Everything you need to know about ranked-choice voting in one spot. Click to learn more!

Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged; Assistance to States for the Education of Children With Disabilities rule (2015)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
New Administrative State Banner.png
What is a significant rule?

Significant regulatory action is a term used to describe an agency rule that has had or might have a large impact on the economy, environment, public health, or state or local governments. These actions may also conflict with other rules or presidential priorities. As part of its role in the regulatory review process, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) determines which rules meet this definition.


Administrative State
Administrative State Icon Gold.png
Five Pillars of the Administrative State
•Agency control
• Executive control
• Judicial control
•Legislative control
• Public Control
Click here for more coverage of the administrative state on Ballotpedia.
Click here to access Ballotpedia's administrative state legislation tracker.


The Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged; Assistance to States for the Education of Children With Disabilities rule is a significant rule issued by the U.S. Department of Education effective September 21, 2015, that amended Title I regulations regarding modified academic achievement standards in an effort to further the stated goals of the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). The rule amended program regulations under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.[1]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • Name: Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged; Assistance to States for the Education of Children With Disabilities
  • Code of Federal Regulations: 34 CFR Parts 200 and 300
  • Agency: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Department of Education
  • Type of significant rule: Economically significant rule

    • Timeline

    The following timeline details key rulemaking activity:

    Background

    Education Policy
    Education Icon 200x200.png
    Education policy topics
    • Overview of trends in K-12 curricula development
    • Impact of school choice on rural school districts
    • Local school board authority across the 50 states
    • State policies on cellphone use in K-12 public schools
    • School choice in the United States
    • School choice glossary

    Other policy areas
    Click here for coverage of other policy areas on Ballotpedia

    Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), which was amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLBA), directs states on assessments, reporting requirements, student assistance, and accountability measures. The NCLBA aimed to support standards-based education reform drawn from the philosophy that setting high standards and establishing measurable goals for schools would improve individual outcomes for public school students. The legislation mandated that states develop standardized tests and administer assessments to all students at certain grade levels in order to receive federal funding.[3]

    The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was enacted by President Gerald Ford (R) in 1975 in an effort to ensure access to public education and appropriate special education services for children with disabilities. The law was reauthorized in 2004 by President George W. Bush (R) to align IDEA with the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act. The reauthorization led to updated requirements for governing the Assistance to States for the Education of Children with Disabilities Program and the Preschool Grants for Children with Disabilities Program.[4]

    In an effort to coordinate the governing of programs under the ESEA and IDEA, the Department of Education proposed amendments on August 23, 2013, to regulations concerning modified academic achievement standards for students with disabilities.[2]

    The Title I regulations under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 were previously amended by the Bush administration in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006, and 2008 to implement certain provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 regarding standards and assessment requirements and school accountability. The regulations were also amended following this rule by the Obama administration in 2017 regarding academic assessment requirements. The version of the regulations in 34 CFR Part 200 as of April 2023 can be read here.[5][6][7][8][9][10][11]

    Summary of the rule

    The following is a summary of the rule from the rule's entry in the Federal Register:

    “ 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 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.[1][12] ”

    Summary of provisions

    The following is a summary of the provisions from the rule's entry in the Federal Register:[2]

    “ Under these proposed amendments, current § 200.1(e) would be amended to limit a State's authority to define modified academic achievement standards. Specifically, we propose to amend current § 200.1(e)(1) to no longer authorize a State to define modified academic achievement standards, unless the State meets certain criteria.

    Under proposed § 200.1(e)(2), a State could define modified academic achievement standards only if the State administered alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards in the 2012-13 school year.

    Proposed § 200.1(e)(4) would then provide that, for any State meeting the criterion in proposed § 200.1(e)(2), the authority to define modified academic achievement standards terminates at the end of the 2013-14 school year. The remaining requirements in current § 200.1 applicable to modified academic achievement standards, as well as those requirements related to determining student eligibility to be assessed based on alternate academic achievement standards, would remain unchanged and fully applicable to a State that has adopted such standards.

    Finally, we would redesignate current paragraph (e)(2) of § 200.1 as paragraph (e)(3) to accommodate the proposed additions of new paragraphs (e)(2) and (e)(4), as described in the preceding paragraphs.[12]

    		”

    The following provisions were also included in the rule's entry:[2]

    “ We propose to amend § 200.6(a)(3)(i) to no longer authorize a State to develop and administer alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards for ESEA assessment and accountability purposes, unless the State administered alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards in the 2012-13 school year.

    Under proposed § 200.6(a)(3)(ii), a State would be able to administer alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards and use the results of these assessments in accountability determinations only if the State administered alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards in the 2012-13 school year. Additionally, a State meeting this criterion would be further limited on how long it could use these assessments. Under proposed § 200.6(a)(3)(iv), such a State would only be able to administer and use the results of these assessments for accountability determinations through the 2013-14 school year. All other requirements in current § 200.6 applicable to alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards would remain unchanged and fully applicable to States administering these alternate assessments. Please note that, to the extent a State is permitted to administer alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards, inclusion of the results in accountability determinations would remain subject to limitations on the number of proficient scores that may be counted for AYP purposes in current § 200.13(c).

    Finally, for the sake of readability, we would redesignate current paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of § 200.6 as paragraph (a)(3)(iii) to accommodate the proposed additions of new paragraphs (a)(3)(ii) and (a)(3)(iv), as described in the preceding paragraphs.[12]

    		”

    Significant impact

    See also: Significant regulatory action

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) deemed this rule economically significant pursuant to Executive Order 12866. An agency rule can be deemed a significant rule if it has had or might have a large impact on the economy, environment, public health, or state or local governments. The term was defined by E.O. 12866, which was issued in 1993 by President Bill Clinton.[1]

    Text of the rule

    The full text of the rule is available below:[1]

    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 Federal Register, "Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged; Assistance to States for the Education of Children With Disabilities," August 21, 2015
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 Federal Register, "Title I-Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged," August 23, 2013
    3. ↑ Josie Canales, James Frey, Cathy Walker, Sherry Freeland Walker, Suzanne Weiss and Anna West, Education Commission of the States, "No State Left Behind: The Challenges and Opportunities of ESEA 2001," accessed February 7, 2023
    4. ↑ U.S. Department of Education, "Individuals with Disabilities Education Act," accessed February 14, 2023
    5. ↑ Federal Register, "Title I-Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged," July 5, 2002
    6. ↑ Federal Register, "Title I-Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged," July 5, 2002
    7. ↑ Federal Register, "Title I-Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged," December 2, 2002
    8. ↑ Federal Register, "Title I-Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged," December 9, 2003
    9. ↑ Federal Register, "Title I-Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged," September 13, 2006
    10. ↑ Federal Register, "Title I-Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged," October 29, 2008
    11. ↑ Federal Register, "Title I-Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged-Academic Assessments," December 8, 2016
    12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 12.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    v • e
    The Administrative State
    MainThe Administrative State Project Badge.png
    Pillars
    Reporting
    Laws
    Administrative Procedure Act • Antiquities Act • Civil Service Reform Act • Clayton Antitrust Act • Communications Act of 1934 • Congressional Review Act • Electronic Freedom of Information Act • Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 • Federal Housekeeping Statute • Federal Reserve Act • Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 • Freedom of Information Act • Government in the Sunshine Act • Independent Offices Appropriations Act of 1952 • Information Quality Act • Interstate Commerce Act • National Labor Relations Act • Paperwork Reduction Act • Pendleton Act • Privacy Act of 1974 • Regulatory Flexibility Act • REINS Act • REINS Act (Wisconsin) • Securities Act of 1933 • Securities Exchange Act of 1934 • Sherman Antitrust Act • Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act • Truth in Regulating Act • Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    Cases
    Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner • A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States • Association of Data Processing Service Organizations v. Camp • Auer v. Robbins • Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council • Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe • Federal Trade Commission (FTC) v. Standard Oil Company of California • Field v. Clark • Food and Drug Administration v. Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation • Humphrey's Executor v. United States • Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) v. Chadha • J.W. Hampton Jr. & Company v. United States • Lucia v. SEC • Marshall v. Barlow's • Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency • Mistretta v. United States • National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) v. Sebelius • National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning Company • National Labor Relations Board v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. • Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan • Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation • Skidmore v. Swift & Co. • United States v. Lopez • United States v. Western Pacific Railroad Co. • Universal Camera Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board • Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council • Wayman v. Southard • Weyerhaeuser Company v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service • Whitman v. American Trucking Associations • Wickard v. Filburn • Wiener v. United States
    Terms
    Adjudication (administrative state) • Administrative judge • Administrative law • Administrative law judge • Administrative state • Arbitrary-or-capricious test • Auer deference • Barrier to entry • Bootleggers and Baptists • Chevron deference (doctrine) • Civil servant • Civil service • Code of Federal Regulations • Codify (administrative state) • Comment period • Compliance costs • Congressional Record • Coordination (administrative state) • Deference (administrative state) • Direct and indirect costs (administrative state) • Enabling statute • Ex parte communication (administrative state) • Executive agency • Federal law • Federal Register • Federalism • Final rule • Formal rulemaking • Formalism (law) • Functionalism (law) • Guidance (administrative state) • Hybrid rulemaking • Incorporation by reference • Independent federal agency • Informal rulemaking • Joint resolution of disapproval (administrative state) • Major rule • Negotiated rulemaking • Nondelegation doctrine • OIRA prompt letter • Organic statute • Pragmatism (law) • Precautionary principle • Promulgate • Proposed rule • Publication rulemaking • Regulatory budget • Regulatory capture • Regulatory dark matter • Regulatory impact analysis • Regulatory policy officer • Regulatory reform officer • Regulatory review • Rent seeking • Retrospective regulatory review • Risk assessment (administrative state) • Rulemaking • Separation of powers • Significant regulatory action • Skidmore deference • Statutory authority • Substantive law and procedural law • Sue and settle • Sunset provision • Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions • United States Code • United States Statutes at Large
    Bibliography
    Agencies
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Improving_the_Academic_Achievement_of_the_Disadvantaged;_Assistance_to_States_for_the_Education_of_Children_With_Disabilities_rule_(2015)&oldid=9169548"