	Introduction

The largest sources of federal funding for elementary and secondary education are the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB; P.L. 107-110 ), and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA; P.L. 108-446 ). Approximately 6 million students with disabilities receive special education under Part B of the IDEA. Both the ESEA and the IDEA affect the education of students with disabilities and aim to improve educational outcomes for these students. When the underlying concepts or legislative language of the ESEA and IDEA are not clearly aligned, it can be difficult for educators to plan and execute an appropriate education for students with disabilities. The purpose of this report is to highlight issues of alignment and possible misalignment between the two laws, to describe how statutory and regulatory language has sought to clarify these issues, and to draw attention to issues that Congress may want to clarify. This report is organized around four broad education policy issues that are relevant to both the ESEA and IDEA: standards, assessments, accountability, and teachers. Academic goals often focus on the content areas of reading and mathematics. Table 1 provides a comparison of select statutory and regulatory provisions of the ESEA and IDEA discussed above:

		Alignment Issues

The education of students with disabilities is affected by both the academic content and achievement standards in the ESEA and individualized IEP goals in the IDEA. Under the ESEA, students with disabilities are required to participate in state assessments used within the federal accountability system. The IDEA, however, requires various assessments for students with disabilities that are not included in the ESEA. This issue may receive attention from Congress during the reauthorization of the ESEA. The IDEA "monitoring and enforcement" system was designed to assess whether states are meeting a series of academic and compliance indicators to determine whether the law is being implemented as intended. The subgroups are specified in statute as economically disadvantaged students, students with limited English proficiency (LEP), students with disabilities, and students in major racial and ethnic subgroups. Background

The ESEA includes a definition of "highly qualified" teacher as the term relates to teachers of elementary and secondary education. The IDEA also includes a definition of "highly qualified" teacher as the term relates to special education teachers of elementary and secondary education. Teachers who teach core academic subjects exclusively to students with the most significant cognitive disabilities, whether new or not new to the profession, have several options for meeting the "highly qualified" definition: (1) teachers may meet the "highly qualified" definition of the ESEA for any elementary, middle, or secondary teacher; (2) elementary teachers may meet the requirements by demonstrating competence on HOUSSE; and (3) middle and secondary school teachers may meet the requirements by demonstrating "subject matter knowledge appropriate to the level of instruction being provided, as determined by the State, needed to effectively teach to those standards" (i.e., alternate achievement standards). Because many students with disabilities spend the majority of their time in the regular education classroom, the ability of a regular education teacher to address the needs of students with disabilities may directly impact the learning of students with disabilities and their performance on state assessments.
The largest sources of federal funding for elementary and secondary education are the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB; P.L. 107-110), and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA; P.L. 108-446). The ESEA provides funding and services for a broad population of students, including disadvantaged students, migrant students, neglected and delinquent students, and students with limited English proficiency. Approximately 6 million students with disabilities ages 6 through 21 attend elementary and secondary schools; however, they are not afforded special services under the ESEA due to their disability status. The IDEA provides funding and services specifically for those students with disabilities. Both the ESEA and IDEA aim to improve the educational outcomes for students with disabilities. The ways in which they do this sometimes differ, and when the laws are not fully or clearly aligned it can be difficult for educators to plan and execute an appropriate education for students with disabilities.
In the 113th Congress, legislators have actively considered reauthorization of the ESEA. This report focuses on four broad policy issues within both the ESEA and IDEA, which potentially create differing expectations or requirements for schools and teachers educating students with disabilities:
Standards. Under the ESEA, students with disabilities are taught to state academic content standards that apply to all children in the state. Under the IDEA, academic goals are established for each child in an individualized education program (IEP). Assessments. Under the ESEA, students with disabilities participate in annual assessments that determine adequate yearly progress toward meeting expectations associated with state academic content and achievement standards. Under the IDEA, students with disabilities are assessed for identification purposes and for monitoring progress toward meeting goals articulated in their IEPs. Accountability. The ESEA accountability system primarily measures whether schools and local education agencies are making adequate yearly progress in reading and mathematics achievement. The "students with disabilities" subgroup is expected to make adequate yearly progress. The IDEA monitoring system measures whether states are meeting certain compliance and performance indicators to determine whether the law is being implemented as intended. Teachers. Both the ESEA and IDEA have requirements regarding "highly qualified" teachers. The ESEA includes a definition of "highly qualified" teacher as the term relates to teachers of elementary and secondary education. The IDEA also includes a definition of "highly qualified" teacher as the term relates to special education teachers of elementary and secondary education. Because students with disabilities spend the majority of time in the general education classroom, they are affected by both definitions.
This report highlights issues pertaining to alignment and misalignment among ESEA and IDEA provisions within these areas, describes how statutory and regulatory language has sought to clarify these issues, and discusses specific issues that Congress may consider during deliberations on the reauthorization of ESEA.