The continuously evolving standards-based reform (SBR) movement is one of the most prominent features of today's educational policy landscape. As SBR has continued to drive educational policy, local schools and districts have adopted many approaches to comply with legal mandates. This article critically examines one particular resultant phenomenon of the SBR movement—the emergence of a new track of self-contained classes called Prioritized Curriculum classes, designed to provide students with disabilities access to standards-based general education curriculum, but in a segregated class. In this article we document the emergence of such courses and critically analyze the rationales and policy loopholes that have led to their creation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AllbrittenD., MainzerR., & ZieglerD. (2004). Will students with disabilities be scapegoats for school failures?Educational Horizons, 82, 153–160).
2.
AmreinA. L., & BerlinerD. C. (2002). An analysis of some unintended and negative consequences of high stakes testing. Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University Education Policy Research Unit. Retrieved from http://nepc.colorado.edu/files/EPSL-0211-125-EPRU.pdf
3.
AppleM. W. (2004). Creating difference: Neo-liberalism, neo-conservatism and the politics of educational reform. Educational Policy, 18(1), 12–44).
4.
BaconJ. K. (2012). The impact of standards-based reform on special education: An exploration of Westvale Elementary School (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Teaching and Leadership-Dissertations. (244)
5.
BaconJ. K., & FerriB. A. (2013). The impact of standards-based reform: Applying Brantlinger's critique of ‘hierarchical ideologies.’International Journal of Inclusive Education, 17(12), 1312–1325).
6.
BerlinerD. (2011). Rational responses to high stakes testing: The case of the curriculum narrowing and the harm that follows. Cambridge Journal of Education, 41(3), 287–302).
Causton-TheoharisJ., TheoharisG., OrsatiF., & CosierM. (2011). Does self-contained special education deliver on its promises? A critical inquiry into research and practice. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 24(2), 61–78).
9.
ChristensonS., DeckerD., TriezenbergH., YsseldykeJ., & ReschlyA. (2007). Consequences of high-stakes assessment for students with and without disabilities. Educational Policy, 21, 662–690).
10.
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 Brief, 4(11), 1–12).
11.
CookL., & FriendM. (1995). Co-teaching: Guidelines for creating effective practices. Focus on Exceptional Children, 28(3), 1–16).
12.
CoutradeG., SpoonerF., BrowderD., & JimenezB. (2012). Seven reasons to promote standards-based instruction for students with severe disabilities: A reply to Ayres, Lowrey, Douglas & Sievers (2011). Education Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 47(1), 3–13).
13.
DefurS. (2002). Education reform, high stakes assessment, and students with disabilities: One state's approach. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 203–211). doi:10.1177/074193 25020230040301
14.
FeldmanK., & DentiL. (2004). High-access instruction: Practical strategies to increase active learning in diverse classrooms. Focus on Exceptional Children, 36(7), 1–12).
15.
FerriB. A., & ConnorD. J. (2006). Reading resistance: Discourses of exclusion and desegregation & inclusion debates. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
16.
FuchsD., & FuchsL. (1995). Sometimes separate is better. Educational Leadership, 52(4), 22–26).
17.
FuchsD., FuchsL. S., & SteckerP. M. (2010). The “blurring” of special education in a new continuum of general education placements and services. Exceptional Children, 76(3), 301–323). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/201197322?accountid=14214
18.
GargiuloR. M. (2012). Special education in contemporary society (5th edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
19.
Gaumer-EricksonA. S., Kleinhammer-TramillJ., & ThurlowM. L. (2007). An analysis of the relationship between high school exit exams and diploma options and the impact on students with disabilities. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 18(2), 117–128).
HardmanM. L., & DawsonS. (2008). The impact of federal public policy on curriculum for students with disabilities in the general classroom. Preventing School Failure, 52(2), 5–11).
22.
HehirT., & KatzmanL. (2012). Effective inclusive schools: Designing successful schoolwide programs. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
23.
IDEIA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act). (2004). Public Law108–446).
24.
JenningsJ. L., & BearakJ. M. (2014). “Teaching to the test” in the NCLB era: How test predictability affects our understanding of student performance. Educational Researcher. doi:10.3102/0013189X14554449
25.
KatsiyannisA., ZhangD., RyanJ. B., & JonesJ. (2007). High stakes testing and students with disabilities: Challenges and promises. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 18(3), 160–167).
26.
KauffmanJ. M., LandrumT. J., MockD. R., SayeskiB., & SayeskiK. L. (2005). Diverse knowledge and skills require diversity of instructional groups: A position statement. Remedial and Special Education, 26(1), 2–6).
27.
LazarusS. S., ThompsonS. J., & ThurlowM. L. (2006). How students access accommodations in assessment and instruction: Results of a survey of special education teachers. EPRRI Issue Brief Seven. College Park, MD: Educational Policy Reform Research Institute.
28.
LillardD. R., & DeCiccaP. P. (2001). Higher standards, more dropouts? Evidence within and across time. Economics of Education Review, 20, 459–473).
29.
McLaughlinM. J. (2010). Evolving interpretations of educational equity and students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 76(3), 265–278).
30.
McLaughlinM. J., & ThurlowM. (2003). Educational accountability and students with disabilities: Issues and challenges. Educational Policy, 17(4), 431–451).
31.
McGlaughlinM., MiceliM., & HoffmanA. (2009). Standards, assessments and accountability for students with disabilities: An evolving meaning of a “free and appropriate public education.” In WolffM.R. (Ed.), NCLB at the crossroads: Reexamining the federal effort to close the achievement gap (pp. 106–133)). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
32.
McLeskeyJ., & WaldronN. L. (2011). Educational programs for elementary students with learning disabilities: Can they be both effective and inclusive?Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 26(1), 48–57). doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2010.00324.x
33.
MeyerA., RoseD., & GordonD. (2014). Universal design for learning: Theory and practice. Wakefield, MA: CAST Professional Publishing.
34.
MooreM. L. (2012). The effects of increased accountability standards on graduation rates for students with disabilities (Doctoral dissertation). The University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, MS. Retrieved from Proquest (Number 3514699).
35.
NicholsS. L., & BerlinerD. C. (2005). The inevitable corruption of indicators and educators through high-stakes testing. Tempe, AZ: College of Education, Education Policy Studies Laboratory Report EPSL-0503–101-EPRU. Retrieved from http://www.asu.edu. N.J.A.C. 6A:14, Special Education. (2015). Retrieved from http://www.nj.gov/education/specialed/reg/.
36.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 et seq. (2002).
37.
OliverM. (1990). The politics of disablement. London, England: Macmillan.
38.
QuenemoenR. F., LehrC. A., ThurlowM. L., & MassanariC. B. (2001). Students with disabilities in standards-based assessment and accountability systems: Emerging issues, strategies, and recommendations (Synthesis Report 37). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis37.html
Rome City School District (n.d.). Special Education Classes at Upper Elementary and Middle Schools. Retrieved from http://www.romecsd.org/Page/410.
41.
RyndakD. L., TaubD., JorgensenC. M., Gonsier-GerdinJ., ArndtK., SauerJ., … AllcockH. (2014). Policy and the impact on placement, involvement and progress in general education: Critical issues that require rectification. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 39(1), 65–74).
42.
SandholtzJ. H., OgawaR. T., & ScribnerS. P. (2004). Standards gaps: Unintended consequences of local standards-based reform. Teachers College Record, 106(6), 1177–1202).
43.
SmithP. (2010). Whatever happened to inclusion? The place of students with intellectual disabilities in education. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
44.
SoukupJ. H., WehmeyerM. L., BashinskiS. M., & BovairdJ. A. (2007). Classroom variables and access to the general curriculum for students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 74, 101–120).
45.
Syracuse City School District. (2010). Special Education News, 2(2), 1–7).
46.
TaylorS. (2006). Before it had a name: Exploring the historical roots of disability studies in education. In DanforthS., & GabelS. (Eds.), Vital questions facing disability studies in education (pp. xiii–xxiii)). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
47.
ThompsonS., & ThurlowM. (2003). 2003 State special education outcomes: Marching forward. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
48.
ThurlowM. (2002). Positive education results for all students: The promise of standards-based reform. Remedial and Special Education, 23(4), 195–202).
49.
TomlinsonC. A. (2014). Differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
50.
Udvari-SolnerA. (1995). Examining teacher thinking: Constructing a process to design curricular adaptations. Remedial and Special Education, 17, 245–254).
51.
U.S. Department of Education. (2013). Race to the top: Annual performance report. Retrieved from www.rtt-apr.us
52.
WagnerM. M., & BlackorbyJ. (1996). Transition from high school to work or college: How special education students fare. Special Education for Students with Disabilities, 6, 103–120).
53.
WehmeyerM. L., LattinD. L., Lapp-RinckerG., & AgranM. (2003). Access to the general curriculum of middle school students with mental retardation: An observational study. Remedial and Special Education, 24, 262–272).
54.
YsseldykeJ., NelsonJ., ChristensonS., JohnsonD., 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), 75–95). doi:10.1177/001440290407100105
