Federal Advocacy

Elementary & Secondary Education Act (ESEA)/Ed Reform

Administrative Advocacy

• CLE Provides Comments on ED's AA-MAS (March 2014, PDF) Comments in response to ED’s NPRM (08/23/13) to amend the regulations under Title I of the ESEA to eliminate authorization for states to develop alternate assessments based on state defined modified achievement standards (AA-MAS) to be administered to certain students with disabilities.
• CLE comments to USED and VA ED’s re: VA ED’s proposed AMOs (September 2012, PDF)
• Testimony (Boundy) RE: proposed Title I/NCLB Regulations, USED Public Hearing, Boston (5/14/08), PDF) Testimony on Proposed Regulations to No Child Left Behind RE: Failure to Require Use of Multiple Measures in Assessment and the Graduation Rate recommending the use of a cumulative graduation rate formula to include students who graduate in more than four years after being retained or dropping out.
• CLE Comments to USED in response to NPRM RE: Title I addressing need need for Multiple Measures to ensure test validity and fairness (April 23rd, 2008, PDF) In its comments to USED for proposed Title I regulations, CLE contends use of multiple measures for assessment is required by Title I and is necessary to ensure that inferences drawn from valid data regarding the assessed levels of proficiency of groups and individual students are valid and reliable, and, among other issues, CLE urges that subgroup size be determined in a way which ensures the inclusion of all student subgroups in accountability determinations.

• CLE Comments to USED in response to NPRM RE: Family Educational Rights Privacy Act (FERPA) (March 24th, 2008, PDF) CLE's comments on the importance of confidentiality requirements of IDEA within FERPA, concerns about eroding rights and protections of students, when prior consent is not required for disclosure of personally identifiable information, including to third party contractors and school volunteers.
• CLE Testimony (Boundy) RE: Family Involvement under Title I/NCLB, Hearings convened by Public Education Network, Boston (January 11th, 2006, PDF) Underscores areas of concern that students, including those with disabilities and English language learners, are not being taught to high level standards; are not being assessed using multiple measures; and parent communities are not adequately involved in school improvement efforts as required by NCLB.
• CLE's responses to USED’s NPRM re/Modified assessments and students with disabilities, Title I/NCLB (December 15th, 2005, PDF) CLE sets forth the bases for challenging USED’s proposed regulations authorizing assessment of students with disabilities based on modified achievement standards as drawing invalid inferences and discriminatory.
• Letter (Boundy) to Hon. Margaret Spellings, Secy. U.S. Dept. of ED, re/modified assessments of students with disabilities (March 22nd, 2005, PDF) Letter from CLE joined by the National Council on Independent Living, Advocacy Institute, National Down Syndrome Congress, National Down Syndrome Society, and TASH in opposition to USED's allowance of up to 2% of all students assessed based on modified achievement standards being counted as proficient scores from alternative assessments based on alternatives achievement standards.
• CLE comments in response to USED's NPRM RE: Assessments under Title I/NCLB (May 19th, 2003, PDF) CLE's responses to Questions regarding Proposed Regulations for Title I, including Whether existing research supports setting the cap at 1% for students with the most significant cognitive abilities whose achievement can be measured against alternative standards? What implementation issues would arise from the definition of "studnets with the most significant cognitive abilities" at the school, local and state levels? Any issues with compliance with requirements seeking to reduce the regulatory burden of the program? How the Department of Education should continue to monitor and review the regulations once finalized?
• CLE comments in response to USED NPRM RE: Title I/NCLB  (August 6th, 2002, PDF) Comprehensive comments on proposed regulations under Title I of ESEA, as amended by No Child Left Behind Act (XX pp).
• CLE comments in response to USED in response to NPRM RE: Standards and Assessments of Students with Disabilities, Title I/NCLB  (May 5th, 2002, PDF) Comments submitted by CLE joined by the Citizens' Commission on Civil Rights and the National Council of La Raza on proposed Title I regulations on standards and assessments of students with disabilities, including concerns about use of norm-referenced testing and test validity with respect to state and local assessments, and lack of inclusion of parents in drafting the proposals, and other issues.
• Testimony by CLE (Stoneman) before the U.S. House of Representatives, Appropriations Committee, Testimony on Parent Centers (April 5th, 2000 PDF) Urging Reauthorization and Increased Funding for Parental Information and Local Family Resource Centers under Title I of the ESEA.

Legislative Advocacy

• Testimony (Boundy) before Hon. Robert (Bobby) Scott, Chair, Summit on Closing the Achievement Gap, U.S. House of Rep.  (December 14th, 2009 PDF) In response to question: Can the legal theory behind requiring special education students to be educated to high standards be used by analogy to apply to a clear and acknowledged pattern of under-educating low-income and minority children so that all children are provided a quality education?
• CLE Comments (partial) in response to US House of Rep., Committee on Education and Labor, Staff Discussion Draft Bill, RE: Use of Modified Achievement Standards for Students with Disabilities (September 5th, 2009, PDF) In partial comments on the US House of Rep., Committee on Education and Labor Staff Discussion Draft Bill regarding Use of Modified Achievement Standards for Students with Disabilities, CLE contends establishing modified academic achievement standards for an additional 2-3% of students is not supported by reliable data and that such provisions could set conditions for abuses of NCLB’s core presumptions.
• CLE Extensive Comments (Part I, Part II) in response to US House of Rep., Committee on Education and Labor Staff Discussion Draft Bill on Reauthorization of Title I of the ESEA, Sept. 5, 2007 (September 5th, 2007 PDF) CLE’s comments to the US House of Rep., Committee on Education and Labor regarding the Staff Discussion Draft Bill on Reauthorization of Title I of the ESEA, Sept. 5, 2007. Comments are divided into two parts: (1) comments organized around the Committee’s “Summary of Discussion Draft” which highlight some of CLE’s major comments on the topics identified in the summary; and (2) comments organized around some of CLE’s major comments about other provisions (mostly in current law and not necessarily addressed by changes made by the discussion draft).
• "Principles and Legislative Recommendations regarding Reauthorization of Title I of the ESEA/NCLB," submission of CLE to U.S. Senate, Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions  (Spring 2007, PDF) Detailed analysis proposing a reconceptualization of the accountability framework under current law by combining a tighter definition of AYP with less punitive approaches to closing the achievement gaps, by broadening the curriculum and supporting authentic instruction provided by qualified teachers, by reducing focus on testing through use of multiple measures and formative assessment and proposing more equitable distribution of funds and teacher quality.
• Testimony by CLE (Stoneman) before the U.S. House of Representatives, Appropriations Committee, Testimony on Parent Centers (April 5th, 2000, PDF) Urging Reauthorization and Increased Funding for Parental Information and Local Family Resource Centers under Title I of the ESEA.

Special Education (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act)

Administrative Advocacy

• CLE Comments on proposed rulemaking (9-18-13) to amend regulations re: local maintenance of effort under IDEA (December 9th, 2013, PDF)
• CLE Comments on PARCC Special Access Accomodations Continuing an ongoing dialogue on ensuring all students have an equality opportunity to meaningfully access curriculums, CLE provided comments on a draft version of Special Access Accommodations criteria for the PARCC assessment. The current criteria preclude students from being validly assessed in a manner consistent with the PARCC's claims, contrary to both the Standards for Educational and Psychology Testing and their rights under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. (April 15th, 2013, PDF)
• Letter to USED Office of Special Education Programs requesting that it rescind its “informal guidance” regarding local MOE issued on 06/16/11 (August 17th, 2011, PDF)
• Response from the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services and OSEP (April 4th, 2012, PDF) In its response to Kathleen Boundy and CLE, OCEP and OSERS rescind the position expressed by OSEP’s “informal guidance”, acknowledging CLE’s interpretation; “the level of effort that an LEA must meet in the year after it fails to maintain effort is the level of effort that it should have met in the prior year, and not the LEA’s actual expenditures.”
• CLE & Advocacy Institute public comment to the National Council on Disability  (December 8th, 2011, PDF)
• CLE Comments Re: Re-alignment of IDEA and ESEA (October 21st, 2010 PDF)        
• CLE Urges Department of Education to Correct Misinterpretation Allowing Districts to Reduce Maintenance of Effort under IDEA(August 11th, 2009, PDF)
• w. attached memorandum: “Legal Bases for Challenging Local Maintenance of Effort Reduction under IDEA” (August 11th, 2009, PDF) How SEAs must make their determinations of whether LEAs are meeting their requirements under §616(a) of IDEA and how this interpretation is applied to §613(a)(2)(C). 
• CLE Comments to USED in response to Notice of Proposed Rulemaking under IDEA (May 13th, 2008, PDF) Comments responding to USED’s proposed regulations authorizing the right of parents to revoke unilaterally consent to their child's receipt of special education services and continuing obligations of the LEA and proposed modifications allowing lay advocates to represent parents at due process hearings.
• CLE Solicitation for Feedback to PTIs and CPRCs re: NPRM Revocation of Consent under IDEA (May 13th, 2008, PDF) A series of questions and discussion points for parents and advocates to consider.
• Brief Overview of IDEA Regulations re/Revocation of Consent for Special Education, et al. effective (December 2nd, 2008, PDF) A brief description of changes resulting from USED’s final regulations on selective issues pertaining to revocation of consent for special education, non-attorney parent representation at due process hearings, state monitoring and enforcement.
• CLE Comments to USED, in response to NPRM regarding IDEA Amendments of 2004, issued June 21, 2005 (September 5th, 2005, PDF) An extensive set of comments to the Office of Special Education & Rehabilitative Services responsive to the office’s proposed regulations under the IDEA, as amended.
• CLE Comments to USED in response to the Request for Comments and Recommendations on Regulatory Issues Concerning IDEA 2004, issued December 29, 2004 (February 28th, 2005, PDF) 47 pages of comments identifying areas of concern where CLE believes Department guidance, through new regulations and/or modifications/deletions of existing regulations, would be useful for effectively implementing the recently amended Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA).
• CLE comments to USED Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services on Report of the President's Commission on Excellence Regarding Education (August 19th, 2002, PDF) CLE responds to (1) selected Commission recommendations for statutory change that are deemed particularly alarming; (2) selected recommendations with which CLE particularly agrees; and (3) broader Commission statements that evince a misunderstanding of current law.

Legislative Advocacy

• CLE Letter (Boundy) to Hon. Senators Judd Gregg and Edward M. Kennedy, Conferees to H.R. 1350, Reauthorization of IDEA  (November 4th, 2004, PDF) CLE identifies concerns with HR 1350 that undermine legal protections under IDEA and are inconsistent with basic principles for all students under Title I/NCLB ( e.g., eliminating the right to "stay-put" during appeals; encouraging disciplinary exclusions, dropouts and removals of students who will NOT be counted for purposes of "AYP"; quashing the affirmative duty to provide FAPE to eligible children so that ALL children might learn; codifying unequal and low expectations for students with disabilities); and includes recommendations to preserve the protections of IDEA consistent with the principles of NCLB.
• Comments of CLE, with Nat’l Council of Centers for Independent Living and Coalition of Parent Centers, to Conferees on Reauthorization of IDEA 2004,  (November 1st, 2004, PDF) Comments and recommendations to the Conferees on the Reauthorization of IDEA 2004 from CLE, the National Council of Centers for Independent Living, and the National Coalition of Parent Centers.

Career/Technical Ed. (Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act)

Administrative Advocacy

Legislative Advocacy

Civil Rights Law (Title VI, Title IX, Section 504, Americans with Disabilities Act)

Administrative Advocacy

• CLE Comments to NPRM RE: Civil Rights Data Collection  (November 10th, 2009, PDF) Comments on the Proposed Changes to Civil Rights Data Collection (November 10, 2009) address: (1) Expansion of Data Indicators/Need to Focus on Quality Education Elements; (2) Data Collection Procedures; (3) Data Posting; and (4) Changes to Specific Data Indicators.
• CLE comments to USED, Office for Civil Rights draft publication: "The Use of Tests When Making High-Stakes Decisions"  (June 6th, 2009, PDF) CLE’s extensive critique, comments, and specific changes to the draft, proposing a more rigorous analysis of civil rights principles calling for more attention to real-world application of the ways that high-stakes tests are being used in the context of education reform, and heightened and more technical attention to questions pertaining to test validity.

FERPA (Family Educational Rights & Privacy Act -- students record law)

Administrative Advocacy

• CLE comments to NPRM  (April 8th, 2011, PDF) re: the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act underscoring areas of concern: proposed regulations are inconsistent with FERPA; changes to non-consensual disclosure of personally identifiable information compromise privacy rights of students and/or parents. 
• CLE Comments to USED in response to NPRM RE: Family Educational Rights Privacy Act (FERPA) (March 24th, 2008, PDF) Comments supporting the importance of confidentiality requirements of IDEA within FERPA, concerns about eroding rights and protections of students, when prior consent is not required for disclosure of personally identifiable information, including to third party contractors and school volunteers.

Other

Administrative Advocacy

Legislative Advocacy