# data[].attributes.body
The article linked goes into depth about the children who attended this school, being awfully mistreated and abandoned. Institutions and "schools" like this paved the path for future acts that would fund special education.

# data[].attributes.body
This article discusses how the Willowbrook lawsuit paved the way for the following acts to be passed: Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act (1975), The Education For All Handicapped Children Act (1975), and The Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (1980). It is easily seen that the closing of Willowbrook State School played a significant role in the uprising of the fight for the right of education for all disabled peoples.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
New York State Association for Retarded Children v. Carey

A watershed case in the evolution of the legal rights of people with disabilities to live in dignity arose out of public awareness of the horrific conditions under which children and adults with disabilities were living at the Willowbrook State Developmental Center in New York. This case set important precedents for the humane and ethical treatment of people with developmental disabilities living in institutions. This, in turn, served as the impetus for accelerating the pace of community placements for people with developmental disabilities, expanding community services, increasing the quality and availability of day programs, and establishing the right of children with disabilities to a public education.

Inhumane Conditions at Willowbrook

Willowbrook was a complex of buildings on Staten Island housing children and adults with developmental disabilities. At its highest population, in 1969, 6,200 residents were living in buildings meant to house 4,000. Understaffed, overcrowded and underfunded, Willowbrook was little more than a "human warehouse," according to William Bronston, a physician at Willowbrook. The institution's overcrowding fostered abuse, dehumanization, and a public health crisis. Hepatitis was so rampant that several researchers took advantage of the situation to use residents as participants in a controversial medical study in which residents were intentionally exposed to the deadly virus, without their consent, in order to test the effectiveness of various vaccines.

In 1965, Senator Robert Kennedy paid an unannounced visit to Willowbrook. He found thousands of residents "living in filth and dirt, their clothing in rags, in rooms less comfortable and cheerful than the cages in which we put animals in a zoo." Kennedy went on to describe the institution as a "snake pit." The visit put conditions at Willowbrook into the national spotlight and the state of New York responded by developing a five-year improvement plan. However, after making minor adjustments, conditions at the institution quickly reverted to the inhumane conditions that had thrust it into public consciousness.

In 1972, ABC News investigative reporter Geraldo Rivera again drew national attention to Willowbrook with a television exposé that was watched by millions. Willowbrook: The Last Disgrace, exposed the institution's serious overcrowding, dehumanizing practices, dangerous conditions and regular abuse of residents. The public was again outraged. However, this time, the outrage served to spur parent advocacy groups to take action in federal court.

The Willowbrook Lawsuit

Following the Rivera exposé, parents of Willowbrook residents filed a class action suit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on March 17, 1972. The lawsuit alleged that conditions at Willowbrook violated the constitutional rights of the residents. Parents outlined multiple violations, including:

Confining residents for indefinite periods;

Failing to release residents eligible for release;

Failing to conduct periodic evaluations of residents to assess progress and refine goals and programming;

Failing to provide habilitation for residents;

Not providing adequate educational programs, or services such as speech, occupational, or physical therapy;

Overcrowding;

Lack of privacy;

Failure to provide protection from theft of personal property, assault, or injury;

Inadequate clothing, meals, and facilities, including toilet facilities;

Confining residents to beds or chairs, or to solitude;

Lack of compensation for work performed;

Inadequate medical facilities; and

Understaffing and incompetence in professional staff.

The lawsuit sought immediate injunctive relief to improve conditions at Willowbrook, including hiring more staff, providing adequate medical care, prohibiting the use of seclusion and improper physical and chemical restraints, and providing adequate and appropriate clothing and physical conditions for residents. The plaintiffs alleged that the existing conditions violated the residents' constitutional right to treatment under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that their denial of a public education violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In April 1973, U.S. District Court Judge Orrin G. Judd rejected the plaintiffs' arguments that the Due Process Clause guaranteed a right to treatment and that the denial of public education violated the Equal Protection Clause. However, he did find that the conditions in Willowbrook violated the constitutional right of persons living in state custodial institutions to be protected from harm. According to Judge Judd, the plaintiffs' constitutional right to protection from harm in a state institution meant that the residents of Willowbrook were "entitled to at least the same living conditions as prisoners." This right, he continued, "may rest on the Eight Amendment, the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (based on irrational discrimination between prisoners and innocent mentally retarded persons)." Accordingly, Judge Judd granted much of the requested injunctive relief, including prohibiting the use of seclusions and restraints, increasing medical, therapeutic and recreational staffing, requiring maintenance, and requiring regular progress reports.

With this injunctive order in place, the case proceeded to trial on October 1, 1974, with the parties continuing negotiations for months afterwards. The case was settled on April 30, 1975, when Judge Judd signed the Willowbrook Consent Judgment: New York State Association For Retarded Children, Inc., et al., v. Hugh L. Carey, 393 F. Supp. 715 (1975).

The Willowbrook Consent Judgment

The Willowbrook Consent Judgment set forth guidelines and requirements for operating the institution and established new standards of care for all Willowbrook residents at the time of the settlement. These standards of care were "not optimal or ideal standards, nor... just custodial standards." They were based on the recognition that people with developmental disabilities, "regardless of the degree of handicapping conditions, are capable of physical, intellectual, emotional and social growth, and upon the further recognition that a certain level of affirmative intervention and programming is necessary if that capacity for growth and development is to be preserved, and regression prevented."

The Consent Judgment outlined specific procedures and instructions for treatment of residents, covering issues such as resident living, the environment, programming and evaluation, hiring of personnel, education, recreation, food and nutrition, dental and medical care, therapy services, use of restraints, conditions for residents to provide labor to the facility, and conditions for research and experimental treatment.

Significantly, the Consent Judgment also declared as the primary goal of the institution and the New York Department of Mental Hygiene to "ready each resident...for life in the community at large" and called for the placement of Willowbrook residents in less restrictive settings. The Consent Judgment set a goal of reducing the number of residents living at Willowbrook to no more than 250 by 1981 although this did not prove feasible.

Although the parties ended up in Court many more times in disputes over the ongoing implementation of the Consent Decree, it was, in a sense, fully implemented in 1987, when the Willowbrook State School and Hospital officially closed.

What Happened Next?

The political reaction to this case led to the enactment of legislation such as:

The Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act and CRIPA were the first federal civil rights laws protecting people with disabilities, leading to the enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Willowbrook Resources and References

Videos and Multimedia Resources

Articles and Other Secondary Sources

This article was originally printed in the December 2012 issue of The Federal Lawyer and is used with permission.

Opinions

District Court

Initial Injunctive Relief: New York State Association for Retarded Children v. Rockefeller, 357 F. Supp. 752 (1973)

Approval of Consent Decree: New York State Association for Retarded Children v. Carey, 393 F. Supp. 715 (1975)

Consent Decree

US Court of Appeals, Second Circuit decisions concerning implementation of Consent Decree:

References

1. The Minnesota Governor's Council on Developmental Disabilities, The ADA Legacy Project, Willowbrook Leads to New Protections of Rights, Moments in Disability History 9, 2013. Can be found at: ^http://mn.gov/mnddc/ada-legacy/ada-legacy-moment9.html

2. ^New York State Ass'n for Retarded Children, Inc. v. Rockefeller, 357 F. Supp. 752, 764 (1975).

3. ^New York State Association For Retarded Children, Inc., et al., v. Hugh L. Carey,. 393 F. Supp. 715 (1975) at ¶1.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Closing of Willowbrook - Disability Justice

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A watershed case in the evolution of the legal rights of people with disabilities to live in dignity arose out of public awareness of the horrific conditions under which children and adults with disabilities were living at the Willowbrook State Developmental Center in New York.

# data[].attributes.headline
ESEA (Elementary and Secondary Education Act)

# data[].attributes.subject
ESEA (Elementary and Secondary Education Act)

# data[].attributes.body
The Elementary and Secondary Act, otherwise known as the ESEA, had funded primary and secondary education, emphasizing high standards and accountability. Funds were authorized for professional development, instructional materials, resources to support educational programs, and the promotion of parental involvement. It also requires students to complete standardized testing grades 3-8.

# data[].attributes.headline
Elementary and Secondary Education Act Overview

# data[].attributes.subject
Elementary and Secondary Education Act Overview

# data[].attributes.body
While reading this article, you will understand what the ESEA had in store during the time periods of 1965-1968 and 1969-2015. The first 5 years of the ESEA demonstrated issues regarding money, religion, race, and federal-state-local relations within the law. Throughout the second time period, the ESEA's Title I fund priorities have shifted around. This article explains and demonstrates the importance of these alterations.

# data[].attributes.body
The "No Child Left Behind" Act was the most recent update to the ESEA. The NCLB was passed in 2001 and sought to scale up the federal role in holding schools accountable for student outcomes. The law put a special focus on ensuring that states and schools boosted the performance of English-language learners, students in special education, and poor and minority students. This law continued the requirement of states testing their students to see which category they would land in for reading and math. But criticism arose when federal government relied too much on standardized testing.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
UPDATE: NCLB has been replaced. For information about the latest education law, read our explainer on ESSA, the Every Student Succeeds Act.
The No Child Left Behind law-the 2002 update of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act-effectively scaled up the federal role in holding schools accountable for student outcomes.

In December 2015, Congress passed the Every Student Succeeds Act to replace NCLB. ESSA moved in the opposite direction-it seeks to pare back the federal role in K-12 education. For more information on ESSA, read this explainer. See also our full coverage of ESSA and what it means for states and school districts.

NCLB was the product of a collaboration between civil rights and business groups, as well as both Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill and the Bush administration, which sought to advance American competitiveness and close the achievement gap between poor and minority students and their more advantaged peers. Since 2002, it's had an outsized impact on teaching, learning, and school improvement-and become increasingly controversial with educators and the general public.

Here are a few frequently asked questions about the law, its history, and its policy implications.

What is ESEA?

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was part of President Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society program. Passed in 1965, it created a clear role for the federal government in K-12 policy, offering more than $1 billion a year in aid under its first statutory section, known as Title I, to districts to help cover the cost of educating disadvantaged students. The law has been reauthorized and changed more than half a dozen times since that initial legislation. And, for the most part, each new iteration has sought to expand the federal role in education.

What is NCLB?

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), which passed Congress with overwhelming bipartisan support in 2001 and was signed into law by President George W. Bush on Jan. 8, 2002, is the name for the most recent update to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. The NCLB law-which grew out of concern that the American education system was no longer internationally competitive-significantly increased the federal role in holding schools responsible for the academic progress of all students. And it put a special focus on ensuring that states and schools boost the performance of certain groups of students, such as English-language learners, students in special education, and poor and minority children, whose achievement, on average, trails their peers. States did not have to comply with the new requirements, but if they didn't, they risked losing federal Title I money.

What do states and schools actually have to do under the law?

Under the NCLB law, states must test students in reading and math in grades 3 through 8 and once in high school. And they must report the results, for both the student population as a whole and for particular "subgroups" of students, including English-learners and students in special education, racial minorities, and children from low-income families.

States were required to bring all students to the "proficient level" on state tests by the 2013-14 school year, although each state got to decide, individually, just what "proficiency" should look like, and which tests to use. (In early 2015, the deadline had passed, but no states had gotten all 100 percent of its students over the proficiency bar.)

Under the law, schools are kept on track toward their goals through a mechanism known as "adequate yearly progress" or AYP. If a school misses its state's annual achievement targets for two years or more, either for all students or for a particular subgroup, it is identified as not "making AYP" and is subject to a cascade of increasingly serious sanctions:

A school that misses AYP two years in a row has to allow students to transfer to a better-performing public school in the same district.

If a school misses AYP for three years in a row, it must offer free tutoring.

Schools that continue to miss achievement targets could face state intervention. States can choose to shut these schools down, turn them into charter schools, take them over, or use another, significant turnaround strategy.

The law also requires states to ensure their teachers are "highly qualified," which generally means that they have a bachelor's degree in the subject they are teaching and state certification. Beginning with the 2002-03 school year, all new teachers hired with federal Title I money had to be highly qualified. By the end of the 2005-06 school year, all school paraprofessionals hired with Title I money must have completed at least two years of college, obtained an associate's degree or higher, or passed an evaluation to demonstrate knowledge and teaching ability. States are also supposed to ensure that "highly qualified' teachers are evenly distributed among schools with high concentrations of poverty and wealthier schools.

What are some of the main criticisms of the current law?

Major portions of the NCLB law have proven problematic, particularly as the law has matured without any congressional update or reauthorization. For instance, it's unclear that the two main remedies for low-performing schools did much to improve student achievement. In many cases, students did not take advantage of the opportunity to transfer to another school, or get free tutoring. States and districts also had difficulty screening tutors for quality. Some districts, including Chicago, successfully petitioned to offer their own tutoring services. States also generally shied away from employing dramatic school turnaround strategies for perennially failing schools.

The NCLB law has also been criticized for growing the federal footprint in K-12 education, and for relying too heavily on standardized tests. And others say its emphasis on math and reading tests has narrowed the curriculum, forcing schools to spend less time on subjects that aren't explicitly tested, like social studies, foreign language, and the arts.

Education advocates also claim the law has been underfunded. The original legislation called for major increases in education spending to offset the cost of reaching NCLB's ambitious goals for student achievement, but federal spending never reached the lofty levels outlined in the law. By fiscal year 2007, for example, annual funding for the main NCLB program, Title I, was supposed to rise to $25 billion. It never got there. In fiscal year 2015, for example, Title I receives about $14.5 billion.

What's more, many states and districts have ignored parts of the law, including the requirement to ensure that highly qualified teachers are evenly distributed between poor and wealthier schools.

In order to improve implementation of the NCLB law, President George W. Bush's second secretary of education, Margaret Spellings, allowed states to apply to participate in pilot projects to try out changes to the law, including a growth-model pilot that let states consider student progress in rating schools instead of comparing different cohorts of students to one another.

What happened to the 2013-14 school-year deadline for all students to be "proficient"?

By 2010, it was clear that many schools were not going to meet NCLB's achievement targets. As of that year, 38 percent of schools were failing to make adequate yearly progress, up from 29 percent in 2006. In 2011, U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, as part of his campaign to get Congress to rewrite the law, issued dire warnings that 82 percent of schools would be labeled "failing" that year. The numbers didn't turn out to be quite that high, but several states did see failure rates of more than 50 percent. In Congress, meanwhile, lawmakers saw the need for a rewrite, but were unable to bring a bill across the finish line. So that year, the Obama administration offered states a reprieve from many of the law's mandates through a series of waivers.

What do the Obama administration's NCLB waivers do?

What's more, schools that don't make AYP have to set aside a portion of their federal Title I dollars for tutoring and school choice. Schools at the point of having to offer school choice must hold back 10 percent of their Title I money.
The waivers, which are now in place in 42 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia, allow states to get out from under many of the mandates of the NCLB law in exchange for embracing certain education redesign priorities. For instance, waiver states no longer have to aim toward the (now past) 2013-14 deadline for getting all students to proficiency, or offer public school choice or tutoring for schools that miss achievement targets.

In exchange, states had to agree to set standards aimed at preparing students for higher education and the workforce. Waiver states could either choose the Common Core State Standards, or get their higher education institutions to certify that their standards are rigorous enough. They also must put in place assessments aligned to those standards. And they have to institute teacher-evaluation systems that take into account student progress on state standardized tests, as well as single out 15 percent of schools for turnaround efforts or more targeted interventions.

The Obama administration has made a number of adjustments to its initial waiver requirements, especially in the area of teacher evaluation, which has been the biggest struggle for states. If the NCLB law has not been reauthorized by the time President Barack Obama leaves office, it's not clear if a new administration will continue with the waivers or put its own accountability plan in place.

NCLB Terms to Know

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): The yardstick at the heart of the No Child Left Behind Act. Under the NCLB law, states must test students in math and reading in grades 3-8 and at least once in high school. Schools must report on the performance of different groups of students, such as racial minorities, as well as the student population as a whole. Students are expected to reach annual achievement targets, known as adequate yearly progress, or AYP.

Title I: The section of the law providing federal funding to school districts to educate disadvantaged children. The Title I program was initially created under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and is now part of the No Child Left Behind Act, the most recent reauthorization of that law.
Highly Qualified Teacher: Under the NCLB law, every teacher in a core content area working in a public school had to be "highly qualified" in each subject taught, by the 2005-06 school year. Under the law, highly qualified generally means that a teacher is certified and demonstrated proficiency in his or her subject matter.

Choice: Under the No Child Left Behind Act, schools that fail to make adequate yearly progress (meet achievement targets) for two years in a row must allow their students to transfer to a better-performing school in the district.

Waiver: Comprehensive flexibility that the U.S. Department of Education has granted to more than 40 states and the District of Columbia from key requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act (the current version of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act) in exchange for embracing certain Obama administration education-redesign priorities on teachers, testing, standards, and school turnarounds.

Supplemental Education Services (SES): This is the No Child Left Behind Act's legal term for "free tutoring." Schools that fail to make adequate yearly progress (meet achievement targets) for three consecutive years, even if it's just for a particular subgroup of students, must offer free tutoring to all students. And schools must set aside 10 percent of their Title I funding to pay for the tutoring services. States with waivers don't have to abide by this requirement.

Subgroups: Different groups of traditionally overlooked students, including racial minorities, students in special education, English-language learners, and low-income children. Under the NCLB law, schools must break out results on annual tests by both the student population as a whole, and these "subgroup" students. Schools that don't meet achievement targets for subgroup students are subject to increasingly serious sanctions.

Supersubgroups: Under the Obama administration's NCLB waivers, some states choose to combine several "subgroups" for accountability purposes, resulting in what's known as "supersubgroups." Some civil rights organizations say lumping together different types of students, such as English-language learners and students in special education, makes it much tougher to see how individual groups are progressing relative to other groups of students and the student population as a whole.

Focus School: A term that came about as part of the Obama administration's No Child Left Behind Act waivers, not the original 2002 law. It refers to schools with stubborn achievement gaps or weak performance among "subgroup" students, such as English-language learners or students in special education. States must identify 10 percent of their schools as "focus" schools.

Priority School: A term that came about as part of the Obama administration's No Child Left Behind Act waivers, not the original 2002 law. It refers to schools identified as one of the lowest performers in the state and subject to dramatic interventions, including potential leadership changes. States must identify at least 5 percent of their schools as "priority schools."
NCLB Research and Resources

The text of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002, including shortcuts to various parts of the bill dealing with accountability, teacher quality, and more.

All of the information from the U.S. Department of Education about waivers from the No Child Left Behind Act, including which states have them, and what their waiver plans look like.

"It's All Relative: How NCLB Waivers Did, and Not Transform School Accountability," by Anne Hyslop, who at the time was a policy analyst at the New America Foundation, but has since gone to work for the Education Department. An examination of which schools have been identified as underperforming through the Obama administration's NCLB waivers and how accountability looks different than it did under the original NCLB law. (View an Education Week summary.)

"The Impact of No Child Left Behind's Accountability Sanctions on School Performance: Regression Discontinuity Evidence from North Carolina," by researchers Thomas Ahn and Jacob Vigdor. A look at how schools fared under NCLB's original interventions, including public school choice and free tutoring. (View an Education Week summary.)

"States' Perspectives on Waivers: Relief from NCLB, Concern about Long-term Solutions," by Jennifer McMurrer and Nanami Yoshioka for the Center on Education Policy. An examination of state attitudes toward waivers. Highlights state's concerns about how the waivers might effect a potential reauthorization. (View an Education Week summary.)

"Mapping State Proficiency Standards Onto the NAEP Scales: Variation and Change in State Standards for Reading and Mathematics, 2005-2009." A look at how the standards and expectations set under the No Child Left Behind Act compare to those of the nation's report card, the National Assessment for Educational Progress. (View an Education Week summary.)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A primer on the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act. Its successor, the Every Student Succeeds Act, replaced NCLB in Dec. 2015.

# data[].attributes.body
This article went into depth around how this act serves people with disabilities. It mentions how these students benefit from the act and how it sets out to improve public education for the better. The article also mentions how the NCLB works with the IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Elementary & Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 currently known as No Child Left Behind (NCLB) challenges states and school districts to increase efforts to improve student academic achievement. Its accountability provisions focus attention on low-performing groups of students, intending to close the achievement gap.

What Is the No Child Left Behind Act?
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) is the current version of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)-the principal federal law affecting public education from kindergarten through high school in the United States. ESEA was originally passed in 1965. NCLB is important legislation for students with learning disabilities (LD), because it ensures that they reach high levels of academic standards, just like other children in America's public schools today.
NCLB Is Based on Four Principles of Educational Reform

Stronger accountability for results;

Increased flexibility and local control;

Expanded options for parents and

An emphasis on teaching qualifications and methods.

Of these four, accountability for results is the principle that has the potential to greatly improve the educational results for children with LD.

How Does NCLB Hold Schools Accountable for Results?
Several critical elements in NCLB ensure that schools are held accountable for educational results so that the best education possible is provided to each and every student. The three most critical elements to understand are:

Academic content standards (what students should learn)

Academic achievement standards (how well they should learn)

State assessments (whether a school is teaching all students successfully)

Academic content standards and academic achievement standards in reading/language arts, mathematics and science have been defined by each state. These standards define what all children should know and be able to do to be considered "proficient." Information about each state's standards should be available on the state's education department Web site and in print materials.

State assessments are the way schools must prove that they have successfully taught their students. Beginning in 2005-2006, all states must provide annual assessments that are appropriate for all students in grades 3 through 8 and once in high school in both reading/language arts and math (science assessments must be added beginning in 2007-2008). These assessments must include students with disabilities.

Schools must also provide the accommodations and alternate assessments that may be needed by students with disabilities. Accommodations are changes to the assessment materials or procedures that allow for students to demonstrate their knowledge and skills rather than the effects of their disabilities. Students with learning disabilities should be participating in the regular state assessments with or without accommodations.

Alternate assessments are assessments designed to measure the performance of students with disabilities who are unable to participate in state and district assessments even with appropriate accommodations. These alternate assessments are typically designed for students with complex disabilities and probably would not be appropriate for most students with learning disabilities.

How Does NCLB Work With the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)?
IDEA specifically provides services to students with disabilities. Each student served under IDEA has anIndividualized Education Program (IEP) that defines the special education and related services needed by the student. NCLB holds schools accountable for the educational outcomes of those children, as well as all others. In the past, students with disabilities were frequently left out of state and district level assessment and accountability systems; and in many cases did not have access to the general curriculum on which these assessments are based. Because this type of access and assessment did not happen, there was no external measure to indicate whether special education students were learning enough to move on to a post-secondary education or to get a job.

The IEP that is designed for each individual IDEA-eligible student must address how that student will participate in state assessments. Students with disabilities may participate in state assessments in the same way as other students, or with accommodations or by participating in alternate assessments. The IEP team should not be deciding whether a student will participate in state assessments, but how, so as to hold the educational system responsible for the student's learning. If the IEP team determines that an accommodation or modification needed by a child will invalidate a test's results for state accountability (such as, perhaps, having questions read aloud to the student), the team should decide how that student can appropriately be assessed through alternate methods.

Why Is It So Important That Children With Learning Disabilities Be Included in State Assessments?
No Child Left Behind is intended to improve the education of all children. As part of the law, all states are required to release easy-to-read, detailed report cards every year that provide parents and the general public with a measure of how schools are doing. These report cards must include information on how students in each district, as well as each school, performed on state assessments. The report cards must state student performance on three levels: basic, proficient, and advanced. The data must also be broken down by various student subgroups, including students with disabilities. Just like all other subgroups, NCLB requires that students with disabilities reach proficient levels of achievement. This is not extra pressure on the children. This is a mandate for schools to provide a better education for students with disabilities, including learning disabilities.

In addition, each state is required to set Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) standards that schools must meet. In defining AYP, each state must set the minimum levels of improvement, measurable in terms of student performance that school districts and schools must achieve within the time frame specified by the law. Basically, states have to continue to raise the bar on academic achievement, and by 2013-2014 all subgroups in all schools in all states must be achieving proficient levels in reading and math on state assessments. This includes students with learning disabilities. Unlike in the past, NCLB is setting a way (the state assessments) for schools to be held accountable for what their students with learning disabilities are learning and achieving.

How Else Does NCLB Set Out to Improve Public Education?
Here is a brief summary of other ways NCLB will ensure a better education for students with LD.

Increased flexibility and local control: NCLB gives both states and local school districts greater flexibility in the use of federal funds than they previously had. This flexibility allows for the reallocation of certain funds to programs dedicated to teacher quality improvement, technology, safe and drug-free schools, and many others. This flexibility is dependent on improved results on state assessments and does not include IDEA funds, or the possibility of transferring money out of Title 1* programs.

Expanded options for parents: Under NCLB, all parents must receive local and district report cards before the beginning of every school year. If a Title 1 school fails to meet its AYP goal for two consecutive years, parents may choose to place their children in non-failing schools in their district. Under NCLB, school districts must pay the cost of transporting students to the other public school. After three years of failure to meet AYP goals, schools must also offer supplemental services to the children remaining there, including tutoring, after-school programs and summer school paid for by the district.

Improved teaching qualifications: NCLB requires that all teachers be highly qualified. That means they hold at least a bachelor's degree and have passed a state test of subject knowledge. Elementary school teachers must demonstrate knowledge of teaching math and reading; while teachers in higher grades must demonstrate knowledge of the subject they teach, or must have majored in the subject. Special education teachers must be knowledgeable about the content area(s) they teach as well as special education, unless they provide consultative services to highly qualified general education teachers.

ESEA and Students With Learning Disabilities
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) is the nation's oldest and largest federal education law. Intended to ensure that all children - including those with disabilities - have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education, ESEA provisions are critically important to students with learning disabilities.

Find out more about how No Child Left Behind affects kids on Understood.org.

The Elementary & Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 currently known as No Child Left Behind (NCLB) challenges states and school districts to increase efforts to improve student academic achievement. Its accountability provisions focus attention on low-performing groups of students, intending to close the achievement gap.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Elementary & Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 currently known as No Child Left Behind (NCLB) challenges states and school districts to increase efforts to improve student academic achievement. Its accountability provisions focus attention on low-performing groups of students, intending to close the achievement gap. What Is the No Child Left Behind Act?

# data[].attributes.body
This article explains the differences between the two acts. Even though they seem similar, this article looks more in depth and breaks down the differences within different subtopics.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
State vs. Federal Authority

States are responsible for holding schools accountable for student achievement. The law provides a framework, but it's a flexible framework. Each state can set its own goals for student achievement within that federal framework.

States were responsible for holding schools accountable for student achievement. The law provided a framework for states, but there was less flexibility for states to set their own goals.

The law also put forward a universal goal that every student in every school be proficient in reading and math.

Annual Testing

States must test students in reading and math once a year in grades 3 through 8, as well as once in high school. They must also test kids in science once in grade school, middle school and high school.

Students with IEPs or 504 plans can get accommodations on all annual state tests.

States aren't limited to using their own tests. They can use nationally recognized tests, such as the SAT and ACT. (But those scores aren't necessarily valid for college admission.)

Only 1 percent of all students can be given "alternate" tests.

ESSA encourages states and districts to get rid of unnecessary testing. The law includes funding for them to audit their current testing.

ESSA will also provide funds for seven states to explore "innovative" tests. These are tests that align with personalized learning and competency-based education.

States had to test students in reading and math once a year in grades 3 through 8, as well as once in high school. They also had to test kids in science once in grade school, middle school and high school.

Students with IEPs or 504 plans could get accommodations on these tests.

States didn't have the option to use tests other than their own state tests.

There was no limit on the number of students who could take "alternate" tests.

Academic Standards

States have to adopt "challenging" academic standards in reading, math and science. That could be the Common Core State Standards. But the federal government can't try to influence a state's decision.

States had to adopt "challenging" academic standards in reading, math and science.

The law didn't bar the federal government from encouraging states to adopt a particular set of standards.

Accountability Measures

With ESSA, states must consider more than just test scores when evaluating schools.

Each state must use four academic factors that are included in the law. States can choose a fifth factor that impacts school quality.

The required academic factors must be:

Reading and math test scores

English-language proficiency test scores

High school graduation rates

A state-chosen academic measure for grade schools and middle schools

The school-quality factor could include things like:

Kindergarten readiness

Access to and completion of advanced coursework

College readiness

School climate and safety

Chronic absenteeism

Overall, states must give more weight to the academic factors than to the school-quality factors.

NCLB focused solely on student academic achievement and primarily used state reading and math test scores when evaluating how schools were doing.

Achievement Targets

States must set achievement targets for students in schools. States must also set ambitious goals for groups of students who are the furthest behind, like students in special education. These goals should help close the gap with other students.

There are no federal penalties for struggling schools. Instead, these schools will get more funding and will have to develop a plan to improve.

States had to bring all students up to the "proficient" level on state tests. This included students in special education.

States also had to set targets for improvement, called adequate yearly progress (AYP). If a school didn't meet AYP, it could be labeled as "needing improvement." It could be required to fire its staff and face other federal penalties.

Struggling Students and Schools

States and school districts must have a plan for helping schools that:

Have high drop-out rates

Are consistently struggling, or

Have a specific group of students, like those in special education, who are struggling

Decisions about what to do may be made by the state, or by local school districts and schools. But ESSA requires states to use evidence-based methods to help these struggling schools and students.

If a school or subgroup of students was struggling, the federal government offered the state a specific set of actions to take to improve the school. There was limited local decision-making.

State and School District Report Cards

Schools must publicly report test results, other measures of student achievement, and information about how much funding they are receiving.

They must break these down by "subgroups" of students. The reporting has to show the performance of students in special education, minorities, those in poverty and those learning English.

If a state identifies a school or subgroup as struggling, it must tell parents.

Schools had to publicly report test results and other measures of student achievement.

They had to break these down by "subgroups" of students. The reporting had to show the performance of students in special education, minorities, those in poverty and those learning English.

National Center on Reading Issues

ESSA calls for the creation of a national center focused on literacy and reading issues for kids with disabilities. This includes dyslexia.

The center will be a clearinghouse for information for parents and teachers.

NCLB didn't include a national literacy center.

Literacy Programs

ESSA has a literacy education grant program. This program authorizes up to $160 million in literacy grants to states and schools.

The grants fund evidence-based instruction in literacy skills, including writing, phonological awareness and decoding.

NCLB had several literacy programs that have since been defunded.

UDL and Personalized Learning

ESSA endorses Universal Design for Learning (UDL). This approach to teaching aims to meet the needs of all students, including those with learning and attention issues.

The law also encourages states to expand personalized learning for students.

NCLB didn't include UDL or personalized learning.

Parent Involvement

ESSA requires states to get input from parents and families as they create state plans. To get involved, reach out to your state's department of education.

NCLB didn't require states to include parent input when creating their state plans.

Opt-Out

ESSA doesn't create a federal opt-out option if parents don't want their child to take standardized tests.

But it also doesn't stop states from having their own opt-out laws.

NCLB didn't address the opt-out issue.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Difference Between the Every Student Succeeds Act and No Child Left Behind

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
State vs. Federal Authority States are responsible for holding schools accountable for student achievement. The law provides a framework, but it's a flexible framework. Each state can set its own goals for student achievement within that federal framework. States were responsible for holding schools accountable for student achievement.

# data[].attributes.body
The "Every Student Succeeds Act" or otherwise known as the ESSA amended the ESEA and NCLB. This act was passed in 2015. The law still upholds the accountability for how students learn and achieve, but revised and amended some things mentioned in the ESEA. This is currently the nation's main law for all public schools. Within this law, states decide the education plans for their schools within a framework provided by the federal government. The law offers parents a chance to weigh in on these plans that are made. Parents additionally have more input into the learning plans of students with special education services. Mandated student testing is still carried out through this law, while it stands to encourage personalized learning.

# data[].attributes.body
In excellence, this article captures the timeline of the ESEA, NCLB, and ESSA acts. It clearly and objectively explains the progression of the acts and their importance they held in society. The section of the article where it talks about the year 2015 discusses how the ESSA benefits school systems and what the ESSA truly contains within the law.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), which was reauthorized in December, 2015, marked its 50 th anniversary, and the new version portends important future shifts in accountability and assessment. The new version is called the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). The ESEA was created during Lyndon B. Johnson's administration in 1965. President Johnson, who graduated from Southwest Texas State Teachers College, was a teacher in the 1930s. According to Pedro Noguera, Professor of Education at the University of California, Los Angeles, the original ESEA legislation was a civil rights law created as a response to poverty and inequity in education across the country - poverty that President Johnson saw first hand while teaching in Texas. ESEA offered federal grants to districts serving low-income students and grants for books, education centers and scholarships for low-income college students. President Johnson believed that "full educational opportunity" should be "our first national goal."

Although the overall mission of ESEA has remained the same over the years, it has evolved over time to include the needs of more specialized at-risk groups, including English-language learners (the Bilingual Act; Title VII), female students (the Women's Educational Equity Act; Title IX), and Native American students (the Improvement of Educational Opportunities for Indian Students Act; Title X).

A lot has been written about the new law, but it might be helpful to think about it in context. To that end, here's a short timeline of some of the major milestones and changes related to ESEA. In no way is this intended to cover all of the details of its history.

1965: ESEA was enacted by Congress and signed into law.

1968: Congress expanded ESEA to include new programs (and titles) that serve at-risk children (migrants and neglected children). The Bilingual Education Act was also passed.

1969-1970: Analyses showed misuse of Title 1 aid (including the influential Martin-McClure report) causing Congress to amend and tighten the language in ESEA several times (between 1965-1980). The goal of the amendments was to increase restrictions such that more Title 1 money would be used to assist educationally disadvantaged students from low-income families.

1981: During the early 1980's federal support of education programs was sharply reduced. Significantly fewer educationally disadvantaged children were served under ESEA in the 1980's than in the 1970's.

1988: Accountability and student testing become a major part of the law in 1988. The new version required districts to use assessments to measure and report their effectiveness annually. Schools that failed to make adequate progress were obligated to develop plans for improvement.

1994: The renewal of the ESEA called for states to develop standards and standards-aligned assessments for all students. States and districts were obligated to identify schools that were not making "adequate yearly progress" as detailed in the Improving America's Schools Act (IASA) and single them out for improvement.

2002: ESEA became NCLB (No Child Left Behind Act). NCLB shifted much of the decision-making and resource allocation away from states and thus increased the national government's role in education. NCLB also significantly expanded testing requirements. States were required to assess students annually in reading and math in grades 3-8 and once in high school. Adequate yearly progress was required/expected for all students, including students of limited English proficiency, racial/ethnic minority students, and students with disabilities. NCLB required that all students become proficient in math and reading/language arts by 2014.

2009: By 2009 ESEA was already two years past due for reauthorization. Though ESEA was stalled in Congress, new programs were created and money was allocated towards education in 2009 as part of the national economic stimulus plan (the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act). Approximately $100 billion was allocated towards education aid via the ARRA. New competitive grant programs were established for the design of assessments aligned to the Common Core State Standards and for innovative efforts to improve state data systems, standards and teacher evaluation systems.

2011: The reauthorization of ESEA (otherwise known as NCLB) was still held up in Congressional discussion. In 2011 a system was put in place that allowed states to apply for waivers that relinquished some of the NCLB requirements including the 2014 deadline for all students to be proficient in math and reading/language arts. The waivers also allowed states to set their own student-achievement goals and design their own interventions for failing schools. However, to be eligible for a waiver, states must have adopted college-and-career ready standards and tied those to their annual state assessments. Waivers did not remove the requirement to test students annually in reading and in math in grades 3-8 and once in high school.

2015: In December 2015, bipartisan support for the ESSA was high and the overdue reauthorization was finally signed into law. The actual ESSA document is 391 pages long. I have not read it all. My intention is not to provide full details, but rather to highlight some aspects that I find important and interesting. (If you would like to download the report I've included a link in the "Other Resources" section at the bottom of this blog where you can do so. If you find important and interesting details, please share them with us in the Comments section.)

One of the more global aspects of ESSA is that it shifts much of the decision-making power back to the states and local school districts. For example, states have more flexibility to define their own standards, assessments and accountability systems rather than having a federally mandated programs. However, ESSA does not remove the requirement for annual assessments in reading and in math in grades 3-8 and once in high school. Also, school districts must continue to publish report cards showing student achievement on state tests so that their scores can be compared with those of other schools/students in their state.

ESSA provides states with more flexibility to create and implement their own teacher evaluation systems - teacher evaluations are no longer required to be tied directly (or solely) to student assessments. They also have more flexibility in the ways they can assess school performance. For example, districts may include factors such as school climate, student and teacher engagement, and access to advanced coursework in their school performance assessment.

ESSA removes the federal government's power to impose penalties on underperforming schools. Instead, states must decide how to improve those schools performing in the bottom 5 percent, those schools that graduate fewer than two-thirds of their students, and schools with the greatest achievement gaps between differing populations of students.

Additionally, ESSA includes some changes to the way schools assess English-language learners.

"No Child Left Behind took a major step forward for English-language learners by disaggregating achievement data and holding schools accountable for improving English-language learners' reading and math achievement and graduation rates under Title I, the largest federal K-12 education program. But the law treated English language acquisition for English-language learners differently, creating a completely separate accountability system that only applied to districts and states" Layton, 2015.

In contrast, ESSA requires that all schools provide evidence that their ELL students are increasing their English proficiency. This factor is a required indicator on every state's school accountability system. To support this requirement, ESSA authorizes additional funds (between $737-$885 million) via Title III.

ESSA also includes the National Professional Development Project to increase teachers' training for working with ELL students:

The Secretary must use funds to award 5-year competitive grants to institutions of higher education or public or private entities with relevant experience and capacity (in consortia with State educational agencies or local educational agencies) to provide for professional development activities that will improve classroom instruction for English learners and assist educational personnel working with English learners to meet high professional standards, including standards for certification and licensure as teachers who work in language instruction educational programs or serve English learners.

With respect to the topic of digital access, ESSA requires the Director of the U.S. Department of Educations' Institute of Education Sciences to complete a study on the educational impact of access to digital learning resources outside of the classroom within 18 months. This study is meant to identify barriers and challenges students face in accessing digital educational content from home. Its goal is also to describe ways that State educational agencies, local educational agencies, schools, and other entities have developed effective means to address the barriers and challenges students face in accessing digital learning resources outside of the classroom.

Finally, ESSA addresses 21st Century Skill building via the authorization of $1.65 billion in Title IV funds for 2017. Title IV includes funding support and provisions pertaining to School Climate and Discipline, Educational Technology, Family Engagement, Charter Schools, Accelerated and Blending Learning.

"It will be some time before the country knows whether the new law improves public education, said Dr. Henig, Professor of Political Science and Education at Columbia University. "There will be changes in some places very early as some states test the limits as to what they can do differently," he said. "But I think it'll take us three, four, five years before we really have a sense of how this is rippling out throughout the system" Layton, 2015.

If you would like to get involved, ed.gov hosts ESSA public input meetings.

Get involved:

The next ESSA public input meeting, in Los Angeles, CA, will be live-streamed January 19 at 9AM PT, noon ET. Join by going to: http://www.ed.gov/essa

About the Author

Liane Wardlow, a former Pearson research scientist, focused on designing and implementing research studies examining e-learning in on-ground and on-line K-20 classrooms. She also worked collaboratively across research centers on a multi-state research project measuring the use and effects of digital technology on teachers' instructional practices and students' learning outcomes. Prior to joining Pearson, Dr. Wardlow worked as a research scientist at the University of CA, San Diego in the Department of Psychology, and for the US Department of Education in the Institute for Education Sciences. Dr. Wardlow holds a master's degree in Education from the University of Southern California and a doctorate in Experimental Psychology from the University of California, San Diego. Follow her on Twitter: @LianeWardlow

Works Cited

Camera, L. (2015). States Eager to Shirk Obama-Era Education Policies. http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015-12-18/states-eager-for-flexibility-in-new-education-law

Klein, A. (2016). Under ESSA, states, districts to share more power. http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2016/01/06/under-essa-states-districts-to-share-more.html?qs=ESEA+inmeta:Pub_year%3D2016

Layton, L. (2015). Senate overwhelmingly passes new national education legislation. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/senate-overwhelmingly-passes-new-national-education-legislation/2015/12/09/be1b1f94-9d2a-11e5-a3c5-c77f2cc5a43c_story.html

Sargrad, S. (2016). Hope for English-language learners: The Every Student Succeeds Act finally prioritizes the progress of English-language learning students. http://www.usnews.com/opinion/knowledge-bank/articles/2016-01-13/every-student-succeeds-act-brings-new-hope-for-english-language-learners

Thomas, J. & Brady, K. (2005). Chapter 3 The Elementary and Secondary Education Act at 40: Equity, Accountability, and the Evolving Federal Role in Public Education, Review of Research in Education, 29, 51. http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic460284.files/ESEA%20at%2040.pdf

Westervelt, E. (2015). How Poor And Disadvantaged Students Will Fare Under The New Education Law. http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2015/12/10/459083872/how-poor-and-disadvantaged-students-will-fare-under-the-new-education-law

Woodruff, J. (2015). New education law shifts federal influence over public schools. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/new-education-law-shifts-federal-influence-over-public-schools/

Other resources

Every Student Succeeds Act: https://www.congress.gov/114/bills/s1177/BILLS-114s1177enr.pdf

http://www.edweek.org/ew/collections/inside-essa-the-new-federal-education-law/index.html

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/12/10/white-house-report-every-student-succeeds-act

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Every Student Succeeds Act in historical context

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), which was reauthorized in December, 2015, marked its 50 th anniversary, and the new version portends important future shifts in accountability and assessment. The new version is called the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). The ESEA was created during Lyndon B. Johnson's administration in 1965.

# data[].attributes.headline
Relevance Held in Today's Education System

# data[].attributes.subject
Relevance Held in Today's Education System

# data[].attributes.body
It is easily seen that all of the events linked in this padlet have lead to the awareness and need to provide equal opportunity and education to all students. These acts have definitely affected students' learning positively. Because of these acts, High School graduations rates are at an all-time high and dropout rates are significantly lower. More students are attending college because of the increase in opportunity for education within groups who need it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) | U.S. Department of Education

# data[].attributes.body
All articles linked in this padlet are cited on this document.

# data[].attributes.body
Linked is my corresponding essay discussing why I chose this topic, the important elements of the topic, and how it relates to today's education system.