Special Topic Area:
Academic Standards and Students with Disabilities

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Why should students with disabilities be held to academic content standards when the IEP process requires an individualized education?
There is a pervasive and erroneous belief that academic content standards do not apply to students with disabilities—that these students should be working toward their own personal goals with an individualized curriculum that is not connected to general education’s high standards. Special education has been synonymous with a “special curriculum” that in the past was different from the general curriculum, but never clearly defined. With the shift to standards-based education, and the expectation that all students will work toward the same valued skills and knowledge, an assumption is made that if students have access to the general curriculum, they will be working toward standards. To the extent that special educators do not know about standards or how they apply to students with disabilities, the progress of students with disabilities will be slowed.

In many states, focused training and support on this topic are occurring. With these supports, it becomes evident how state content standards that define the general curriculum are a fruitful context for students to achieve their individual learning objectives set by the IEP team.

2. How can students with the most significant cognitive disabilities have access to and show what they know related to state content standards?
State content standards provide opportunities to enhance the education of students with all types of disabilities. For students with the most significant cognitive disabilities, access to the challenging standards-based curriculum is proving to be a powerful learning opportunity.  Many states are providing materials and support to teachers to understand how to use assistive technology, to adapt materials from grade-level classroom activities, and to provide supports so that every child can have access to the grade level content. The December, 2003 NCLB Regulations permit different achievement standards for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities. That is, the expectations for what these students should achieve in the grade level content can be defined differently from what is required in the grade level achievement definitions, but the essence of the content at grade level should be maintained.

The National Alternate Assessment Center (NAAC) has an extensive training module posted on its Web site with detailed information on best practices on linking to grade-level content for instruction and assessment for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities; see http://www.naacpartners.org/Products/products.htm. These materials can help local and State level staff understand how to ensure all students can be taught successfully in the grade-level content, and then show what they know on state assessments based on alternate achievement standards.

3. How do IEP teams set priorities for student instructional time when students with disabilities have so many instructional needs that are in addition to academic content standards?
It is true that IEP teams will have to consider priorities to determine how students spend their time. Most states have numerous extremely challenging academic content standards, and many students with disabilities have specific and unique needs that also require time to address. Decisions made at one point may limit options at a future point. For example, a student who is pulled from science instruction in fifth grade to work on remedial reading skills may be missing foundational skills and knowledge needed to successfully access science content in sixth grade. Thus, although the student’s reading skills may have improved, there will be gaps in preparation for more advanced science concepts. IEP team members must have a comprehensive understanding of the scope and sequence of content across and within grade levels as the team considers its choices. Consideration should be given to how the multiple priorities can be ‘bundled.” For example, a student could work on reading skills in the context of the science curriculum, with support from both general and special education teachers.

4. Where should academic content standards be referred to on the IEP form?
State and district recommended and required forms vary in how they address access to the general curriculum and academic content standards. Few states refer specifically to standards on their IEP forms. Whenever access to the general curriculum is mentioned on IEP forms, it would be helpful to add the reason, “so that the student can meet the educational standards that apply to all children,” so that the importance of access is clear.

5. How do academic content standards relate to the state assessment? How can we know what content is covered by the state tests?
State assessments given for the purpose of accountability for student achievement against state achievement standards must be aligned to the state academic content standards, and studies must describe that alignment. Many testing experts have focused on the need for teacher-friendly descriptions of the precise knowledge and skills assessed by these accountability assessments. Practitioners are encouraged to work with the state or district as they move toward more complete descriptions of the precise nature of the academic content assessed by the state assessment.

Related NCEO Publications

• Progress Monitoring in an Inclusive Standards-based Assessment and Accountability System (Synthesis Report 53) / PDF format (2004)
• Civil Rights, No Child Left Behind, Assessments, Accountability, and Students with Disabilities (Presentation to US Commission on Civil Rights / 2003)
• Students with Disabilities in Standards-Based Assessment and Accountability Systems: Emerging Issues, Strategies, and Recommendations (Synthesis Report 37 / 2001)
• Addressing Standards and Assessments on the IEP (Synthesis Report 38 / 2001)
• Principles and Characteristics of Inclusive Assessment and Accountability Systems (Synthesis Report 40 / 2001)

Top of page

NCEO is supported primarily through a Cooperative Agreement (#H326G050007) with the Research to Practice Division, Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education. Additional support for targeted projects, including those on LEP students, is provided by other federal and state agencies. Opinions expressed in this Web site do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Department of Education or Offices within it.

© 2007 by the Regents of the University of Minnesota.
The University of Minnesota is an equal opportunity educator and employer.

Online Privacy Statement
This page was last updated on April 02, 2008