Administrative Perspectives on the No Child Left behind Act (NCLBA) for Students with Disabilities in Rural Settings

Abstract

The impact of the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) has provided a significant challenge and opportunity for administrators of special education services at the state and local levels. Leaders representing prominent professional organizations at both the state (National Association of State Directors of Special Education, Inc.) and local (Council of Administrators of Special Education, Inc.) education levels have identified advantages and barriers to successful implementation of the legal mandates. The most significant challenges for special education leaders and managers include: the requirements for adequate yearly progress for all learners, the provision of highly qualified special education service providers, and an adequate amount of attention devoted to all subgroups of learners. The unique difficulties for rural schools providing an appropriate education to all learners, including those with disabilities, are compounded by the effects of supplemental services, choice options, and the identification of adequate resources. The implications for the preparation of effective special education leaders and managers are identified within these parameters.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Beekman,

L. E.

(2005). IDEA 2004: What's new and so what? Okemos, MI: Special Education Solutions.

Boehner,

(Updated: 10-7-04). Fact Sheet: No Child Left Behind is FUNDED. Retrieved November 30, 2004, from http://edworkforce.house.gov/issues/108th/recess/nclbfunded.htm

CASE Discussion on Best Practices on Highly Qualified and CASE Position Statement on Highly Qualified. April 14, 2004, New Orleans, LA. Council of Administrators of Special Education Board of Directors and Membership meeting. Retrieved November 30, 2004, from http://casecec.org/pdf/position/Highly%20Qualified%204-14-04.pdf

Defining “Highly Qualified” Special Education Teachers: A Consensus Proposal* by AASA, AFT, CCSSO, CEC, NASBE, NASDSE and NEA. Prepared in the fall of 2004 and shared with members of the Conference Committee considering the Senate and House language for the reauthorization of the IDEA.

Heifitz,

R. A.

(1994). Leadership without easy answers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Northouse,

P. G.

(2004). Leadership: Theory and practice (3^rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Purcell,

L. L.

(10-01-04). Rural NCLB Web Survey. Retrieved November 30, 2004, from http://www.casecec.org

Rude,

H. A.

(2002). Leadership for professional development. In Murray

& Stockhouse

(Eds.), Professional development leadership academy. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of Special Education.

Rude,

H. A.

, Paolucci-Whitcomb,

P. E.

and Comerford,

(in press). Ethical leadership: Supporting human rights and diversity. Rural Special Education Quarterly.

10.

The Heritage Foundation. (2003, May 28). What unfunded mandates? CBO study reveals Washington not at fault for state budget crises. Retrieved on January 24, 2005, from http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm283.cfm. The Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, signed into law on December 3, 2004.

11.

United States Government Accountability Office. (2004). NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT: Additional Assistance and Research on Effective Strategies Would Help Small Rural Districts(GAO Publication 04-909) Retrieved October 6, 2004, from http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-909.

12.

United States House of Representatives, Democratic Staff, Committee on Education and the Workforce. (2004, September 24). Broken promises: How underfunding of No Child Left Behind affects schools and communities; A state-by-state analysis. Retrieved January 24, 2005, from http://edworkforce.house.gov/democrats/brokenpromisesreport.html.13