High-stakes testing accountability has wreaked havoc on America's public schools. Since the passage of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) in 2001, virtually every public school student has experienced the pressures of preparing for, practicing, and taking standardized state exams, the results of which have had significant consequences for their schools, teachers, and themselves. These test-based pressures have altered educational practices in significant ways for all students, but especially for students with disabilities. The goal of this article is to briefly describe the educational climate for students with disabilities, focusing on emergent federal policies that have had the contradictory effect of expanding and narrowing learning opportunities for students. This article provides the backdrop for the volume by introducing the reader to the general characteristics of our special education population, discussing the past and current federal policies guiding their education, and offering implications for policy and practice.
Al OtaibaS., & FuchsD. (2006). Who are the young children for whom best practices in reading are ineffective? An experimental and longitudinal design. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 414–431).
ArtilesA. J., KozleskiE., TrentS., OsherD., & OrtizA. (2010). Justifying and explaining disproportionality, 1968-2008: A critique of underlying views of culture. Exceptional Children, 76, 279–299).
5.
BaluR., ZhuP., DoolittleF., SchillerE., JenkinsJ., & GerstenR. (2015). Evaluation of Response to Intervention practices for elementary school reading (NCEE 2016-4000). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
6.
BerkeleyS., BenderW. N., PeasterL. G., & SaundersL. (2009). Implementation of Response to Intervention: A snapshot of progress. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 85–95).
7.
Booher-JenningsJ. (2005). Below the bubble: ‘Educational triage’ and the Texas accountability system. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 231–268).
8.
BrinckerhoffL., & BanerjeeM. (2007). Misconceptions regarding accommodations on high-stakes tests: Recommendations for preparing disability documentation for test takers with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22(4), 246–255).
9.
CampbellD. (1975). Assessing the impact of planned social change. In LyonsG. (Ed.), Social Research and Public Policies (pp. 1–45)). Hanover, NH: The Dartmouth/OECD Conference.
10.
Castro-VillarrealF., RodriguezB., & MooreS. (2014). Teachers’ perceptions and attitudes about RtI: A qualitative analysis. Teaching and Teacher Education, 40, 104–112).
11.
Castro-VillarrealF., VillarrealV., & SullivanJ. (2016). Special education policy and Response to Intervention: Identifying promises and pitfalls to advance social justice for diverse students. Contemporary School Psychology, 20, 10–20).
12.
Civil Rights Data Collection. (2012). Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) projections and documentation: 2006 national and state projections. Retrieved from http://ocrdata.ed.gov/Projections_2006.aspx.
13.
ColeC. (2006). Closing the achievement gap series: Part III. What is the impact of NCLB on the inclusion of students with disabilities?Center for Evaluation and Education Policy, Education Policy Brief, 4(11), 1–12).
DonovanM. S., & CrossC. T. (Ed.). (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
17.
ElliottS. N. (2015). Measuring opportunity to learn and achievement growth: Key research issues with implications for the effective education of all students. Remedial and Special Education, 36(1), 58–64).
18.
FiglioD. N., & GetzlerL. S. (2006). Accountability, ability and disability: Gaming the system? In GronbergT.J., & JansenD.W. (Eds.), Improving school accountability: Check-ups or choice. Advances in Applied Microeconomics (Vol. 14, pp. 35–49)). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.
19.
FurneyK. S., HasaziS. B., Clark/KeefeK., & HartnettJ. (2003). A longitudinal analysis of shifting policy landscapes in special and general education reform. Exceptional Children, 70(1), 81–94).
20.
FuchsL. S., & VaughnS. R. (2005). Response to Intervention as a framework for the identification of learning disabilities. Trainers Forum: Periodical of the Trainers of School Psychologists, 25, 12–19).
21.
GerberM. (2011). A history of special education. In KauffmanJ.M., & HallahanD.P. (Eds.), Handbook of special education (pp. 3–14)). New York, NY: Routledge.
22.
GerstenR. M., ComptonD. L., ConnorC. M., DiminoJ., SantoroL., Linan-ThompsonS., & TillyD. W. (2009). Assisting students struggling with reading: Response to Intervention and multi-tier intervention in the primary grades. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/PracticeGuide.aspx?sid=3.
23.
GilbertJ. K., ComptonD. L., FuchsD., FuchsL. S., BoutonB., BarqueroL. A., & ChoE. (2013). Efficacy of a first-grade responsiveness-to-intervention prevention model for struggling readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 48(2), 135–154). doi:10.1002/rrq.45
24.
GunnB., BiglanA., SmolkowskiK., & AryD. (2000). The efficacy of supplemental instruction in decoding skills for Hispanic and non-Hispanic students in early elementary school. The Journal of Special Education, 34(2), 90–103).
25.
HaleJ., AlfonsoV., BerningerB., BrackenB., ChristoC., ClarkE., … YalofJ. (2010). Critical issues in Response to Intervention, comprehensive evaluation, and specific learning disabilities identification and intervention: An expert white paper consensus. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33, 223–236).
26.
Harris-MurriN., KingK., & RostenbergD. (2006). Reducing disproportionate minority representation in special education programs for students with emotional disturbances: Toward a culturally responsive response to intervention model. Education and Treatment of Children, 29(4), 779–799).
27.
HarryB., & KlingnerJ. (2014). Why are so many minority students in special education? Understanding race and disability in schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
28.
HermanJ. L., & HaertelE. H. (Ed.). (2005). Uses and misuses of data for educational accountability and improvement: The 104th yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
29.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (Public Law 108–446), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (Reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990).
30.
ItkonenT. (2009). The role of special education interest groups in national policy. Amherst, NY: Cambria Press.
31.
JonesM. G., JonesB., & HargroveT. (2003). The unintended consequences of high-stakes testing. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
32.
KauffmanJ. M. (1981). Introduction: Historical trends and contemporary issues in special education in the United States. In KauffmanJ.M., & HallahanD.P. (Eds.), Handbook of special education (pp. 3–23)). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
33.
KauffmanJ. M., & HallahanD. P. (Ed.). (2011). Handbook of special education. New York, NY: Routledge.
34.
KauffmanJ. M., & LandrumT. J. (2006). Children and youth with emotional and behavior disorders: A history of their education. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
35.
KindlerA. L. (2002). Survey of the states’ limited English proficient students and available educational programs and services, 1999–2000 summary report. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for English Acquisition and Language Instruction Educational Programs.
36.
KodeK. I. (2002). Elizabeth Farrell and the history of special education. Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
37.
LópezF. (in press). Language education policies and Latino youth. In NicholsS.L. (Ed.), Educational policies and youth in the 21st century: Problems, potential, and progress. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
38.
MarchantG. J., & PaulsonS. E. (2005). The relationship of high school graduation exams to graduation rates and SAT scores. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(6), 1–17). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v13n6/.
39.
MayrowetzD. (2009). Instructional practice in the context of converging policies: Teaching mathematics in inclusive elementary classrooms in the standards reform era. Educational Policy, 23(4), 554–588).
40.
McDermottR., GoldmanS., & VarenneH. (2006). The cultural work of learning disabilities. Educational Researcher, 35(6), 12–17).
41.
McLaughlinM. J., & ThurlowM. (2003). Educational accountability and students with disabilities: Issues and challenges. Educational Policy, 17(4), 431–451). doi:10.1177/0895904803254962.
42.
McLaughlinM., MalmgrenK., & NoletV. (2006). Accountability for students with disabilities who receive special education: Characteristics of the subgroup of students with disabilities (Summary of quantitative findings from the Educational Policy Reform Research Institute). Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED509859.pdf.
43.
MorganP. L., StaffJ., HillemeierM. M., FarkasG., & MaczugaS. (2013). Racial and ethnic disparities in ADHD diagnosis from kindergarten to eighth grade. Pediatrics, 132, 85–93). doi:10.1542/peds.2012-2390
44.
NicholsS. L., & BerlinerD. C. (2007). Collateral damage: How high-stakes testing corrupts America's schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
45.
NicholsS. L., GlassG. V., & BerlinerD. C. (2006). High-stakes testing and student achievement: Does accountability pressure increase student learning?Education Policy Analysis Archives, 14(1). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v14n1/.
46.
NicholsS. L., GlassG. V., & BerlinerD. C. (2012). High-stakes testing and student achievement: Updated analyses with NAEP data. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 20(20). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/1048.
47.
O'ConnorR. E., & SanchezV. (2011). Responsiveness to intervention models for reducing reading difficulties and identifying learning disability. In KauffmanJ.M., & HallahanD.P. (Eds.), Handbook of special education (pp. 123–133)). New York, NY: Routledge.
48.
OrfieldG., & KornhaberM. L. (Ed.). (2001). Raising standards or raising barriers? Inequality and high stakes testing in public education. New York, NY: The Century Foundation Press.
49.
OrfieldG., LosenD., WaldJ., & SwansonC. (2004). Losing our future: How minority youth are being left behind by the graduation rate crisis. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University.
50.
PazeyB. L., Vasquez HeiligJ., ColeH. A., & SumberaM. (2015). The more things change, the more they stay the same: Comparing special education students’ experiences of accountability reform across two decades. Urban Review, 47, 365–392). doi:10.1007/s11256-014-0312-7
51.
RavitchD. (2010). The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and choice are undermining education. New York, NY: Basic Books.
52.
RhodesR. L., OchoaS. H., & OrtizS. O. (2005). Assessing culturally and linguistically diverse students: A practical guide. New York, NY: Guilford.
53.
RyanJ. (2004). The perverse incentives of the No Child Left Behind Act. New York University Law Review, 79, 932–989).
54.
SamuelsC. A. (2011, March 2). RTI: An approach on the march. Education Week, 30(22), S2–S5).
55.
ScammaccaN., GregR., VaughnS., EdmondsM., WexlerJ., ReutebuchC. K., & TorgesenJ. K. (2007). Interventions for adolescent struggling readers: A meta-analysis with implications for practice. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED521837.pdf.
56.
ShifrerD., MullerC., & CallahanR. (2011). Disproportionality and learning disabilities: Parsing apart race, socioeconomic status, and language. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44, 246–257). doi:10.1177/0022219410374236
57.
SkibaR. J., MichaelR. S., NardoA. C., & PetersonR. (2002). The color of discipline: Sources of racial and gender disproportionality in school punishment. Urban Review, 34, 317–342).
58.
SkibaR. J., SimmonsA. B., RitterS., GibbA. C., Karega RauschM., & ChungC. (2008). Achieving equity in special education: History, status, and current challenges. Exceptional Children, 74(3), 264–288).
59.
SullivanA. (2011). Disproportionality in special education identification and placement of English Language Learners. Exceptional Children, 77(3), 317–334).
60.
SullivanA. L., & BalA. (2013). Disproportionality in special education: Effects of individual and school variables on disability risk. Exceptional Children, 79, 475–494).
61.
SwansonC. B. (2008, November 3). Special education in America: The state of students with disabilities in the nation's high schools. Education Week. Retrieved from www.edweek.org/rc.
62.
ThurlowM. L., & QuenemoenR. F. (2011). Standards-based reform and students with disabilities. In KauffmanJ.M., & HallahanD.P. (Eds.), Handbook of special education (pp. 134–146)). New York, NY: Routledge.
63.
TimarT. B., & Maxwell-JollyJ. (Ed.). (2012). Narrowing the achievement gap: Perspectives and strategies for challenging times. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
64.
TranL., SanchezT., ArellanoB., & SwansonH. L. (2011). A meta-analysis of the RTI literature for children at risk for reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44(3), 283–295). doi:10.1177/0022219410378447
65.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. (2015). 37th annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2015. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep.
66.
VanDerHeydenA. M., WittJ. C., & GilbertsonD. (2007). A multi-year evaluation of the effects of a Response to Intervention (RTI) model on identification of children for special education. Journal of School Psychology, 45, 225–256).
67.
VannestK. J., MahadevanL., MasonB. A., & Temple-HarveyK. K. (2009). Educator and administrator perceptions of the impact of No Child Left Behind on special populations. Remedial and Special Education, 30(3), 148–159). doi:10.1177/0741932508315378.
68.
Vasquez HeiligJ., & Darling-HammondL. (2008). Accountability Texas-style: The progress and learning of urban minority students in a high-stakes testing context. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(2), 75–110).
69.
VaughnS., CirinoP. T., WanzekJ., WexlerJ., FletcherJ. M., DentonC. A., & FrancisD. J. (2010). Response to Intervention for middle school students with reading difficulties: Effects of primary and secondary intervention. School Psychology Review, 39, 3–21).
70.
VellutinoF. R., ScanlonD. M., SmallS., & FanueleD. P. (2006). Response to Intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between children with and without reading disabilities: Evidence for the role of kindergarten and first-grade interventions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(2), 157–169). doi:10.1177/00222194060390020401
71.
VellutinoF. R., ScanlonD. M., ZhangH., & SchatschneiderC. (2008). Using response to kindergarten and first grade intervention to identify children at-risk for long-term reading difficulties. Reading and Writing, 21(4), 437–480). doi:10.1007/s11145-007-9098-2
72.
WertsM. G., CarpenterE. S., & FewellC. (2014). Barriers and benefits to Response to Intervention: Perceptions of special education teachers. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 33(2), 3–11).
YellM. L., KatsiyannisA., & BradleyM. R. (2011). The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: The evolution of special education law. In KauffmanJ.M., & HallahanD.P. (Eds.), Handbook of special education (pp. 61–76)). New York, NY: Routledge.
75.
YsseldykeJ., NelsonJ. R., ChristensonS., JohnsonD. R., DennisonA., TriezenbergH., … HawesM. (2004). What we know and need to know about the consequences of high-stakes testing for students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 71(1), 75–94).
76.
ZambranoE., Castro-VillarrealF., & SullivanJ. (2012). School counselors and school psychologists: Partners in collaboration for student success within RTI and CDCGP frameworks. Journal of School Counseling, 10 (24). Retrieved from http://jsc.montana.edu/articles/v10n24.pdf.
77.
ZhangD., KatsiyannisA., JuS., & RobertsE. (2014). Minority representation in special education: 5-year trend. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 23(1), 118–127).
