No Special Education Child Left Behind? : a Review of NCLB and its Effects on Special Education
Date
2008
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Producer
Director
Performer
Choreographer
Costume Designer
Music
Videographer
Lighting Designer
Set Designer
Crew Member
Funder
Rehearsal Director
Concert Coordinator
Advisor
Moderator
Panelist
Alternative Title
Department
Haverford College. Department of Political Science
Type
Thesis
Original Format
Running Time
File Format
Place of Publication
Date Span
Copyright Date
Award
Language
eng
Note
Table of Contents
Terms of Use
Rights Holder
Access Restrictions
Open Access
Terms of Use
Tripod URL
Identifier
Abstract
On January 8, 2002 President Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 into law with overwhelming bipartisan support. This law soon became one of the most influential and controversial education policies in American history. Prior to NCLB, education has been primarily controlled by state and local governments; however, this law shifts significant control to the federal government for the first time. NCLB requires states to create standardized assessments and test all students in institutions that receive Title I funding. Schools must work toward Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) goals, and the aim of the law is to have all students achieve proficient or advanced on state tests by the year 2014. Whether the law will successfully change education policy is still in question; however, it is already apparent that high stakes testing, highly qualified designations of teachers, and the inclusion of Special Education students has impacted students and educators in public education. Although NCLB plays a role in all public school students’ education, this role is perhaps even more significant for students with special needs. This paper takes a closer look at the literature surrounding this issue and attempts to answer the research questions through empirical research. The question that guided my research on NCLB and Special Education follows: How does inclusion of Special Education students in No Child Left Behind high-stakes testing affect their academic achievements and opportunities? a. Does NCLB successfully hold public schools accountable for their Special Education students? b. What percentage of students should be allowed accommodations on high stakes testing? I began answering these questions by reviewing the literature on NCLB both in general and with regards to Special Education. Scholars who argue in favor of NCLB highlight the federal government’s attention to education and the need for standardized assessments and school choice. In contrast, scholars opposed to the law argue that it is poorly funded and implemented, leads to robotic forms of instruction, and has been unsuccessful in improving education and closing achievement gaps. I have developed two schools of thought regarding NCLB and Special Education, positive assessments and negative assessments. On the whole, scholars who support the law believe that NCLB forces schools to include Special Education students in state testing, which holds the schools accountable to these students. In addition, these scholars argue that NCLB requires schools to include Special Education students in general education classrooms and curricula. This inclusion, scholars argue, enhances their academic opportunities and social and behavioral skills. In contrast, opponents of the law argue that schools are able to make accommodations and excuses in order to keep Special Education scores out of overall AYP scores. These scholars argue that new accountability systems have been ineffective and NCLB has the potential of harming students with learning disabilities. Inclusion of these students in high-stakes testing increases pressure on the students and the schools and may lead to higher dropout rates for these students. Following the literature review, I attempt to answer the research questions through an analysis of empirical data. My primary method of collecting data was through interviews. I contacted Special Education teachers, regular education teachers, and principals at four schools in the Philadelphia Metropolitan Area: Independence Charter School, Overbrook Elementary School, Lower Merion High School, and Radnor Township High School. The variety in schools allowed for a more comprehensive study of NCLB’s effects on Special Education. In addition to interviews, I observed students at ICS throughout the year in both Special Education and general education settings. Finally, I analyzed NCLB school report cards, Congressional hearings, and newspaper articles to better understand NCLB in the Philadelphia region. I divided my research into two sections according to my hypotheses. The first hypothesis states: Inclusion, as it is practiced, of Special Education students in No Child Left Behind testing causes a decrease in academic performance of these students. Overall, interviews and observations at the four schools supported this hypothesis. The teachers and Principal at ICS noted that they must alter their teaching schedules to include test preparation and proctoring, which takes away from skill development and attention to students’ needs. In addition, interviewees recognize the increase in stress caused by tests, and the worsening of behavior of Special Education students during test days. Teachers at all four schools commented on the levels in which these students are tested; NCLB forces schools to test students at their grade level as opposed to their level of instruction. Therefore, if a fifth grade student reads and is instructed at a third grade level, he or she must take the fifth grade test. This increases anxiety and ensures that students will do poorly. Finally, instructors at each school recognize problems with fully including these students in general education; students spend less time with a Special Education mentor, they do not receive necessary services, and they create distractions in the classroom. Overall, NCLB has hurt these students. The second hypothesis states: The failure of NCLB accountability systems causes schools to evade requirements of the law. While I found that none of the four schools I researched omits Special Education scores, I did find evidence proving that accountability systems have failed this group of students. In many cases, schools do not have a large number of Special Education students, and therefore, do not have to disaggregate these scores. When this is the case, schools are not held accountable to these students. In addition, NCLB requires all teachers, including Special Education teachers, to receive highly qualified designation. This involves many teachers going back to school or taking certification tests. High school Special Education teachers who are instructing students at elementary or middle school levels must be qualified to teach high school levels. This system has led many Special Education teachers to leave high school, which hurts Special Education students. When schools implement accountability systems correctly, and when funding is available, these systems can be effective. However, in many schools, this is not the case. I conclude my research with a list of policy implications for the reauthorization of NCLB. Examples of these policy implications include: require all states to test students at the level in which they receive instruction; remove the mandatory highly qualified designation from Special Education instructors; and increase funding for NCLB. I close the thesis with ideas for further research, which includes studies at suburban elementary schools and urban high schools, studies at schools in different states, and follow-up research after the 2008 presidential election. Overall, this research showed that the implementation of NCLB and the increase of high-stakes testing has had a negative effect on Special Education. While the ideals of the law were positive, the implementation has left many Special Education students behind.