative Services,
Department of Education.
ACTION : Final regulations.
SUMMARY : The Secretary amends the
regulations governing title I, Part A of
the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965, as amended
(ESEA) (the ‘‘Title I regulations’’), to no
longer authorize a State to define
modified academic achievement
standards and develop alternate
assessments based on those modified
academic achievement standards for
eligible students with disabilities. In
order to make conforming changes to
ensure coordinated administration of
programs under title I of the ESEA and
the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA), the Secretary is
also amending the regulations for Part B
of the IDEA. Note: Nothing in these
regulations changes the ability of States
to develop and administer alternate
assessments based on alternate
VerDate Sep2014 14:16 Aug 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM21AUR1.SGM 21AUR1rmajette on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES
50774 Federal Register/ Vol. 80, No. 162 / Friday, August 21, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
1See discussion of this research in Assessing
Students with Disabilities Based on a State’s
Academic Achievement Standards.
2See Scruggs, T., Mastropieri, M., Berkeley, S., &
Graetz, J. (2010). Do Special Education
Interventions Improve Learning of Secondary
Content? A Meta-Analysis. Remedial and Special
Education, 31(6), 437–449.
academic achievement standards for
students with the most significant
cognitive disabilities or alternate
assessments based on grade-level
academic achievement standards for
other eligible students with disabilities
in accordance with the ESEA and the
IDEA, or changes the authority of IEP
teams to select among these alternate
assessments for eligible students.
DATES : These regulations are effective
September 21, 2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : For
further information regarding the Title I
regulations, contact Monique M. Chism,
U.S. Department of Education, 400
Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3W224,
Washington, DC 20202–6132.
Telephone: (202) 260–0826. For further information regarding the
IDEA regulations, contact Mary Louise
Dirrigl, U.S. Department of Education,
550 12th St. SW., Potomac Center Plaza,
Room 5156, Washington, DC 20202–
2641. Telephone: (202) 245–7324. If you use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD) or a text
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay
Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877–
8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :
Background High standards and high expectations
for all students and an accountability
system that provides teachers, parents,
students, and the public with
information about students’ academic
progress are essential to ensure that
students graduate from high school
prepared for college and careers in the
21st century. In 2007, the Department
amended the Title I regulations to
permit States to define modified
academic achievement standards for
eligible students with disabilities and to
assess those students with alternate
assessments based on those modified
academic achievement standards. The
Department promulgated those
regulations based on the understanding
that (1) there was a small group of
students whose disabilities precluded
them from achieving grade-level
proficiency and whose progress was
such that they would not reach grade-
level achievement standards in the same
time frame as other students, and (2) the
regular State assessment would be too
difficult for this group of students and
the assessment based on alternate
academic achievement standards would
be too easy for them. 72 FR 17748 (Apr.
9, 2007). In addition, at that time, the
Department acknowledged that
measuring the academic achievement of
students with disabilities, particularly
those eligible to be assessed based on modified academic achievement
standards, was ‘‘an area in which there
is much to learn and improve’’ and
indicated that ‘‘[a]s data and research on
assessments for students with
disabilities improve, the Department
may decide to issue additional
regulations or guidance.’’ 72 FR 17748,
17763 (Apr. 9, 2007).
Since these regulations went into
effect, additional research
1has
demonstrated that students with
disabilities who struggle in reading and
mathematics can successfully learn
grade-level content and make significant
academic progress when appropriate
instruction, services, and supports are
provided. For example, a research study
conducted a meta-analysis of 70
independent studies investigating the
effects of special education
interventions on student achievement.
The study found that children with
disabilities made significant progress
across different content areas and across
different educational settings when they
received systematic, explicit instruction;
learning strategy instruction; and other
evidence-based instructional strategies
and supports.
2
In addition, nearly all States have
developed new college- and career-
ready standards and new assessments
aligned with those standards. These
new assessments have been designed to
facilitate the valid, reliable, and fair
assessment of most students, including
students with disabilities who
previously took an alternate assessment
based on modified academic
achievement standards. For these
reasons, we believe that the removal of
the authority for States to define
modified academic achievement
standards and to administer assessments
based on those standards is necessary to
ensure that students with disabilities are
held to the same high standards as their
nondisabled peers, and that they benefit
from high expectations, access to the
general education curriculum based on
a State’s academic content standards,
and instruction that will prepare them
for success in college and careers. Public Comment: On August 23, 2013,
we published in the Federal Register
(78 FR 52467) a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) that would amend
the Title I regulations to no longer
authorize a State to define modified
academic achievement standards and administer alternate assessments based
on those modified academic
achievement standards for eligible
children with disabilities. The NPRM
established an October 7, 2013, deadline
for the submission of written comments.
Although the Federal eRulemaking
Portal was in operation during the
government shutdown in October 2013,
which included the final seven days of
the original public comment period, we
recognized that interested parties
reasonably may have believed that the
government shutdown resulted in a
suspension of the public comment
period. To ensure that all interested
parties were provided the opportunity
to submit comments, we reopened the
public comment period for seven days.
The final due date for comments was
November 23, 2013.
In response to our invitation in the
NPRM, 156 parties submitted
comments. We group major issues
according to subject. In some cases,
comments addressed issues beyond the
scope of the proposed regulations.
Although we appreciate commenters’
concerns for broader issues affecting the
education of students with disabilities,
because those comments are beyond the
scope of this regulatory action, we do
not discuss them here. Generally, we do
not address technical and other minor
revisions.
Analysis of Comments and Changes:
An analysis of the comments and
changes in the regulations since
publication of the NPRM follows.
General Comments
Comments: Several commenters
stated that general assessments that are
accessible for all students are in the best
interest of students with disabilities and
provide better information about the
achievement of those students for
parents, educators, and the public.
Several commenters pointed to
developments in the field of assessment
that are contributing to general
assessments that are accessible for the
vast majority of students. The
commenters noted that using principles
of ‘‘universal design for learning’’ and
considering accessibility issues when
designing assessments have resulted in
more accessible general assessments and
have eliminated the need for alternate
assessments based on modified
academic achievement standards. A few
commenters urged the Department to
promote the use of universal design for
learning in developing assessments, as
well as to support the development of
accessible assessments and
accommodations for students with
disabilities.
VerDate Sep2014 14:16 Aug 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM21AUR1.SGM 21AUR1rmajette on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES
50775 Federal Register/ Vol. 80, No. 162 / Friday, August 21, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
3ESEA flexibility refers to the Department’s
initiative to give a State flexibility regarding
specific requirements of the No Child Left Behind
Act of 2001 in exchange for developing a rigorous
and comprehensive plan designed to improve
educational outcomes for all students, close
achievement gaps, increase equity, and improve the
quality of instruction. 4For more information, see: Thurlow, M. L.,
Lazarus, S. S., & Bechard, S. (Eds.). (2013). Lessons
learned in federally funded projects that can
improve the instruction and assessment of low
performing students with disabilities. Minneapolis,
MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on
Educational Outcomes.
Discussion: Nearly all States have
developed and are administering new
high-quality general assessments that
are valid and reliable and measure
students with disabilities’ knowledge
and skills against college- and career-
ready standards. Including students
with disabilities in more accessible
general assessments aligned to college-
and career-ready standards promotes
high expectations for students with
disabilities, ensures that they will have
access to grade-level content, and
supports high-quality instruction
designed to enable students with
disabilities to be involved in, and make
progress in, the general education
curriculum—that is, the same
curriculum as for nondisabled students. In response to those commenters who
urged the Department to support the
adoption of universal design principles
for student assessments, we note that
the Department has a history of
supporting and promoting universal
design for learning, assessments that are
accessible for all students, and
appropriate accommodations for
students with disabilities. Most
recently, we included ‘‘universal design
for learning’’ in defining ‘‘high-quality
assessments’’ required under the Race to
the Top programs and the ESEA
flexibility initiative.
3We have also
focused funding on improving the
accessibility of assessments through the
General Supervision Enhancement
Grants (GSEG) and Enhanced
Assessment Grants (EAG) programs. Changes: None.
Comments: Some commenters from
States that administered alternate
assessments based on modified
academic achievement standards
discussed how these assessments were
helpful in meeting the needs of students
with disabilities. One commenter stated
that the assessments improved
instruction and student achievement
while providing students with access to
the general curriculum. A representative
from a State educational agency (SEA)
commented that five years of research
and development went into developing
their State’s alternate assessments,
which are based on grade-level content,
are aligned with college- and career-
ready standards, and do not
compromise academic rigor and
expectations. The SEA representative
stated that the existing regulations provide the most flexibility for States
and that, without access to the State’s
alternate assessments based on modified
academic achievement standards,
students who would otherwise take the
alternate assessments would no longer
have the opportunity to demonstrate
their knowledge and skills.
Discussion: We recognize that some
States expended considerable resources
to develop alternate assessments based
on modified academic achievement
standards. As one commenter suggests,
these States’ research and development
efforts generated valuable information
on how best to teach and assess students
with disabilities. States may still use
this information to prepare and support
students to take the new general
assessments aligned with college- and
career-ready standards that States have
developed since the Department issued
the regulations in April 2007. Those
assessments are more accessible to
students with disabilities than those in
place at the time States began
developing alternate assessments based
on modified academic achievement
standards. The new general assessments
will facilitate the valid, reliable, and fair
assessment of most students with
disabilities, including those for whom
alternate assessments based on modified
academic achievement standards were
intended. Moreover, we know the key to
successful achievement of students with
disabilities begins with appropriate
instruction, services, and supports.
More than six years of research spurred
by the opportunity that States had to
research, develop, and administer
alternate assessments based on modified
academic achievement standards have
dramatically increased the knowledge
base about students who are struggling
in school. States that received funding
from the Department through the GSEG
and EAG programs to develop alternate
assessments based on modified
academic achievement standards
focused on several topics, including the
characteristics of students who were
participating in such assessments,
barriers to these students’ learning and
performance, and approaches to making
assessments more accessible. For
example, research in several States
found that some students deemed
eligible for taking alternate assessments
based on modified academic
achievement standards may not have
had an opportunity to learn grade-level
content, and that more effort was
needed to support teachers in ensuring
students have meaningful opportunities
to learn grade-level content. Other
research focused on the appropriateness
of test items and identified various ways to improve the accessibility of test
items, such as adjusting format
characteristics or content, or carefully
examining the difficulty of the test items
and making items more accessible and
understandable (e.g.,
reducing
unimportant or extraneous details)
while still measuring grade-level
content.
4Therefore, we believe that
alternate assessments based on modified
academic achievement standards are no
longer needed and, with high-quality
instruction and appropriate
accommodations, students with
disabilities who took an alternate
assessment based on modified academic
achievement standards will be able to
demonstrate their knowledge and skills
by participating in the new general
assessments. Changes: None.
Comments: A parent whose child
participated in an alternate assessment
based on modified academic
achievement standards expressed
concern that, without the assessment,
the child would not be able to graduate
with a high school diploma. Another
commenter asked that States be allowed
to continue to administer alternate
assessments based on modified
academic achievement standards for
State purposes, such as promotion
decisions and graduation requirements.
One commenter stated that the
assessments allowed students with
disabilities to be successful and meet
State exit exam requirements. Discussion: Under the final
regulations, a State may no longer
define modified academic achievement
standards and administer alternate
assessments based on modified
academic achievement standards to
meet ESEA requirements. Accordingly,
these regulations do not affect State
promotion decisions and graduation
requirements because the Federal
government does not set promotion or
graduation standards for any students,
including students with disabilities.
Rather, States, and, in some cases, local
educational agencies (LEAs), establish
requirements for high school graduation
and promotion. However, we note that, regardless of
State or local promotion or graduation
requirements for a regular high school
diploma, in order to ensure a free
appropriate public education (FAPE) is
made available to students with
disabilities under the IDEA,
VerDate Sep2014 14:16 Aug 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM21AUR1.SGM 21AUR1rmajette on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES
50776 Federal Register/ Vol. 80, No. 162 / Friday, August 21, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
5The IDEA prescribes certain requirements for
IEPs for students who take alternate assessments
aligned to alternate academic achievement
standards. 34 CFR 300.160(c)(2)(iii),
300.320(a)(2)(ii), and 300.320(a)(6)(ii). This
approach addresses the educational and assessment
needs of a relatively small percentage of students
with the most significant cognitive disabilities,
estimated at approximately 1% of all students in a
State (approximately 10% of students with
disabilities), who cannot be held to the same
academic achievement standards as students
without the most significant cognitive disabilities.
individualized education programs
(IEPs), including IEP goals, must be
aligned with the State’s academic
content standards, and contain the
content required by the IDEA to enable
students with disabilities to be involved
in, and make progress in, the general
education curriculum based on the
State’s academic content standards.
Therefore, in order to ensure that a State
makes FAPE available to all eligible
students with disabilities,
5promotion or
graduation requirements for such
students may not be lowered if doing so
means including goals, special
education and related services, and
supplementary aids and services and
other supports in a student’s IEP that are
not designed to enable the student to be
involved in, and make progress in, the
general education curriculum based on
the State’s academic content standards.
The general education curriculum is the
curriculum that is applicable to all
children and is based on the State’s
academic content standards that apply
to all children within the State. Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters who
expressed support for the proposed
regulations noted that they are aligned
with the requirements in several current
Department programs, such as the
requirement that assessments funded
under the Race to the Top Assessment
(RTTA) program be accessible to all
students, including students with
disabilities eligible to participate in an
alternate assessment based on modified
academic achievement standards; the
requirement that State recipients of Race
to the Top grants phase out alternate
assessments based on modified
academic achievement standards; and
the requirement that SEAs phase out
alternate assessments based on modified
academic achievement standards as a
condition of receiving ESEA flexibility. One commenter who opposed the
proposed regulations expressed an
understanding that they are based on
the premise that States have adopted
Common Core State Standards, joined
an RTTA consortium, or received
waivers under ESEA flexibility. The
commenter stated that aligning the
proposed regulations with these initiatives would set policy for all States
based on those participating in
voluntary Department initiatives and
would send a message to States not
participating in these initiatives that
they are disadvantaged for not doing so.
Another commenter expressed concern
that the proposed regulations would
result in permanent regulatory changes
predicated on temporary ESEA
flexibility waivers.
Discussion: The purpose of the these
regulatory changes is to promote high
expectations for students with
disabilities by encouraging teaching and
learning to high academic achievement
standards for the grade in which a
student is enrolled, measured by a
State’s general assessments. These
regulations are driven by research and
advances in the development of general
assessments aligned with college- and
career-ready standards that are more
accessible to students with disabilities
than those in place at the time States
began developing alternate assessments
based on modified academic
achievement standards. The purpose of
the regulations is not, as suggested by
some commenters, to align them with
voluntary Department initiatives. To
clarify, State recipients of Race to the
Top grants were not required to phase
out alternate assessments based on
modified academic achievement
standards as a condition of the grants.
States approved for ESEA flexibility did
agree to phase out those assessments by
school year 2014–2015; however, these
final regulations are not predicated on
that agreement. Rather, the ESEA
flexibility requirement is consistent
with the purpose of the regulations to
promote high expectations for students
with disabilities by encouraging
teaching and learning to high academic
achievement standards for the grade in
which a student is enrolled measured by
a State’s general assessments. Therefore,
we disagree with the commenters who
claimed that the regulations would set
policy based on the Department’s
voluntary initiatives. Likewise, the
regulations do not place any State at a
disadvantage as a result of its decision
not to participate in voluntary
Department initiatives. Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter expressed
concern that the assessments being
developed by the Partnership for
Assessment of Readiness for College and
Careers (PARCC), although based on
universal design features to make them
more accessible, will not eliminate the
need for alternate assessments. Discussion: The assessments being
developed by States based on college-
and career-ready standards, including those developed by PARCC and the
Smarter Balanced Assessment
Consortium, do not eliminate the
authority or need for States to
administer alternate assessments based
on alternate academic achievement
standards for students with the most
significant cognitive disabilities. States
may also continue to administer
alternate assessments based on grade-
level academic achievement standards,
consistent with 34 CFR
200.6(a)(2)(ii)(A). We note that the
Department is supporting, through the
GSEG program, the development of
alternate assessments based on alternate
academic achievement standards that
will serve as companion assessments to
the general assessments that States are
developing and implementing.
Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter
questioned the Department’s authority
to amend the Title I regulations in light
of the negotiated rulemaking
requirements in section 1901(b) of the
ESEA, including the requirement that
the rulemaking process be conducted in
a timely manner to ensure that final
regulations are issued by the Secretary
not later than one year after the date of
enactment of the No Child Left Behind
Act of 2001 (NCLB). Similarly, the
commenter questioned whether the
proposed regulations meet the
requirement in section 1908 of the ESEA
that the Secretary issue regulations for
sections 1111 and 1116 of the ESEA not
later than six months after the date of
enactment of NCLB. Discussion: The statutory
requirements for negotiated rulemaking
in section 1901(b) of the ESEA apply to
title I standards and assessment
regulations required to be implemented
within one year of enactment of NCLB,
not to subsequent regulatory
amendments such as those included in
these regulations. Similarly, with
respect to the timeline for issuing
regulations implementing title I, the
requirements in sections 1901 and 1908
of the ESEA apply only to the issuance
of initial regulations following
enactment of NCLB, not to subsequent
amendments such as these final
regulations. Changes: None.
Assessing Students With Disabilities
Based on a State’s Academic
Achievement Standards Comments: We received many
comments on the standards to which
students with disabilities should be
held. Several commenters stated that all
students should be held and taught to
the same standards and that modified
academic achievement standards and
VerDate Sep2014 14:16 Aug 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM21AUR1.SGM 21AUR1rmajette on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES
50777 Federal Register/ Vol. 80, No. 162 / Friday, August 21, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
6For example, see: Allor, J. H., Mathes, P. G.,
Roberts, J. K., Cheatham, J.P., & Champlin, T. M.
(2010). Comprehensive reading instruction for
students with intellectual disabilities. Psychology in
the Schools, 47, 445–466; Kamps, D., Abbott, M.,
Greenwood, C., Wills, H., Veerkamp, M., &
Kaufman, J. (2008); Mautone, J. A., DuPaul, G. J.,
Jitendra, A. K., Tresco, K. E., Junod, R. V., & Volpe,
R. J. (2009). The relationship between treatment
integrity and acceptability of reading interventions
for children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity
disorder. Psychology in the Schools, 46, 919–931;
and Scammacca, N., Vaughn, S., Roberts, G.,
Wanzek, J., & Torgesen, J. K. (2007). Extensive
reading interventions in grades K–3: From research
to practice. Portsmouth, N.H.: RMC Research
Corporation, Center on Instruction; and Vaughn, S.,
Denton, C. A., & Fletcher, J. M. (2010). Why
intensive interventions are necessary for students
with severe reading difficulties. Psychology in the
Schools, 47, 32–444; Wanzek, J. & Vaughn, S.
(2010). Tier 3 interventions for students with
significant reading problems. Theory Into Practice,
49, 305–314.
7For example, see: Fuchs, L. S. & Fuchs, D.,
Powell, S. R., Seethaler, P. M., Cirino, P. T., &
Fletcher, J. M. (2008). Intensive intervention for
students with mathematics disabilities: Seven
principles of effective practice. Learning Disabilities
Quarterly, 31, 79–92; and Gersten, R., Beckmann,
S., Clarke, B., Foegen, A., Marsh, L., Star, J. R., &
Witzel, B. (2009). Assisting students struggling with
mathematics: Response to Intervention (RtI) for
elementary and middle schools (NCEE 2009–4060).
Washington, DC: National Center for Education
Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of
Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Retrieved November 1, 2010 from http://ies.ed.gov/ ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguides/.
8For example, see Archamboult, I., Janosz, M., &
Chouindard, R. (2012). Teacher beliefs as predictors
of adolescent cognitive engagement and
achievement in mathematics. The Journal of
Educational Research, 105, 319–328; Hinnant, J.,
O’Brien, M., & Ghazarian, S. (2009). The
longitudinal relations of teacher expectations to
achievement in the early school years. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 101(3), 662–670; and
Hornstra, L., Denessen, E., Bakker, J., von den
Bergh, L., & Voeten, M. (2010). Teacher attitudes
toward dyslexia: Effects on teacher expectations
and the academic achievement of students with
dyslexia. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43(6),
515–529.
9For additional information on assessment
accommodations, see: PARCC Accessibility
Features and Accommodations Manual (Nov. 2014)
at http://www.parcconline.org/sites/parcc/files/
parcc-accessibility-features-accommodations-
manual-11-14_ final.pdf.
alternate assessments based on those
standards inappropriately lower
expectations for students with
disabilities and result in instruction that
is less challenging than the instruction
provided to their nondisabled peers.
Other commenters stated that students
with disabilities have the ability to learn
grade-level content and can achieve at
the same levels as their nondisabled
peers when provided with appropriate
instruction, services, and supports. One
commenter stated that, when students
receive instruction based on modified
academic achievement standards, a
negative cycle begins in which the
students never learn what they need to
succeed. One commenter stated that a
State’s standards and assessments
should be designed to be appropriate for
the vast majority of students with
disabilities, with the exception of
students with the most significant
cognitive disabilities. Other commenters
stated that a large number of students
with disabilities taking alternate
assessments based on modified
academic achievement standards creates
a separate education system for students
with disabilities and focuses on
students’ limitations, rather than
strengths.
On the other hand, some commenters
stated that holding students with
disabilities to the same standards as
nondisabled students is unfair because
students who qualify for special
education services have a disability that
affects their academic functioning. They
noted that what may be a high standard
for one student may not necessarily be
the same for another student, and that
students with disabilities should take
assessments that reflect realistic
expectations for them.
Discussion: The importance of
holding all students, including students
with disabilities, to high standards
cannot be over-emphasized. Low
expectations can lead to students with
disabilities receiving less challenging
instruction that reflects below grade-
level achievement standards, and
thereby not learning what they need to
succeed at the grade in which they are
enrolled.
Although the Department agrees that
some students may have a disability that
affects their academic functioning, we
disagree that students with disabilities,
except for those with the most
significant cognitive disabilities, should
be held to different academic
achievement standards than their
nondisabled peers. Research
demonstrates that low-achieving
students with disabilities who struggle in reading 6and low-achieving students
with disabilities who struggle in
mathematics
7can successfully learn
grade-level content when they have
access to high-quality instruction. The
inclusion of students with disabilities in
the new, more accessible general
assessments will promote high
expectations for students with
disabilities, which research
demonstrates is associated with
improved educational outcomes.
8
Therefore, we disagree with
commenters’ statements that it is unfair
to hold students with disabilities, other
than those with the most significant
cognitive disabilities, to the same
academic achievement standards as
their nondisabled peers. Changes: None.
Comments: Many commenters, mostly
teachers and parents, stated that
modified academic achievement
standards and assessments based on those standards meet the needs of
certain students with disabilities for
whom the general assessment is too
difficult. The commenters stated that
the general assessment does not provide
meaningful data on these students and
that alternate assessments based on
modified academic achievement
standards allow students to demonstrate
their knowledge, show progress, and
experience success.
Several commenters expressed
concern about providing assessments to
students when they know the students
will struggle to complete the general
assessment because, without more
supports, it would be too challenging for
the students. The commenters expressed
concern that this experience would
affect their self-esteem and result in
higher drop-out rates for students with
disabilities. Discussion: Since the regulations
permitting States to define modified
academic achievement standards and
develop alternate assessments based on
those standards were promulgated in
2007, there has been significant research
and progress in developing assessments
that are appropriate and accessible for
most students, including students with
disabilities for whom alternate
assessments based on modified
academic achievement standards were
intended. As discussed in the NPRM,
the application of universal design
principles, new technologies, and new
research on accommodations has led to
the development of general assessments
that are not only more accessible to
students with disabilities, but also
improve the validity of their scores. As
a number of commenters noted, the
developers of the new generation of
assessments considered the needs of
students with disabilities to ensure that
the assessments are designed to allow
those students to demonstrate their
knowledge.
9
The Department shares the goal that
students with disabilities experience
success. Removing the authority for
modified academic achievement
standards and an alternate assessment
based on those standards furthers this
goal because students with disabilities
who are assessed based on grade-level
academic achievement standards will
receive instruction aligned with such an
assessment. Changes: None.
Comments: Some commenters stated
that it is unfair for students with
VerDate Sep2014 14:16 Aug 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM21AUR1.SGM 21AUR1rmajette on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES
50778 Federal Register/ Vol. 80, No. 162 / Friday, August 21, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
10For more information, see: Thurlow, M. L.,
Lazarus, S. S., & Bechard, S. (Eds.). (2013). Lessons
learned in federally funded projects that can
improve the instruction and assessment of low
performing students with disabilities. Minneapolis,
MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on
Educational Outcomes.
11Achieve. (2012). The Future of the U.S.
Workforce: Middle Skills Jobs and the Growing
Importance of Post Secondary Education. American
Diploma Project, www.achieve.org.
disabilities to have modifications in
instruction during the school year and
then be assessed with a test that is not
modified. Discussion: For purposes of this
response, we assume ‘‘modifications in
instruction’’ means accommodations
authorized under the IDEA. While the
IDEA does authorize adaptations in the
content, methodology, or delivery of
instruction (34 CFR 300.39(b)(3)), it also
requires appropriate accommodations
during testing (34 CFR 300.160(a) and
300.320(a)(6)(i)). These
accommodations, as agreed upon by a
child’s IEP team, which includes the
child’s parents along with school
officials, may include, among other
things, small group testing, frequent
breaks, a separate or alternate location,
a specified area or seating, and adaptive
and specialized equipment or furniture.
As permitted under the IDEA and
determined appropriate by a student’s
IEP team, the Department believes that
students with disabilities who take a
general assessment based on a State’s
challenging academic achievement
standards should be provided with
accommodations during the assessment
that are similar to the IEP
accommodations they receive for
instructional purposes and for other
academic tests or assessments so that
the students can be involved in, and
make progress in, the general education
curriculum. These regulations will not
prevent the provision of needed
supports to students with disabilities
during general assessments or for other
instructional purposes. Changes: None.
Comments: One commenter expressed
support for the proposed regulations,
stating that alternate assessments based
on modified academic achievement
standards do not take into account a
student’s disability and the content of
the instruction he or she is provided,
and do not provide meaningful
information to school districts or
accurately measure the student’s
progress. However, the commenter
maintained that the new general
assessments, although more accessible,
may be too difficult for students who
currently participate in an alternate
assessment based on modified academic
achievement standards. Instead, the
commenter recommended allowing
States to base participation in the
general assessment on a student’s
instructional level, rather than
chronological age, with a cap of
counting no more than two percent of
proficient scores for ESEA
accountability purposes. Discussion: The commenter’s
recommendation to allow States to base participation in the general assessment
on a student’s instructional level is
often referred to as ‘‘out-of-level’’ or
‘‘off-grade level’’ testing and generally
refers to the practice of assessing a
student enrolled in one grade using a
measure that was developed for
students in a lower grade. By definition,
an out-of-level assessment cannot meet
the requirements of a grade-level
assessment because it does not measure
mastery of grade-level content or
academic achievement standards. In
addition, out-of-level testing is often
associated with lower expectations for
students with disabilities, tracking such
students into lower-level curricula with
limited opportunities to succeed in the
general education curriculum.
The Department disagrees with the
commenter’s statement that the new
general assessments may be too difficult
for students who currently participate in
an alternate assessment based on
modified academic achievement
standards. We learned through States
that received funding from the
Department through the GSEG and EAG
programs that some students with
disabilities who might be candidates for
an alternate assessment based on
modified academic achievement
standards may not have had an
opportunity to learn grade-level content,
and more effort was needed to support
teachers in ensuring students have
meaningful opportunities to learn grade-
level content. Six of the projects found
that students who might be candidates
for an alternate assessment based on
modified academic achievement
standards had difficulty using printed
materials in certain formats or
demonstrated other specific challenges
related to some components of reading.
Other projects focused on the
appropriateness of test items and
identified various ways to improve the
accessibility of test items, while still
measuring grade-level content.
10
Changes: None.
Comments: Some commenters stated
that preparing students to be ‘‘college
ready’’ should not be a goal for all
public school students. Discussion: We understand that not
all students will enter a four-year
college upon graduating from high
school. However, we strongly believe
that public schools should prepare all
children to be ready for college or the
workforce. According to research from the American Diploma Project, nearly
two-thirds of new jobs require some
form of postsecondary education.
11
Therefore, in order to compete in the
21st century, regardless of whether a
student has a disability, some form of
postsecondary training or education is
increasingly important for the student to
become a productive and contributing
adult. Changes: None.
Responsibilities of IEP Teams and
Students’ Participation in Assessments Comments: Many commenters
expressed concern that no longer
permitting the use of alternate
assessments based on modified
academic achievement standards and
requiring students to take the general
State assessments conflict with IDEA
requirements. The commenters argued
that the IDEA requires a student’s
education to be individualized in an IEP
and not standardized with an
assessment designed for the general
student population. A few commenters
stated that a student’s IEP team is
responsible for making educational
decisions for the student and should
decide whether an alternate assessment
based on modified academic
achievement standards or a new more
accessible general assessment is the
more appropriate assessment for the
student. Discussion: The commenters are
correct that the IDEA assigns the IEP
team the responsibility for determining
how a student with a disability
participates in a State or district-wide
assessment, including assessments
required under title I of the ESEA (34
CFR 300.320(a)(6) and 300.160(a)). This
IEP team responsibility is essential,
given the importance of including all
children with disabilities in a State’s
accountability system. These final
regulations do not contravene this IEP
team responsibility. The IDEA, Part B regulations at 34
CFR 300.320(a)(6) address what each
student’s IEP must contain regarding
participation in State and district-wide
assessments. Each child’s IEP must
include, among other things: (1) A
statement of any individual appropriate
accommodations that are necessary to
measure the academic achievement and
functional performance of the child on
State and district-wide assessments and
(2) if the IEP team determines that a
student with a disability must take an
alternate assessment, a statement of why
VerDate Sep2014 14:16 Aug 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM21AUR1.SGM 21AUR1rmajette on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES
50779 Federal Register/ Vol. 80, No. 162 / Friday, August 21, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
the child cannot participate in the
regular assessment, and why the
particular alternate assessment selected
is appropriate for the child.
Under these final regulations, to
ensure that students with disabilities are
appropriately included in assessments
conducted under title I, an IEP team will
continue to have the authority and
responsibility to determine whether
students with disabilities should take
the regular assessment with or without
appropriate accommodations, an
alternate assessment based on grade-
level academic achievement standards,
if any, or, for students with the most
significant cognitive disabilities, an
alternate assessment based on alternate
academic achievement standards.
Although an IEP team determines
how a student with a disability
participates in general State and district-
wide assessments, States are responsible
for adopting general and alternate
assessments, consistent with applicable
Title I regulations. Accordingly, IEP
teams will continue to determine which
assessment a student with a disability
will take in accordance with 34 CFR
300.320(a)(6), and the final regulations
in 34 CFR 300.160(c) and 200.6(a)(2).
However, under these final regulations,
an IEP team may no longer select an
alternate assessment based on modified
academic achievement standards to
assess students with disabilities under
title I of the ESEA.
Changes: None.
Comments: Many commenters
opposed the proposed amendments
because they oppose standardized tests
for students with disabilities. Some
commenters stated that standardized
tests cannot measure the achievement
and progress of a student with a
disability, particularly a student who is
far behind academically. The
commenters offered several alternatives
to standardized assessments for students
with disabilities including assessments
that are specialized and personalized for
each student; assessments that are based
on each student’s daily class work and
cognitive level, rather than their age;
assessments that use standards for
passing that are developed by a
student’s IEP team; and individualized
assessments that measure growth. Other
commenters suggested allowing States
to use a number of assessments to
measure achievement for students with
disabilities, rather than a single general
assessment. A few commenters
recommended using measures other
than assessments to document the
achievement of students with
disabilities such as data on classroom
performance collected by teachers and a student’s progress toward meeting his or
her IEP goals.
Finally, some commenters
recommended that States, districts, and
schools use measures other than
performance on standardized
assessments as evidence of success in
educating students with disabilities. For
example, commenters recommended
using the number of students passing
workforce certification tests, the number
of students employed in a skilled job
after high school, or the number of
students who effectively use a college’s
disability assistance center. Discussion: The assessment and
accountability provisions of title I
require that all students, including
students with disabilities, be included
in Statewide standardized assessments.
20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(3)(C)(ix); 34 CFR
200.6. Section 612(a)(16)(A) of the IDEA
and 34 CFR 300.160(a) also provide that
all children with disabilities must be
included in all general State and
district-wide assessments, including
assessments described under section
1111 of the ESEA, with appropriate
accommodations and alternate
assessments where necessary and as
indicated in their respective IEPs.
Parents and teachers have the right and
need to know how much progress all
students, including students with
disabilities, are making each year
toward college and career readiness.
That means all students, including
students with disabilities, need to take
annual Statewide assessments.
Accordingly, the commenters’ proposals
of alternative methods to measure the
achievement of students with
disabilities are inconsistent with title I
and IDEA. Changes: None.
Comments: Some commenters who
supported the proposed regulations
stated that not holding all students to
the same standards has resulted in
excusing districts from their
responsibility to educate students with
disabilities based on the general
curriculum. For example, one parent
whose child participated in an alternate
assessment based on modified academic
achievement standards commented that
the child received instruction that was
not based on the general education
curriculum, contrary to the
requirements of the IDEA. Discussion: Current IDEA regulations
(34 CFR 300.320(a)(1)(i) and (4)(ii))
require that each child with a disability
must receive instruction designed to
enable the child to be involved in, and
make progress in, the general education
curriculum—i.e., the same curriculum
as for nondisabled students. The
importance of this requirement cannot be overemphasized. As the Department
stated in the Analysis of Comments to
the 2006 IDEA, Part B regulations,
‘‘[w]ith regard to the alignment of the
IEP with the State’s content standards,
§ 300.320(a)(1)(i) clarifies that the
general education curriculum means the
same curriculum as all other children.
Therefore, an IEP that focuses on
ensuring that a child is involved in the
general education curriculum will
necessarily be aligned with the State’s
content standards.’’ 71 FR 46540, 46662
(Aug. 14, 2006).
Under section 1111(b)(1)(B) of the
ESEA, a State must apply its challenging
academic content standards to all
children in the State, including all
children with disabilities. Section
§ 200.1(a)–(b) of the current title I
regulations defines State academic
content standards as grade-level
standards. The Title I regulations
permitting a State to define modified
academic achievement standards and to
administer alternate assessments based
on those standards in assessing the
academic progress of students with
disabilities were not intended to change
the requirement that those standards be
based on challenging academic content
standards. In fact, § 200.1(f)(2)(iii) of the
current title I regulations provides that,
if the IEPs of students assessed against
modified academic achievement
standards include goals for the subjects
to be assessed, the IEPs of such students
assessed based on modified academic
achievement standards must include
‘‘goals based on the academic content
standards for the grade in which a
student is enrolled.’’ This provision has
been removed because the authority to
define modified academic achievement
standards and administer alternate
assessments based on those standards,
has been removed. However, IEPs for all
students with disabilities must continue
to be aligned with a State’s academic
content standards and include annual
goals, special education and related
services, and supplementary aids and
services and other supports that are
designed to enable the student to be
involved in, and make progress in, the
general education curriculum based on
the State’s academic content standards. As explained in the Senate Report
accompanying the 2004 reauthorization
of the IDEA, ‘‘[f]or most students with
disabilities, many of their IEP goals
would likely conform to State and
district wide academic content
standards and progress indicators
consistent with standards based reform
within education and the new
requirements of NCLB. IEPs would also
include other goals that the IEP Team
deemed appropriate for the student,
VerDate Sep2014 14:16 Aug 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM21AUR1.SGM 21AUR1rmajette on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES
50780 Federal Register/ Vol. 80, No. 162 / Friday, August 21, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
such as life skills, self-advocacy, social
skills, and desired post-school activities.
Moreover, since parents will receive
individual student reports on their child
with a disability’s achievement on
assessments under NCLB, they will have
additional information to evaluate how
well their children are doing against
grade-level standards.’’ S. Rep. No. 108–
185, 105th Cong., 1st Sess. 29 (Nov. 3,
2003). Reading the IDEA and ESEA
requirements together, it is incumbent
upon States and school districts to
ensure that the IEPs of students with
disabilities who are being assessed
against grade-level academic
achievement standards include content
and instruction that gives these students
the opportunity to gain the knowledge
and skills necessary for them to meet
those challenging standards. We
strongly urge States and school districts
to provide IEP Teams with technical
assistance on ways to accomplish this,
consistent with the purposes of the
IDEA and the ESEA. Technical
assistance is available from the
following resources: National Center on
Educational Outcomes http://
www.cehd.umn.edu/nceo/default.html
and The Center on Standards and
Assessments Implementation http://
csai-online.org/.
Changes: None.
Timeline To Discontinue Alternate
Assessments Based on Modified
Academic Achievement Standards Comments: A number of commenters
stated that eliminating the authority of
a State to use alternate assessments
based on modified academic
achievement standards beginning in the
2014–2015 school year is premature.
Some commenters stated that a more
appropriate time to discontinue use of
alternate assessments based on modified
academic achievement standards would
be after the 2014–2015 school year
when many States would have
completed their field tests and
implemented new assessments aligned
with college- and career-ready
standards. One commenter referenced a
report that stated that 10 to 15 percent
of students with disabilities have
disabilities that would preclude them
from meeting new college- and career-
ready standards. The commenter
concluded that these estimates raise
questions as to whether the new general
assessments will be appropriate for all
students with disabilities (with the
exception of students with the most
significant cognitive disabilities who are
eligible to take an alternate assessment
based on alternate academic
achievement standards). The
commenters asserted that a State should retain the authority to administer
alternate assessments based on modified
academic achievement standards until
there is information about how
adequately the new general assessments
include students with disabilities who
currently take an alternate assessment
based on modified academic
achievement standards.
Another commenter raised concerns
about phasing out alternate assessments
based on modified academic
achievement standards at the same time
that States are implementing new
general assessments. The commenter
stated that, at such a time of change,
more flexibility rather than less
flexibility should be provided to States.
One commenter stated that there are
indications that implementation of the
new assessments will be delayed and
that these delays would negatively affect
students with disabilities who currently
take an alternate assessment based on
modified academic achievement
standards.
Discussion: With respect to the
commenters who stated that eliminating
the authority of a State to use alternate
assessments based on modified
academic achievement standards
beginning in the 2014–2015 school year
is premature, we disagree. We continue
to believe that eliminating the authority
for alternate assessments based on
modified academic achievement
standards to assess the academic
progress of students with disabilities
under title I of the ESEA at the same
time those students are included in new
general assessments is in the best
interest of the students. All States that
had implemented alternate assessments
based on modified academic
achievement standards have now
adopted college- and career-ready
standards. These States are all
administering general assessments
aligned to college- and career-ready
standards in 2014–2015. To the extent
those are RTTA assessments, they will
not be delayed. Moreover, the RTTA
assessments were field tested in 2013–
2014 and those field tests included
students assessed with an alternate
assessment based on modified academic
achievement standards. As a result,
students with disabilities who
previously participated in an alternate
assessment based on modified academic
achievement standards are making the
transition to new general assessments
along with their peers and have had the
same benefit as their peers of instruction
designed to meet new college- and
career-ready standards. Therefore, it is
appropriate that students with
disabilities be assessed in 2014–2015 with the new general assessments that
are aligned with their instruction.
Changes: None.
Comments: None.
Discussion: When the proposed
regulations were published on August
23, 2013 (78 FR 52467), we anticipated
finalizing the regulations prior to the
end of the 2013–2014 school year.
Therefore, we proposed regulations to
allow States that administered alternate
assessments based on modified
academic achievement standards during
the 2013–2014 school year to continue
to administer those assessments and to
use the results for accountability
purposes through the 2013–2014 school
year. Given that the final regulations
were not published prior to the end of
the 2013–2014 school year, several of
the proposed regulations are no longer
necessary. We are, therefore, removing
proposed regulations that refer to the
conditions under which a State could
continue to use modified academic
achievement standards and to
administer alternate assessments based
on those standards until the end of the
2013–2014 school year. We also are amending current Title I
regulations and making conforming
changes to current IDEA regulations to
remove provisions related to alternate
assessments based on modified
academic achievement standards and
references to ‘‘modified academic
achievement standards.’’ We did not
include these changes in the NPRM
because these provisions were still
necessary during the 2013–2014
transition year provided for in the
proposed regulations. Now that the
transition year has passed, there is no
longer a need to retain references to
‘‘modified academic achievement
standards’’ or alternate assessments
aligned with those standards, except for
the provisions regarding reporting on
the number of students with disabilities
taking alternate assessments based on
modified academic achievement
standards in years prior to 2015–2016.
In assessing the academic progress of
students with disabilities under title I of
the ESEA, a State retains its authority to
continue to administer alternate
assessments based on grade-level
academic achievement standards,
consistent with 34 CFR 200.6(a)(2)(ii)(A)
and revised 300.160(c)(1). Additionally,
a State retains its authority to adopt
alternate academic achievement
standards, as permitted in 34 CFR
200.1(d), and to measure the
achievement of students with the most
significant cognitive disabilities against
those standards, as permitted in 34 CFR
200.6(a)(2)(ii)(B) and 300.160(c)(2)(iii)
(new 300.160(c)(2)(ii)). As described
VerDate Sep2014 14:16 Aug 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM21AUR1.SGM 21AUR1rmajette on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES
50781 Federal Register/ Vol. 80, No. 162 / Friday, August 21, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
below, we are making changes to
§§ 200.1, 200.6, 200.13, and 200.20 in
the Title I regulations and § 300.160 in
the IDEA regulations.
Changes: Changes to § 200.1: We are
removing proposed paragraphs (e)(2)
and (e)(4) (both of which refer to
conditions under which a State could
continue to administer alternate
assessments based on modified
academic achievement standards until
the end of the 2013–2014 school year)
and revising proposed paragraph (e)(1)
(now paragraph (e)) to state that a State
may not define modified academic
achievement standards for any students
with disabilities. We are removing as no
longer necessary current paragraph
(e)(2) (proposed redesignated paragraph
(e)(3)), which sets out the criteria a State
must establish for IEP teams to use to
identify students with disabilities who
were eligible to be assessed based on
modified academic achievement
standards. In addition, we are revising
current paragraph (f) regarding State
guidelines to remove all references to
‘‘modified academic achievement
standards.’’ The requirements in current
paragraph (f) applicable to alternate
academic achievement standards remain
unchanged and fully applicable to a
State that has adopted such standards. Changes to § 200.6: We are removing
proposed paragraph (a)(3) so that a State
may no longer measure the achievement
of students with disabilities based on
modified academic achievement
standards, redesignating current
paragraph (a)(4) as new paragraph (a)(3),
and revising new paragraph (a)(3)(iv)
(current paragraph (a)(4)(iv)) to require
a State to report to the Secretary the
number and percentage of children with
disabilities, if any, participating in
alternate assessments based on modified
academic achievement standards in
school years prior to 2015–2016. Changes to current § 200.13: We are
revising current paragraph (c) to remove
references to ‘‘modified academic
achievement standards,’’ references to
the 2.0 percent cap on proficient and
advanced scores of students taking
alternate assessments based on modified
academic achievement standards, and
the Appendix. The requirements in current
paragraph (c) applicable to alternate
academic achievement standards remain
unchanged and fully applicable to a
State that has adopted such standards. Changes to current § 200.20: We are
revising current paragraph (c)(3) to
remove the reference to ‘‘modified
academic achievement standards.’’ The
requirements in current paragraph (c)(3)
applicable to alternate academic
achievement standards remain unchanged and fully applicable to a
State that has adopted such standards.
We also are removing current paragraph
(g) (which describes a transition
provision related to modified academic
achievement standards) and
redesignating current paragraph (h) as
new paragraph (g).
Changes to current § 300.160: We are
revising § 300.160 of the IDEA
regulations, which addresses
participation of students with
disabilities in assessments, to make
conforming changes with those made in
the Title I regulations. We are removing
current paragraph (c)(2)(ii), which
authorizes alternate assessments based
on modified academic achievement
standards, as permitted in 34 CFR
200.1(e), in assessing the academic
progress of students with disabilities
under title I of the ESEA; and
redesignating current paragraph
(c)(2)(iii) as paragraph (c)(2)(ii). We are
adding a new paragraph (c)(2)(iii) to
make clear that, except as provided in
paragraph (c)(2)(ii), a State’s alternate
assessments, if any, must measure the
achievement of children with
disabilities against the State’s grade-
level academic achievement standards,
consistent with 34 CFR
200.6(a)(2)(ii)(A). Consistent with 34 CFR 200.1(e), we
are adding paragraph (c)(3) to make
clear that a State may no longer adopt
modified academic achievement
standards for any students with
disabilities under section 602(3) of the
IDEA. We are revising current
paragraphs (d) and (e) to remove
references to ‘‘modified academic
achievement standards’’. Finally, we are
revising current paragraphs (f)(3) and
(f)(5) to require a State to report to the
Secretary the number and performance
results, respectively, of children with
disabilities, if any, participating in
alternate assessments based on modified
academic achievement standards in
school years prior to 2015–2016. The requirements in current
paragraphs (c), (d), (e), and (f) applicable
to alternate academic achievement
standards for students with the most
significant cognitive disabilities remain
unchanged and fully applicable to a
State that has adopted such standards.
Technical Assistance and Monitoring
Comments: Several commenters
offered suggestions regarding the
technical assistance needed to help
States, teachers, and students transition
from alternate assessments based on
modified academic achievement
standards to new, more accessible
general assessments. Some commenters
recommended providing technical assistance to help States develop plans
to phase out alternate assessments based
on modified academic achievement
standards, including support for
technical issues such as measuring
student growth when data on two years
of performance on the same assessment
are not available. Other commenters
stated that technical assistance is
needed to ensure that students with
disabilities receive appropriate
instruction and supports to allow them
to successfully participate in the general
assessment. Commenters also
emphasized the need to provide training
and professional development to all
educators to ensure that students with
disabilities have meaningful access to
the general curriculum, and to
emphasize the importance of educating
IEP teams, including parents, on
determining the appropriate
assessments for students with
disabilities.
Other commenters stated that States
that implemented alternate assessments
based on modified academic
achievement standards learned
important lessons, as did States that
elected not to administer these alternate
assessments and focus on improving
student outcomes. The commenters
recommended that the Department
gather this information and use it to
promote best practices for including
students with disabilities in assessments
required for accountability measures
under the ESEA. Some commenters encouraged the
Department to monitor schools and
States to ensure that supports are
provided to students with disabilities
who previously participated in alternate
assessments based on modified
academic achievement standards. Discussion: The Department is
supporting States in their transition to
more accessible general assessment
systems. In February 2014, the
Department’s Office of Elementary and
Secondary Education (OESE) and Office
of Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services (OSERS) sponsored a meeting,
‘‘Successfully Transitioning Away from
the 2% Assessment,’’ for State teams to
jointly learn from and plan for
discontinuing the implementation of
alternate assessments based on modified
academic achievement standards.
Materials from this meeting are posted
at www.cehd.umn.edu/nceo/
AAMAStransition/default.html. The
Department currently funds several
technical assistance centers that provide
resources on students with disabilities
and the instructional supports they need
to access the general curriculum and
participate in the general assessment
(e.g., the Center for Standards and
VerDate Sep2014 14:16 Aug 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM21AUR1.SGM 21AUR1rmajette on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES
50782 Federal Register/ Vol. 80, No. 162 / Friday, August 21, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
Assessment Implementation; see http://
csai-online.org/). Moreover, several
technical assistance centers provide
resources that specifically address the
needs of students who have persistent
academic and behavioral needs that
require intensive intervention to
succeed in school and prepare them to
be college and career ready (e.g., the
National Center on Intensive
Intervention; see http://
www.intensiveintervention.org/). In
addition, the federally funded Parent
Training and Information Centers
(http://www.parentcenterhub.org/ ) focus
on ensuring that parents of children
with disabilities have the information
they need to participate effectively in
their child’s education, including
making decisions about the assessments
that are appropriate for their child.
OESE and OSERS will continue to work
collaboratively with the Department’s
federally funded technical assistance
and dissemination partners to ensure
that all students, including students
with disabilities, have the supports and
instruction they need to meet college-
and career-ready standards.
With regard to commenters who
recommended the Department compile
information learned by States that
implemented alternate assessments
based on modified academic
achievement standards, we note that the
work funded by the Department through
the GSEG and EAG programs has
contributed to the knowledge base about
students who are struggling in school.
Projects funded by these programs
focused on a number of topics,
including the characteristics of students
who participated in alternate
assessments based on modified
academic achievement standards,
barriers to their learning and
performance, and approaches to making
assessments more accessible. Several
State projects that focused on
instructional matters found that more
effort was needed to support teachers in
ensuring students with disabilities have
meaningful opportunities to learn grade-
level content. Other projects focused on
the appropriateness of test items and
identified various ways to improve the
accessibility of test items, such as
examining the difficulty of test items
and making items more accessible and
understandable without changing the
knowledge or skill that is being
measured (e.g., reducing unimportant or
extraneous details from test items). The
lessons learned from these projects are
in ‘‘Lessons Learned in Federally
Funded Projects that Can Improve the
Instruction and Assessment of Low
Performing Students with Disabilities,’’ available at: http://www.cehd.umn.edu/
nceo/onlinepubs/lessonslearned.pdf. With respect to commenters who
urged the Department to monitor to
ensure that supports are provided to
students with disabilities who
previously participated in alternate
assessments based on modified
academic achievement standards,
pursuant to 34 CFR 300.149(b) and
300.600, an SEA must monitor public
agencies’ implementation of the Act and
Part B regulations and ensure timely
correction of any identified
noncompliance. We expect, therefore,
that SEAs will monitor compliance with
the provisions in 34 CFR 300.160. Changes: None.
Comments: A few commenters
advised the Department to monitor data
on the percentage of students
participating in alternate assessments
based on alternate academic
achievement standards following the
phase out of alternate assessments based
on modified academic achievement
standards. One commenter stated that
the Department should publish the
assessment data from the 2012–2013
school year as part of the final
regulations, including the number and
percentage of students with disabilities
who took the general assessment and
the number and percentage of students
who took an alternate assessment based
on modified academic achievement
standards, and the proficiency rates for
each group. Discussion: Pursuant to the authority
of section 618(a)(3) of the IDEA, the
Secretary requires States to report the
number of students with disabilities
who took (1) the general assessment,
with and without accommodations; (2)
the alternate assessment based on
modified academic achievement
standards; (3) the alternate assessment
based on grade-level academic
achievement standards; and (4) the
alternate assessment based on alternate
academic achievement standards. These
data will help SEAs monitor whether
the number of students who take an
alternate assessment based on alternate
academic achievement standards
increases significantly with the
elimination of alternate assessments
based on modified academic
achievement standards. Under title I and IDEA, States also are
required to report the number of
students with disabilities who scored at
each academic achievement
(performance) level (e.g., basic,
proficient, above proficient). These
numbers can be aggregated to derive the
number of students with disabilities
who scored at or above proficient on
each assessment. However, States are not required to report the percentages of
students with disabilities who scored at
or above proficient on each assessment.
The most recent year for which data are
available is 2011–2012. For additional
information on these data and links to
the data files see: https://
inventory.data.gov/dataset/95ca1187-
69f5-4e70-9f8c-6bbbb3d6d94a/resource/
446d130d-5160-4c27-a428-
317c6333b38f.
In addition, the
Department routinely publishes on its
Web site States’ Consolidated State
Performance Reports (CSPR), which
include data on the number and
percentage of students with disabilities
who participate in the general
assessment and each type of alternate
assessment (i.e., an alternate assessment
based on alternate academic
achievement standards, an alternate
assessment based on modified academic
achievement standards, and an alternate
assessment based on grade-level
academic achievement standards). The
percentage of students with disabilities
who score at or above proficient is also
reported, but is not disaggregated by
type of assessment (general versus
alternate assessment). These data are
posted at: www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/
account/consolidated/index.html.
Therefore, we decline to include the
assessment data from the 2012–2013
school year in the final regulations, as
requested by one commenter.
Changes: None.
Alternate Assessments Based on
Alternate Academic Achievement
Standards
Comments: Several commenters wrote
about the need for alternate assessments
for students with the most significant
cognitive disabilities. One commenter
asked how the proposed regulations
would affect students with the most
significant cognitive disabilities who
take alternate assessments based on
alternate academic achievement
standards.
Discussion: The proposed regulations
do not affect the assessment of students
with the most significant cognitive
disabilities. A State continues to have
the authority under 34 CFR 200.1(d) and
200.6(a)(2)(ii)(B) to define alternate
academic achievement standards,
administer alternate assessments based
on those alternate academic
achievement standards, and, subject to
the one percent limitation on the
number of proficient scores that may be
counted for accountability purposes,
include the results in accountability
determinations.
Changes: None.
VerDate Sep2014 17:17 Aug 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM21AUR1.SGM 21AUR1rmajette on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES
50783 Federal Register/ Vol. 80, No. 162 / Friday, August 21, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866, the
Secretary must determine whether this
regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and,
therefore, subject to the requirements of
the Executive order and subject to
review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive
Order 12866 defines a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ as an action likely to
result in a rule that may—
(1) Have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more, or
adversely affect a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or
State, local, or tribal governments or
communities in a material way (also
referred to as an ‘‘economically
significant’’ rule);
(2) Create serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken
or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary
impacts of entitlement grants, user fees,
or loan programs or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues
arising out of legal mandates, the
President’s priorities, or the principles
stated in the Executive order.
This final regulatory action is a
significant regulatory action subject to
review by OMB under section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866.
We have also reviewed these
regulations under Executive Order
13563, which supplements and
explicitly reaffirms the principles,
structures, and definitions governing
regulatory review established in
Executive Order 12866. To the extent
permitted by law, Executive Order
13563 requires that an agency—
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only
on a reasoned determination that their
benefits justify their costs (recognizing
that some benefits and costs are difficult
to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the
least burden on society, consistent with
obtaining regulatory objectives and
taking into account—among other things
and to the extent practicable—the costs
of cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative
regulatory approaches, select those
approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic,
environmental, public health and safety,
and other advantages; distributive
impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify
performance objectives, rather than the
behavior or manner of compliance a
regulated entity must adopt; and (5) Identify and assess available
alternatives to direct regulation,
including economic incentives—such as
user fees or marketable permits—to
encourage the desired behavior, or
provide information that enables the
public to make choices. Executive Order 13563 also requires
an agency ‘‘to use the best available
techniques to quantify anticipated
present and future benefits and costs as
accurately as possible.’’ The Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of
OMB has emphasized that these
techniques may include ‘‘identifying
changing future compliance costs that
might result from technological
innovation or anticipated behavioral
changes.’’ We are issuing these final regulations
only on a reasoned determination that
their benefits justify their costs. In
choosing among alternative regulatory
approaches, we selected those
approaches that maximize net benefits.
Based on the analysis that follows, the
Department believes that these final
regulations are consistent with the
principles in Executive Order 13563. We also have determined that this
regulatory action does not unduly
interfere with State, local, or tribal
governments in the exercise of their
governmental functions. In accordance with both Executive
orders, the Department has assessed the
potential costs and benefits, both
quantitative and qualitative, of this
regulatory action. The potential costs
associated with this regulatory action
are those resulting from statutory
requirements and those we have
determined are necessary for
administering the Department’s
programs and activities. Potential Costs and Benefits: Under
Executive Order 12866, we have
assessed the potential costs and benefits
of this regulatory action and have
determined that these regulations would
not impose additional costs to States
and LEAs or to the Federal government.
For example, forty-two States, the
District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico
agreed, in order to receive ESEA
flexibility, to phase out their use of
alternate assessments based on modified
academic achievement standards, if they
had those assessments, by the 2014–
2015 school year. Only two States have
an alternate assessment based on
modified academic achievement
standards but have not received ESEA
flexibility. Moreover, these regulations
do not impose additional costs or
administrative burdens because States,
including the two discussed in the
preceding sentence, are already
developing and implementing general assessments aligned with college- and
career-ready standards that will be more
accessible to students with disabilities
than those in place at the time States
began developing alternate assessments
based on modified academic
achievement standards. These new
assessments must be valid, reliable, and
fair for all student subgroups, including
students with disabilities, with the
exception of students with the most
significant cognitive disabilities who are
eligible to participate in alternate
assessments based on alternate
academic achievement standards
consistent with 34 CFR 200.6(a)(2)(ii)(B)
(see 75 FR 18171, 18173 (Apr. 9, 2010)).
In this context, these regulations
largely reflect already planned and
funded changes in assessment practices
and do not impose additional costs on
States or LEAs or the Federal
government. On the contrary, to the
extent that these regulations reinforce
the transition to State assessment
systems with fewer components, the
Department believes these regulations
ultimately will reduce the costs of
complying with ESEA assessment
requirements, because States would no
longer develop and implement separate
alternate assessments based on modified
academic achievement standards based
on the new college- and career-ready
standards. Further, to the extent that States must
transition students with disabilities who
took an alternate assessment based on
modified academic achievement
standards to new general assessments,
funding to support such a transition is
available through existing ESEA
programs, such as the Grants for State
Assessments program, which made
available $378 million in State formula
grant assistance in fiscal year 2015. In sum, any additional costs imposed
on States by these final regulations are
estimated to be negligible, primarily
because they reflect changes already
under way in State assessment systems
under the ESEA. Moreover, we believe
any costs will be significantly
outweighed by the potential educational
benefits of increasing the access of
students with disabilities to the general
assessments as States develop new,
more accessible assessments, including
assessments aligned with college- and
career-ready standards.
Regulatory Alternatives Considered
An alternative to these final
regulations would be for the Secretary to
leave in place the existing regulations
permitting a State to define modified
academic achievement standards and to
develop and administer alternate
assessments based on those standards.
VerDate Sep2014 14:16 Aug 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM21AUR1.SGM 21AUR1rmajette on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES
50784 Federal Register/ Vol. 80, No. 162 / Friday, August 21, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
However, the Secretary believes that
these amended regulations are needed
to help refocus assessment efforts and
resources on the development of new
general assessments that are accessible
to a broader range of students with
disabilities. Such new general
assessments will eliminate the
usefulness of separate alternate
assessments based on modified
academic achievement standards for
eligible students with disabilities.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
These regulations do not contain any
information collection requirements.
Assessment of Educational Impact
Based on the response to the NPRM
and on our review, we have determined
that these final regulations do not
require transmission of information that
any other agency or authority of the
United States gathers or makes
available. Accessible Format: Individuals with
disabilities can obtain this document in
an accessible format (e.g., braille, large
print, audiotape, or compact disc) on
request to either of the program contact
persons listed under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .
Electronic Access to This Document:
The official version of this document is
the document published in the Federal
Register. Free Internet access to the
official edition of the Federal Register
and the Code of Federal Regulations is
available via the Federal Digital System
at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you
can view this document, as well as all
other documents of this Department
published in the Federal Register, in
text or Adobe Portable Document
Format (PDF). To use PDF you must
have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is
available free at the site. You may also access documents of the
Department published in the Federal
Register by using the article search
feature at: www.federalregister.gov.
Specifically, through the advanced
search feature at this site, you can limit
your search to documents published by
the Department.
List of Subjects
34 CFR Part 200
Education of disadvantaged,
Elementary and secondary education,
Grant programs—education, Indians—
education, Infants and children,
Juvenile delinquency, Migrant labor,
Private schools, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
34 CFR Part 300
Administrative practice and
procedure, Education of individuals with disabilities, Elementary and
secondary education, Equal educational
opportunity, Grant programs—
education, Privacy, Private schools,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: August 18, 2015.
Arne Duncan,
Secretary of Education.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Secretary amends parts
200 and 300 of title 34 of the Code of
Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 200—TITLE I—IMPROVING THE
ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT OF THE
DISADVANTAGED
■1. The authority citation for part 200
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6301 through 6578,
unless otherwise noted.
■2. Section 200.1 is amended by: ■A. In paragraph (a)(1), removing the
words ‘‘paragraphs (d) and (e) of this
section, which apply’’ and adding, in
their place, the words ‘‘paragraph (d) of
this section, which applies’’.
■B. In paragraph (a)(2), removing the
words ‘‘paragraphs (d) and (e)’’ and
adding, in their place, the words
‘‘paragraph (d)’’.
■C. Revising paragraphs (e) and (f). The revisions read as follows:
§ 200.1 State responsibilities for
developing challenging academic
standards.
* * * * * (e) Modified academic achievement
standards. A State may not define
modified academic achievement
standards for any students with
disabilities under section 602(3) of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (IDEA). (f) State guidelines. If a State defines
alternate academic achievement
standards under paragraph (d) of this
section, the State must do the following: (1) Establish and monitor
implementation of clear and appropriate
guidelines for IEP teams to apply in
determining students with the most
significant cognitive disabilities who
will be assessed based on alternate
academic achievement standards. (2) Inform IEP teams that students
eligible to be assessed based on alternate
academic achievement standards may
be from any of the disability categories
listed in the IDEA. (3) Provide to IEP teams a clear
explanation of the differences between
assessments based on grade-level
academic achievement standards and
those based on alternate academic
achievement standards, including any effects of State and local policies on the
student’s education resulting from
taking an alternate assessment based on
alternate academic achievement
standards (such as whether only
satisfactory performance on a regular
assessment would qualify a student for
a regular high school diploma).
(4) Ensure that parents of students
selected to be assessed based on
alternate academic achievement
standards under the State’s guidelines
in this paragraph are informed that their
child’s achievement will be measured
based on alternate academic
achievement standards.
* * * * *
■3. Section 200.6 is amended by: ■A. Removing paragraph (a)(3). ■B. Redesignating paragraph (a)(4) as
(a)(3).
■C. Revising newly redesignated
paragraph (a)(3)(iv). The revision reads as follows:
§ 200.6 Inclusion of all students.
* * * * * (a) * * *
(3) * * *
(iv) Alternate assessments based on
modified academic achievement
standards in school years prior to 2015–
2016; and
* * * * *
■4. Section 200.13 is amended by: ■A. Revising paragraph (c). ■B. Removing the Appendix. The revision reads as follows:
§ 200.13 Adequate yearly progress in
general.
* * * * * (c)(1) In calculating AYP for schools,
LEAs, and the State, a State must,
consistent with § 200.7(a), include the
scores of all students with disabilities. (2) A State may include the proficient
and advanced scores of students with
the most significant cognitive
disabilities based on the alternate
academic achievement standards
described in § 200.1(d), provided that
the number of those scores at the LEA
and at the State levels, separately, does
not exceed 1.0 percent of all students in
the grades assessed in reading/language
arts and in mathematics. (3) A State may not request from the
Secretary an exception permitting it to
exceed the cap on proficient and
advanced scores based on alternate
academic achievement standards under
paragraph (c)(2) of this section. (4)(i) A State may grant an exception
to an LEA permitting it to exceed the 1.0
percent cap on proficient and advanced
scores based on the alternate academic
achievement standards described in
paragraph (c)(2) of this section only if—
VerDate Sep2014 14:16 Aug 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM21AUR1.SGM 21AUR1rmajette on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES
50785 Federal Register/ Vol. 80, No. 162 / Friday, August 21, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
(A) The LEA demonstrates that the
incidence of students with the most
significant cognitive disabilities exceeds
1.0 percent of all students in the
combined grades assessed; (B) The LEA explains why the
incidence of such students exceeds 1.0
percent of all students in the combined
grades assessed, such as school,
community, or health programs in the
LEA that have drawn large numbers of
families of students with the most
significant cognitive disabilities, or that
the LEA has such a small overall
student population that it would take
only a few students with such
disabilities to exceed the 1.0 percent
cap; and (C) The LEA documents that it is
implementing the State’s guidelines
under § 200.1(f). (ii) The State must review regularly
whether an LEA’s exception to the 1.0
percent cap is still warranted. (5) In calculating AYP, if the
percentage of proficient and advanced
scores based on alternate academic
achievement standards under § 200.1(d)
exceeds the cap in paragraph (c)(2) of
this section at the State or LEA level, the
State must do the following: (i) Consistent with § 200.7(a), include
all scores based on alternate academic
achievement standards. (ii) Count as non-proficient the
proficient and advanced scores that
exceed the cap in paragraph (c)(2) of
this section. (iii) Determine which proficient and
advanced scores to count as non-
proficient in schools and LEAs
responsible for students who are
assessed based on alternate academic
achievement standards. (iv) Include non-proficient scores that
exceed the cap in paragraph (c)(2) of
this section in each applicable subgroup
at the school, LEA, and State level. (v) Ensure that parents of a child who
is assessed based on alternate academic
achievement standards are informed of
the actual academic achievement levels
of their child.
* * * * *
■5. Section 200.20 is amended by: ■A. Revising paragraph (c)(3). ■B. Removing paragraph (g). ■C. Redesignating paragraph (h) as
paragraph (g). The revision reads as follows:
§ 200.20 Making adequate yearly progress.
* * * * * (c) * * *
(3) To count a student who is assessed
based on alternate academic
achievement standards described in
§ 200.1(d) as a participant for purposes
of meeting the requirements of this paragraph, the State must have, and
ensure that its LEAs adhere to,
guidelines that meet the requirements of
§ 200.1(f).
* * * * *
PART 300—ASSISTANCE TO STATES
FOR THE EDUCATION OF CHILDREN
WITH DISABILITIES
■6. The authority citation for part 300
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e–3, 1406, 1411–
1419, 3474, unless otherwise noted.
■7. Section 300.160 is amended by: ■A. Removing paragraph (c)(2)(ii). ■B. Redesignating paragraph (c)(2)(iii)
as (c)(2)(ii).
■C. In newly redesignated paragraph
(c)(2)(ii), removing the final punctuation
‘‘.’’ and adding, in its place, ‘‘; and’’.
■D. Adding a new paragraph (c)(2)(iii). ■E. Adding a new paragraph (c)(3). ■F. Revising paragraphs (d), (e), (f)(3),
and (f)(5) introductory text. The revisions and additions read as
follows:
§ 300.160 Participation in assessments.
* * * * * (c) * * *
(2) * * *
(iii) Except as provided in paragraph
(c)(2)(ii) of this section, a State’s
alternate assessments, if any, must
measure the achievement of children
with disabilities against the State’s
grade-level academic achievement
standards, consistent with 34 CFR
200.6(a)(2)(ii)(A). (3) Consistent with 34 CFR 200.1(e), a
State may not adopt modified academic
achievement standards for any students
with disabilities under section 602(3) of
the Act. (d) Explanation to IEP teams. A State
(or in the case of a district-wide
assessment, an LEA) must provide IEP
teams with a clear explanation of the
differences between assessments based
on grade-level academic achievement
standards and those based on alternate
academic achievement standards,
including any effects of State or local
policies on the student’s education
resulting from taking an alternate
assessment based on alternate academic
achievement standards (such as whether
only satisfactory performance on a
regular assessment would qualify a
student for a regular high school
diploma). (e) Inform parents. A State (or in the
case of a district-wide assessment, an
LEA) must ensure that parents of
students selected to be assessed based
on alternate academic achievement
standards are informed that their child’s achievement will be measured based on
alternate academic achievement
standards.
(f) * * *
(3) The number of children with
disabilities, if any, participating in
alternate assessments based on modified
academic achievement standards in
school years prior to 2015–2016.
* * * * * (5) Compared with the achievement of
all children, including children with
disabilities, the performance results of
children with disabilities on regular
assessments, alternate assessments
based on grade-level academic
achievement standards, alternate
assessments based on modified
academic achievement standards (prior
to 2015–2016), and alternate
assessments based on alternate
academic achievement standards if—
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015–20736 Filed 8–20–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R03–OAR–2015–0537; FRL–9932–55–
Region 3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; District
of Columbia; Interstate Pollution
Transport Requirements for the 2006
24-Hour Fine Particulate Matter
Standard
AGENCY : Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION : Direct final rule.
SUMMARY : The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is taking direct final
action to approve a revision to the
District of Columbia State
Implementation Plan (SIP). The revision
addresses the infrastructure
requirements for interstate transport
pollution with respect to the 2006 24-
hour fine particulate matter (PM
2.5)
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS). EPA is approving this
revision in accordance with the
requirements of the Clean Air Act
(CAA).
DATES : This rule is effective on October
20, 2015 without further notice, unless
EPA receives adverse written comment
by September 21, 2015. If EPA receives
such comments, it will publish a timely
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the
Federal Register and inform the public
that the rule will not take effect.
VerDate Sep2014 14:16 Aug 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:FRFM21AUR1.SGM 21AUR1rmajette on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Changes effective Sept. 21, 2015
- Govern Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended, to remove authority for States to:
- Define modified academic achievement standards
- Develop alternate assessments based on those modified academic achievement standards or eligible students with disabilities
- Amend the IDEA Part B regulations at 34 CFR §300.160 – Participation in Assessments in order to make conforming changes to ensure coordinated administration of programs under Title I of the ESEA and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
idea_file-template-default single single-idea_file postid-64059 wp-custom-logo wp-embed-responsive with-font-selector no-anchor-scroll footer-on-bottom animate-body-popup social-brand-colors hide-focus-outline link-style-standard has-sidebar content-title-style-normal content-width-normal content-style-boxed content-vertical-padding-show non-transparent-header mobile-non-transparent-header kadence-elementor-colors elementor-default elementor-kit-82278
Related Resources
Last modified on March 24, 2023