Special Education Subgroups under NCLB: Issues to Consider

Autor/inn/en	Eckes, Suzanne; Swando, Julie
Titel	Special Education Subgroups under NCLB: Issues to Consider
Quelle	In: Teachers College Record, 111 (2009) 11, S.2479-2504 (26 Seiten)Infoseite zur Zeitschrift PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	1467-9620
Schlagwörter	General Education; Federal Legislation; Educational Improvement; Federal Programs; Disabilities; Program Effectiveness; Educational Indicators; Special Education; Achievement Gap; Barriers; Educational Change; Change Strategies; Educational Assessment; Educational Testing; Student Evaluation; School Effectiveness; Evaluation Methods + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Allgemein bildendes Schulwesen; Allgemeinbildung; Bundesrecht; Teaching improvement; Unterrichtsentwicklung; Handicap; Behinderung; Educational indicato; Bildungsindikator; Special needs education; Sonderpädagogik; Sonderschulwesen; Bildungsreform; Lösungsstrategie; Education; assessment; Bewertungssystem; Schulnote; Studentische Bewertung; Schuleffizienz
Abstract	Background/Context: There are few empirical studies exploring the alleged conflict between the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Objective: The purpose of this study was to examine what impact the No Child Left Behind Act has had on students with disabilities. Research Design: Specifically, using large data sets from three different states, this article examines how the students with disabilities subgroup has fared under the No Child Left Behind Act. Under NCLB, there are four different subgroups: race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, limited English proficiency, and students with disabilities. If any one of these subgroups fails to make adequate yearly progress (AYP) under NCLB, the entire school fails. Findings: This study found that schools fail to make AYP most often because of the students with disabilities subgroup. The failure of the special education subgroup to make AYP occurs mainly because the students with disabilities subgroup is expected to maintain the exact same proficiency levels as their general education peers--a standard that has proved to be problematic because special education students often start out with lower average test scores than general education students. In addition, the students with disabilities subgroup is the only subgroup in which actual limitations on ability to learn might come into play. The existence of these limitations calls into question the wisdom of trying to close the general education-special education "achievement gap" at the same pace as the race- or class-based achievement gaps. In addition to quantitative methods, this study also used legal research techniques to examine the legal impact that the two laws are having on students with disabilities. Conclusions: The study found that although judicial challenges may be one route to try to change the law, pressure at the state and local levels by educators and parents of students with disabilities working together with the U.S. Department of Education may have an impact as well. (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	Teachers College, Columbia University. P.O. Box 103, 525 West 120th Street, New York, NY 10027. Tel: 212-678-3774; Fax: 212-678-6619; e-mail: tcr@tc.edu; Web site: http://www.tcrecord.org
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2017/4/10