Due to an insufficient focus on efficacious practices, the reauthorized IDEA requires Individualized Education Program (IEP) teams to base the selection of special education, related services, and supplementary aids and services on peer-reviewed research (PRR), to the extent practicable. This article examines the litigation addressing the PRR requirement, presents the federal policy initiatives to support implementation of PRR and the controversy surrounding an expanded federal influence, and poses several questions pertaining to the implementation of the PRR requirement.
Achinstein, B., & Ogawa, R.T. ( 2006). (In)fidelity: What the resistance of new teachers reveals about professional principles and prescriptive educational policies. Harvard Educational Review, 76(1), 30-63.
2.
Anaheim City School District, 6 ECLPR 53 (SEA CA 2008).
3.
Baranek, G.T. ( 2002). Efficacy of sensory and motor interventions for children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders , 32(5), 397-422.
4.
Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, 458 U. S. 176, 102 S. Ct. 686 (1982).
5.
Borkowski, J.W., & Sneed, M. ( 2006). Will No Child Left Behind improve or harm public education?Harvard Educational Review, 76(4), 503-525.
6.
Brackenbury, T., Burroughs, E., & Hewitt, L.E. ( 2008). A qualitative examination of current guidelines for evidence-based practice in child language intervention. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 39, 78-88.
7.
Brassard, M.R., & Rivelis, E. ( 2009). School-based counseling of abused children. Psychology in the Schools, 46(3), 206-217.
8.
Brigham, F.J., III, Gustashaw, W.E., Wiley, A.L., & Brigham, M.S.P. (2004). Research in the wake of the No Child Left Behind Act: Why the controversies will continue and some suggestions for controversial research. Behavioral Disorders , 29(3), 300-310.
9.
Browder, D.M., & Cooper-Duffy, K. (2003). Evidence-based practices for students with severe disabilities and the requirement for accountability in "No Child Left Behind." The Journal of Special Education , 37(3), 157-165.
10.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S.L. ( 2006). Troubling images of teaching in No Child Left Behind . Harvard Educational Review, 76(4), 668-697.
11.
Collins, S.S. ( 2005). Scientifically-based research and students with significant disabilities: Where to educators find evidence-based practices? Rural Special Education Quarterly, 24(1), 60-63.
12.
Conroy, M.A. ( 2005). A descriptive analysis of positive behavioral intervention research with young children with challenging behavior. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 25(3), 157-166.
13.
Cook, B.G., Landrum, T.J., Tankersley, M., & Kauffman, J.M. (2003). Bringing research to bear on practice: Effecting evidence-based instruction for students with emotional or behavioral disorders. Education and Treatment of Children , 26(4), 345-361.
14.
Cook, B.G., Tankersley, M., & Landrum, T.J. ( 2009). Determining evidence-based practices in special education . Exceptional Children, 75(3), 365-383.
15.
Cox, R. ( 2004). Waiting for evidence-based practice for your hearing aid fittings? It’s here!The Hearing Journal, 57(8), 10-17. Retrieved October 30, 2009, from http://www.audiologyonline.com/theHearingJournal/pdfs/HJ2004_08_pg10-17.pdf
16.
Cracco, M.S., & Costigan, A.T. (2007). The narrowing of curriculum and pedagogy in an age of accountability: Urban educators speak out. Urban Education, 42(6), 512-534.
17.
Daniel, P.T. ( 2008). "Some benefit" or "maximum benefit": Does the No Child Left Behind Act render greater educational entitlement to students with disabilities?Journal of Law & Education, 37(3), 347-365.
18.
Darling-Hammond, L. ( 2007). Race, inequality, and educational accountability: The irony of "No Child Left Behind." Race, Ethnicity and Education , 10(3), 245-260.
19.
Dawson, G., & Watling, R. ( 2000). Interventions to facilitate auditory, visual and motor integration in autism: A review of the evidence. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 30, 415-421.
20.
DeBray, E.H., McDermott, K.A., & Wohlstetter, P. (2005). Introduction to the special issue on federalism reconsidered: The case of the No Child Left Behind Act . Peabody Journal of Education, 80(2), 1-18.
21.
Dimmitt, C., Carey, J.C., & Hatch, T. ( 2007). Evidence-based school counseling: Making a difference with data-drive practices. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
22.
Eckert, T.L., & Hintze, J.M. ( 2000). Behavioral conceptions and applications of acceptability: Issues related to service delivery and research methodology. School Psychology Quarterly, 15(2), 123-148.
23.
Elmore, R. ( 2003). Accountability and capacity. In M. Carnoy, R. F. Elmore, & L. S. Siskin (Eds.), The new accountability: High schools and high-stakes testing (pp. 195-209). New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
24.
Encinitas Union School District, 5 ECLPR 117 (SEA CA 2008).
25.
Etscheidt, S., & Curran, C.M. (in press). Peer-reviewed research and Individualized Education Programs (IEPs): An examination of intent & impact. Exceptionality .
26.
Fremont Unified School District, 49 IDELR 114 (SEA CA 2007).
27.
Fuller, B., Wright, J., Gesicki, K., & Kang, E. ( 2007). Gauging growth: How to judge No Child Left Behind. Educational Researcher, 36(5), 268-278.
28.
Gable, R.A., Hendrickson, J.M., & Van Acker, R. ( 2001). Maintaining the integrity of FBA-based interventions in schools. Education and Treatment of children, 24(3), 248-260.
29.
Gandal, M., & Vranek, J. ( 2001). Standards: Here today, here tomorrow. Educational Leadership, 59(1), 6-13.
30.
Gersten, R., & Dimino, J. ( 2001). Realities of translating research into classroom practice . Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16(X), 120-130.
31.
Gersten, R., Woodward, J., & Morvant, M. ( 1992). Refining the working knowledge of experienced teachers . Educational Leadership, 49(7), 34-39.
32.
Goertz, M.E. ( 2005). Implementing the No Child Left Behind Act: Challenges for the states. Peabody Journal of Education, 80(2), 73-89.
33.
Goldstein, L.S. ( 2008). Kindergarten teachers making "Street Level" education policy in the wake of No Child Left Behind. Early Education and Development, 19(3), 448-478.
34.
Goldstein, R.A., & Beutel, A.R. ( 2009). "Soldiers of democracy" or "enemies of the state"? The rhetorical construction of teacher through No Child Left Behind. Journal of Critical Education Policy Studies, 7(1), 276-300.
35.
Gresham, F.M., Beebe-Frankenberger, M.E., & MacMillan, D.L. (1999). A selective review of treatments for children with autism: Description and methodological considerations. School Psychology Review, 28(4), 559-576.
36.
Hursh, D. ( 2007). Exacerbating inequality: The failed promise of the No Child Left Behind Act. Race, Ethnicity, and Education, 10(3), 295-308.
37.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. §1400 et seq. (2004).
38.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (2004).
39.
In re: Student With a Disability, 52 IDELR 146 (SEA WV 2009). Jensen, L.S., & McDermott, K.A. (2005). Dubious sovereignty: Federal conditions of aid and the No Child Left Behind Act. Peabody Journal of Education, 80(2), 39-56.
40.
Johnson, C.J. ( 2006). Getting started in evidence-based practice for childhood speech-language disorders. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 15, 20-35.
41.
Joshua A. v. Rocklin Unified School District, 49 IDELR 249 (E.D. CA 2008).
42.
Kantor, H., & Lowe, R. ( 2006). From new deal to no deal: No Child Left Behind and the devolution of responsibility for equal opportunity. Harvard Educational Review, 76(4), 474-502.
43.
Karp, S. ( 2005). The trouble with takeovers. Educational Leadership, 62(5), 28-32.
44.
Kauffman, J.M., & Konold, T.R. ( 2007). Making sense in education: Pretense (including No Child Left Behind) and realities in rhetoric and policy about schools and schooling . Exceptionality, 15(2), 75-96.
45.
Kent, R.D. ( 2006). Evidence-based practice in communication disorders: Progress not perfection. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 37, 268-270.
46.
Kim, J., & Sunderman, G. ( 2006). Measuring academic proficiency under the No Child Left Behind Act: Implications for educational equity. Educational Researcher, 34(8), 3-13.
47.
Kozol, J. ( 2005). Confections of apartheid: A stick-and-carrot pedagogy for children of our inner city poor. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(4), 264-275.
48.
Long Beach Unified School District, 49 IDELR 210 (SEA CA 2008).
49.
Maher, C.G., Sherrington, C., Elkins, M., Herbert, R.D., & Moseley, A.M. ( 2004). Challenges for evidence-based physical therapy: Accessing and interpreting high-quality evidence on therapy. Physical Therapy, 84(7), 644-654.
50.
Mathis, W.J. ( 2005). The cost of implementing the federal No Child Left Behind Act: Different assumptions, different answers. Peabody Journal of Education, 80(2), 90-199.
51.
McDermott, K.A. ( 2007). "Expanding the moral community" or "blaming the victim"? The politics of state education accountability policy. American Educational Research Journal, 44(1), 77-111.
52.
Mintrop, H., & Sunderman, G.L. (2009). Predictable failure of federal sanctions-drive accountability for school improvement- and why we may retain it anyway. Educational Researcher, 38(5), 353-364.
53.
Odom, S.L., Brantlinger, E., Gersten, R., & Horner, R.H., Thompson, B., & Harris, K.R. ( 2005). Research in special education: Scientific methods and evidence-based practices. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 137-148.
54.
Rocklin Unified School District, 48 IDELR 234 (SEA CA 2007).
55.
San Juan Unified School District, 48 IDELR 201 (SEA CA 2007).
56.
Sanders, A. ( 2008). Left behind: Low-income students under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Journal of Law and Education, 37(4), 589-596.
57.
Schmoker, M., & Marzano, R.J. ( 1999). Realizing the promise of standards-based education. Educational Leadership, 56(6), 17-21.
58.
Slavin, R.E. ( 2002). Evidence-based education policies: Transforming educational practice and research. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 15-21.
59.
Smith, A. ( 2003). Scientifically based research and evidence-based education: A federal policy context. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 28(3), 126-132.
60.
Sunderman, G.L., & Kim, J.S. ( 2007). The expansion of federal power and the politics of implementing the No Child Left Behind Act. Teachers College Record, 109(5), 1057-1085.
61.
Sunderman, G.L., & Orfield, G. ( 2006). No Child Left Behind reforms and state administrative response. Harvard Educational Review, 76(4), 526-563.
62.
U.S. Department of Education. (2002a). Accountability and IDEA: What happens when the bus doesn’t come anymore?Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved August 28, 2009, from http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/50995356
63.
U.S. Department of Education. (2002b). IDEA: Behavioral supports in the schools. Washington, DC : Author. Cited in http://www.nasponline.org/advocacy/IDEACommittee.pdf
64.
U.S. Department of Education. (2002c). IDEA: What’s good for kids? What works for schools?Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved August 28, 2009, from http://ftp.resource.org/gpo.gov/hearings/107s/78448.pdf
65.
U.S. Department of Education. (2003). Paige releases principles for reauthorizing the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Retrieved August 11, 2009, from http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2003/02/02252003.html
66.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. (2002). A new era: Revitalizing special education for children and their families. Washington, DC: President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education.
67.
U.S. Department of Education, President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education. (2002). A new era: Revitalizing special education for children and their families. Washington, DC: Author.
68.
Vannest, K.J., Mahadevan, L., Mason, B.A., & Temple-Harvey, K.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.
69.
Wanker, W.P., & Christie, K. ( 2005). State implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act . Peabody Journal of Education, 80(2), 57-72.
70.
Waukee Community School District & Heartland Area Education Agency, 51 IDELR 15 (S.D. IA. 2008).
71.
Waukee Community School District, 48 IDELR 26 (SEA IA 2007).
72.
Whitehurst, G.J. ( 2004). Making education evidence-based: Promises, principles, pragmatics, and politics. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University, Institute for Policy research. Retrieved August 12, 2009, from http://www.northwestern.edu/ipr/events/lectures/DPPL-Whitehurst.pdf
73.
Yell, M.L., Shriner, J.G., & Katsiyannis, A. (2006). Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 and IDEA regulations of 2006: Implications for educators, administrators, and teacher trainers. Focus on Exceptional Children, 39(1), 1-24.
74.
Zirkel, P.A. ( 2008). Have the amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act razed Rowley and raised the substantive standard for "Free Appropriate Public Education?" Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law , Judiciary, 28(2), 397-420.
