Current legislative mandates for schools to bring all students to the proficient level on state content standards by 2014 have been both commended and criticized by stakeholders across the nation. Schools are expected to meet this challenge by employing only highly qualified teachers who are well versed in content and the use of evidence-based practices. They must document adequate yearly progress toward proficiency for all students, including those with disabilities. Most groups praise the accountability that accompanies these mandates; however, concerns have been voiced by some educators about their impact on rural schools as well as their implications for special education services. Various stakeholders in rural areas across the country were surveyed to examine the perceived impact of the NCLBA mandates for highly qualified teachers and adequate yearly progress. Qualitative research methods were used to analyze responses to open-ended questions asking participants to expand on special education issues related to qualifications of highly qualified teachers, documentation of adequate yearly progress and other general concerns. Some common themes emerged related to the unique circumstances of rural schools as well as the potential impact of NCLBA on rural special educators and special education programs.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Billingsley,B., Carlson,E., & Klein,S.(2004). The working conditions and induction support of early career special educators.Exceptional Children, 70(3), 333–347.
2.
Bogdan,R., & Biklen,S. K.(1998). Qualitative research in education: An introduction to theory and methods (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
3.
Booher-Jennings,J. (2005). Below the bubble: “Educational triage” and the Texas accountability system.American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 231–268.
4.
Brownell,M. T., Bishop,A. M., & Sindelar,P. T.(2005). NCLB and the demand for highly qualified teachers: Challenges and solutions for rural schools.Rural Special Education Quarterly, 24(1), 9–15.
5.
Brownell,M. T., Rosenberg,M. S., Sindelar,P. T., & Smith,D. D.(2004). Teacher education: Toward a qualified teacher for every classroom. In SorrellA.M., RiethH.J., & SindelarP.T. (Eds.), Critical issues in special education: Access, diversity, and accountability (pp. 243–257). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
6.
Brownell,M. T., Sindelar,P. T., Bishop,A. G., Langley,L. K., & Seo,S.(2002). Special education teacher supply and teacher quality: The problems, the solution.Focus on Exceptional Children, 35(2), 1–16.
Collins,B., Hawkins,S., Keramidas,C. G., McLaren,E., Schuster,J., Slevin,B., & Spoelker,D.(2005). The effect of No Child Left Behind on rural students with low incidence disabilities.Rural Special Education Quarterly, 24(1), 48–53.
9.
Council for Exceptional Children, (2004). The new IDEA: CEC's summary of significant issues. Arlington, VA: Author. Retrieved December 15, 2004 from http://www.cec.sped.org/pp/IDEA_120204.pdf.
10.
Darling-Hammond,L., & Sykes,G.(2003). Wanted: A national teacher supply policy for education: The right way to meet the “highly qualified teacher” challenge.Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(33). [Available online at http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n33].
11.
Gelman,J.A., Pullen,P.L., & Kauffman,J. M. (2004). The meaning of highly qualified and a clear road map to accomplishment.Exceptionality, 12(4), 195–207.
12.
Hardman,M L., Rosenberg,M., & Sindelar,P.(2005). NCLB, IDEA, and alternative routes in preparation of rural special education teachers in high incidence areas.Rural Special Education Quarterly, 24(1), 16–22.
13.
Harriman,N. (2005). Perceptions of students and educators on the impact of No Child Left Behind: Some will and some won't.Rural Special Education Quarterly, 24(1), 64–69.
14.
Hehir,T. (2005). New directions in special education: Eliminating ableism in policy and practice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
15.
Ingersoll,R. M. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational analysis.American Educational Research Journal 38(3), 499–534.
16.
Jimerson,L. (2004). The devil is in the details: Rural-sensitive best practices for accountability under No Child Left Behind. Washington, DC: The Rural School and Community Trust. Retrieved October 15, 2005 from http://www.ruraledu.org/publications.html#research.
17.
Jimerson,L. (2003). Special challenges of the “No Child Left Behind” Act for rural schools and districts. Washington, DC: The Rural School and Community Trust. Retrieved October 15, 2005 from http://www.ruraledu.org/publications.html#research.
18.
Karger,J. (2005). What IDEA and NCLB suggest about curriculum access for students with disabilities. In Rose,D.H., MyerA., & HitchcockC. (Eds.), The universally designed classroom: Accessible curriculum and digital technologies (pp. 69–100).
19.
Kossar,K., Mitchem,K., & Ludlow,B. L.(2005). No Child Left Behind: A national study of its impact on special education in rural schools.Rural Special Education Quarterly, 24(1), 3–8.
20.
Lambert,R., & Strange,M.(2004). Most rural students left behind under Department of Education's new “flexibility” rules regarding highly qualified teachers. Washington, DC: The Rural School and Community Trust. Retrieved October 15, 2005 from http://www.ruraledu.org/publications.html#research.
Maxwell,J. A. (1996). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
23.
McLaughlin,M. J., Embler,S., Hernandez,G., & Caron,E.(2005). No Child Left Behind and students with disabilities in rural and small schools.Rural Special Education Quarterly, 24(1), 32–29.
24.
McLeskey,J., Tyler,N. C., & Flippin,S. S.(2004). The supply and demand of special education teachers: A review of research regarding the chronic shortage of special education teachers.The Journal of Special Education, 38(1), 5–21.
National Association of State Directors of Special Education. (2002, May). Implementing the No Child Left Behind Act: What It Means for IDEA. Alexandria, VA: Author. Retrieved August 15, 2004 from http://www.nasdse.org/docs/IDEA.
Prater,M. A. (2005). Ethnically diverse rural special educators who are highly qualified: Does NCLB make this impossible?Rural Special Education Quarterly, 24(1), 23–26.
Purcell,L., East,B., & Rude,H.(2005). Administrative perspectives on the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) for students with disabilities in rural settings.Rural Special Education Quarterly, 24(1), 27–31.
31.
Reeves,C. (2003, January). Implementing the No Child Left Behind Act: Implications for rural schools and districts. Oak Brook, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. Retrieved October 1, 2005 from http://www.ncrel.org/policy/pubs/html/implicate/index.html.
32.
Rude,H. A., & Brewer,R. D.(2003). Assessment of professional development systems: Improving rural special education services.Rural Special Education Quarterly, 22(4), 20–28.
33.
Schwartzbeck,T. D., & Prince,C. D.(2003). How are rural districts meeting the teacher quality requirements of No Child Left Behind. Charleston, WV: Appalachian Laboratory. Retrieved on December 1, 2005 from http://www.ael.org.
34.
Spooner,F., & Browder,D.(2006). Why teach the general curriculum? In Browder,D.M. & SpoonerF. (Eds.), Teaching language arts, math, & science to students with significant cognitive disabilities (pp. 1–14. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
35.
Sunderman,G. L. (2006, February). The unraveling of No Child Left Behind: How negotiated changes transform the law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, The Civil Rights Project. Retrieved February 10, 2006 from http://www.civilrightsproject.harvard.edu.
36.
Thompson,S., Lazarus,S., & Thurlow,M.(2003, July). Preparing educators to teach students with disabilities in an era of standards-based reform and accountability. College Park, MD: University of Maryland, Institute for the Study of Exceptional Children and Youth. Retrieved October 15, 2005 from http://www.eprri.org/products_topical.html#tr5.
37.
Tyler,N. C., Cantou-Clarke,C. D., Easterling,J., & Klepper,T.(2003). Recruitment and retention and special education teacher preparation in rural areas: Diversity, federal funding, and technical assistance considerations.Rural Special Education Quarterly, 22(3), 3–12.
38.
United States Government Accountability Office. (2004, September). No Child Left Behind Act: Additional assistance and research on effective strategies would help small rural districts. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved December 1, 2005 from http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04909.pdf.
39.
Williams,J. M., Martin,S. M., & Hess,R. K.(2002). Personnel preparation and service delivery issues in rural areas: The state of the art.Rural Special Education Quarterly, 21(4), 3–11.
40.
Yell,M. L., Katsiyannis,A., & Shiner,J. G.(2006). The No Child Left Behind Act, adequate yearly progress, and students with disabilities.Teaching Exceptional Children, 38(4), 32–39.
41.
Ysseldyke,J., Nelson,J. R., et al. (2004). What we know and need to know about the consequences of high-stakes testing for students with disabilities.Exceptional Children, 71(1), 75–94.
42.
Zeichner,K. M. (2005). A research agenda for teacher education. In Cochran-SmithM. & ZeichnerK. M. (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The Report of the AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education (pp. 737–760). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
