The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) represents the most significant federal education policy initiative in a generation. The perceptions of key personnel from four states and eight school districts on the opportunities and challenges of meeting Annual Yearly Progress requirements for students with disabilities reveal a complex situation. The success of students with disabilities on NCLB mandates is dependent on myriad factors, including access to the general education curriculum and the capacity of educators to teach diverse learners. Findings from a qualitative analysis, part of a larger 5-year mixed-method study, reveal that although participants recognized the challenges ahead, most seemed willing to tackle these challenges to the best of their abilities. Moreover, participants from both general and special education systems recognized that students with disabilities are a vital part of the current education reform.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ahearn, E.M. (1992). Analysis of state compliance monitoring practices (Project FORUM. ED352781).
2.
Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S.K. (1992). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
3.
Cohen, M. (2002, February). Implementing Title 1 standards, assessments, and accountability: Lessons from the past, challenges for the future. Paper presented for a conference sponsored by the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation. Retrieved February 27, 2003 from http://www.edexcellence.net/NCLBconference/NCLBreport.pdf
4.
Denzin, N.K. (1983). Interpretive interactionism. In G. Morgan (Ed.), Beyond method: Strategies for social research (pp. 129—146). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
5.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (2002). Building theories from case study research. In A. M. Huberman & M. B. Miles (Eds.), The qualitative researcher's companion (pp. 5—36). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
6.
Eisenhardt, K.M., & Bourgeois, L.J. (1988). Politics of strategic decision making in high velocity environments: Toward a mid-range theory. Academy of Management Journal. Academy of Management, 31, 737—770.
7.
Fletcher, M.A. (2003, January 2). States worry new law sets schools up to fail. The Washington Post, p. A01.
8.
Geertz, C. (1973). Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. In C. Geertz (Ed.), The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays (pp. 3— 30). New York: Basic Books.
9.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies of qualitative research. London: Wiedenfeld and Nicholson.
10.
Goldhaber, D. (2002, February). What might go wrong with the accountability measures of the “No Child Left Behind Act.” Paper presented for a conference sponsored by the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation . Retrieved February 27, 2003, from http://www.edexcellence.net/NCLBconference/NCLBreport.pdf
11.
Goertz, M.E., Duffy, M.C., & Le Floch, K.C. (2003). Assessment and Accountability Systems in the 50 States: 1999-2000. CPRE Research Report Series RR-046, Consortium for Policy Research in Education [CPRE], University of Pennsylvania, Graduate School of Education, March 2001. Retrieved February 26th, 2003, from www.gse.upenn.edu/cpre/Publications/rr46.pdf
12.
Guba, E.G., & Lincoln, Y.S. (1981). Effective evaluation: Improving the effectiveness of evaluation results through responsive and naturalistic approaches. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
13.
Heubert, J. P., & Hauser, R. M. (Eds). (1999). High stakes: Testing for tracking, promotion and graduation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
14.
IDEA Amendments of 1997, 20 U. S. G. § 1401 (26).
15.
Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
16.
Linn, R.L. (2000). Assessment and accountability. Educational Researcher, 29(2), 4—16.
Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
19.
Olson, L. (2002, April 3). Inadequate yearly gains are predicted . Education Week. Retrieved February 27, 2003 , from http:www.edweek.org/ew/newstory
20.
Pettigrew, A. (1983). On studying organizational cultures. In J. Van Maanan (Ed.), Qualitative methodology (pp. 87—104). Beverly Hill, CA: Sage.
21.
Qualis Research Associates. (1998). Ethnograph (V.5.07) [Computer software]. Colorado Springs, CO.
22.
Ragin, C.C. (1987). The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative research strategies. Berkeley: University of California Press.
23.
Sebba, J., Thurlow, M.L., & Goertz, M. (2000). Educational accountability and students with disabilities in the United States, and England and Wales. In M. J. McLaughlin & M. Rouse (Eds.), Special education and school reform in the United States and Britain. (pp.98—126). London: Routledge .
24.
Thurlow, M.L., Nelson, J.R., Teelucksingh, E., & Ysseldyke, J.E. (2000). Where's Waldo? A third search for students with disabilities in state accountability reports (Tech. Rep. 25). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
25.
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, P.L. 107-110, 115 stat. 1425 (200).
26.
U.S. Department of Education. (2002). Title 1 Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged, Final Regulations, 34 CFR Part 200. Retrieved, December 12, 2002, from http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/finrule/2002-4/120202a.pdf
27.
Van Maanen, J. (1988). Tales of the field: On writing ethnography. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
28.
Wenning, R.J., Herdman, P.A., & Smith, N. (2002, February). No child left behind: Who is included in new federal requirements?Paper presented for a conference sponsored by the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation. Retrieved February 27, 2003, from http://www.edexcellence.net/NCLBconference/NCLBreport.pdf
29.
Yin, R. (1984). Case study research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
