No Child Left Behind (NCLB) seeks to address the inequality in schools and to correct achievement disparities prevalent in education, but little is known of NCLB's effect on students in special education. This study assesses the impact of NCLB on special education by asking educators, administrators, and staff who serve students in special education about their perceptions of the impact of NCLB for students with disabilities. Survey responses were received from 248 respondents across the state of Texas. Findings include positive perceptions of changes related to accountability, teacher qualifications, and evidence-based practices; negative perceptions related to assessment; and perceptions of no changes in relationships and communication with parents or freedom for states and communities.
Åkerström, M. (2006). Doing ambivalence: Embracing policy innovation at arm's length. Social Forces, 53(1), 57-74.
2.
Andrews, J.E., Carnine, D.W., Coutinho, M.J., Edgar, E.B., Forness, S.R., Fuches, L.S., et al. (2000). Bridging the special education divide. Remedial and Special Education, 21, 258-260.
3.
Barrett, S.M. (2004). Implementation studies: Time for a revival? Personal reflections on 20 years of implementation studies. Public Administration, 82, 249-262.
4.
Bartlett, J.E., II, Kotrlik, J.W., & Higgins, C.C. (2001). Organizational research: Determining appropriate sample size in survey research. Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal, 19(1), 43-50.
5.
Booher-Jennings, J. (2005). Below the bubble: "Educational triage" and the Texas accountability system. American Educational Research Journal, 42, 231-268.
6.
Cronbach, L.J. (1990). Essentials of psychology testing. New York: Harper Collins.
7.
Daley, E.M., McDermott, R.J., Brown, K.R., & Kittleson, M.J. (2003). Conducting survey research: A lesson in Internet design. American Journal of Health Behavior , 27, 116-124.
8.
Duncan, S., & Sheerer, M. (2004). Applying SCORM principles to "Leave No Child Behind."Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 5(1), 29-35.
9.
Eaton, J., & Struthers, C.W. (2002). Using the Internet for organizational research: A study of cynicism in the workplace. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 5, 305-313.
10.
Eisenhart, M., & Towne, L. (2003). Contestation and change in national policy on "scientifically based" education research. Educational Researcher , 32(7), 31-38.
11.
Finsterbusch, K., & Van Wicklin, W. (1988). Beneficiary participation in development projects: Empirical tests of popular theories. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 37(1), 82-98.
12.
Haggett, S., & Mitchell, V. (1994). Effects of industrial pre-notification on response rate, speed, quality, bias and cost. Industrial Marketing Management, 23, 101-110.
13.
Harvard Civil Rights Project. (2004). Listening to teachers: Classroom realities and No Child Left Behind. Retrieved February 8, 2006, from http://www.civilrightsproject.harvard.edu/research/articles/NCLB_Survey_Report.pdf
14.
Helgeson, J.G., Voss, K.E., & Terpening, W.D. (2002). Determinants of mail-order response: Survey design factors and respondent factors. Psychology and Marketing, 19, 303-328.
15.
International Reading Association. (2005). Mixed reactions to NCLB. Retrieved February 8, 2006, from http://www.reading.org/publications/reading_today/samples/RTY-0502-survey.html
16.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (2004).
17.
Koch, N.S., & Emrey, J.A. (2001). The Internet and opinion measurement: Surveying marginalized populations. Social Science Quarterly, 82, 131-138.
18.
Krejcie, R.V., & Morgan, D.W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities . Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30, 607-610.
19.
Landrum, T.J., Cook B.G., Tankersley, M., & Fitzgerald, S. (2002). Teacher perceptions of the trustworthiness, usability, and accessibility of information from different sources. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 42-48.
20.
Litwin, M.S. (2002). How to assess and interpret survey psychometrics (Survey Kit Series 8). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
21.
Merton, R.K. (1936). The unanticipated consequences of purposive social action. American Sociological Review, 2, 894-904.
22.
Mulvenon, S., Stegman, C., & Ritter, G. (2005). Test Anxiety: A multifaceted study on the perceptions of teachers, principals, counselors, students and parents. International Journal of Testing, 5(10), 37-61.
23.
National Staff Development Council. (2004). NCLB: Survey finds many educators experience little positive NCLB impact on professional development. Retrieved February 8, 2006, from http://www.nsdc.org/library/policy/nclbsurvey2_04.cfm
24.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. 70 § 6301 et seq. (2002).
25.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
26.
Pett, M.A., Lackey N. R., & Sullivan, J.J. (2003). Making sense of factor analysis: The use of factor analysis for instrument development in health care research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
27.
Rosenberg, S., Sindelar, P.T., & Hardman, M.L. (2004). Preparing highly qualified teachers for students with emotional or behavioral disorders: The impact of NCLB and IDEA. Behavioral Disorders, 29, 266-278.
28.
Saetren, H. (2005). Facts and myths about research on public policy implementation: Out of fashion, allegedly dead, but still very much alive and relevant. Policy Studies Journal, 33, 559-582.
29.
Schneider, A.L. (1999). Perspectives on implementation research: More responses to Lester and Goggin's "Back to the Future." Policy Currents, 9(1), 1-12.
30.
Sheehan, K.B., & McMillan, S.J. (1999). Response variation in e-mail surveys: An exploration. Journal of Advertising Research, 39(4), 45-54.
31.
Sunderman, G.L., Tracey, C.A., Kim, J.S., & Orfield, G. (2004). Listening to teachers: Classroom realities and No Child Left Behind. Cambridge, MA: Civil Rights Project at Harvard University.
32.
Trouteaud, A.R. (2004). How you ask counts: A test of Internet-related components of response rates to a Web-based survey. Social Science Computer Review, 22, 385-392.
33.
Truell, A.D., & Goss, P. (2002). Business education leaders compare e-mail and regular mail survey research. Journal of Technology Studies , 27(3), 81-83.
34.
Tuerk, P.W. (2005). Research in the high-stakes era: Achievement, resources, and No Child Left Behind. Psychological Sciences , 16, 419-425.
35.
U.S. Department of Education. (2004). NCLB: Stronger accountability. Testing: Frequently asked questions. Retrieved November 6, 2005, from http://www.ed.gov/nclb/accountability/ayp/testingfaq.html
36.
U.S. Department of Education. (2005). IDEA reauthorized statue: Alignment with the No Child Left Behind Act. Retrieved November 6, 2005, from http://www.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/tb-nclb-align.doc
