By Yell, Mitchell L; Katsiyannas, Antonis; Shiner, James G
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) is a powerful, sweeping, and controversial law that addresses many aspects of public school education. In fact the law, which is the most recent reauthorization of the Elementary and secondary Education Act (ESEA), is arguably the most significant piece of federal education legislation in history. In the few years since its enactment, NCLB has dramatically increased the federal role in education and has required states, school districts, and schools to focus on the outcomes of teaching. This is because Congress’s primary goal in passing NCLB was to hold states and public schools accountable for improving student achievement in reading and math. The controversies notwithstanding, NCLB has had a great effect on the way public school students are educated in America (Yell & Drasgow, 2005).
No Child Left Behind affects all students in general education programs and students with disabilities who attend special education programs for part or all of their instruction. The law requires that schools demonstrably improve student achievement so that all public school students are proficient in reading and math by the end of the 2013-2014 school year. Moreover, NCLB mandates that states develop measurable milestones for schools to use to gauge their success in improving student achievement until the goal of 100% student proficiency is reached by the deadline. These measurable milestones that schools must achieve are called adequate yearly progress.
No Child Left Behind influences many other aspects of public education too. For example, the law (a) mandates that teachers of academic core subjects become highly qualified, (b) provides federal money to educate low-achieving students in reading through the Reading First grants, and (c) requires that programs using federal money be based on programs that have been demonstrated to be effective by rigorous scientific research. Despite the sweeping nature of this law, the aspects that may be having the greatest impact on schools are the accountability provisions. In this article, therefore, we have chosen to focus on the accountability mechanism of NCLB, which is adequate yearly progress (AYP). First, we review the major purpose of NCLB. second, we explain the AYP mandate. Third, we discuss how AYP will affect students with disabilities. Finally, we offer recommendations to teachers, administrators, and teacher trainers to help students meet the AYP requirements of NCLB.
The Purpose of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2OO1
Since 1965 almost $400 billion has been spent on public education. Unfortunately, state and national assessments of student progress have shown that student achievement in reading and math has remained stagnant over the past 40 years despite massive infusions of federal money (Wright, Wright, & Heath, 2004). These problems led legislators to argue that the federal educational funds should be spent more effectively and tied to measures of accountability. In the 1994 reauthorization of the ESEA Improving America’s School Act (IASA) there was an attempt to increase accountability for student outcomes. In fact, many of the requirements that are now associated with NCLB (e.g., statewide standards and testing) were actually initiated in the IASA. However, the provisions for assessments of students were not tied to any real accountability provisions. No Child Left Behind strengthened the measures that had been included in the IASA. The law accomplished this by holding states, school districts, and schools accountable for producing measurable gains in students’ achievement in reading and mathematics. No Child Left Behind, therefore, articulates a results-oriented accountability system (O’Neill, 2004) that requires states and schools to use numerical data to provide evidence of improved student outcomes (Yell, Drasgow, & Lowrey, 2005),
Accountability for Results: Adequate Yearly Progress
No Child Left Behind focused national attention on improving the academic achievement by requiring that states take the following four actions. First, states had to set challenging academic content and performance standards in reading, mathematics, and eventually science. States were free to develop standards in other subjects, such as science and social studies, but these tests are not used in the NCLB reporting requirements.
second, states had to develop or adopt tests that would be given to students to determine if the students were meeting state’s standards. All public school students in Grades 3 through 8 were to be tested, and high school students were to be tested at least once annually. The purpose of these tests is to hold public schools accountable for improving student achievement.
Third, states were required to set standards that students had to meet on these tests to be considered proficient. According to a report by the Rand Corporation, having states set their own proficiency standards has become a controversial issue because some states have set proficiency standards that are easy to achieve, whereas other states have set very rigorous proficiency standards that are very difficult to achieve (McCombs, Kirby, Barney, Darilek, & Magee, 2004).
Finally, to ensure that all students are making progress toward reaching the 100% proficiency goal by the deadline, the state must set specific targets for all students each year in reading/ language arts and math. The performance of the total student population and the performance of defined subgroups of students must be tracked and reported. Each year, all public schools in a state must administer the tests and report the reading and math data for all students in the school. In addition to reporting achievement data for all students, schools are also required to report AYP data for the following subgroups: students who are economically disadvantaged, students from racial and ethnic subgroups, students with disabilities, or students with limited English proficiency. The percentage of students in a school and in each subgroup who meet these proficiency levels is the keystone of NCLB’s accountability requirements. These proficiency standards or target goals are referred to as AYR No Child Left Behind also requires that states and public schools report student achievement to the public. The law also establishes a rigorous accountability system that involves rewards and sanctions based on student performance.
In order to make AYP, schools must have (a) at least 95% of enrolled students participate in the testing program [by entire student body and in each subgroup), (b) all students and all subgroups score at least proficient at the state’s AYP targets for that year, and (c) all students and all subgroups meet AYP targets for graduation or attendance. Schools can also make AYP, even in situations in which a particular subgroup has not met the state’s proficiency target, if certain conditions are met. These conditions are known as the “safe harbor” provisions. To meet the safe harbor provisions, and thus meet the state’s AYP targets, schools must have (a) at least 95% of students enrolled participate in statewide testing (by the particular subgroup), (b) all students and all subgroups score at least proficient at the state’s AYP targets for that year and have the percentage of students in the subgroup (s) that did not score at least proficient decrease by at least 10%, and have students in subgroup (s) make progress in graduation rate or attendance and (c) all students and the other subgroups meet AYP targets for graduation or attendance.
Readers should note that NCLB gave states a great deal of flexibility in determining how they will implement the AYP requirement. For example, states establish their own assessment procedures, proficiency goals, and ways to measure student progress. We suggest, therefore, for readers to truly understand how NCLB will affect students in their state, they need to investigate how their particular state implements NCLB. To clarify the concept of AYP, we next give an example of how AYP was set up in South Carolina.
Adequate Yearly Progress in South Carolina
Figure 1 depicts how AYP was calculated for Reading/Language Arts in South Carolina. The example depicted in Figure 1 only shows AYP goals for Reading/Language Arts AYP; however, South Carolina, and all other states, had to calculate AYP for both reading and math. The state had developed academic achievement standards and an academic assessment to measure progress toward these achievement standards, called the Palmetto Achievement Challenge Test (PACT). All public school students in the state were given the PACT in the 2001-2002 school year. This first year of testing, called the baseline year, was used to calculate the AYP goals. State officials, using a formula required in NCLB, calculated that 17.6% of the state’s students were to be considered proficient in reading/ language arts during the baseline year. This figure was used to set the AYP goals.
Because 100% of the state’s students and subgroups of students must be proficient in reading/language arts by 2013-2014, the state officials set AYP at progressively higher \levels so that the goal of 100% would be met by the target date. The target goals must be raised at least every 3 years. The difference between the 17.6% and the goal of 100% was 82.4%. The 82.4% increase needed to make 100% proficiency was then divided by 12, the number of years until the proficiency goal must be reached. The result was approximately a 7% increase each year. South Carolina education officials decided to step up the AYP criteria once every 3 years. In the 2003-2004 school year, the proficiency percentage that schools had to reach was 38.2%. The required proficiency was increased to 58.8% in 2006, 79.4% in 2010, and reaches 100% in the 2013-2014 school year. For a school to meet the AYP target, therefore, the required percentage of a school’s students must achieve these proficiency targets each year on the PACT, in addition to meeting the other requirements (i.e., 95% of students taking the test, attendance).
Figure 1. Adequate Yearly Progress Calculation for South Carolina
If a school’s students do not meet these proficiency levels for 2 consecutive years, the law mandates that the state designate the school in need of improvement. These schools will then receive technical assistance and must develop a 2-year plan to increase student performance. No Child Left Behind also requires that states and schools take certain actions when a school does not make AYP for 3 or more years in a row. These actions are listed in Table 1. Every element of NCLB, therefore, is intended to move all public school students closer to the overall levels of proficiency set by their respective states.
No Child Left Behind and Students WHh Disabilities
Many students with disabilities spend the majority of their time in their general education classrooms. Congress and the President believed that to ensure that instruction and achievement for students with disabilities is improved, all students with disabilities must be assessed and the results of these assessments must be included in the data used to determine if a school and school district make AYP. They also believed that if students with disabilities were excluded from schools’ accountability systems, they would be ignored and not receive the academic attention that they deserved. By including students with disabilities in NCLB’s accountability system, therefore, Congress made certain that schools would be held accountable for the educational performance of these students. We next discuss how students with disabilities are included in NCLB’s requirements regarding statewide assessments and AYR We also examine the requirements in NCLB and the Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) of 2004 (IDEA 2004) regarding students with disabilities.
Statewide Assessment, Alternate Assessment, and Students With Disabilities
Most students with disabilities are to be held to the standards for the grade in which the student is enrolled, although in some situations accommodations, modifications, or alternate assessments may be needed to get a true picture of a student’s achievement (Elliott, & Thurlow, 2003; Thurlow, Elliott, & Ysseldyke, 2001). The assessment provisions of NCLB require that school districts provide students with disabilities included in statewide-standardized assessments access to appropriate accommodations needed to take the statewide assessment. If the standardized statewide assessment is not appropriate for the student, even with accommodations, their progress must be measured using an alternate assessment. The student’s IEP team or section 504 team makes the decision regarding how the student will participate in a statewide assessment. Readers should note that the IEP team or section 504 team decides how the student will participate, not whether the student will participate.
No Child Left Behind and IDEA 2004 give the IEP team the responsibility for deciding how a student will participate in assessments. States and districts may require that only “approved” accommodations be considered in these decisions. Nonapproved accommodations or modifications that may invalidate test results may be restricted. In most instances, accommodations that are provided during instruction are those considered for assessment purposes. States must provide training and guidance to IEP teams and 504 teams on the appropriate use of testing accommodations and modifications. Readers should note that they should contact their State Department of Education to find out what accommodations and modifications are approved for use with students with disabilities.
Alternate Assessments
Under NCLB, states must develop alternate assessments that may be taken by students with disabilities who are not able to participate in the regular assessment even with the provision of accommodations. States may develop multiple alternate assessments and may choose to create alternate achievement standards that differ in “complexity from the grade level achievement standard” (Title I – Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged; Final Rule, 2003, 68699). No Child Left Behind allows for students to take an alternate assessment and have their performance judged against alternate achievement standards. Use of this latter option is limited to students with the most significant cognitive disabilities, meaning that only students identified as such may take an alternate assessment and be compared to alternate achievement standards. Neither NCLB nor its implementing regulations (34 CFR 200) define a significant cognitive disability. The U.S. Department of Education did not provide a definition so states and schools would have flexibility in determining which students could take an alternate assessment.
AYP and Students With Disabilities
In NCLB, the statewide assessment scores of all students with disabilities must be reported both as a subgroup and as part of the student body. Adequate yearly progress, therefore, is calculated and reported for the entire student body and again separately for students with disabilities. These students would be tested against standards appropriate for their intellectual development and, for accountability purposes, their scores would be counted as part of their school’s performance. The intent in including students with disabilities as part of the entire student body and as a separate subgroup is two-fold: (a) to protect children with disabilities from being excluded from accountability systems that provide valuable information to parents and educators and (b) to ensure that schools receive credit for the progress of all children (NCLB Regulations, 2003; see also Council for Exceptional Children, 2003). Thus, schools and school districts must pay close attention to the instruction and educational progress of students with disabilities.
Table 1. When Schools Fail to Make Adequate Yearly Progress
Students who are assessed using an alternate assessment are also included in AYR The federal government, however, puts a cap on students who may take an alternative assessment and be counted as scoring proficient if judged against alternate achievement standards for purposes of determining AYR This cap is currently set at 1 % of the total school population at each grade level that is tested. This limitation does not mean that there is a cap on the number of students with disabilities who can take an alternate assessment. Rather, it means that a school or school district can include a number of students not to exceed 1 % of the total student population at their grade level who score proficient on the alternate assessment and are judged against alternate standards as proficient in the AYP calculation. For example, in the fourth grade at Springdale School District, 1% of the students at that grade level took the alternate assessment and scored proficient when judged against alternate standards. Springdale School District could then count the students as proficient for AYP calculations. In the fifth grade, a total of 2% of the students at that grade level scored proficient on the alternate assessment when judged against alternate achievement standards. Because the amount exceeded the cap of 1 %, however, all the students above that percentage must be included in the AYP calculations as failing to demonstrate proficiency, despite the fact that the students scored proficient on the alternate assessment. Additionally, the 1 % counts at the school district and at the State Education Agency (SEA) level, but does not count at the individual school level. A school that is small or has a higher percentage of students with significant cognitive disabilities, therefore, is not penalized for purposes of AYP because the numerical cap does not apply.
Although there is variation by state, the 1 % cap across the total student population is approximately 9% of all students with disabilities. The U.S. Department of Education calculated this percentage based on incidence levels of students they believed had significant cognitive disabilities. State educational agencies (SEAs) may request a waiver from the 1% cap from the U.S. Department of Education. School districts may also request an increase in the cap from the SEA. Requests for an exception to the 1 % rule must include (a) an explanation of circumstances that result in more than 1 % of all students statewide having the most significant cognitive disabilities and who are achieving a proficient score on alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards, (b) data showing the incidence rate of students with the most significant cognitive disabilities, and (c) information showing how the state has implemented alternate achievement standards.
A district may initiate an exception request, or a state may apply for an exception on behalf of a district. In either case, the district should provide evidence that explains why more than 1 % of all students in the district’s tested gradeshave the most significant cognitive disabilities (U.S. Department of Education, 2004). The U.S. Department of Education expects that applications will request to lift the cap by small amounts (e.g., 2% or 3%). Some states have already applied to have these caps lifted. For example, four states have submitted proposals requesting a waiver on proficiency rates. Specifically, Minnesota requested a 1.5% cap, Ohio requested a 1.3% cap, and Virginia requested a 3.5% exception. Montana requested that the state be allowed to waive the requirement altogether because of the rural nature of the state (The Special Educator, 2004).
On May 10, 2005, the U.S. secretary of Education, Margaret Spellings, announced a new NCLB policy that granted states additional flexibility to count 2% of students with disabilities who will take out-of-level tests as proficient when calculating AYR These students, who were originally referred to as having persistent academic disabilities, can compose up to 2% of all students tested (this is above the 1% figure of students with significant cognitive disabilities). Although the actual rule has not been issued yet, states will only be eligible to count an additional 2% of students with disabilities as making AYP if they can demonstrate rigorous and effective plans, that strong researchbased instruction is used to increase the academic achievement of students with disabilities, and that the state provide rigorous research-based training for teachers. secretary Spellings’s press release announcing the increased flexibility noted that eligibility is not restricted to any particular category of disability (Spellings, 2005).
NCLB and IDEA 2OO4
On December 3, 2004, President Bush signed IDEA 2004 into law. A primary purpose of IDEA 2004 was to improve educational results for children with disabilities by providing a performancedriven framework for accountability to ensure that children with disabilities received a free appropriate public education (108th Congress Report, 2003). Additionally, a goal in the reauthorization of the IDEA, which culminated with the passage of IDEA 2004, was to align IDEA and NCLB (Paige, 2001). The alignment between the two laws was clearly stated by Robert Pasternak, former Assistant secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitation Services, in his testimony before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions in March 2002. secretary Pasternak noted that
The requirements of NCLB present us with a great opportunity to make sure that children with disabilities are part of these accountability systems. We must build on the accountability provisions enacted in NCLB to ensure that States and local school districts are accountable for results and that students with disabilities are included in rigorous assessments of student performance. (Pasternak, 2002, p. 2)
Despite these similarities there are important differences in the intent and development of the two laws. These differences are depicted in Table 2. Although both laws now require that all students be included in the statewide assessment and accountability system, the underlying rationale and valued principles for decisions about how a child is to be included emanated from somewhat different orientations. Because NCLB emphasizes group data for AYP determinations, its guiding principles may be perceived as misaligned with the focal point of IDEA decisionmaking-the individual student.
Both NCLB and IDEA 2004 emphasize the decision-making role of the IEP team for both participation and accommodation determination. What is not dealt with directly by the IEP team under either law is the way in which an individual student will be counted in the results. Rather, such determinations are made at the policy level. Thus, the IEP team decides and documents the individual student’s (a) appropriate access to the general curriculum, (b) need for reasonable accommodations for instruction and assessment, and (c) level/method of participation and accommodation strategies performance relative to the regular grade-level achievement standards or alternate achievement standards. These decisions are to be made with the parents as participants in the IEP process.
Additionally, the parents of students with disabilities should be informed of the consequences, if any, of taking the regular assessment with accommodations or taking the alternate assessment based on either the grade level standards or alternate achievement standards. For example, some states do not allow students who take the regular assessment with accommodations or the alternate assessment to graduate with a regular diploma.
Implications for Administrators, Teachers, and Teacher Trainers
For participation and accommodation decisions, then, the parents and IEP team are active decision makers. They are not active decision makers, however, in the consequences of the assessment for the student. It is because of this difference that administrators, teachers, and teacher trainers need to be aware of the overall process and its implications.
In this section we offer suggestions to assist administrators and teachers to meet the AYP requirements of NCLB. These suggestions will be useful for teachers when working with their students to help them score at a proficient level on the statewide tests thus, also helping their schools meet the AYP requirements of NCLB.
Suggestion # 1 : Conduct Relevant Assessments That Lead to Meaningful Programming
When students fail to learn, it is often because the student’s abilities and the instructional program do not match. To ensure a match between abilities and programming, teachers need to make good decisions about instructional programs and procedures and be able to revise the programs when needed. Making good decisions requires that teachers understand how to (a) conduct relevant and meaningful assessments, (b) interpret these assessments, and (c) match special education programs and strategies to the assessment results (Yell & Drasgow, 2005). Special education teachers should have expertise in developing and conducting appropriate and relevant assessments that lead to meaningful instructional programming for their students. Moreover, administrators should monitor student assessments and arrange appropriate professional development activities to ensure that teachers are knowledgeable about conducting assessments that are instructionallv relevant.
Table 2. Comparison of NCLB and IDEA: Standards and Assessment/ Accountability
Teacher training faculty in colleges of education must thoroughly prepare preservice teachers to (a) develop assessment instruments, (b) interpret assessment results, and (c) base instructional decisions on the assessments (Yell & Drasgow, 2005). No Child Left Behind focuses on increasing student achievement. If a student has difficulties learning in the general curriculum, his or her teachers must be able to assess the student’s educational needs and respond to them with meaningful instruction.
Suggestion #2: Use Instructional Procedures Grounded in Scientifically Based Research
A central principle of NCLB is that federal funds will support only educational procedures, materials, and strategies backed by scientifically based research. This principle of NCLB requires that teachers use procedures and strategies endorsed by scientifically based research findings and, thus, offers a great opportunity to bring evidencebased practices to America’s elementary and secondary classrooms (Yell & Drasgow, 2005). There is a huge gap between what we know works from scientifically based research and what is actually taught in many classrooms. Because NCLB focuses on teaching methods and procedures that are based on research, special education teachers must make such practices the core of their instructional procedures if we are to provide meaningful educational programs to students.
Most school districts have administrators who are responsible for staff development activities in their schools, and state departments of education have people who are responsible for statewide professional development activities. No Child Left Behind puts educators under intense pressure to produce better results; therefore, state department personnel, school administrators, principals, and teachers must understand and ensure that researchbased practices are used to educate students. Scientifically based research on instructional practices will not impact students’ academic achievement unless such practices are actually used in classrooms. Additionally, teacher trainers must understand the empirical knowledge in their fields and prepare their students to discriminate between proven and unproven educational methods and strategies, as well as testimonial and empirical evidence.
Suggestion #3: Increase Attention to How Students With Disabilities Will Participate in the Assessment System
Without question, there is an expectation that the vast majority of students with disabilities will participate in the regular assessments required under NCLB either without accommodations or the “appropriate accommodations” that are consistent with the accommodations provided during instruction (Title 1, 2003, p. 68700). Alternate assessment is a possible option, but not one that should be determined without extensive documentation and consideration. IEP teams must consider the student’s characteristics in light of the test requirements, constructs to be measured, and possible response modes (e.g., written, oral, computer-aided). These decisions can prove to be important, because they are likely to influence some aspect of the accountability (AYP) determination for the subgroup and the school.
If a state is approved to count the additional 2% of students with disabilities as proficient for calculating AYP, schools need to ensure that the IEPs of their students use research-based strategies that have been shown to improve academi\c achievement. Moreover, schools will need to show that their teachers have received rigorous and meaningful training in the use of research-based instruction.
Suggestion #4: Collect Meaningful Data on Student Progress and Make Instructional Changes When Necessary
Teachers need to collect meaningful data on their students’ progress to ensure that their instructional programs are working and to make accurate decisions regarding when programmatic changes must be made. Moreover, this information must be collected and used on a frequent and regular basis. It is only with the appropriate use of such information that teachers can make determinations about the effectiveness and efficiency of students’ programs and test alternative strategies and procedures when necessary (Deno, 1992). That is, teachers can use the data to empirically test alternative approaches to instruction, then adopt the most effective approach and, thus, become more effective in helping students attain proficiency in academic skills. According to the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center on Progress Monitoring (2005), when progress monitoring is implemented correctly, the benefits are great for everyone involved. Some benefits include:
* Accelerated learning because students are receiving more appropriate instruction.
* More informed instructional decisions.
* Documentation of student progress for accountability purposes.
* More efficient communication with families and other professionals about students’ progress.
* Higher expectations for students by teachers.
Frequent and appropriate use of progress monitoring leads to increased academic achievement (Deno, 2003; Fuchs & Fuchs, 1986). In a sense, the progress monitoring data becomes a vital sign of a student’s growth in particular skills (e.g., reading, written language, and mathematics) comparable to the vital signs of physical health used by physicians (Deno, 1992). Teachers can ensure that they provide meaningful instruction by collecting useful data on a student’s progress and then by using the data to inform their instructional decisions.
If teachers are going to be required to collect and use data in a meaningful way, then they must be prepared to do so in their teacher training programs. This means that colleges of education across the country must include specific training in formative evaluation procedures (i.e., evaluation conducted during the course of instruction) in their preservice courses, and state departments of education should include progress monitoring.
Summary
No Child Left Behind is a complex, sweeping, and controversial law that was passed as a reaction to the low academic achievement exhibited by so many public school students in America. This powerful law profoundly changes the ways educators work with students in general and special education. It accomplishes this by holding states, school districts, principals, and teachers accountable for making meaningful improvements in student’s academic performance. No Child Left Behind also points educators toward the tool that will allow schools to make meaningful changes in the academic achievement of their students: scientifically based research. If the core of our educational practices becomes what the research shows us works in teaching, then we can make meaningful changes in our schools.
Although Congress and the U.S. Department of Education may make slight alterations to the law, we believe that the major goals of NCLB are here to stay. Moreover, NCLB’s requirements that states, school districts, and schools be held accountable for increasing student achievement means that special education teachers must develop meaningful and effective programs using scientifically based educational practices that result in increased achievement for their students. Furthermore, IDEA’S requirements that the programs for students in special education confer meaningful educational benefit will require education changes from a system that has been too often based on fads and what sounds good, to a system that embraces research and accountability.
[S] ome states do not allow students who take the regular assessment with accommodations or the alternate assessment to graduate with a regular diploma.
Frequent and appropriate use of progress monitoring leads to increased academic achievement.
References
Council for Exceptional Children. (2003). The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001: Implications for special education policy and practice. PDF available at http:// www.cec.sped.org/pp/NCLBside-by- side. pdf. Author.
Deno, S. L. (1992). The nature and development of curriculum- based measurement. Preventing School Failure, 36(2), 5-10.
Deno, S. L., (2003). Developments in curriculum-based measurement. The Journal of Special Education, 37, 184-192.
Elementary and secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965, 20 U.S.C. 16301 et seq.
Elliott, J. L., & Thurlow, M. L. (2003). Improving test performance of students with disabilities … on district and state assessments. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Fuchs, L. A., & Fuchs, D. (1986). Effects of systematic formative evaluation: A metaanalysis. Exceptional Children, 53, 199-208.
Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994, 20 U.S.C. 16301 et seq.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.
McCombs, J., Kirby, S. N., Barney, H., Darilek, S., & Magee, S. J. (2004). Achieving state and national literacy goals, a long uphill road. New York; Rand Corporation for the Carnegie Foundation.
The National Center on Progress Monitoring (2005). Common questions for progress monitoring. Retrieved October 24, 2005 from http://www.studentprogress.org/ progresmon.asp
No Child Left Behind, 20 U.S.C. 16301 et seq.
No Child Left Behind Regulations, Federal Register, Volume 67 Number 321, Pages 71709-71771, December 2, 2002.
O’Neill, P. T. (2004). No Child Left Behind compliance manual. New York: Brownstone.
Paige, R. (2001, October). Testimony of Secretary Paige before the House Committee on Education and the Workforce. Retrieved April 24, 2002, from http://www.ed.gov/news/speeches/ 2001/10/011004.html
Pasternak, R. (2002, March). Testimony of Assistant secretary Pasternak before the Senate Committee on health, Education, labor, and pensions. Retrieved April 24, 2002 from http://www.ed.gov/news/ speeches/2002/03/20020321 .htm
Spellings, M. (2005, May 10). Press release: Spellings announces new special education guidelines, details workable, “commonsense” policy to help states implement No Child Left Behind. Retrieved July 8, 2004 from www.ed.gov/news/pressrelease/ 2005/05/05102005. html
State plans contain specific data for exceptions to 1 percent cap. (2004). The Special Educator, 19(19), 6.
Thurlow, M. L., Elliott, J. L., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (2001). Testing students with disabilities: Practical strategies for complying with district and state requirements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Title I-Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged: Final Rule, 68 Fed. Reg. 68689-68708 (Dec. 9, 2003) (to be codified at 48 C.F.R. pt. 200).
U.S. Department of Education. (2004). Lead and manage my school: Letter to Chief State School Officers regarding inclusion of students with disabilities in state accountability systems. Retrieved November 15, 2004, from http://www.ed.gov/admins/ Iead/ account/csso030204.html
U.S. House of Representatives. (2003). Congressional Report of the Reauthorization of the IDEA. Retrieved November, 16, 2005 from edworkforce.house.gov/issues/ 108th/education/idea/conferencereport/ confrept.htm
Wright, P. D., Wright, P. D., & Heath, S. W. (2004). No Child Left Behind. Hartfield, VA: Harbor House Law Press.
Yell, M. L., & Drasgow, E. (2005). No Child Left Behind: A guide for professionals. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill/ Prentice- Hall.
Yell, M. L., Drasgow, E., & Lowrey, K. A. (2005). No Child Left Behind and students with autism spectrum disorder. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 20, 130-139.
Mitchell L. Yell (CEC SC Federation), Professor, Program in Special Education, University of South Carolina, Columbia. Antonis Katsiyannas (CEC SC Federation), Professor, Special Education Program, Clemson University, South Carolina. James G. Shiner, Associate Professor, Department of Special Education, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
Address correspondence to Mitchell L. Yell, 235-G Wardlaw, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208 (email: [email protected]. edu).
TEACHING Exceptional Children, Vol. 38, No. 4, pp. 32-39.
Copyright 2006 CEC.
Copyright Council for Exceptional Children Mar/Apr 2006
Comments