The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) mandates on special education programs in rural school districts. In this study, the investigators surveyed 371 rural school administrators from seven states regarding the service options used to address NCLB mandates for the students with disabilities in their schools. Rural school districts continue to experience shortages of highly qualified (HQ) special education teachers. These shortages limit the service options available to students with disabilities (SWD) in some rural schools and affect the free appropriate public education (FAPE) of those students.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BartonR.. (2003). Challenges and opportunities of NCLB for small, rural, and isolated schools.Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory (ED482267)
2.
BrownellM., BishopA., & SindelarP.. (2005). NCLB and the demand for highly qualified teachers: Challenges and solutions for rural schools.Rural Special Education Quarterly, 24(1), 9–15.
3.
ColadarciT.. (2005). Adequate yearly progress, small schools, and students with disabilities: The importance of confidence intervals when making judgments about AYP.Rural Special Education Quarterly, 24(1), 40–47.
4.
FairclothS.. (2004). Understanding the impact of U.S. federal education policies on the education of children and youth with disabilities.International Studies in Educational Administration, 32(2), 32–46.
5.
HarrimanN.. (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.
6.
HewardW.. (2006). Exceptional children: An introduction to special education (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). C.F.R 300 (1997).
7.
KossarK., MitchemK., & LudlowB.. (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.
8.
McLaughlinM., EmblerS., HernandezG., & CaronE.. (2005). No Child Left Behind and students with disabilities in rural and small schools.Rural Special Education Quarterly, 24(1), 32–39.
9.
MitchemK., KossarK., & LudlowB.. (2006). Finite resources, increasing demands: Rural children left behind? Educators speak out on issues facing rural special education.Rural Special Education Quarterly, 25(3), 13–23.
10.
National Center for Educational Statistics (2006). Number and percentage of children served under Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Pat B, by age group and state or jurisdiction: Selected years 1990-1991 through 2003-2004. Retrieved October 20, 2006, from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d05/tables/dt05_052.asp
PurcellL., EastB., & RudeH.. (2005). Administrative perspectives on the No Child Left Behind Act (NBLC) for students with disabilities in rural settings.Rural Special Education Quarterly, 24(1), 27–31.
13.
SullivanM.. (1994). Stemming teacher turnover in rural settings: An alternative approach. In D. Montgomery (Ed.), Rural partnerships: Working together. Proceedings of the annual national conference of the American Council on Rural Special Education (ACRES). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED369618).
14.
ThorntonB., HillG., & UsingerJ.. (2006). An examination of a fissure within the implementation of the NCLB accountability process.Education, 127(2), 115–120.
15.
TurnbullH. (2005). Individuals with Disabilities Education Act reauthorization: Accountability and personal responsibility.Remedial and Special Education, 26(6), 320–326.
16.
U. S. Department of Education (2006). Retrieved September 24, 2006, from www.ed.gov/programs/
17.
WankerP., & ChristieK.. (2005). State implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act.Peabody Journal of Education, 80(2), 57–72.
18.
YellM., KatsiyannasA., & ShinerJ.. (2006). The No Child Left Behind Act, adequate yearly progress, and students with disabilities.Teaching Exceptional Children, 38(4), 32–39.
