|
Improving Educational Outcomes for Students
with Disabilities National
Council on Disability
1331 F Street, NW, Suite 850
Washington, DC 20004
202-272-2004 Voice
202-272-2074 TTY
202-272-2022 Fax
Lex Frieden, Chairperson
May 17, 2004
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements
Executive Summary
Introduction
Methodology
Part I – Policies to Support Positive Outcomes
for Students with Disabilities
The Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act
The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act
IDEA Reauthorization and Alignment with NCLB
Perceived Impact of NCLB on Students
with Disabilities
Impact of NCLB on the High School Dropout
Rate of Students with Disabilities
NCLB's Impact on Expectations for Students
with Disabilities
Professional Development and Highly Qualified
Teachers
Achievement Standards
Assessments and Accommodations
Part II – Evidence-based Research and Practice
Effective Evidence-Based
Practices for Students with Disabilities
Evidence-Based Practices to Reduce Dropout
Rates for Students with Disabilities
Evidence-Based Practices in Transition 51
Part III – Conclusions and Recommendations
Appendix A: Interview Protocol
Appendix B: Evidence-Based Practices
References
Acknowledgements
An important component of this National Council on
Disability (NCD) project was the discussion of key project issues
with federal policymakers, national researchers, and practitioners
from across the United States. Information garnered from this process
provided critical perspective about these issues related to the
No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) and the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA), students with disabilities, and the use of
evidence-based research. NCD wishes to thank the following agencies
and organizations for participating in this process:
- Arlington, Virginia Public Schools
- Colorado State University, Research and Development
Center
for the Advancement of Student Learning
- Disability Access Information and Support (DAIS)
- Social Security Administration (SSA), Office of
Disability and Income Security Programs
- SRI International, Center for Education and Human
Services, Disability Policy Program
- National Association of State Directors of Special
Education (NASDE)
- The Education Trust
- The George Washington University, National Clearinghouse
on Postsecondary Education for Individuals with Disabilities (HEATH)
- TransCen, Inc.
- U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education
Sciences (IES)
- U.S. Department of Education, National Institute
on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR)
- U.S. Department of Education, Rehabilitation Services
Administration (RSA)
- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS),
Administration on Developmental Disabilities
- U.S. House of Representatives, House Committee
on Education and the Workforce
- University of Hawaii at Manoa, Center on Disability
Studies
- University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational
Outcomes
NCD also wishes to express its appreciation to Betsy
Brand of the American Youth Policy Forum (AYPF) and Scott Swail
of the Educational Policy Institute (EPI) for their insightful work
in preparing this paper.
Executive
Summary
The educational landscape for students with disabilities
is undergoing vast changes. Thanks to the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA) and its push for increased access to education
for students with disabilities, and the No Child Left Behind Act
(NCLB), with its push for improved student outcomes, educators across
the U.S. are reexamining their practices to find ways to close the
achievement gaps between groups of students. Students with disabilities
are a focus of this attention, as schools and states labor to improve
their academic outcomes. Policymakers are studying both the reauthorization
of IDEA and the ongoing implementation of NCLB to determine the
most effective means for serving students with disabilities.
The National Council on Disability (NCD) commissioned
this paper to assist policy leaders and stakeholders in identifying,
disseminating, and aligning evidence-based outcome producing practices
with the Federal Government's commitment to leaving no child behind
in the attainment of a free appropriate public education. This paper
is a precursor to a more detailed analysis that NCD will be conducting
in coming months to provide additional input and recommendations
to Congress and the Administration. NCD is an independent federal
agency making recommendations to the President and Congress on issues
affecting Americans with disabilities. NCD's overall purpose is
to promote policies, programs, practices, and procedures that guarantee
equal opportunity for all individuals with disabilities, regardless
of the nature or severity of the disability; and to empower individuals
with disabilities to achieve economic self-sufficiency, independent
living, and inclusion and integration into all aspects of society.
NCD is particularly interested in how IDEA and NCLB
are improving outcomes for students with disabilities and to what
extent evidence-based practices are being used to make policy decisions
affecting students with disabilities. The outcomes for students
with disabilities in which NCD is most interested include:
1) reducing the number/percentage of students with
disabilities nation wide (currently at about thirty percent) who
drop out of high school;
2) increasing the number/percentage of students with disabilities
nation wide (currently at about 56 percent) who graduate high school
with a diploma as opposed to a certificate of attendance; and
3) increasing the availability and usage of effective strategies
to help students transition to and remain connected with postsecondary
education.
Data for this paper were gathered by conducting a
literature review and a series of interviews with a panel of policymakers,
researchers, and practitioners from across the country. The literature
review included major databases, but unfortunately resulted in few
evidence-based research studies for students with disabilities.
The questions for the panel (See Appendix A) focused on the impact
of NCLB on students with disabilities, alignment of NCLB and IDEA,
and the use of evidence-based research in decision-making processes
at the school and district levels.
Major Findings with Regard
to NCLB and IDEA
This paper explores how attitudes and expectations
for students with disabilities are changing as a result of NCLB
and the impact of IDEA. Overall, there is strong support for increasing
expectations for students with disabilities and helping them to
improve their academic outcomes. At the same time, there is concern
about how states and schools will manage this process, largely as
a function of lack of knowledge of effective interventions and strategies.
At times there appears to be some lack of will to undertake the
difficult change, and fall back on excuses, but findings reveal
a hope that these laws and policies will result in more equitable
outcomes for students with disabilities.
Many respondents in our interviews indicated that
the focus on closing the achievement gap for certain student groups,
such as students with disabilities, was a very laudable and necessary
goal. One of the main messages is to change the low expectations
people have for students with disabilities.
Findings also show that there is a great deal of concern
about how educators will respond to the possible poor performance
by students with disabilities on standardized assessments and high
stakes tests. The pressure to meet adequate yearly performance (AYP)
and the use of high stakes tests to measure it is leaving states
and districts with little time to think constructively how best
to do that. Fears exist that high stakes tests may have a disproportionate
impact on students with disabilities. “We're very concerned
about the unintended consequences of holding schools accountable
for [the disability] population. We're sensitive to the potential
for pushing students out, for scapegoating students, for identifying
these students as the reason that a school or a district isn't measuring
up.” (Mitchell D. Chester, assistant superintendent for policy
development in the Ohio education department, cited in Education
Week, 2004b, p. 16). Unfortunately, at this time, there is no data
to indicate whether high stakes tests will increase the rate of
dropout by students with disabilities, but it certainly needs more
study.
There are also concerns about how states and schools
will handle measuring adequate yearly performance (AYP) for subgroups
of students with disabilities and whether they can “game”
the system by setting unrealistically high subgroup levels that
most schools will not meet, and therefore won't have to report performance
numbers. Others felt that a particular school could be punished
for low scores in a subgroup, and administrators fear including
students with disabilities.
One other concern expressed by several respondents
is the limited focus on measuring academic skills because of the
assessments required by NCLB. Particularly for students with disabilities,
it is important to find ways to allow them to express their abilities
in various ways, and they also benefit greatly from developing workplace
competencies.
The role of school leadership and teacher qualifications
was also explored. Not surprisingly, respondents noted that when
school leaders had the vision and commitment to increase expectations
for students with disabilities, the teachers and staff held similar
views and were supported in their efforts to change teaching to
help individualized needs students achieve.
A number of issues were raised regarding teachers.
It was mentioned by several respondents that the push for highly
qualified teachers is needed and that improved outcomes for students
with disabilities should result from a better teaching force. But
the logistical issues of finding and training those teachers is
a difficult reality faced by schools.
The types of assessments and accommodations used for
students with disabilities are also under review by school leaders.
They are working to align assessment accommodations and instructional
accommodations and align all of that with the standards –
very time consuming and difficult work. Others saw value in more
frequent assessments of students, saying “[A]ssessments are
fundamental to education reform in this country, whether a regular
assessment or high-stakes test. NCLB does not necessarily require
a high-stakes test, it is an accountability test—not necessarily
the same thing. It is forcing the question of how to test and assess.”
But a final concern was expressed about the misuse of assessments,
“If students with disabilities aren't accommodated or there
aren't alternative assessments, school scores will be affected.
If so, the school will figure out a creative way of counting these
kids out or the kids will choose to leave.”
Evidence-Based Research and Practice
This paper also provides a summary of relevant scientifically-based
research, as well as a discussion of how such research is used by
education practitioners and policymakers. Unfortunately, the amount
of rigorous, evidence-based research on programs that promote positive
outcomes for students with disabilities is severely limited. First,
most research is aimed at young students and strategies to help
them learn to read. Second, the few evaluations that are available
usually involve a very limited number of students, sometimes fewer
than a dozen, which makes drawing conclusions about a broader group
very difficult. Third, most of the evaluations only focus on one
type of disability (e.g. severe cognitive disability or learning
disability), again making general applicability of findings difficult.
And last, while a few scientifically rigorous studies of programs
were identified, there were almost none in the area of dropout prevention,
and only a few on the transition from secondary to postsecondary
education.
According to the research that does exist, strategies
that seem to be most effective in helping students with disabilities
persist in high school typically include counseling services, reading
remediation, tutoring, attendance monitoring, or after-school clubs
(Lehr, Hansen, Sinclair, & Christenson, 2003). Other services
could include sustained and supportive monitoring interventions
focused on school completion (Scanlon & Mellard, 2002). An early
1990s study of three dropout prevention programs for students with
disabilities sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education found
that five components were common to all programs: persistence, continuity
and consistency; monitoring; relationships; affiliation; and problem-solving
skills.
To help students with disabilities transition from
secondary to postsecondary education, strategies that appear to
be most successful include:
- Competence in:
- functional academic skills (e.g., reading, math,
writing, and problem-solving);
- community living skills (e.g., money management,
community access);
- personal-social skills (e.g., getting along with
others);
- vocational skills (e.g., career awareness, job
search); and
- self-determination skills (e.g., self-advocacy,
goal setting);
- Participation in vocational education classes during
the last two years of high school, especially classes that offer
occupationally-specific instruction;
- Participation in paid work experience in the community
during the last two years of high school;
- Participation in transition planning;
- Graduation from high school; and
- Absence of continuing instructional needs in functional
academic, vocational, and personal-social areas after leaving
school. (Benz, Lindstrom, & Yovanoff, 2000)
Even when there are evidence-based practices, practitioners,
for various reasons, don't always end up using them. Two major barriers
to the implementation of evidence-based practices are the lack of
time and inadequate support from administrators. Other barriers
include “pressures associated with high-stakes testing, insufficient
materials, a mismatch between teacher style and the practice, a
lack of fit between the practice and other methods mandated by the
school district, and teachers' lack of in-depth understanding of
the practice or forgetting” (p. 413). Practitioners need incentives
and technical assistance in using evidence-based practices, yet
little is done to help them learn to apply research to practice.
Comments were also made on the need to value the input
by parents:
Which is more valid, the work of an evidence-based
research center or the experiences of families of children with
disabilities? What is the basis for the criteria? Someone's [research]
numbers or someone's real life experience? For example, a school
district got an evidence-based strategy from a university, but a
parent suggested something else that they knew would work with their
child. The strategies were polar opposites…There are parent
groups organizing around what really works for their child. (Researcher)
Not only is a stronger research base sorely needed,
but researchers must work more closely with practitioners and parents
to help them understand how to use research findings and to incorporate
and value practical and parental knowledge.
Conclusions and Recommendations
NCD recognizes that the bulk of change occurring in
schools today is a result of NCLB's focus on accountability and
outcomes. The change being brought about is very fundamental and
deep, but also difficult, in that it involves changing attitudes,
beliefs, and values about all young people being able to achieve
to high standards. Another barrier to change has been the lack of
evidence about what works, as well as the lack of disaggregated
data. Fortunately, there are signs of positive change and evidence
that holding students, including students with disabilities, to
higher expectations results in improved outcomes, which leads to
the first recommendation, which is “stay the course.”
Stay the Course.
While some naysayers believe that NCLB sets too high a bar for students
and schools, the vast majority of people believe that we must maintain
high expectations for all students, particularly students with disabilities.
Capacity Building. In order
to help school leaders and education practitioners provide the support
to help every child succeed to higher expectations, they need assistance
in learning strategies that are effective. Public investments should
be carefully directed to professional and leadership development
efforts that are tightly linked to the specific needs of each school
or district and that address capacity issues related to teaching
and learning and helping all students, particularly students with
disabilities, reach high standards.
Highly Qualified Teachers.
Standards for highly qualified teachers should not be relaxed, although
limited flexibility in reaching those standards, especially for
rural schools, is appropriate. The U.S. Department of Education
should conduct research and analysis on effective methods of teacher
preparation, including alternative routes to certification, with
a particular focus on special education. The higher education system
also needs to find ways to prepare highly qualified teachers in
routes unlike those we know of today.
Better Assessment Tools.
A host of needs calls for a new generation of assessments that are
designed to serve a broader range of students with diverse needs,
are useful to inform instruction, and that measure a broader range
of skills. The U.S. Department of Education can play an important
role in supporting research and development efforts to create a
new generation of assessments that are appropriate for a large number
of diverse students; measure more than academic skills; can be used
as instructional management tools; and result in an increased number
of students taking alternative assessments.
Support and Disseminate Evidence-Based
Research and Practice. It is clear that we need more rigorous
research on effective strategies for older students with disabilities.
Both IDEA and NCLB should support an enhanced research agenda and
the U.S. Department of Education should bridge research efforts
by the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services and
the Institute of Education Sciences. Research is particularly needed
to understand how to teach more academic rigor to students with
disabilities and to understand optimal assessment tools.
Support for Students. While
research for students with disabilities is limited, a range of other
research on high school reform points to strategies that are successful
in improving student outcomes. The U.S. Department of Education
should provide technical assistance on strategies to help students
increase engagement in high school, reduce dropout rates, and increase
preparation for postsecondary education and careers by: setting
higher expectations, greater instructional personalization, self-advocacy,
ongoing counseling and mentoring, parental involvement, and connections
to the community and postsecondary learning options.
Final Thoughts
The shift towards accountability, outcomes, and higher
expectations in our schools is leading us in the right direction,
although we recognize that schools face legitimate difficulties
during this change process. But the response to these challenges
should not be to back down on expectations for students with disabilities
and those who have been perceived as unable to meet the standards.
Policymakers and practitioners must remain committed to the goal
of closing the achievement gap for all students. To lessen this
commitment would be to return to the days and the mindset that only
some students could reach, and deserved to be taught to, high standards.
We now know that by setting high expectations, and helping students,
teachers, administrators, and family members reach those high standards,
we can close the achievement gap for all students.
Introduction
America is focused on educational reform like never
before. The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) has raised awareness
of the poor performance of many of our schools and students, particularly
those in disadvantaged and lower-income neighborhoods. Because the
federal law now requires states, communities, and schools to collect
data on student performance, broken out by categories of students
based on their race and other factors, such as native language and
disability, the public is finally beginning to understand the true
magnitude of the problem. But a recent study indicates that despite
our growing awareness and concern, we may have seriously underestimated
the number of students who drop out of high school, revealing that
the problem is greater than imagined (Swanson, 2004).
For many families with children in low-performing
schools, or those who have children with individualized needs, the
failure of our public schools to graduate every young person and
prepare them for a career and livelihood comes as no surprise. Students
with disabilities bear a particularly hard burden, as their rates
of high school graduation, graduation with a diploma as opposed
to a certificate of attendance, entry to postsecondary education,
and success in the labor market are dramatically lower than rates
for students without disabilities. More than 40 percent of secondary-aged
students with disabilities do not attain a high school diploma at
the end of high school, and dropout rates for youth with disabilities
are three to four times higher than dropout rates for youth without
disabilities.
The focus on school reform, particularly high school
reform, is timely and much needed. NCLB is helping to shed light
on which states and schools are doing the best job preparing their
young people, including students with disabilities, for the challenges
of further learning and economic self-sufficiency. While the public
is more engaged in these discussions every day, there remains a
lack of awareness of what works to help young people with educational
challenges succeed. Old attitudes persist as well, and the reform
process must change minds, values, and cultures so that we believe
all students can achieve to the highest standards and that we adults
are committed to helping them meet those standards in every way
we know how.
The purpose of this research is to assist policy
leaders and stakeholders in identifying, disseminating, and aligning
evidence-based outcome producing practices with the Federal Government's
commitment to leave no child behind in the attainment of a free appropriate
public education. NCD expects that policy leaders and stakeholders
will be able to use this research for a variety of purposes including
to: identify existing federal resources being used (e.g., via NCLB
and IDEA); identify new federal resources to develop, enhance, and
sustain programs; determine whether existing resources are used effectively;
improve alignment of resources, policies, and educational reform efforts;
develop or modify policies and legislation to ensure the optimal use
of resources; develop knowledge-utilization partnerships; analyze
the impact of legislative changes on current resources; evaluate program
effectiveness; and, accelerate changes in the nation's focus on leaving
no child behind and improving educational results for all children.
The American Youth Policy Forum and the Educational
Policy Institute were commissioned by the National Council on Disability
(NCD) to review certain federal and state-level programs, strategies,
and policies that enhance educational practices and improve valued
outcomes for youth with disabilities. In particular, NCD sought
better understanding of the early impact of the No Child Left Behind
Act on students with disabilities, and its interaction with the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). In addition,
NCD was interested in learning to what extent evidence-based research
is used by policymakers and practitioners to make policy, programmatic,
and instructional decisions for youth with disabilities.
The main outcomes of interest include:
- reducing the number of students with disabilities
who drop out of high school;
- increasing the number/percentage of students with
disabilities who graduate high school with a diploma as opposed
to a certificate of attendance; and
- increasing effective strategies to help students
transition to and remain connected with postsecondary education.
Methodology
There were two components to this paper's research:
a review of the literature and a series of interviews with policymakers,
researchers, and practitioners from across the country.
Literature Reviews
Two literature reviews were conducted. The first was
conducted as an environmental scan of issues related to high school
graduation and transition for students with disabilities. The second
focused on evidence-based practices related to students with disabilities.
Our review utilized a variety of search engines,
including ERIC, HighBeam, and the NICI Virtual Library. We also
reviewed dozens of websites related to students with disabilities,
including the major sites of the U.S. Departments of Education and
Labor. In the end, we reviewed 150 carefully selected research studies
and articles, approximately 100 of which were used in this paper.
With regard to evidence-based practices, our search focused on articles
that (a) were published in a professional journal or by a professional
organization; (b) contained information on a program or programs
that curbed high school dropout, supported assessment and accommodations,
and promoted transition; (c) contained outcome data related to the
intervention; and (d) used some modicum of empirical rigor in evaluating
the intervention (i.e., experimental and quasi-experimental designs;
random controlled trials).
Most of the research evaluations we reviewed focused
on one type of disability (e.g. severe cognitive disability or learning
disability), making general applicability of the findings difficult.
In addition, the majority of the research was conducted at the elementary
school level, rather than at the secondary level. Although we reviewed
many published studies in an effort to identify evidence-based practices,
we were consistently disappointed in the lack of empirical studies
available on these issues, particularly with regard to dropout prevention.
Many articles reported research results, but the methodology was
often extraordinarily limited. Examples include self-reported interviews
as the primary indicator of program success. The incorporation of
control groups into research design was almost negligible. It is
likely that more studies exist that have a higher level of empirical
soundness to them, but they are not easily searchable, identifiable,
collectable, or applicable. As we discuss later, there are two major
challenges associated with research on evidence-based practices
in special education: the paucity of research with an acceptable
level of empiricism; and the relatively poor dissemination of such
research to those who can benefit from this information.
Interviews
For the interviews, a panel of 16 federal, state,
and local policymakers, researchers, and practitioners from across
the U.S. were invited to participate in this project. Participants
were selected based on input from a variety of individuals and organizations.
As a first round, we developed a list of 55 individuals from the
literature and from our perception of who were leaders in the field.
During the interviews, we asked panel respondents to suggest individuals
who would be valuable to our review. In most cases, panel respondents
supplied us with names that were already on our list.
Panel respondents were guided through a series
of questions developed for this project (see Appendix A: Interview
Protocol on page 77). The questions were focused on the impact of
NCLB on students with disabilities, the alignment of NCLB and IDEA,
and the use of evidence-based research in decision-making processes
at the school and district levels. All but one of the interviews were
conducted by telephone. In several cases, participants were emailed
follow-up questions to clarify their responses. Upon completion of
the panel interviews, responses were collated and analyzed.
This paper is divided into three sections. Part I
provides a discussion of numerous provisions of NCLB and IDEA that
affect student outcomes, as well as comments and insights from the
panel on implementation and alignment. Part II focuses on evidence-based
research and practices issues (and the lack thereof) related to
NCLB and IDEA requirements. Part III provides conclusions and recommendations
for research and practice.
Appendices include the protocol used in interviewing
the panel and a short synopsis of effective evidence-based programs
and strategies.
Part I – Policies
to Support Positive Outcomes for Students with Disabilities
The
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
is one component of a three-tiered federal approach to supporting
individuals with disabilities. The other two federal Acts are the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act
of 1973. Passed in 1975 as Public Law 94-142 and later given its
current title, IDEA provides the foundation upon which students
with disabilities are protected from discrimination and guaranteed
to receive services designed to meet their special education and
related services needs (American Youth Policy Forum & Center
on Education Policy, 2002). Prior to that, an estimated 6 million
children and youth with disabilities were left on their own to garner
educational services. IDEA requires states, districts, and schools
to ensure that:
- All children with disabilities ages 3 through 21
receive a free, appropriate public education that meets their
unique needs, regardless of the type or severity of their disability.
- Children with disabilities be educated in the least
restrictive environment possible, meaning that most students are
to be taught in a general education—or regular—classroom.
Districts and schools are responsible for providing whatever supplemental
services or accommodations are necessary to fulfill this requirement.
- Each student with a disability is to have an Individualized
Education Program (IEP) that describes the education and related
services to be provided to that student. The IEP is developed
by a small committee consisting of parents, special education
personnel, teachers, and school administrators. The 1997 reauthorization
of IDEA required students aged 14 and older to sit on their own
IEP committee.
- Parents of students with disabilities have the
right to notification, informed consent, due process, and involvement
in key decisions about their child's eligibility, placement, IEPs,
and other areas.
- Federal grants are authorized to help pay state
and local costs associated with implementing IDEA mandates and
serving students with disabilities. (American Youth Policy Forum
& Center on Education Policy, 2002, p. 13)
The 1997 reauthorization of IDEA provided the most
significant amendments since the initial law was passed almost a
quarter century earlier. Included in these amendments was an increased
emphasis on student outcomes data, reduction of paperwork and procedural
complexity, and a reduction or consolidation of separately-funded
research, training, and support programs. (American Youth Policy
Forum & Center on Education Policy, 2002) The law also included
a stronger focus on strategies to help students transition from
high school to postsecondary education or a career, and the development
of a transition plan as part of their IEP.
IDEA has been characterized as having fulfilled its
primary goal of providing access for students with disabilities
in public schools across America. In 1977, about eight percent of
students were identified as having a disability and were receiving
appropriate services. In 1999, 11 percent of all students were identified
and served through IDEA (American Youth Policy Forum & Center
on Education Policy, 2002). In 1977, 80 percent of students with
disabilities were placed in institutions or separate facilities
where many received little schooling. By 1997-98, 96 percent of
students with disabilities were served in regular public schools
(U.S. Department of Education, 2003, p. ix). Even in the short time
since the 1997 reauthorization of IDEA, the number of students served
through IDEA has increased from 3.7 million to over 6.5 million.
Additionally, students with disabilities are also spending more
time in inclusive classrooms. In 1997-98, 46 percent of students
with disabilities spent at least 80 percent of their academic day
in a regular classroom, compared to 31 percent a decade earlier
(American Youth Policy Forum & Center on Education Policy, 2002,
p. 20).
The No Child Left
Behind Act (NCLB)
On January 8, 2002, President Bush signed into law
the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. The U.S. Department of Education
touted the legislation as the “most sweeping reform of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act since its enactment in 1965”
that “refines the federal role in K-12 education” (Pasternack,
2003). In addition to those claims, NCLB champions accountability
for “all students, including student groups based on poverty,
race and ethnicity, disability and limited English proficiency.”
This legislative act contains four basic education
reform principles:
- stronger accountability for results;
- increased flexibility and local control;
- expanded options for parents; and
- emphasis on teaching methods that have been proven
to work. (National Center on Educational Outcomes, 2003).
Through NCLB, states must implement statewide accountability
systems covering all public schools and students based on:
- Challenging state standards in reading and math
(and science in 2005-2006);
- Annual testing for all students in grades 3-8 and
at least once in grades 10-12; and
- Annual statewide progress objectives ensuring that
all groups of students reach proficiency within 12 years (Pasternack,
2003).
According to the National Center on Educational Outcomes,
the main difference between IDEA and NCLB is that the former specifically
governs services that are provided to students with disabilities
and provides individual accountability through IEPs developed on
the basis of each child's unique needs. The National Center believes
that NCLB complements the IDEA provisions by providing public accountability
at the school, district, and state levels for all students with
disabilities. Secondly, NCLB builds on IDEA law by requiring the
participation of students with disabilities in state and district-wide
assessments (National Center on Educational Outcomes, 2003).
In its analysis of NCLB, the National Center on Educational
Outcomes cited three critical areas of focus for those who serve
students with disabilities: (a) academic content standards, which
tell us what students should learn; (b) academic achievement standards,
which tell us how well they should learn; and (c) assessments, which
tell us how well students achieved those standards (National Center
on Educational Outcomes, 2003).
Adequate Yearly Progress
A key requirement of NCLB that has been praised by
some but is the brunt of criticism from others is the calculation
of “Adequate Yearly Progress” (AYP). According to the
legislation, states must bring all students up to the “proficient”
level on state tests by 2013-14, and individual schools must meet
a measure of adequate yearly progress targets in mathematics and
reading or language arts with all student groups from one year to
the next (Education Week, 2004a). There are a number of disincentives
for schools and states to meet these targets, but at issue with
AYP is that all subgroups—including students with disabilities—must
show progress. Of greatest importance is that a school will not
meet AYP if any one of its subgroups fails to meet AYP. Schools
and districts that fail to do so over time will be subject to “improvement,
corrective action, and restructuring measures” (Pasternack,
2003). A school can still make AYP if a subgroup does not make AYP,
but only on the condition that the subgroup in question decreased
in size by ten percent from the previous year's percentage AND manages
to make progress on graduation rates or one other indicator designated
by the state. Additionally, ninety-five percent of all students
within a subgroup are required to take the assessment. Consequences
for failing to meet AYP are as follows:
If a school fails to meet its adequate yearly
progress target for two consecutive years, then it is designated
as a school in need of improvement. Parents of students in a school
so designated will be given the option of sending their children
to another school. Continued failure of a school to attain AYP targets
beyond two years can result in more severe consequences, to include
restructuring or changes in governance. There are many more details
to the accountability requirements pertaining to such things as
inclusion rules and various situations, such as schools meeting
their targets but with not all subgroups meeting them. (Kahl, 2003)
Concern exists among state and local officials about
how students with disabilities—especially those with significant
or multiple disabilities—are included in the overall school
count. The issue raised by some is that it is unfair to include
students with significant cognitive disabilities in the calculation
of AYP. Given that approximately one percent of all students (or
15 percent of students with disabilities) is considered severely
disabled, the U.S. Department of Education offered an amendment
to its guidelines in December 2003, now known as the “one
percent rule.” This rule allows school districts to use alternative
assessments (based on alternative standards) for up to one percent
of all students to report either “proficient” or “advanced”
in order to meet AYP (Goldstein, 2004). States are free to define
which student groups or subgroups make up this one percent, but
the policy is aimed at students with the most significant cognitive
disabilities.
Strong Public Support
Despite challenges, NCLB has generally commanded wide
support from policymakers, educators, and parents. According to
a recent Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll, there appears to be strong
public and private support for the principles behind NCLB (Gehring,
2003). However, the survey also found that the public does not necessarily
believe that a “test” is the best means to meet the
goals of NCLB. Also, a recent survey by the Center on Education
Policy (2004) found that an “overwhelming majority”
(p. vi) of states agree with the basic premises of NCLB. Forty-two
of the states surveyed agree that an accountability system based
on content and performance standards would have a positive impact
on student achievement, and seventy percent of states (33 of the
47 responding) believe that NCLB accountability requirements will
help to raise student achievement a great deal. However, district-based
respondents were not as optimistic as their state counterparts”
(Center on Education Policy, 2004, p. vi).
Of course, not all news is good news. A number of
individuals and groups have very specific concerns. On January 8,
2004, a group of Democratic Senators sent a letter to U.S. Secretary
of Education Rod Paige criticizing the Administration for underfunding
NCLB by “$7.5 billion.” Although the senators consider
NCLB to be a landmark Act that “made a clear federal commitment
to improve the education of millions of students across the country,”
they suggest that the U.S. Department of Education has been remiss
on providing appropriate and timely technical assistance and guidance
to states, districts, and schools, and also criticize NCLB language
that focuses on AYP but can allow at-risk students—including
students with disabilities—to experience higher dropout rates
(Kennedy et al., 2004).
The concern goes well beyond the halls of Congress.
In state houses across the country, Democrat and Republican legislators
are complaining about the burdens of NCLB's program. Utah and Virginia
are examples of Republican-controlled states that are considering
action against NCLB. Virginia's Republican-led House of Delegates
overwhelming approved a resolution in January calling the No Child
Left Behind Act “the most sweeping federal intrusion into
state and local control of education in the history of the United
States” (Hoff, 2004a).
However, one study released in January 2004 announced
that states should already have adequate funding to meet the requirements
of NCLB (Education Leaders Council, 2004), although not all state
legislators concur with the findings of that report (Hoff, 2004b).
Still, others indicate that it is a matter of using the money differently
to achieve different outcomes. During our interviews in support
of this project, a district-level administrator discussed the financial
burden associated with keeping up with NCLB requirements. “Certainly
NCLB has added cost to us—testing time, testing organization,
communications with testing populations. These things cost real
money.” However, others questioned whether NCLB is accurately
depicted as an unfunded mandate.
The Center on Education Policy suggests that the Bush
Administration and Members of Congress have made “lofty promises”
for the success of NCLB and have underestimated the “magnitude
of change that must occur in American public education to bring
about those promises” (Center on Education Policy, 2003, p.
iv).
IDEA
Reauthorization and Alignment with NCLB
IDEA is currently in the process of reauthorization
by Congress. While no large, sweeping changes are expected, a consideration
during this round of amendments is how best to bring IDEA and NCLB
into greater alignment. We asked our panel whether they believed
that IDEA supports the goals of NCLB. As expected, the responses
were diverse. Some felt that the two were diametric opposites and
undermined each other, while a majority of our panel saw the two
pieces of legislation working together. “In NCLB, [student]
success is typically measured by a singular test score, where IDEA
is a bunch of different measures, whatever is determined through
the IEP and other policies.” Others disagreed: “I think
IDEA and NCLB are mutually exclusive. One is focused on the individual
and the other is focused on accountability” (District Administrator).
But even the “individual” nature of IDEA has some critics:
“The big unanticipated outcome of IDEA was that individual
accountability will bring [students with disabilities] up, but it
has hurt them by watering down the curriculum.”
In Education Week's recent Quality Counts
report on special education, a lawyer was quoted as saying that
the “individualized nature of IDEA is totally inconsistent
with the group nature of NCLB, even though they talk about classes
of kids who are disabled. To me, that's a collision course, to hold
a school responsible for Billy not reading at grade level, when
Billy has a disability whose need is individually met at a prekindergarten
level” (Lawyer Miriam K. Freedman, as cited in Education
Week, 2004b, p. 13). Conversely, a district-level administrator
saw IDEA and NCLB working in tandem:
NCLB creates a system of accountability to support
IDEA. But IDEA is built on individualization where NCLB is a broad
requirement for groups. Schools and districts are having a difficult
time trying to bring these issues together—making the right
decision for each child but also making sure you meet the NCLB accountability
requirements.
Both pieces of legislation support the education of
students; the disconnect is the relative importance of how you go
about determining whether students are making progress. IDEA would
suggest that you do an assessment that is appropriate for the child
as determined by a committee. NCLB says you can do that as long
as you meet AYP. (District Administrator)
One of our panel respondents suggested that the problem
isn't the legislative language, but the enforcement of the legislation.
“I think IDEA has been consistent with NCLB. The problem isn't
what's in IDEA, but rather, what has been enforced.” An example
was provided of the challenge of implementing the transition planning
that was part of IDEA ‘97. “In a lot of places, those
plans aren't there or are group manufactured. Thus, the problem
isn't IDEA—it's the implementation or enforcement of IDEA”
(Federal Policymaker).
A main element of the current reauthorization of IDEA
is to align the two bills. “They are trying to integrate them,”
said a researcher. “I think you will see pieces in the Senate
bill that try to reaffirm NCLB. A bigger question is how do you
do this? Everyone has gotten the new message that there is an attempted
alignment at the federal level. Aligned in two areas: programs for
students with disabilities will be aligned more closely with general
curriculum and content structures; and teacher development for special
education teachers will be more similar to that of regular teachers.
Practically, very few states can meet the teacher standards now,
let alone the changes that are expected. Most peoples' perception
of the requirement will jack up the percentage of teachers who are
unqualified.”
A federal administrator involved in the reauthorization
process thinks the two laws are being aligned in the current reauthorization.
“In the House and Senate bills there have been important changes
to align the two laws. The fight of 27 years ago—to get the
kids in the classroom—is largely over. It isn't a fight that
will ever be finished, but access is a given. Now, IDEA needs to
reflect more on what gets done for these kids. The debate has changed
to ‘What do you do with the child once he is there, not should
he be there.'”
Stated a representative of the National Institute
on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR): “I've reviewed
it [IDEA] for the umpteenth time. With regard to inclusion, prevention,
etc., that's all the flavor of the mission of NCLB. I think the
hardest part the Administration is facing is how to interpret the
similarities to the public.” A special education researcher
noted: “The verbiage would say yes, that IDEA supports NCLB,
but to me it's backwards. NCLB should really support IDEA. The testing
seems to counterbalance the individualization of IDEA. Philosophically,
it sounds like the same, but when you get into it, it truly does
not support IDEA. Hopefully reauthorization will bring them together.”
A representative from a national organization commented: “Obviously,
the extent that the two can be mutually reinforcing, the better.
There will be some tweaks in IDEA to make that happen. I don't think
there are fundamental conflicts.”
Perceived
Impact of NCLB on Students with Disabilities
Overall, there is a general sense that NCLB can have
and is already having a positive impact on most students with disabilities.
However, the true impact of NCLB will depend on a number of factors,
including the type of disability in question, how large the unintended
consequences are from implementation of the law, how much states,
districts and schools “game” the system, and how well
these same entities provide support for special education teachers
and paraprofessionals to meet the rigor required for adequate yearly
progress (AYP).
The Center on Education Policy (2004) found that most
states and districts were taking No Child Left Behind very seriously
and were working hard to meet the new federal requirements of AYP.
“NCLB is doing what federal laws tend to do best —focusing
the attention of a large, decentralized education system on the
same set of goals” (p. v). But the Center also found that
many school districts were having various difficulties enforcing
the law because of stringent or unworkable requirements.
Accountability
Although most of our respondents agreed that it is
too early to tell what impact NCLB will have when fully implemented,
most agreed that it has had an early impact on how people think
of issues related to accountability and students with disabilities.
By including all students in the calculation of AYP, educators must
concern themselves with the treatment and education of students
with disabilities. IDEA has been the main legislative instrument
to support the teaching and learning of students with disabilities,
but NCLB provides the accountability mechanism to supplement the
programs and regulations of IDEA. As one federal government director
suggested, “NCLB emphasizes the greater responsibility of
looking at what works in preventive interventions for students with
individualized needs. Because it is accountability based, it will
improve internal system changes.” A special education director
at the school district level remarked, “all students count
and all teachers count. Standards are raised and focus turns to
good instruction.” Another respondent added: “By forcing
states—for the first time—to include students with disabilities
in their assessment and accountability systems, we know that these
kids are going to count and progress is going to be measured.”
The perception among most individuals is that if expectations
and accountability rise, “phenomenal changes will occur.”
However, how people truly perceive the barriers to inclusion and
the education of students with disabilities could be the greatest
barrier of NCLB.
“My philosophy is that the attitudinal barriers
are sometimes a bigger disability than the disability itself. This
is very much how I see NCLB. The major thing is to change the low
expectations people have toward students with disabilities. We've
already seen some of the impact. It's been pretty clear that there
has been a focus on students with disabilities that we have never
seen before. And in many cases, this is very good; in some not so
good. I've seen two kinds of reactions: oh my goodness, we see poor
performance, so what are we going to do to address this poor performance.
Other states have made very positive, pro-active responses to the
data they see. (Researcher)
IDEA has largely been successful in getting students
with disabilities served. One respondent from a national organization
hopes that NCLB will enhance this achievement: “I hope that
the net effect will be that people will focus much less on making
sure students are served and much more on getting students with
disabilities to reach state standards. There will be a shift from
inputs and services to outcomes. I am cautiously optimistic.”
The term “cautiously optimistic” probably
best articulates the sentiments of most of the individuals interviewed
for this review. A major consideration is how states and districts
deal with this new layer of accountability. “We need to think
about these kids achieving at a high level. IDEA stopped short of
accountability. NCLB puts the accountability piece in. However,
how well the accountability piece is thought out is another issue.”
The AYP calculations have been a lightning rod of commentary in
newspapers around the country, putting schools, districts, and states
on the defensive. Because there is federal funding and control on
the line, the stakes are high if compliance is not met within the
federal guidelines.
The stakes are so high, and subgroups are now so important
in calculation of AYP, there is little time for the states to think
constructively about how to go about that. States are trying to
look at a broad range of issues that impact students with disabilities
in AYP calculations, but localities are desperately trying to deal
with it now to meet the legislative requirements. States are trying
to provide guidance, but in terms of locals, the stakes are so high—you
are asking them to think broadly, but they are working with immediate
impact—immediate consequences. (Organizational Representative)
Specifically, panel respondents pointed to a number
of issues where there has been a more immediate impact on students
with disabilities. Some of these areas include:
Academics. Although there
is no data to account for the brief time since January 2002 and
this paper, there is belief that NCLB is partly responsible for
the academic progress of students with disabilities. A leading national
researcher on disabilities suggests that NCLB has improved reading,
math, and science learning and teaching. It has brought up the academic
progress of both good and bad schools. “It has not been universal,
but it has—on average—benefited schools.”
Data. While the availability
of student-level data from schools, districts, and states has been
problematic in the general education field, it has been more problematic
for special education. Education Week found that only 13 of 37 states
providing data to its national survey “tested 95 percent or
more of their special education students in reading and mathematics
in grades, 4, 8, and 10, in the 2002-03 school year, or the most
recent year for which data were available” (Education Week,
2004b, p. 7). Additionally, nine states and the District of Columbia
could not provide any data (p. 13).
But this is better than it has been, and many believe
that NCLB is pushing districts and states to collect data for federal
reporting purposes. “One of the reasons we [national center]
got started is that there was no data on students with disabilities.
People were asking how they were doing on large-scale assessments,
and students with disabilities were not included. Now they are because
of NCLB. So now we have some data. We may not like it, but at least
have it.”
A representative of a national organization added:
“It's not what the law does, but what people do to implement
the law. I think NCLB will allow for collection of accurate data.
Never before have I seen accurate data; NCLB may make that happen.
Getting the data on the table will allow for a good discussion based
on data.” Stated a district-level representative: “Data
is horrific on the transition outcomes for students with disabilities,
so this is a great opportunity to get it done.”
Increased Dialogue/Knowledge of
Standards. Whether one agrees or disagrees with NCLB, there
has been an undeniable increase in dialogue among educators, policymakers,
and researchers. Our panel respondents noted a renewed cooperation
between general education and special education teachers and more
joint programming and professional development. “I hear chief
state school officers talking about it now,” noted one researcher.
“It is a very different discussion these days.” Again,
much of this has happened because of AYP and the inclusion of students
with disabilities into the performance reporting for schools.
NCLB has come at a time when the awareness, use, and
support of academic standards are at their highest. Ninety percent
or more of states reported having the same mathematics and reading
content standards for students with and without disabilities (U.S.
Department of Education, 2003). “If I had asked teachers 10
years ago about standards, the comments would be much different;
today, people are certainly aware of what all kids are supposed
to learn,” stated a researcher. Studies in the mid-1990s substantiated
the belief that students with disabilities were being left out of
the standards process. Specifically, students with disabilities
were being excluded from participation in standards-based curricula
and assessments (Furney, Hasazi, Clark-Keefe, & Hartnett, Fall,
2003). It appears that this is indeed changing because of NCLB,
but it is difficult to ascertain to what degree states and districts
are following the standards movement.
One panel respondent agreed that there has been a
general shifting of special education services to be more in line
with state standards due to NCLB, but warned that shifting and implementing
do not equal achievement:
What supports do students need to achieve these standards
is an open question of what will happen. Most people are projecting
in 3-4 years that there is a good possibility that dropouts will
increase for special education students because there aren't supports.
There needs to be a reform of high school for students with disabilities.
A lot of places are facing a big gap in what will occur. High schools
have the kids in place who are a product of an older system; they
have come up through segregated programs not addressing state standards;
high school teachers are trying to address these standards, but
the discrepancies are so large, that the kids are falling out. They
are being babysat or not being supported to achieve standards at
all. This is the frustration that we are hearing all over the country.
(Researcher)
Of course, the success of NCLB for students with disabilities
depends to some extent on which disabilities are included. It is
known that “disability” is a broad catchphrase that
captures mild learning difficulties, behavior difficulties, mental
retardation, and multiple disabilities. One researcher noted that
there is cross-disability diversity, as well as within-disability
diversity. “Within most disability categories, there are a
good number of kids with sufficient supports—they will do
all right. Many students are very close to being proficient in NCLB
terms, but others—those with multiple disabilities, autism,
mental retardation—have a long way to go. The story is much
different for these different groups.”
The impact, due in part to NCLB, also has a differential
effect depending on the performance of a given state or district
before the legislation was authorized. “We've seen large gains
in performance in those states that are proactive [with regard to
disability]. We've seen that kids are making improvements in performance.”
Not all respondents share this enthusiasm for what is transpiring.
“I think that the standards movement, as well as many policies
under testing, has undermined the ‘Forgotten Half'”
(Researcher).
Unintended Effects of NCLB
As with all laws, there are always unintended consequences.
“We're very concerned about the unintended consequences of
holding schools accountable for [the disability] population. We're
sensitive to the potential for pushing students out, for scapegoating
students, for identifying these students as the reason that a school
or a district isn't measuring up.” (Mitchell D. Chester, assistant
superintendent for policy development in the Ohio education department,
cited in Education Week, 2004b, p. 16). This perception was widely
held by our panel respondents. Several were worried about states
“gaming” the system:
I have some real concerns about how the school districts
will translate the NCLB [provisions] about dealing with and reporting
the progress of students with disabilities. The anecdotal evidence
from earlier attempts to provide accountability (state mandated
proficiency testing) show significant abuses in many states—none
to the advantage of students with disabilities. If the future funding
of school districts is contingent on the right level of progress,
their response will be to not deal with the disability. (Practitioner)
During our interviews, panel respondents discussed
unanticipated outcomes and malicious compliance. “Some students
with disabilities will do well on assessments and tests. But if
you take students with disabilities as a large group we start talking
about the potential of devastating effects. A particular school
will be punished for low scores in a sub-group, and administrators
fear including them.” Under NCLB, states must determine the
size of the subgroup populations that will be included in the measure
of average yearly progress (AYP), and it appears that some states
and districts are using the size determination to avoid measuring
certain categories of students. For example, respondents noted that
several states and districts seem to be artificially raising their
subgroup size to a level where there is little possibility that
the “subgroup” will ever be reached. An example was
given of a proactive district providing a reasonable level of 15
students per subgroup in a school. In this case, if a school has
only 10 students in a subgroup, their performance would not be included
in AYP calculations. However, if the school had 15 students or more
in that subgroup, their performance would be counted. We heard that
there are states that have artificially raised subgroup size to
100 or more, meaning there must be at least 100 students within
a subgroup to be considered in AYP, which, in the case of students
with disabilities and non-English language learners, might be unlikely.
The worry is that, the way NCLB is structured with
subgroups, schools will work to keep the subgroup small enough as
not to be considered; they could start moving students around to
other buildings to keep under the limits. Let's say you have 60
students with disabilities in a typically-sized elementary school
(600 kids). In Minnesota, that school has to be accountable as a
subgroup, because they set a 15 person subgroup level per school.
In Texas, virtually no school will be included. (Researcher)
According to respondents, states that are proactive
in dealing with disabilities are setting reasonable levels; those
that have not been proactive are setting very high subgroup levels.
There is a sentiment that AYP has created an unfair playing field
for states that have historically provided proactive legislation
and programs for students with disabilities and other subgroups.
Implementation of the law, in terms of the very high
stakes and consequences as disincentives to local administrators
and practitioners, will vary by locality. Many people are focused
on the consequences—to the extent that those who can manipulate
legislation will. It becomes an issue of “the letter versus
the intent of the law.” If we believe that other things have
to be put in place for those subgroups to truly achieve the dream,
then that will take a while. Otherwise, it will just be a legislative
issue and local implementers will do what they need to do but no
more. Those who have a deep conceptual belief will go further, but
those who do not will only meet the letter of the law. (Organization
Representative)
There appear to be other ways for schools and states
to flaunt the intent of AYP. Regardless of the numerical count of
subgroup populations, school administrators may be under pressure
to remove students with disabilities, as they will be for other
subgroups, from their rosters. “Districts will find ways of
making students with disabilities ineligible for the pool; maybe
they'll say only students going for a [high school] diploma will
be considered, and move students to certificates. If this is left
as a loophole, this would be an area where schools will try and
play around.” A nationally-recognized researcher stated that
she saw districts that were worried about performance reports and
asked how they could get these kids out of their assessment system.
Additionally, a school administrator remarked that another unintended
consequence of NCLB is that as you improve the test scores of some
higher performing students with disabilities your overall score
may decrease because your best students do well enough that they
no longer are considered special education, leaving your remaining
pool with a lower standard.
AYP also has the unintended consequence of switching
the focus of assessments from work-based and alternative assessments
to more traditional forms of evaluation and testing. Research shows
that work-based learning opportunities provide a sound learning
platform for students with disabilities (Cobb, Lehmann, Tochterman,
& Bomotti, 2000; Johnson, Stodden, Emanuel, & Mack, 2002;
Stodden, 1998), but panel respondents see that these opportunities
may be lost through the focus on accountability and test outcome
measures:
Where I think NCLB is hurting is not as a piece of
legislation itself, but as a continuation of the standards and accountability
movement. I believe standards and accountability have done wonderful
things around the country, and I have talked to legislators and
practitioners who believe the same thing. However, what I think
has been, frankly, a disaster are two things: (1) the exclusion
of work-based programs from the original standards movement; and
(2) the almost myopic focus by researchers and policymakers and
bureaucrats at The U.S. Department of Education in using the results
of state-level high stakes tests as the only acceptable outcome
variable to measure the quality of educational interventions. We
do not need to sacrifice work-based learning if we want to increase
math literacy. I think that is a tragedy. (Researcher)
Another panel member pointed similar criticism at
the law:
Work-based experience is amongst the most important
aspects of keeping youth in school and to help them in future employment.
Research has shown that this is one of the most important predictors
of success of special education. Within NCLB, work-based learning
opportunities are becoming more difficult for schools to coordinate
for students due to the emphasis on standardized testing. This could
be a method of instruction that has gone to the past. Students with
disabilities could be dealt a major blow if this happens, unless
alternative assessments are encouraged and developed. And this is
true for every category of student. Whether in a resource room or
self-contained classroom, whether their label is mental retardation
or physical disability—research shows that all of these youth
benefit from work-based learning opportunities. (Researcher)
Educators from many fields are grappling with this
issue of developing assessments that measure more than just academic
skills.
Impact
of NCLB on the High School Dropout Rate of Students with Disabilities
Our panel respondents were both positive and negative
about the impact of NCLB on the dropout rates of students with disabilities.
On the positive side, several respondents felt that the focus on
AYP and accountability will heighten awareness of outcomes for students
with disabilities that will yield better teaching and learning.
I think dropouts will decrease. The combined emphasis
of the President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education
Report (2003) and the timing of NCLB can be a catalyst for educators
and administrators to want to keep students with disabilities in
school. NCLB clearly demonstrates that no child, regardless of need
or learning disability, should be left out of general education.
Greater attention will be given to them. (Federal Administrator)
A representative of an educational non-profit suggested
that students with disabilities, like any other students, drop out
not because school is too hard, but rather, because it is too easy.
“Getting students to master skills needed in work and school
will help them and encourage them to stay in school….I think
the bar has been raised for students with disabilities, and I think
they will meet it,” suggested a federal Rehabilitation Services
Administration (RSA) official. “However, if they don't get
the remedial help now, they will never get it.” Another federal
official thought that dropout rates could rise while states and
districts struggle, but that in the long term “it will provide
tremendous benefit and reduce dropout rates.”
Although most of our respondents felt that some students
with disabilities will do better in part due to NCLB, others saw
a negative effect on the dropout rates of certain students.
I actually think it will be a wash; some kids can
actually benefit from it (from increased challenge). But some kids
won't, and will actually leave. There are some kids with learning
disabilities and emotional disturbances who are not going to see
their way through the tests and they will get discouraged. These
kids may not get the type of services they actually need. If the
focus of the school becomes the test, then where is the focus? If
the kid needs therapy, the therapy is not directly related to test
scores. (Researcher)
Expulsion rates for students with disabilities is
another issue linked to the dropout problem. The 2003 Annual Report
to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act stated what is largely known in the research and policy
world: that the size of a district and the percentage of students
receiving free and reduced lunch were directly related to whether
schools used expulsion strategies for students with and without
disabilities. As the size of the school increased or as the percentage
of students on free and reduced lunch increased, so did the school's
use of expulsion for disciplining students with and without disabilities
(U.S. Department of Education, 2003, p. xvii). Some experts find
that a good number of expulsions occur not because of the behavioral
difficulties that students display, but rather, because of an effort
by schools and districts to rid themselves of problem students.
Stodden, Galloway, and Stodden (2003) posited that a real effect
of standards-based reform could be an increased dropout rate for
students with disabilities and a reduced rate of graduation. Such
an effect could manifest itself in a number of ways.
This is where we don't have any research, so it remains
to be seen. Intuitively, if there is no way of connecting students
to what they are learning, students are prone to drop out. If students
leave, schools don't have to deal with them. It saves the school
from the effort of accountability. So it isn't necessarily a bad
thing to force students out in some fashion. Either marginal performers
or labeled students will be forced out, or one better: the student
will say, “to heck with this, they're treating me as trash,
I might as well not be here.” Same outcome. (Researcher)
I don't think it will have any real impact on dropout
rates. But here is what I think will happen. Based on my observations,
school districts will help find ways to help students achieve on
the test. In Texas, they kept students in grade nine forever. (Researcher)
There is also a notion that the policy itself isn't
the problem. Rather, how the policy is ultimately implemented will
be the defining outcome of NCLB on disability dropout and success.
“I think it [NCLB] will increase dropouts. But it isn't the
policy; it is the practice that implements the policy. It seems
almost inevitable.” (Researcher)
I can't say that NCLB will reduce the dropout rate.
Conceptually speaking, yes, there is a potential for a reduction
in dropout rates. In practice, we see significant challenges in
place that could limit the effectiveness of NCLB for students with
disabilities. People perceive a set of incentives that may or may
not work to reduce dropout rates. Envisioned to work? Yes, but in
practice it may be difficult. (Organization Representative)
According to researchers, the State of Delaware recently
realized three consecutive years of a continual decrease in dropout
rates for students with disabilities. However, the rates went back
up in 2003. “They don't know why—don't know if it was
because or due to NCLB—but something changed. They are now
about to undergo research to find out why.”
I think it is an unknown yet. One thing we need to
be very careful about is that we are mixing up high-stakes testing
with NCLB. There are a lot of studies going on right now with conflicting
results—that high-stakes tests can lead to increased dropout
rates. But the data are out right now. The dropout issue is very
critical to watch, and we've had just enough evidence that people
can play with the numbers. There are enough people who are concerned
that we have to be careful of the loopholes and really watch what
is going on here. (Researcher)
NCLB's
Impact on Expectations for Students with Disabilities
While most teachers agree in principle that students
with disabilities should be taught to higher standards, a recent
survey by Education Week found that more than four in five teachers
reject the notion that students who receive special education services
should be held to the same standards and testing requirements as
other students their age. Nearly as many say that students who receive
special education services should be given alternative assessments
rather than be required to take the same tests as general education
students (Education Week, 2004b, p. 7). The survey also found that
while teachers are positive about how much their students who receive
special education services achieve each year, they also express
reservations about whether all students with disabilities can actually
meet state standards (Education Week, 2004b, p. 13).
These findings are particularly interesting in light
of the responses from our panel. As per other dialogues, our panel
vacillated on much of the discussion of expectations of students
with disabilities. One chord of agreement, however, was about expectations
for various types of disabilities. “I think that attitudes
about the potential of people with certain impairments, like sight,
for example, have changed over time and will continue to change
under NCLB. But students with cognitive disabilities and mental
illness—there hasn't been much change over the years with
respect to expectations” (Federal Administrator).
I think expectations for students with disabilities
are lower than they are for students without disabilities. That
isn't always inappropriate. Sometimes they aren't always unreasonable.
I'm all for those with severe cognitive disabilities being in school
to get what they can out of it, but knowing that they can only do
so much. (Practitioner)
A researcher agreed: “Expectations are higher
than they used to be for students with disabilities, but I'm not
sure if that is because of NCLB or IDEA.”
Panel respondents seemed to agree that students with
learning disabilities have different abilities than those with significant
cognitive disabilities or than students whose disability impacts
their attitude. Whether students should be considered, depending
on their disability, at the same grade-level as other students is
open to discussion:
If nothing else, NCLB has drawn a line in the sand;
you must bring kids up to snuff; a kid may know content, because
they have the auditory capacity, but reading is behind, thus they
do not test well. We must continue to accommodate that student until
we are testing what they actually know. Unfortunately, NCLB hasn't
been around long enough to demonstrate content knowledge as suggested,
and it isn't necessarily part of IDEA to test kids. (Federal Administrator)
I can't imagine that any logical person would think
you could bring everyone to the same performance level given they
come from different backgrounds and supports from home. However,
I do think that we should set standards for gains and moving kids
forward and moving them as far as we reasonably think they can go.
Value added. (Researcher)
I think there is no question that most school and
district educators expect considerably less from students with disabilities,
even when it goes beyond cognitive capacity. Expectations for students
with disabilities are the lowest—period. When I work with
these people, you get the “oh, OK, we might be able to do
this for poor and minority kids, but students with disabilities?
No way.” (Organization Representative)
One researcher said that there is a belief among many
that students who are enrolled and not functioning well at one grade
level should be tested at a lower grade level. She suggested that
this reflected a lower-expectation for students, with the result
they fall further behind. But another panelist countered: “There
are some students with disabilities who will never be at grade level.
But through NCLB and IDEA, we are trying to show that students with
disabilities have their own strengths and weaknesses and we try
and work on those issues and meet whatever goals they set for themselves.”
It was noted that this differential expectation contains a Catch-22
of sorts:
At some point, to say that they don't have to meet
the same standards suggests that there is some level of sorting
out. It is that sorting out function that has been the problem with
special education. If you are suggesting that there are alternate
standards, it really opens up a set of problems. We need to balance
it with individual needs. At what point do we keep the individual
nature of IDEA over the more “here is the standard”
of NCLB. Somewhere between the two is the answer. I don't think
the answer is suggesting that students with disabilities don't need
to meet the standard. There must be individual adaptation for students
with severe disabilities or behavioral modification that must be
addressed before you can meet standards. (Organization Representative)
Making this acceptance of standards happen and turning
that into practice is difficult work. “Things need to change
early on—putting kids in general curriculum and making sure
supports are in place. The expectation has to be the same but the
approach must be different. You can make the same comment about
English as a Second Language or high-risk students. You have to
change the approach. If, at the local level, teachers can understand
that not every student will get there the same way, then they can
go about it. However, if educators can't conceptualize that, or
can't be adaptable, then they cannot begin to conceive how to teach
differently.”
Some panel respondents found that expectations varied
greatly for a number of other reasons. It was suggested that the
building principal has much to do with the attitude that teachers,
students, and parents have about students with disabilities. “Where
there is collaboration between teachers, this seems to happen [expectations
are higher]. Conversely, schools with principals overly concerned
with accountability tend to have special education teachers who
are less inclined and less confident working with general education
teachers. When these things are seen as punitive, there is a negative
view of students with disabilities because they are bringing down
the group.”
The truth is, these expectations vary from state-to-state,
district-to-district, and school-to-school. “We've heard from
people who say that students with disabilities can't learn, shouldn't
be expected to learn. But we've heard the opposite; my students
with disabilities are smarter than anyone else, it's just giving
them the tools to let them demonstrate it,” reported a federal
administrator. “In general, teachers should have the same
expectations of all their students. But specifically, it depends
on the specific students.”
Professional
Development and Highly Qualified Teachers
In addition to calling for high academic standards
(NCLB Section 1111), NCLB also calls for states to ensure a high-quality
teaching force in schools, high-quality professional development
activities, and high-quality curricula (NCLB Sections 1114 and 1115).
This is a challenge for public secondary and postsecondary education,
which is currently struggling through teacher shortages and quality
issues, to identify, attract, hire, develop and retain highly-qualified
teachers. The success of NCLB on students with disabilities is,
of course, dependent on teaching and learning in the classroom.
The level of professional development, teacher preparation, and
teacher induction will have an enormous effect on how well schools
and districts meet AYP for at-risk children.
At present, there are an estimated 39,000 special
education teachers responsible for the education of over 600,000
students with disabilities (Smith, McLeskey, Tyler, & Saunders,
2002). According to Smith et al. (2002), many of these special education
professionals lack “the most basic preparation to do their
jobs” (p. 1). In terms of certification, it should be noted
that just 14 states and the District of Columbia require general
education teachers to complete one or more courses related to special
education to earn their licenses. This situation is of interest
because 76 percent of public school teachers teach students who
receive special education services (Education Week, 2004b, p. 7).
Still, national data illustrate that special education professionals
are, as a group, more highly experienced than general education
teachers. The average special education professional has taught
for 14.3 years, 12.3 years of which were spent teaching special
education. Over 90 percent of special education teachers were fully
certified for their main teaching assignment, a rate almost ten
percent higher than the national average for all educators. Fifty-nine
percent of special education teachers had a Master's degree, compared
to forty-nine percent of regular education teachers (U.S. Department
of Education, 2002b).
This is important, because, as a representative from
a national organization noted, “people are starting to understand,
in a concrete way, that a good teacher impacts schools' ability
to help students with disabilities. Special education teachers are
going to have more education and support. Under NCLB, only teachers
who are highly qualified in academic content areas will be allowed
to teach by 2005-06, although on March 15, 2004, the U.S. Department
of Education issued a ruling providing additional flexibility for
teachers in rural schools. NCLB has earmarked funds specifically
to address the critical and growing need for teacher training and
professional development. “Yet, supporting teachers in this
way must be done systematically if it is to succeed” (Stodden
et al., 2003, p. 14). But one researcher asked a more pointed question
that has been largely unanswered: “Do the special education
teachers know the standards related to NCLB?”
Several respondents noted the importance of attracting
highly qualified staff and ensuring that existing staff can meet
the certification and subject-area levels of expertise required
to meet state and federal requirements and ensure that all students
meet AYP. “I'm concerned with what NCLB will do with instruction
for students with disabilities. On one hand, I'm encouraged that
the focus will result in better teaching and learning. However,
I worry that we will not have sufficient numbers of qualified teachers
to meet that need.” Says a special education director,
In a good way, you are going to have better prepared
and qualified teachers to meet the challenge. So, students with
disabilities will be instructed by more highly-qualified folks.
Of course, hiring and retaining these teachers is a challenge that
school districts will have to deal with, and incentives and other
programs will be important. This ultimately involves institutions
of higher education since they need to train these teachers. Can
they deliver? I don't know. (District Administrator)
Trying to find qualified staff was an inherent problem
suggested by our panel. One district-based panel member noted that
the issue of certification and credentialing will have to change.
“In California, we have gone through a ton of credential changes
over the past five years, making it very difficult for teachers
to get certified in special education. It must be streamlined and
efficient, and it's not.”
Achievement
Standards
Tightly linked to quality teaching and professional
development are the standards by which students with disabilities
are to be measured. Education Week reports that special education
teachers express “reservations about whether all children
with disabilities can actually meet state standards” (Education
Week, 2004b, p. 13).
Under NCLB, there are three guiding principles inherent
in federal law: (a) there will be challenging standards; (b) all
students, including students with disabilities, should have the
opportunity to achieve these standards; and (c) policymakers and
educators should be held publicly accountable for every student's
performance (Stodden et al., 2003). But standards are troublesome
by some accounts. The National Center on Secondary Education and
Transition's Capacity Building Institute (2001) found that there
are both positive and negative consequences to standards-based reforms
for students with disabilities. Positive consequences included:
- higher levels of learning and achievement toward
common standards;
- increased access to general education curriculum;
- increased opportunities to learn grade-level material;
and
- more meaningful diplomas because the students and
system are held accountable.
Negative consequences included:
- misinterpretation of achievement results and inappropriate
use of scores;
- higher rates of failure and dropouts due to challenging
standards and inappropriate use of assessment data;
- staff burnout and students cheating on tests; and
- schools becoming less inclusive of students
with disabilities because of test pressures and the probability
that too many students with disabilities would lower the accountability
index rating for the site (Quenemoen, Lehr, Thurlow, & Massanari,
2001).
This stated, the U.S. Department of Education found
that ninety percent or more of the states reported having the same
math and reading content standards for students with and without
disabilities in 1999-2000, and ninety percent of students with disabilities
participated in statewide or districtwide assessments (U.S. Department
of Education, 2003, p. xvii). Still, Cobb, Lehmann, Tochterman,
and Bomotti (2000) suggest that the potential effects of current
standards-based reforms are “extremely worrisome, since…intentions
appear to be heavily weighted on the side of improvements for higher
ability students” (p. 16).
Several studies suggest that there is a lack of connection
among special and general education reform efforts (McDonnell, McLaughlin,
& Morison, 1997) (McGrew, Thurlow, & Spiegel, 1993) (McLaughlin,
Nolet, Rhim, & Henderson, 1999). The studies illustrated that
many students with disabilities were being excluded from participation
in standards-based curricula and assessments and thus received minimal
or no benefit from reform efforts occurring in general education.
Federal policy initiatives designed to address this
situation included the 1997 amendments to IDEA, which required
students with disabilities to have access to the general education
curriculum and state-mandated assessments; Goals 2000, which spoke
to the need to ensure high performance for all students; and the
No Child Left Behind Act, which emphasized the use of standards-based
measures to assess and improve student performance and provided
incentives and disincentives for schools failing to demonstrate
adequate progress with respect to the standards. (Furney, Hasazi,
Clark-Keefe, & Hartnett, 2003)
Additional concerns about whether students with disabilities
can meet the standards include research that shows that students
with disabilities are negatively affected by traditional instructional
practices at the high school level (Gersten, 1998) (in Stodden et
al., 2003). Recent research efforts support the use of various instructional
supports for “promoting both the participation of students
with disabilities in the general education classrooms and their
attaining individualized learning objectives” (Stodden et
al., 2003, p. 13). Examples provided by Stodden et al. include revising
the curriculum, redirecting content-area planning, enhancing and
adapting content-area instruction and textbooks, engaging students
in peer tutoring, teaching students how to learn, curriculum modification
strategies, meta-cognitive approaches, learning strategies, and
the use of a graphic organizer.
And finally, Browder and Cooper-Duffy (2003) suggest
that, in spite of NCLB's focus on evidence-based practices, the
inclusion of “students with significant cognitive disabilities
in expectations for progress on states' academic content standards
appears to be a values-based, rather than an evidence-based, policy.”
Assessments
and Accommodations
The 1997 reauthorization of IDEA and the more recent
NCLB require states to ensure that all students take part in large-scale
achievement testing, with or without the use of accommodations (U.S.
Congress, 1997, 2002). In its Interim Report on State and Local
Implementation of IDEA, the U.S. Department of Education found that
states and districts have met this challenge with respect to statewide
and districtwide assessments (U.S. Department of Education, 2003).
The report states that ninety-six percent of schools reported administering
a statewide assessment, of which ninety percent of students with
disabilities participated. Of that group, two thirds used an accommodation.
An additional three percent took an alternate test, and seven percent
of all students who received special education services did not
participate in any assessment. Two thirds (sixty-two percent) of
schools reported administering a districtwide assessment, with similar
participation rates as on statewide assessments (U.S. Department
of Education, 2003, p. ix).
With regard to the use of accommodations, the U.S.
Department of Education reported that states and districts allowed
widespread use of accommodations by students with disabilities to
participate in statewide assessments (U.S. Department of Education,
2003). Almost all states and districts (approximately ninety-four
percent or higher) allowed the use of presentation, setting, and
timing accommodations for students with disabilities. According
to Education Week's Quality Counts, “Every state…provides
at least one alternate assessment for students who received special
education services if they cannot take part in regular state tests
even with accommodations, or permits districts to do so” (Education
Week, 2004b, p. 7).
The most prevalent type of presentation accommodation
in use was reading test directions aloud (eighty-eight percent of
schools), and the use of accommodations did not appear to vary significantly
by type of disability, with the exception of students with sensory
impairments who had a greater reliance on Braille or large-print
editions of tests, magnifying or amplification equipment and tape-recorded
answers (U.S. Department of Education, 2003, p. xi).
Not only are the numbers of students with disabilities
taking large-scale tests increasing, but also their performance.
According to the National Center on Educational Outcomes, the performance
of students with disabilities on state assessments has increased
in over half of the states and remained stable in one-third of the
states (American Youth Policy Forum & Center on Education Policy,
2002, p. 28).
Our panel of respondents had a number of comments
about accommodations and assessments. One researcher noted that
IDEA ‘97 required states to take assessments seriously, but
not until NCLB did they “really take it seriously.”
She added, “NCLB has pushed things forward, and everyone is
paying attention to it. Before, things were happening in only the
leading states. Now they're happening everywhere.”
The emphasis of IDEA and NCLB on achievement outcomes
has resulted in schools and districts increasing their efforts to
connect curriculum and assessments more intentionally with improved
outcomes. Thurlow (2002) reports that “most assessment guidelines
speak to the need for an alignment between assessment accommodations
and instructional accommodations” (p. 4). But as one of our
panel respondents said, not many are very far down this line. “There
are people who saw this issue as soon as NCLB came out, but getting
a critical mass of people to see this takes a while. They are starting
to recognize issues and working with states to deal with issues.
But again, it takes time, and people do not necessarily feel they
have the time” (Organization Representative).
Others cautioned that people shouldn't make the assumption
that accountability through NCLB automatically results in only high-stakes
tests. “Assessments are fundamental to education reform in
this country, whether a regular assessment or high-stakes test.
NCLB does not necessarily require a high-stakes test, it is an accountability
test—not necessarily the same thing. It is forcing the question
of how to test and assess” (Federal Administrator). “There
are no requirements for high-stakes tests,” said a representative
of a national organization:
How will the required assessments affect students
with disabilities? By and large, we will be assessing students with
regular assessments, perhaps modified; secondly, because you need
to assess, you will be assessing students who weren't assessed before.
That should change because of NCLB. I am seeing the early stages
of people thinking of this issue differently at the district level.
I can't necessarily say that actions are any different, but the
thinking is progressing, which is a start. (Organization Representative)
A high-ranking federal official from the Social Security
Administration (SSA) said that “high-stakes tests” should
be used as a diagnostic instrument, and that it isn't fair to use
them as the end piece when students don't really know how best to
prepare for them. The problem of using these assessments for purposes
other than student development is a broad concern:
This is a complicated issue. I think if you have a
test that measures absolute skills, you're trying to figure out
whether someone can read or add, I don't have a problem applying
it to everyone. On the other hand, if you are beginning to use results
to let people in and out of programs, then it becomes complicated.
If the tests are used for gathering information to rank schools
or exclude or include, then I have a problem. This is often missing
from the discussions. (Federal Administrator)
Panel respondents continued to worry about malicious
intent issues with the law, especially with regard to accommodations
and accountability. “If students with disabilities aren't
accommodated or there aren't alternative assessments, school scores
will be affected. If so, the school will figure out a creative way
of counting these kids out or the kids will choose to leave”
(Researcher). He was skeptical of the true intent of some of America's
schools:
Many schools are trying to hold special education
programs at arms length. One example from Delaware. One school,
when 8th grade students matriculate to the 9th grade. Instead of
putting them in high school (9th grade), they put them in a special
“9th grade academy” so their scores don't count. There
are several results. First, it segregates them from other students,
so there is no inclusion. Second, the students are forced to take
the 9th grade in high school over, thus they are now a grade behind.
For students, this then becomes a watershed—do I repeat the
grade because they made me, or do I drop out?
Panel respondents also pointed out the non-malicious
types of outcomes. “I have a significant concern with grey-area
students—those who are not taking alternative assessments
but are not in the general curriculum/education. The students will
be taking the tests but not really in a plan of accommodation. Those
are the students who will potentially fall through the cracks”
(Organization Representative). That panel member also pointed out
her concern for the implications of spending time on testing. “Time
spent on test preparation will take away from traditional time spent
on transitioning issues. Some places are thinking about how to do
this, but there are a number of places that are simply not doing
it.”
Another panelist reiterated what we know from the
research literature. “We are all over the place in terms of
how to accommodate students with disabilities, even within districts.
What guidelines are schools and districts using to make these decisions?
Guidelines need to deal with how students are accommodated and how
much time students get for testing” (Federal Administrator).
And one researcher voiced a concern common in the
area of psychometrics:
My general sense is that we should see a blip in scores
(we've already seen a blip in participation in state tests, just
by requiring it) because previously students weren't focusing on
academic content; now they are, so the scores should elevate. But
once beyond the blip, how do you maintain? How do you get the level
of supports necessary? Can schools maintain that support? (Researcher)
The most recent issue with regard to assessments and
accommodations in NCLB revolves around the “one percent”
issue. In December 2003, the U.S. Department of Education outlined
its final rule regarding the calculation of Average Yearly Progress
(AYP) for students with disabilities. The rule allows states to
“develop and use alternate achievement standards for students
with the most significant cognitive disabilities for the purpose
of determining the AYP of states, local education agencies, and
schools” (U.S. Department of Education, December 9, 2003).
An alternate achievement standard is an expectation of performance
that differs in complexity from a grade-level achievement standard.
An alternative assessment is an assessment designed for the small
number of students with disabilities who are unable to participate
in the regular state assessment, even with appropriate accommodations.
Examples of alternative assessment may include teacher observation,
samples of students' work, and standardized performance tasks. In
brief, the rule provides flexibility to states, districts, and schools
to use, in the calculation of AYP, alternative assessments that
score at the “proficient” and “advanced”
level for students with disabilities, with a cap of one percent
of all students. The Secretary of Education reserved the right to
approve an exception for a specified period of time for a state,
and the one percent cap does not pertain to individual schools to
allow for flexibility, but only to districts and states. This rule
took effect January 9, 2004 and will guide schools and districts
and states for the current (2003-04) academic year.
Part II - Evidence-Based
Research and Practice
An important component of No Child Left Behind is
the focus on evidence-based practices. The U.S. Department of Education
has moved toward a research-driven mandate supported by practices
that rely extensively on random controlled trials (RCTs) and other
high-end research methodology to inform policy and practice. The
importance of this movement was illustrated by the retooling of
the former Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI)
into the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) in late 2002.
The impetus for the move toward evidence-based research
and practices emanates from the Department of Educations's belief
that educational research is often poorly constructed:
The field of K-12 education contains a vast array
of educational interventions – such as reading and math curricula,
schoolwide reform programs, after-school programs, and new educational
technologies – that claim to be able to improve educational
outcomes and, in many cases, to be supported by evidence. This evidence
often consists of poorly-designed and/or advocacy-driven studies.
(Institute of Education Sciences, 2003, p. iii)
According to Davies (1999), evidence-based policy
“helps people make well-informed decisions about policies,
programs and projects by putting the best available evidence from
research at the heart of policy development and implementation.”
IES uses the criteria set by the Campbell Collaboration, an international
effort to promote and make available systematic reviews of research
studies.
Simply put, evidence-based research should be “systematically
searched, critically appraised, and rigorously analyzed according
to explicit and transparent criteria” (Davies, 2004, p. 7).
The purpose is to produce information that will have enough rigor
to appropriately inform the development of public policy and high
quality programs.
As stated, NCLB requires evidence-based research and
practices to be used in the field. In fact, NCLB includes more than
100 references to “scientifically-based research” (Browder
& Cooper-Duffy, 2003). States receiving NCLB funding and providing
subgrants to local educational agencies (schools or districts) must
use the funding:
…to implement a comprehensive school reform
program that… has been found, through scientifically based
research to significantly improve the academic achievement of students
participating in such program as compared to students in schools
who have not participated in such program, or … has been found
to have strong evidence that such program will significantly improve
the academic achievement of participating children. (U.S. Congress,
2002, Section 1606(a)11(a & b))
IDEA also has provisions for conducting, using, implementing,
and disseminating evidence-based research to improve educational
practice and professional development, including the development
of “model demonstration projects to apply and test research
findings in typical service settings to determine the usability,
effectiveness, and general applicability of such research findings
in such areas as improving instructional methods, curricula, and
tools, such as textbooks and media.” (IDEA ‘97 Section
672(c)(2)
One of the current challenges relates to the scarcity
of research that meets the criteria set by IES for evidence-based
research. A second challenge, to be discussed later, is how to turn
available evidence-based research into practice.
Effective
Evidence-Based Practices for Students with Disabilities
The use of evidence-based practices in special education
is a new initiative, largely due to language authorized during the
1997 reauthorization of IDEA. Practitioners often have difficulty
finding practices that are based on rigorous evaluation methods,
either through the use of random controlled trials or other experimental
methods. In an analysis of research-based instructional practices
for students with disabilities, Gersten, Chard, and Baker (2000)
were able to locate only one empirical study, which happened to
be a Klingner, Vaughn, Hughes, and Arguelles (1999) study of reading
approaches in the classroom. According to Gersten et al. (2000),
research on special education has largely been “in the form
of self-reflective essays” (p. 445).
Lehr et al. (2003) reported on an integrative review
of published reports of dropout intervention outcomes. Out of more
than 300 studies, 45 intervention studies were coded, and effect
sizes were calculated for 17 studies. Not one study incorporated
a random selection process; 24 percent (only 11 students) used non-random
procedures for selection but random assignment of participants to
control and experimental groups; and 38 percent (17 students) assigned
participants to control groups without random assignment. Only four
studies (10 percent) utilized pre- and post-test controls. Another
limitation of the research, according to the analysis by Lehr et
al., is that only 9 of the 45 coded studies had some form of randomized
design, of which 6 were focused on the high school population. Only
two of those studies were conducted after 1994. The authors concluded
that the greatest limitation of this review was that the status
of the research base did not lend itself to conducting a meta-analysis,
resulting in a “significant need for more rigorous research
that incorporates sound methodology, evaluation, and impact data.”
Nietupski, Hamre-Nietupski, Curtin, and Shrikanth
(1997) identified 785 articles in their review of research from
1976 to 1995 on students with significant disabilities. Fewer than
ten percent of these articles focused on cognitive/academic skills,
instead primarily focusing on social skills and social inclusion
(Browder & Cooper-Duffy, 2003).
Browder and Cooper-Duffy (2003) found that critical
limitations to research about students with significant disabilities
include:
- sparse literature on students with complex, multiple
disabilities;
- limited range of functional academics and
lack of reading comprehension measures; and
- lack of research on teaching a broader range
of academics to this population (e.g., science).
Our panel respondents suggested that finding and using
evidence is a difficult task that is filled with a lot of grey area:
In the field, none of the interventions are so powerful
so as to completely knock competing paradigms out of the box. In
medicine, if someone has a broken arm, there is no debate about
how an arm is healed. The arm is stabilized and put in some kind
of splint or cast so that bone tissues can heal. No debate. In disabilities,
we struggle on how best to learn to read (gradually add skills to
repertoire or is it something that happens when there is a purpose
to do so?). Some programs are marginally better, but not that good
that they blow other stuff out. Is it because we aren't that mature
as a field? The real success of NCLB will be whether there is a
real change in how we think about these issues. (Researcher)
Evidence-Based
Practices to Reduce Dropout Rates for Students with Disabilities
Dropout rates among students with disabilities have
always been a serious challenge for educators, parents, and policymakers.
Even though there have been positive decreases in the percentage
of students dropping out of high school, one third of all students
with disabilities drop out (American Youth Policy Forum & Center
on Education Policy, 2002). Put another way, only slightly more
than half of students with disabilities graduate from high school
(see Figure 1). An additional eleven percent of students graduate
with a certificate (U.S. Department of Education, 2002a).
[D]
SOURCE: American Youth Policy
Forum & Center on Education Policy. (2002). Educating Children with
Disabilities. Washington, DC.
Completion and dropout rates vary depending on the
type of disability. As can be seen in Table 1 below, students with
emotional disturbances are the least likely to receive a diploma,
or alternative credential, and are most likely to drop out. Conversely,
students with sensory impairments are most likely to earn a diploma
and complete high school, and are least likely to drop out.
Table 1. High school completion and dropout
rates by disability type, 2000-01
|
Completion Rate |
Disability |
Diploma |
Alternative
Credential |
Total
Completion Rate |
Dropout
Rate |
All IDEA students |
57 |
11 |
68 |
29 |
Emotional disturbances |
39 |
6 |
45 |
53 |
Learning disabilities |
64 |
8 |
71 |
27 |
Mental retardation |
40 |
28 |
68 |
25 |
Other cognitive disabilities |
57 |
20 |
77 |
13 |
Speech/language impairments |
64 |
8 |
72 |
26 |
Orthopedic impairments |
64 |
11 |
76 |
18 |
Sensory impairments |
69 |
14 |
83 |
14 |
Other health impairments |
68 |
7 |
75 |
23 |
Multiple disabilities |
48 |
20 |
68 |
17 |
Source: U.S. General Accounting Office.
(2003). SPECIAL EDUCATION: Federal Actions Can Assist States in
Improving Postsecondary Outcomes for Youth. Report to the Ranking
Minority Member, Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions,
U.S. Senate (GAO-03-773). Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting
Office.
A problem with the dropout rate is the lack of up-to-date
and accurate data on educational progress with respect to students
with disabilities. The U.S. Department of Education (2003) reported
to Congress that fewer states and schools reported on the dropout
rates of students with disabilities than on the dropout rates of
general education students, and only eighteen percent of states
reported rates separately for students with disabilities and general
education students (p. xii).
Students with disabilities, like other students, drop
out for a wide variety of reasons. According to Jordan, Lara, and
McPartland (1996), these reasons can be categorized as those that
push or pull students out of school. Push factors are usually considered
the primary reasons for dropping out, and include repeating grades,
low academic achievement, and insufficient evidence that school
personnel care (Scanlon & Mellard, 2002). Factors that pull
students out of school may include employment and pregnancy.
Dropout prevention strategies for students with disabilities
typically include counseling services, reading remediation, tutoring,
attendance monitoring, or after-school clubs (Lehr et al., 2003).
Other services could include sustained and supportive monitoring
interventions focused on school completion (Scanlon & Mellard,
2002). An early 1990's study of three dropout prevention programs
for students with disabilities sponsored by the Office of Special
Education Programs found that five components were common to all
programs: persistence, continuity and consistency; monitoring; relationships;
affiliation; and problem-solving skills (Lehr et al., 2003).
Other researchers support these component areas, but
warn about the efficacy of recent research. “The extent to
which these interventions are systematically targeted for disengaged
learners is unclear and closer examination suggests many of these
practices are not evidence-based and have not been subjected to
rigorous evaluation” (Lehr et al., 2003).
Evidence-based dropout strategies
The research literature on effective dropout strategies
is extraordinarily limited. While there appears to be an abundance
of anecdotal evidence of success of programs and strategies, only
a marginal number have an empirical basis for that success. As presented
previously, Lehr et al. (2003) recently conducted a meta-analysis
of dropout research, only to find that of the 300 studies they reviewed,
only forty-five studies could be coded, and only nine had some form
of randomized design. In the end, only two conducted since 1994
were focused on high school students and had a randomized-control
element in the evaluation.
However, we were able to identify information on a
few dropout programs for students with disabilities. Sinclair, Christenson,
Evelo, and Hurley (1998) conducted an evaluation of “Check
and Connect,” a dropout prevention and intervention procedure
developed to encourage middle school youth at high risk for dropping
out to remain engaged in school and on track to graduate (See Appendix
B: Evidence-Based Practices). Central to Check and Connect is a
system “monitor” to keep students, parents, and teachers
focused on the educational goals. Interventions included the sharing
of information with students about the monitoring system, providing
feedback to students about their progress, regularly discussing
the importance of staying in school, and conducting risk-factor
problem-solving sessions.
Ninety-four students were randomly assigned to a treatment
or control group (n=47 each). Analysis found that students who received
the Check and Connect intervention were more likely to still be
enrolled after one year in the program (ninety-one percent vs. seventy
percent) and more likely to graduate from high school within four
years (forty-six percent vs. twenty percent).
The PASSAGEWAY (Program to Assist Secondary Students
in Achieving Gainful Employment for West Alabama Youth) Program
was designed to help at-risk special education students who either
were potential dropouts or already had dropped out get back on track
(Madison, Marson, & Reese, 1999). The program worked with students
in six Alabama counties, providing literacy and employment training,
employment opportunities, flexible scheduling, and family counseling.
Services were provided by trained professionals, graduate students,
and industry partners. Students were divided into two strands: strand
one was defined for incoming ninth, tenth, and eleventh grade students
identified as at-risk of dropping out; strand two was defined for
students with disabilities who had dropped out four years prior
to entry into PASSAGEWAY. Although the research article suggests
that there were no strand one dropouts in three years of operation,
and that half of the strand two (disability dropouts) had gained
employment, there is no empirical evidence of success.
We reviewed several other programs that similarly
were limited in their outcome data and analysis. For instance, the
Transition Services Program of the Onondaga-Cortland-Madison Board
of Cooperative Educational Services (New York), which serves students
aged 13-21, most with mental retardation, serious emotional disturbance,
specific learning disabilities, and multiple disabilities, claims
to be “instrumental in reducing the dropout rate of at-risk
students by increasing their awareness of opportunities available
to them with training and a diploma.” Unfortunately, no evidenced-based
data were available to support that statement.
Evidence-Based
Practices in Transition
Transition from high school to postsecondary education
and the workforce is a critical issue for students with disabilities,
such that specific language was added to IDEA in 1997 to ensure
that all students, by age 14 or earlier, would have a statement
of transition services itemized in their IEP. In addition, IDEA
also requires school districts to include students as participants
in their transition planning meetings (Field & Hoffman, 2002).
Regardless of the legislative language, research shows that the
implementation of this policy has been slow and inconsistent across
states (Hasazi, Furney, & DeStefano, 1999; Johnson, Sharpe,
& Stodden, 2000; Johnson et al., 2002; National Council on Disability,
2000).
Fifty-seven percent of youth served under IDEA received
a standard diploma and an additional eleven percent received an
alternative credential when they left high school in 2000-2001 (U.S.
General Accounting Office, 2003). In total, over 300,000 IDEA youth
exited high school that year. Approximately thirty-seven percent
of students with disabilities entered some type of postsecondary
education (compared to seventy-eight percent for all high school
graduates) (Blackorby & Wagner, 1996). Overall, an estimated
428,280 students with disabilities were enrolled in colleges in
the United States in 1997-1998, almost half of whom were diagnosed
as learning disabled (Skinner & Lindstrom, 2003).
At the postsecondary level, the number of students
reporting a disability has increased dramatically, climbing from
less than three percent in 1978 to nearly nineteen percent in 1996
(Blackorby & Wagner, 1996). To meet the needs of the students,
there has been a ninety percent increase in the number of postsecondary
programs offering opportunities for adults with disabilities to
continue their education (Pierangelo & Crane, 1997). Nonetheless,
the enrollment rate of people with disabilities in postsecondary
institutions is still fifty percent lower than that of the general
population, which has significant effects on the long-term employment
prospects for people with disabilities (Stodden & Dowrick, 2000).
It is hoped that an outcome of NCLB will be an increase in the number
of students with disabilities who are prepared to pursue postsecondary
education.
Education and training after high school is becoming
more important for all students, especially for students with disabilities.
Recent changes in the labor market have increased the importance
of postsecondary education as a factor in the job market, and postsecondary
education provides the opportunity for students to maximize their
preparedness for future job market trends (Stodden & Dowrick,
2000). But according to Stodden and Dowrick, adults with disabilities
are negatively and disproportionately affected by changes in general
employment trends. They, unfortunately, face labor market liabilities
which place them in the position of being the “last-hired
and the first-fired” (Stodden & Dowrick, 2000).
In 1996, U.S. Census Bureau statistics indicated labor
force participation rates at 75 percent for people without a high
school diploma, 85 percent for those with a diploma, 88 percent
for people with some postsecondary education, and 90 percent for
those with at least four years of college. By contrast, only 16
percent of people with a disability and without a high school diploma
currently participate in today's labor force. However, this participation
doubles to 30 percent for those who have completed high school,
triples to 45 percent for those with some postsecondary education
and climbs to 50 percent for adults with disabilities and at least
four years of college (Stodden & Dowrick, 2000).
Still, significant numbers of students with disabilities
remain in special education programs beyond their eighteenth birthday
while their non-disabled peers go on to postsecondary education
or the workforce. According to Hart, Zaft, and Zimbrich (2001),
reasons for this discrepancy include:
- federal entitlements to public educational
services that continue to age 21 (with most recent legislation through
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendment, 1997);
- low expectations that students with significant
disabilities such as mental retardation will go on to college; and
- adult service agencies with limited resources
and long waiting lists.
The U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO)(2003) recently
reported that students with disabilities have a “fear”
of losing public assistance, per the first bullet above. An unintended
consequence of Social Security Administration (SSA) programs and
regulations is the potential discontinuation of benefits once a
student leaves high school and enters postsecondary education. In
fact, the SSA “Ticket to Work” program, which serves
individuals with disabilities (Title II of the Social Security Act)
between the ages of 18 and 64, has reported serving less than one
percent of eligible youth. GAO visited three states and was told
by SSA officials, school administrators, teachers, advocacy groups,
and others that fear of losing federal and state benefits is a significant
barrier to participation in federal work incentive programs such
as the Ticket to Work program. SSA has recently partnered with the
U.S. Department of Education to reverse those policies and allow
students in postsecondary education to continue to receive benefits.
A senior administrator with SSA on our panel described
it this way:
Under the 1997 amendments to SSA, we are required
to reevaluate the one million individuals under the age of 18 who
receive Supplemental Security Income (SSI) services upon their 18th
birthday, and apply adult eligibility. The result is that 30 percent
of these kids are not eligible for Ticket to Work and other SSI
services. What's been happening is that students have apparently
been dropping out in order to keep their SSI and Medicaid services.
Together with the Department of Education, we are about to issue
a rule this spring which reverses incentives: if you are on SSI,
and enrolled in school, and have an IEP, then we will delay the
eligibility ruling. If you want to be certain that your child continues
to receive benefits, then we have now made it that keeping them
in school is the best thing, not the other way around. The prior
rule evidently was a disincentive to stay in school. (Federal Administrator)
Financial aid is another barrier to postsecondary
studies for students with disabilities. The Youth Advisory Committee
of the National Council on Disability concluded that disabilities
may prevent students from accessing financial aid for college and
graduate school, because of “reduced course loads, extended
number of semesters before the completion of a degree, difficulty
with test taking and scholarship essay writing, an inability to
participate in college work-study programs due to the nature of
a disability, and discrimination against graduate school assistants
with disabilities” (Youth Advisory Committee of the National
Council on Disability, 2003).
In its study, the GAO (2003) identified the
problems reported by various stakeholders in the transition process
(see Table 2 below). As is evident in the table, each constituency
had a different viewpoint. Students noted a lack of self-advocacy
training, which helps empower them to develop the necessary skills
to succeed in a postsecondary environment. Parents found that lack
of information and support made it difficult to navigate the transitional
period. Teachers and other educators talked about the problems in
linking students with postsecondary and workforce opportunities
and services. Researchers focused on the lack of work-based experiences
for students, a notion we found mirrored by the researchers on our
panel. And finally, government officials focused on the more tangible
issue of transportation for students with disabilities. All are
legitimate barriers to the successful transition of students, and
all have their own set of difficulties in moving toward acceptable
and appropriate remedies.
Table 2. Problems reported by stakeholders
in the transition process
Stakeholders |
Transition problem |
Youth |
Lack of self-advocacy training |
Parents |
Insufficient information about transition
process |
Teachers |
Absence of linkages between school systems
and service providers |
Researchers |
Lack of vocational education and community
work experience |
Federal, state, and local officials |
Lack of transportation |
Source: (U.S. General Accounting Office,
2003, p. 18, using data from National Youth Leadership Network 2001-02
Youth Survey, site visits, Study of Personnel Needs in Special Education
(SPeNSE), NLTS2, and GAO interviews.)
In a synthesis of special education literature, Skinner
and Lindstrom (2003) identified six critical areas where students
with disabilities are at a disadvantage compared to non-disabled
students with regard to postsecondary education attainment:
- deficits in study skills such as test preparation,
note-taking, and listening comprehension;
- problems with organizational skills;
- difficulties with social interaction;
- deficits in specific academic areas, with
reading and written composition being the most frequent;
- low self-esteem; and
- higher school dropout rates.
If these are the main challenges to transitioning
to postsecondary life for students with disabilities, what policies
and programs can remedy or ameliorate these challenges? To inform
our discussion, we identified a taxonomy, developed jointly by Western
Michigan University and the Transition Research Institute at the
University of Illinois, of transition practices for students with
disabilities (ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education,
2000). Based on an exhaustive review of the literature and reviews
of model projects and exemplary programs, the findings were organized
into the following five categories:
- Student-focused planning;
- Student development;
- Interagency and interdisciplinary collaboration;
- Family involvement; and
- Program structure and attributes.
The director of the study said they found that effective
transition relied on “more than a special education teacher
or a transition specialist to implement these practices—it
takes the entire school community” (ERIC Clearinghouse on
Disabilities and Gifted Education, 2000).
Skinner and Lindstrom (2003) identified the following
factors that have shown empirical evidence in influencing success.
These include: (a) the extent of student knowledge of the nature
of their disability and compensatory strategies; (b) how able a
student is to manage a disability in a proactive manner (e.g., self-advocacy,
goal setting, knowledge of disability law, selection of an appropriate
college, self-identification, organizing for living and learning,
etc.); (c) the availability of emotional and academic support; (d)
the severity of the disability (e.g., a diagnosis of Attention Deficit
Disorder compared to learning disabilities); (e) strength of the
student's motivation; and (f) how willing he or she is to persevere
under adverse conditions.
Evidence-Based Transition Strategies
What practices work in transition? Unfortunately,
the evidence-based research in this area is limited. In addition,
the difficulty in targeting interventions during the complex period
of adolescence has steered researchers away from high school and
transition issues. It is difficult to determine which specific intervention
at the secondary education level is responsible for an outcome,
given the many inputs (adolescent development, curriculum, impact
of peers, high school structure, teacher quality, etc.) Because
of many of these complexities, research will likely continue to
focus in the short term on early education and reading, leaving
a void in research for secondary school students with disabilities,
and transition.
A secondary limitation to the research literature
is the small size of studies. To provide an example within the transition
arena, Serebreni, Rumrill, Mullins, and Gordon (1993) looked at
the implementation and effectiveness of Project Excel, a six-week
summer transition program designed to (a) facilitate the transition
to college for incoming students with disabilities, and (b) promote
academic excellence for high-achieving students with disabilities
at the University of Arkansas. Program activities were clustered
into three categories: psychosocial adjustment, academic development,
and university and community orientation.
According to Serebreni et al. (1993), students who
participated in Project Excel received academic advising and personal
counseling, and six hours of college credit, and participated in
a wide range of social and recreational activities. On a post-program
Likert scale evaluation questionnaire, students rated Project Excel
as a good-to-excellent college preparatory experience. The study's
authors concluded that Project Excel enabled students to “develop
friendships, successfully complete two college courses, and acquaint
themselves with the university and surrounding community”
(Serebreni et al., 1993). We use this example to show that, while
Project Excel and other programs like it may be good models, it
is difficult to make that assumption from this study due to obvious
limitations, most specifically empirical rigor. The number of students
included in the study was only 12. There are other examples of similarly-challenged
studies where the sample size is—at best—limited.
This stated, there are still “pockets”
of information, some evidence-based, that are worthy of discussion.
For instance, Benz, Lindstrom, and Yovanoff (2000) reviewed the
research on transition factors associated with secondary and postsecondary
outcomes for students with disabilities. Their search yielded six
programmatic factors that resulted in better opportunities for students
with disabilities:
- Participation in paid work experience in
the community during the last two years of high school;
- Competence in:
- functional academic skills (e.g., reading, math,
writing, and problem-solving);
- community living skills (e.g., money management,
community access);
- personal-social skills (e.g., getting along with
others);
- vocational skills (e.g., career awareness, job search);
and
- self-determination skills (e.g., self-advocacy,
goal setting);
- Participation in transition planning;
- Participation in vocational education classes
during the last two years of high school, especially classes that
offer occupationally-specific instruction;
- Graduation from high school; and
- Absence of continuing instructional needs
in functional academic, vocational, and personal-social areas after
leaving school. (Benz et al., 2000)
Hart, Zafft, and Zimbrich (2001) implemented and evaluated
a model approach for creating access to college for all students,
including students with disabilities who have a significant physical
or mental impairment. The model, supported through an Office of
Special Education Programs grant, was built around a student's strengths
and preferences, involved family members, and used a collaborative
interagency team (Student Support Team) to create innovative strategies
that support student access to inclusive college settings. A consortium
of five urban high schools and their local college was created with
the primary purpose of improving adult outcomes for students with
significant disabilities. The project used a student-centered framework
and modeled many of the “best practices” outlined by
the National Transition Alliance.
The development of a Student Support Team (SST) at
each high school was at the core of the model. The SST included
college faculty, parents, students, and disability professionals,
and its role was to develop individual services and supports for
students who expressed an interest in pursuing postsecondary education.
The SST met monthly to identify individual services and supports
for participants, aged 17 - 22, with significant disabilities. Each
SST developed a sample menu of individualized services and supports,
some of which included academic coaching, transportation training,
career connections to employment, mentoring, technology, and social
networks (Hart et al., 2001).
Hart et al. (2001) found that several (no numbers
provided) of the 25 high school students with significant disabilities
who were served through the project completed high school and continued
to take courses at their local college. Others worked part-time
and took a course, while still others worked in areas related to
their preferences and college experiences. Students expanded their
social networks to include peers without disabilities, and reported
a greater sense of pride in themselves. As part of the project,
a check-list was created to identify the essential skills or activities
that each student needed to accomplish (see list below).
Suggested activities to help prepare students
with disabilities for college
- Set postsecondary education & career
goals (consider person-centered planning).
- Obtain college catalogue(s) and review carefully
with support from high school staff (e.g., guidance counselor) and
your family, as needed.
- Have the documentation of your disability
updated.
- Be able to describe how you learn best.
- Know what accommodations and technology you
may need (e.g., reader, note taker, scribe, books-on-tape, speech-to-text
software, screen reader).
- Know your rights and responsibilities under
the laws (e.g., IDEA ‘97, ADA, Section 504).
- Visit college(s) before making final choice.
- Meet with college Disability Services Office
(DSO) staff to talk about documentation and learn about the college
accommodation system and how it differs from high school.
- Discuss goals, learning needs, and how to
access specific accommodations, including academic supports that
are available for all students (e.g., tutoring, writing support)
with DSO staff before classes begin.
- Identify if the college has a mentorship
program. If so, find out how to connect with a mentor.
- Work with the high school and DSO to learn
organizational and study skills and how to recognize when you need
help.
- Set up transportation prior to the start
of school (e.g., driving, car-pooling, learning to use public transport,
travel vouchers).
- Attend summer orientation sessions and get
to know the college campus before classes start.
- Fill out financial aid forms and make sure
that funding for all costs is arranged (e.g., tuition, books, fees,
transportation).
- Identify how financial support you receive
impacts other benefits (e.g., SSI, SSDI).
- Know what services are available through
adult human service agencies (e.g., vocational rehabilitation —
tuition, books, transportation, employment supports; One-Stop Career
Centers).
Research by Hasazi et al. (1999), Kohler (1993), and
Benz et al. (2000) identified organizational factors associated
with exemplary secondary and transition programs and better outcomes
for students, including:
- the use of written interagency agreements
between schools and adult agencies to structure the provision of
collaborative transition services, and
- the establishment of key positions funded
jointly by schools and adult agencies such as vocational rehabilitation
to deliver direct services to students in transition.
In 1989, the Marriott Foundation, with assistance
from TransCen, Inc., initiated a program to enhance employment opportunity
for youth with disabilities called “Bridges . . . From School
to Work” (Marriott Foundation, 2004). The program was developed
to address the traditionally high unemployment rate of youth with
disabilities as they exit high school by providing them with critical
job experience, and to help employers meet their human resources
needs. The unique aspect of “Bridges” was paid internships
for youth with disabilities during their last year of high school.
Students are placed in internships in local companies where the
employer pays the intern directly.
In addition to the more than 6,000 youth who have
benefited from this program to date, eighty-four percent of youth
placed in employment successfully completed the program and eighty-nine
percent of them received offers of ongoing employment. A follow-up
study completed 24 months after program completion found that, on
average, fifty-seven percent of the students remained employed with
an eleven percent increase in wages and a twenty-four percent increase
in hours worked per week. Nineteen percent of the students were
unemployed but pursuing further education (Marriott Foundation,
2004).
The success of the Bridges program underscores the
importance of paid work experience as an adjunct to high school
curricula for youth, regardless of disability category or severity
of disability. The Bridges program is particularly interesting because
one of our panel respondents was involved in the evaluation of the
program. This respondent reiterated the success of the program,
but also worried that this type of program—an evidence-based
practice that illustrated real results in workplace preparation—would
be lost in an NCLB world of academic accountability measures.
Other challenges found by the National Center on Secondary
Education and Transition (NCSET) is that school administrators,
teachers, staff, students, and community members do not necessarily
believe that all students can achieve to high standards, that supports
in high school do not adequately take into account the complexity
of the transition process, and that students aren't actively involved
in their transition planning. To help demonstrate to teachers and
staff what types of quality interventions are most successful, NCSET
developed the following chart that compares standard and quality
accommodations for students with disabilities:
A comparison of minimum
and quality accommodations
Accommodation |
Quality Accommodation |
Secondary school student has been invited to participate in
Individualized Education Plan (IEP) meeting. |
Student is invited and encouraged to participate in IEP meeting
and then does |
General academic standards are set for all secondary students
in the state. |
High standards for both academics and career preparation are
set for all secondary students in the state. |
The student's educational goals are set to achieve outcomes
within the current environment. |
The student's goals focus upon outcomes to be achieved in
both the current and future environments. |
Secondary school student (via parents) is regularly informed
of student progress. |
Self-determination skills are infused into the secondary education
curricula and self-determination is actively encouraged in parent/school
interactions. |
A Statement of Needed Transition Services is included in the
student's IEP. |
The preparing environment (i.e. secondary school) is gradually
molded to fit the receiving environment (i.e. post-secondary
school). |
The post-secondary education student must initiate support
provision. |
Students with disabilities and faculty members are given comprehensive
information about, and encouraged to explore, various support
options. |
In post-secondary school, diverse teaching materials are faculty-specific
and require the student to personally advocate for accommodations. |
Post-secondary faculty increase their capacity to teach diverse
learners, including students with disabilities. |
Source: Jones, M. (March, 2002). Providing
a Quality Accommodated Experience in Preparation for and During
Post-Secondary School, Information Brief (Vol. 1). Minneapolis,
MN: National Center on Secondary Education and Transition.
Evidence-Based Research on Assessments and Accommodations
The lack of empirical evidence on accommodations and
assessments for students with disabilities is discouraging. “Regrettably,
there is virtually no current research regarding the differential
effects that various accommodation services, supports and programs
have in relation to postsecondary education access, participation
and long-term outcomes such as student retention, graduation rates
and high quality employment opportunities” (Stodden &
Dowrick, 2000; Tindel, Heath, Hollenbeck, Almond, & Harniss,
1998). Thurlow, Ysseldyke, and Silverstein (1995) suggest that part
of the reason for this dearth of evidence was the limitation in
making testing accommodations available prior to the reauthorization
of IDEA.
Schulte, Elliott, and Kratochwill (2001) noted that,
when selected and implemented appropriately, testing accommodations
are believed to lead to technically sound test results. “Yet,
to date there is limited experimental evidence to support this assertion”
(Schulte et al., 2001). In their study of the effects of testing
accommodations on the mathematics test scores of a sample of 86
fourth-grade students, including 43 students with disabilities,
Schulte et al. found that not all students benefited from testing
accommodations. “In fact, approximately one third of students
with and without disabilities in this study actually had lower scores
in the accommodated condition than the non-accommodated condition”
(Schulte et al., 2001). Furthermore, a report of results from a
similar research project indicated that fourteen percent of students
with disabilities and eight percent of students without disabilities
experienced a negative effect of testing accommodations (Elliott,
Kratochwill, & McKevitt, 2001). The researchers did not have
any special explanation for why students had negative results, but
called for more research.
Helwig and Tindal (2003) conducted a randomly assigned
study of the efficacy of teachers assigning accommodations to students
for a mathematics achievement test with 973 general education and
245 students who received special education services at the elementary
and middle school levels. The accommodation in question was reading
aloud instructions and questions to students during the assessment.
Summary findings indicated that teachers were unsuccessful at predicting
which students would benefit from the accommodation, thus casting
serious doubt on the assignment process. The authors found that
prior studies resulted in similar outcomes (Fuchs, Fuchs, Eaton,
Hamlett, & Karns, 2000; Weston, 1999), with the exception of
Fuchs et al., who found that the efficacy of assignment could be
increased if teachers had prior accommodation and testing information.
Helwig and Tindal (2003) concluded that their study
confirmed prior research that found that teachers are not accurate
in their assignment of accommodations. However, they cautioned:
The importance of accommodation decisions for students
in special education remains, considering the need for validity
in testing and federal mandates to include all students in large-scale
testing programs. Because teachers are the individuals working closest
with students, and possessing the greatest knowledge of each student's
capabilities, it is the job of researchers to develop methods to
increase teacher efficiency rather than to bypass them in the decision-making
chain. ( p. 223)
The authors also caution that their findings should
not discourage teachers from assigning a reading accommodation.
Teachers and IEP team members should “rely on their knowledge
of students' reading and mathematics achievement, learning styles,
classroom experiences, and testing behaviors.” (Helwig &
Tindal, 2003, p. 224)
While research on testing and accommodations for students
with disabilities is very limited, emerging practices may help shed
some light on how schools and school districts can improve outcomes
for students. The Charlotte-Mecklenburg, NC school district asked
all special education teachers to review the placement of students
with disabilities in alternative assessments to determine if they
could take standard assessments. Following a complete review, the
school district discovered that 27 percent of the students who had
been directed to take alternative assessments were successful in
taking the regular assessment (some with accommodations). The district
assistant superintendent indicated that they were able to make these
determinations because teachers use student assessment data on a
regular basis (in some cases, every six to seven days) to manage
their instruction and learning (Testimony of Jane Ryne, Assistant
Superintendent Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, Charlotte, NC before
the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Education and the
Workforce, Washington, DC, March 3, 2004).
Turning research into practice for students with disabilities
According to Klingner, Ahwee, Pilonieta, and Menendez
(2003), two barriers to the implementation of evidence-based practices
are (a) a lack of time and (b) inadequate support from administrators.
Other barriers include “pressures associated with high-stakes
testing, insufficient materials, a mismatch between teacher style
and the practice, a lack of fit between the practice and other methods
mandated by the school district, and teachers' lack of in-depth
understanding of the practice or forgetting” (p. 413).
From a teaching and learning perspective, there are
many factors that impact the use of evidence-based research in the
planning and implementation of proven practices in the classroom.
Sparks (1988) found that teacher beliefs, self-efficacy, attitudes,
and perceptions all had an impact on whether and to what degree
a teacher tried new strategies. Additionally, teachers who face
challenges during the implementation of evidence-based practices
will often revert to their traditional, comfortable practices (Lieberman,
2000). As Gersten, Chard, and Baker (2000) note, “Even when
there is an awareness of the existing knowledge base, sustaining
implementation in classrooms is infinitely more complicated than
telling teachers and others that there is a knowledge base on effective
practices and they should be using it.” Davies (2004) reports
that moving research into practice “repeatedly shows that
practitioners need incentives to use evidence and to do things that
have been shown to be effective” (p. 20).
Through their review of the extant literature, Klingner
et al. (2003) identified the following ways that researchers overcome
the burdens of implementation:
- actively recruiting teachers and schools;
- demonstrating both the general value of the
practice and its potential for improving student performance on
high-stakes tests;
- assuring the feasibility and fit of the practice
in the classroom;
- developing an ongoing reciprocal partnership
with school personnel;
- providing teachers with sufficient mentoring
and feedback;
- maintaining open lines of communication;
and
- providing materials and other resources.
(Klingner et al., 2003, p. 413)
A federal administrator on our
panel suggested that researchers don't know how to push their research.
“If you want to change behavior, you have to reach them where
they are—parents at the grocery stores, teachers through the
National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers.
We must get smarter about getting messages on research.”
Turkstra (2003), using a medical model, fires off
a warning about being too tied down by evidence-based practices
(EBP):
The potential danger of focusing on EBP is that it
leads to a disproportionate emphasis on the tools of the experimental
design rather than the specific questions that need to be answered.
Evaluations and recommendations for clinical practice should not
be based only on the amount of random controlled trials or other
evidence but also on reasoned assessments of the problems inherent
in attributing treatment cause to experimental effect; the degree
of generalizability; and the scientific, social, and ethical implications
of a decision in favor of or against assessing a cause to an effect.
Also, such evaluations and recommendations should not discount the
role of reasoned judgments made by experienced clinicians.
Turkstra (2003) adds that “statistically significant”
is not synonymous with “clinically meaningful,” that
judgment is always required in individual cases, and random controlled
trials may be impractical or inappropriate for answering many research
questions. One of our panel respondents reiterated this issue:
I believe that the Institute of Education Sciences
and the U.S. Department of Education, in the promotion of evidence-based
research, could be straightforward to the field in its knowledge
that quasi-experimental designs only answer some types of research
questions and other types of designs are essential to answering
other types of questions. (Researcher)
I think districts think they are using evidence-based
research to inform practice, and the best districts are, but I do
think it is hit or miss. They actually do it serendipitously, through
colleagues, hearing someone speak, by following people. And it is
also by how easily information can be accessed, not necessarily
the quality. The marketing of it is often more important. We don't
necessarily find that the best quality evidence has the best quality
distribution and marketing. So, the big need in our field falls
on the backs of the regional technical assistance centers in special
education. They need to filter the well-done studies from less well-done
studies and promote the use of evidence-based practices as they
go out and work with districts. (Researcher)
A district administrator working through the challenges
of NCLB stated that the U.S. Department of Education put together
an evidence-based list of effective strategies for serving students
with disabilities. “The research-based list from the federal
level is based on ideology, not necessarily the quality of research.
You have researchers arguing about whether it is a functional methodology
or not or whether it is a good research methodology. The difference
now is that the federal government has taken sides. This is a difficulty
for us.” He adds, “I don't think there are any barriers
other than absence of knowledge and absence of research. Having
it accessible; being able to understand it. I think we've been moving
in that direction.”
One researcher suggested that there is a potential
collision ahead with regard to evidence-based practices and local
decision making:
Which is more valid, the work of an evidence-based
research center or the experiences of families of children with
disabilities? This has arisen several times. What is the basis for
the criteria? Someone's [research] numbers or someone's real life
experience? For example, a school district got an evidence-based
strategy from a university, but a parent suggested something else
that they knew would work with their child. The strategies were
polar opposites. No one wants to touch this, especially those who
defend NCLB. There are parent groups organizing around what really
works for their child. Someone is going to have to address this.
(Researcher)
Practitioners and researchers on our panel were asked
how they made district-level decisions on classroom strategies for
students with disabilities. The strategies varied considerably.
One school district was very constructive in its approach to research
and program adoption. “When we adopted Open Court , we researched,
read, talked to teachers, and visited school districts. Same with
Language! [another literacy program]. We had people basically convince
us that it was the way to go. We did due diligence.” Once
through adoption, they didn't stop there. “We actually used
control groups to see how the program worked. Open Court was full
hog—everyone did it—but we conducted correlation studies
to prove its worth. We did test-matrix methodologies to see what
areas in state assessments students weren't performing, and then
mapped the curriculum backward to Open Court to place a focus on
those issues.”
Another school district relied on its disability committee.
“We have been looking at research-based programs. We look
at the validity of these programs, their norms, so we are adopting
something that isn't just packaged and is aligned with standards.
This isn't new. We've always done this. Last summer we had a pilot
program using a new reading program to see how well it worked.”
Researchers weren't entirely convinced that practice
was sufficiently informed by evidence-based research. “They
are definitely not using evidence-based research,” said one
researcher. “It has more to do with accountability than what
works, and most of the teaching is teaching to the test.”
Removing barriers to adoption of evidence-based practices
Because NCLB relies so heavily on evidence-based practices,
the removal of barriers to the adoption of these practices is critical
to the success of schools and districts in meeting AYP and also
in meeting the individual goals of students with disabilities. Our
panel listed a number of barriers to adoption in this early stage
of NCLB.
There needs to be some endorsement of research and
practice to have it taken seriously. The Network for the Dissemination
of Curriculum Infusion is an example, where there are standards
for program excellence. That's what we need—some endorsement
by a recognized organization or process. (Federal Administrator)
Researchers don't know how to get good research adopted.
There must be a lot more marketing—best example was when [former
U.S. Secretary of Education] Bill Bennett gave $1 million to package
information on ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder) (through the Office
of Special Education Programs). They packaged everything for teachers,
students, parents, policymakers. They put ADD on the map. (Federal
Administrator)
Boards of education need to start looking at the data.
Funding isn't a good reason for not doing better. I think leaders
of organizations aren't looking at the right stuff. It doesn't have
to be driven by test scores. If we are looking at achievement and
students aren't improving, then something's wrong. People who supervise
principals and those who supervise the supervisors must start thinking
this way. (District Administrator)
As long as we consider just telling someone about
evidence-based practice as translating research to practice, we
will be in the same trouble. We need a fundamental switch to getting
individuals involved, getting personal meaning, and engaging people
to understand why “this” is a better way of doing things.
Getting groups of teachers to adapt practice, help each other, creating
knowledge. If simply telling people worked, it would have worked
25 years ago. Practitioners and administrators need to reflect.
(Organization Representative)
There was a concern among some panel respondents that
curriculum marketers pushed school districts into believing that
their products are evidence-based. “The biggest barrier is
that they [educators] are convinced by sales people. How do they
get beyond that? It's pretty glitzy. The sales people can say what
they want. It's going to take the feds to come out with glitzy evidence-based
stuff. It has to be easy to look at, simple to understand, so that
they look and read it.” (Researcher)
“There are a lot of curriculum marketers who
distribute, but they don't necessarily have the first part: the
evidence-based piece,” said another researcher. “We
need to follow the pharmaceutical practice of holding clinical trials.”
Local folks are trying harder to get evidence of impact.
But in most parts of the country, they are terribly dependent on
publishers to provide that evidence. We need third-party, unbiased
organizations and individuals to provide evidence-based information
for use by practitioners, and it just doesn't exist. (Organization
Representative)
A national organization representative said that the
success in implementing evidence-based practices and improving the
education of students with disabilities comes from a two-pronged
approach:
The evidence has raised our thinking to a new awareness.
Everyone is now asking for the data. As a matter of influencing
policy and practice, that becomes the evidence. That is clearly
on a new level nationally, state, and locally. In terms of influencing
policy, stories still show people what it means in practice. Aggregated
data shows broad strategies, but people need to see what it means
in practice. We need a balanced combination of database decision-making
and the story of the scenario of what it looks like in practice.
(Organization Representative)
Researchers clearly understood their own limitations
in pushing research to practice. “Many of us who do research
consider the end work a journal article, and that in no way moves
that work into usable information. There is a huge gap between what
we determine is the end point and what educators require. We've
always relied on ED [U.S. Department of Education] to do this.”
Another strategy to help translate research is to
assemble a cross-section of stakeholders to look at evidence-based
practices. “We have to find simple, meaningful ways to look
at these complex issues, and learn to learn with each other. Then
that will become the means to a self perpetuating end.” One
researcher remarked: “How do you get people to do something
differently? How do you make change? Incentives? Motivators? What
I see happening is the data that has to be generated by a school
to stay above the level of being a non-performing school is driving
all of this right now. If I can get scores up for schools, who cares
what the method is.”
Other strategies focused on faculty development and
graduate training, the requirement of strong leadership with a clear
vision for faculty development. “I think one barrier is that
there is a tendency to see the kind of support that students need
is contingent on well-trained teachers and staff. One-shot in-service
is really insufficient. Pre-service and in-service training programs
need to utilize evidence-based practice in how they prepare personnel.”
Part III - Conclusions
and Recommendations
The release of this paper comes at an opportune time
in many respects. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
is currently in the process of being reauthorized, the reauthorization
of the Higher Education Act is also underway, and the rules, regulations,
guidance, and practice of how best to manage the implementation
of NCLB are being refined, with states and communities learning
from each other as they go. We believe this paper can help inform
all of these efforts.
Affecting change in any large organization is difficult,
but making change in an enterprise as complex as the U.S. public
educational system can seem overwhelming. Yet, as we have seen from
the research and the comments contained in this paper, American
schools are on the threshold of a fundamental, systemic, and structural
redefinition of schooling. Just as American business and industry
went through significant restructuring as a result of the quality
improvement movement with its laser-like focus on outcomes, public
education is moving down a similar path as it becomes oriented to
outcomes and accountability, not inputs and process.
The impetus for the recent wide-scale change in education
can be traced to the No Child Left Behind Act. States and schools
are scrambling to ensure that all their students are performing
at proficient levels. The requirement of NCLB to provide outcome
data on groups of students may be the most powerful motivator of
this change. For the first time, communities are learning that their
schools are not as good as they thought. Often, the low performance
of at least two categories of students – students with disabilities
and non-English language learners – has gone undetected. Low
expectations for these and other groups of students (primarily low-income
students and students from diverse cultures) have frequently resulted
in dismal outcomes that are only now being widely reported in the
press. Particularly for students with disabilities, we have labored
under the false impression that disability means inability and let
too many of our young people go through high school taking low-level,
non-rigorous classes.
Of course, change is never easy, and it certainly
hasn't been easy as the standards-based reform movement has taken
hold and grown over the past decade. Almost daily reports in the
media reflect dissatisfaction and anger over standardized testing
programs, rigid and limited curriculum, and the threat of being
named a low-performing school. The challenge is for the education
enterprise to recognize that this is part of the evolutionary process
of moving from an input-based system to an outcomes-driven system.
There is no easy way to make the dramatic and far-reaching types
of changes that need to be made in teaching, instruction, school
design, professional preparation and development, assessment, and
community input to reach our desired outcome: that every child is
prepared for postsecondary education and training, a career, and
participation in society.
Signs of change are becoming evident across the country.
In some cases, change is slower than in others, and in some communities,
it is more difficult and more complex. The amount of social capital
and the capacity of school leaders and teachers directly influence
how quickly attitudes and values change and how rapidly schools
can be restructured to increase student achievement.
One obstacle that has slowed progress is the almost-nonexistent
body of scientifically- and evidence-based research to help guide
policymakers and practitioners in what works. In a similar vein,
policymakers often have not collected the information they need
(such as disaggregated data) to make informed decisions. At other
times, data has been collected, but has not been used to inform
policymaking in a meaningful way.
Before NCLB focused on closing the achievement gap
for all students, many educators paid little attention to the performance
of certain groups of students, such as those with disabilities.
While IDEA has been absolutely critical in increasing the number
of students with disabilities who have access to inclusive classes,
it has also, in some respects, resulted in a parallel education
system. For many years, students with disabilities have been separated
from their peers, not just physically, but through differential
instruction, assessment, teacher corps, and accountability systems.
At the local level, this has meant that students with disabilities
were often left out of accountability systems, and many general
educators did not feel responsible for the outcomes of students
with disabilities. At the U.S. Department of Education, this parallel
system has resulted in a similar approach of students with disabilities
being “taken care of” by the Office of Special Education
and Rehabilitative Services. Other offices generally did not concern
themselves with the outcomes of the students (just as non-English
language learners were “taken care of” by the Office
of English Language Acquisition). However, NCLB has changed that
equation. Now, every office at the U.S. Department of Education
must contribute to the performance of all students, including students
with disabilities and non-English language learners. Every office
must signal through its policy guidance, technical assistance, and
programs that they are all working toward improved outcomes for
all groups of students. From a leadership perspective, the Department
of Education needs to ensure that every office is responsible for
fully implementing NCLB.
There are already many positive lessons to be learned
in the implementation of NCLB from the field, and our respondents
gave us many insights into what states and communities are doing
to ensure that every student succeeds. The respondents also provided
insights into the challenges faced by states and schools as they
seek to fulfill the vision of NCLB. The following are our recommendations
for policymakers, practitioners, and researchers as they work to
improve the outcomes for students with disabilities, based on the
findings of this paper.
Stay the Course. While there
are naysayers who believe that NCLB sets too high a bar for schools
to meet, the vast majority of the public, researchers, and those
interviewed for this project believe that we must maintain high
expectations for all students, particularly students with disabilities.
Providing exemptions for students with disabilities will only reinforce
the belief that they cannot meet rigorous standards. Congress should
not back down on its commitment to helping students with disabilities
achieve the same high standards as other students. Already, we have
seen that students with disabilities have been able to master rigorous
curriculum and assessments, and given the necessary supports, these
numbers should increase. We must, however, recognize the individualized
needs of students with serious cognitive disabilities. The recent
“one percent rule” and added flexibility for states
to negotiate with the Department of Education in the consideration
of Adequate Yearly Progress for students with severe cognitive disabilities
is reasonable. To further maintain its commitment, Congress and
the Department of Education will need to ensure consistent monitoring,
compliance and enforcement of IDEA and NCLB.
Capacity Building. Both the
research literature and responses from our panel point to the importance
of strong leadership at the school and district levels to encourage
and support large-scale change. Strong leadership is critical in
the development of teachers and classroom practices that can improve
student learning. In order for teachers and school leaders to help
students with disabilities learn to higher standards, they often
need to learn new instructional skills, as well as to change their
beliefs and values. Not only do special education teachers need
to learn new skills, but the general education teachers who are
increasingly called upon to teach students with disabilities need
more tools in their teaching arsenal. General and special education
teachers need to learn to team teach, to understand multiple and
diverse learning styles and methods for teaching heterogeneous groupings
of students, using data and assessments as instructional management
tools, and learn ways to change the culture of the school to one
of success for each student. Strong leadership is needed at both
the district and school levels to set high expectations, change
the culture, and manage the capacity-building process. Learning
about each of these activities involves a great deal of ongoing
professional development for teachers and school leaders, team meetings,
review of student and teacher work, and a supportive environment.
Public funding should be carefully directed to professional and
leadership development efforts that are tightly linked to the specific
needs of each school or district and efforts that address capacity
issues related to teaching and learning and helping all students,
particularly students with disabilities, to reach high standards.
The Department of Education must ensure that the billions of dollars
available for professional development and instructional improvement
through NCLB are used to support meaningful activities linked to
each school's capacity-building needs.
Highly Qualified Teachers.
Currently, many schools lack highly qualified special education
teachers and teachers in certain disciplines. Rural and small schools
face even greater challenges. The education system, including higher
education, must find ways to prepare highly qualified teachers in
routes unlike those we know of today. Additionally, schools and
school districts need to encourage team teaching as well as the
use of community resources to put a qualified individual in each
classroom. The Department of Education should conduct research and
analysis on effective methods of teacher preparation, including
alternative routes to certification, with a particular focus on
special education. Standards should not be relaxed, but limited
flexibility such as that recently announced by the Department of
Education to allow more time for teachers to demonstrate their qualifications
in multiple disciplines and to give states flexibility in how they
determine qualifications is a step in the right direction.
Better Assessment Tools.
While schools and school leaders are becoming more sophisticated
in assigning students with disabilities appropriate accommodations
when they are assessed, or in using alternative assessments, improvements
to the regular or underlying large-scale assessments may have a
greater impact on students with disabilities and many ultimately
benefit all children. First, assessments can be universally designed
so as to be used by the maximum number of children with diverse
learning needs, not only students with disabilities, but also non-English
language learners. This includes, of course, consideration of universal
design of test preparation materials – which would obviously
also be made available in alternative formats. Also, most statewide
assessments currently in use measure only academic skills (as required
by NCLB), but it is clear that the public, especially parents, would
like assessments that measure more than just academic skills. For
students with disabilities who might also be able to express themselves
in ways other than academic knowledge, this could be very helpful.
The Department of Education should conduct research and help develop
assessments that measure a broader range of skills (such as workplace
knowledge) that will help all students be more successful in careers
and engaged as civic members of our society. Lastly, assessments
need to be used by teachers and school staff on a more regular basis
to provide feedback on instruction. Teaching and professional development
programs should help teachers learn how to do this. The Department
of Education has an appropriate role to support research and development
efforts to create a new generation of assessments that:
1) are appropriate for the largest number of diverse
students;
2) measure more than academic skills;
3) can be used more effectivetly as an instructional
management tool; and
4) result in a reduction in the number of students
who take alternative assessments.
Congress should also support these activities in the
IDEA reauthorization.
Support and Disseminate Evidence-Based
Research and Practices. NCLB's focus on data and evidence-based
research has led to a growing awareness of the importance of rigorous
research and evaluations in making policy and programmatic decisions.
Yet, we are hampered by the lack of quality studies, especially
on students with disabilities, and especially in certain areas,
such as dropout prevention. We clearly need a continued strong investment
in high quality research, and both NCLB and IDEA should support
the means to that end. The Department of Education should bridge
research efforts conducted by the Office of Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services and the Institute of Education Sciences,
and it should support research to understand how to teach more academic
rigor to students with disabilities and develop optimal assessment
tools. We look to Congress to support such activities in the reauthorization
of IDEA.
Even when research is available, it doesn't automatically
translate into practice in the classroom. The Department of Education
should provide support and leadership in translating research into
capacity-building tools and technical assistance for practitioners
and teachers. It is our hope that the Institute of Education Sciences'
What Works Clearinghouse and other federal efforts will play a significant
role in disseminating research in a way that is usable and meaningful
to teachers in their daily work.
At the same time, Congress and the Department of Education
will need to obtain and use the research and evaluation data generated
as a result of NCLB to inform and refine their decisions in terms
of the: (a) guidance provided to states and locales that are implementing
NCLB (and IDEA), and (b) overall direction the Federal Government
provides in its implementation of NCLB (and IDEA).
Lastly, because we are faced with a scarcity of quality
research affecting students with disabilities, practitioners and
policymakers must recognize that a great deal of practical knowledge
does exist, and until more rigorous research becomes available,
the Institute of Education Sciences should determine when this “craft
and clinical knowledge” is legitimate.
Supports for Students. While
there is not a great deal of scientifically-based research on programs
to help students with disabilities improve their educational outcomes,
there are several studies and meta-analyses of effective practices
that support a strong theoretical base for much of this work. There
is also an emerging consensus on the principles of effective high
schools and the conditions needed to increase student achievement
for secondary school students. This body of knowledge needs to be
integrated into the body of knowledge regarding students with disabilities.
Given that we don't have the luxury to wait for the returns of recent
research-based studies, we should use the evidence we have regarding
successful supports and interventions for students. Strategies for
students to increase engagement in high school, reduce dropout rates,
and increase preparation for postsecondary education and careers
include higher expectations and goal setting, greater instructional
personalization, self-advocacy, ongoing counseling and mentoring,
parental involvement, and connections to the community and postsecondary
learning options. The Department of Education should ensure that
its technical assistance draws upon the knowledge base and practices
from all offices in its efforts to improve outcomes for students
with disabilities.
Final Thoughts
The shift towards accountability, outcomes, and higher
expectations in our schools is leading us in the right direction,
although we recognize that schools face legitimate difficulties
during this change process. But the response to these challenges
should not be to back down on expectations for students with disabilities
and those who have been perceived as unable to meet the standards.
Policymakers and practitioners must remain committed to the goal
of closing the achievement gap for all students. To lessen this
commitment would be to return to the days and the mindset that only
some students could be and deserved to be taught to high standards.
We now know that by setting high expectations, and helping students,
teachers, administrators, and family members reach those high standards,
we can close the achievement gap for all students.
Appendix
A: Interview Protocol
This review, sponsored by the National Council on
Disability, was designed to gain insight into policies and practices
that have shown particular success in helping students with disabilities
progress through the public school system. Because the No Child
Left Behind Act (NCLB) requires school districts to factor in outcomes
of students with disabilities into Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
calculations, how districts serve the students under the law is
of critical importance.
Specifically, we were interested in identifying practices
that effectively:
- Reduce the number of students with disabilities
who drop out of high school;
- Increase the number/percentage of students
with disabilities who graduate high school with a diploma as opposed
to a certificate of attendance; and
- Help students transition to and remain connected
with postsecondary education.
Given the focus of our review, we raised a number
of issues with respondents, focused around the following questions:
- What impact do you believe NCLB will have
on programs and policies affecting outcomes for students with disabilities
at the state, district, and school levels? Will NCLB help reduce
the number of students with disabilities who drop out of high school
or increase the numbers, as some have suggested? How will the required
assessments or high stakes tests affect students with disabilities?
Have you seen evidence of change at this early stage of implementation?
- Does IDEA support the goals of NCLB? Could
or should IDEA be changed to be more supportive of NCLB or to be
better aligned with the goals of NCLB?
- What about the Higher Education Act? Are
there areas that could be amended to allow for greater participation
by students with disabilities?
- What do you think the expectations for students
with disabilities in your school/district are? Are they the same
as students without disabilities? Is it reasonable to expect that
students with disabilities should meet the same expectations and
standards as students in general education?
- Are you aware of programs that produce these
positive results for students with disabilities that have been evaluated
or that are based on research? If so, please describe these programs
(follow up for contact information).
- Which special education populations/designations
do you work with?
- What do the programs look like? What are
the practices employed? Are these programs and practices based on
evidence or research? Is it research from the special education
field or general education field?
- Whom do these programs serve? Do they work
selectively for some groups and not others? For which groups are
they most effective? Can certain strategies work with students regardless
of their disability?
- What programs or strategies typically do
not work?
- What are the scientific criteria for effectiveness
used to judge those practices? And who sets the criteria for determining
what programs or practices would be used?
- Which factors ensure OR prevent evidence-based
outcome producing practices from being adopted by school districts,
tribal governments, etc.?
- What general steps need to be taken to remove
the barriers to adoption of evidence-based outcome producing practices
so that outcomes for students with disabilities are improved?
- How does research-based evidence influence
your programs and policies, as well as the staff involved in administering
the programs or working directly with students? Are front-line staff
familiar with research-based practices?
- Who would you recommend we get in touch with
regarding state and/or district practices that improve post-graduate
opportunities for students with disabilities?
- end -
Appendix
B: Evidence-Based Practices
Appendix B provides a sample of evidence-based research
on four interventions aimed at students with disabilities. This
list is not meant to be exhaustive of the research, but rather,
an illustration of the type of research that is currently available.
This said, we will note that finding evidence-based research on
educational interventions and strategies for students with disabilities
is a mind-numbing practice. Quite simply, there is little research
in available distribution streams that fits the rigor suggested
by either the Institute of Educational Sciences (which has funded
most of the research in this area) or by the Campbell Collaboration,
which provides the standards for empirical investigation of education
and social science. We eagerly await the outcomes of a current Office
of Special Education Programs (OSEP)-funded study by the Colorado
State University on evidence-based practices for students with disabilities,
expected to conclude in 2005. That study, which will review more
than 3,000 reports, studies, and articles, should shed considerably
more light on evidence-based practices for students with disabilities.
In our review, a large majority of studies relied
on simple descriptive outcome data (e.g., percentage of students
that completed the program; grade point averages of students, etc.).
Very few utilized a control group, and even fewer used random assignment
procedures to create treatment and control groups. Second, we feel
that it is possible that some researchers have not bothered to publish
their findings, or that publication bias has possibly eliminated
their studies from publication. The reality is that, if unpublished
in some form that prohibits dissemination, the studies literally
might as well not exist. We believe that this has happened to many
OSEP-funded projects.
If anything is learned from our experience, the following
summaries should serve to bring attention to the problem associated
with finding evidence-based practices for professionals who serve
students with disabilities. If they can't find them, they can't
implement them.
Please note that we use some verbatim language in
the following research summaries to provide more accurate depictions
of the programs, rather than a presentation of our insightful and
creative ability to transform the words of others into something
coherent. We just want to be accurate. We have provided references
for each summary.
TITLE: DROPOUT PREVENTION FOR YOUTH WITH
DISABILITIES: EFFICACY OF A SUSTAINED SCHOOL ENGAGEMENT PROCEDURE
SOURCE: Sinclair, M. F.,
Christenson, S. L., Evelo, D. L., & Hurley, C. M. (1998). Disability
Targeted: Students with learning and emotional/behavioral disabilities.
Exceptional Children, 65(1).
OVERVIEW: Check and Connect
is a dropout prevention and intervention procedure developed to
encourage middle school youth at high risk of dropping out to remain
engaged in school and on track to graduate. The procedure was shaped
by the collaborative efforts of individuals who interacted directly
with the target students, including teachers, family members, and
community outreach workers, as well as by the input of a district
special education coordinator, researchers from the University,
and the students themselves. A core component of the model is a
“monitor” whose primary goal was to keep students, families,
and teachers focused on the education process and reduce and prevent
the occurrence of absenteeism, suspensions, failing grades, and
other warning signs of school withdrawal. The monitor regularly
checked students' engagement with school and promptly facilitated
efforts to build and maintain connections that would help students
stay in school. A monitor working 20 hours per week carried an average
caseload of 25 students, and often worked with the same students
over several years.
Risk factors were logged each day by the monitor and
tabulated each month (the “Check”). The “Connect”
consisted of two interventions: basic interventions provided to
all students at least once a month; and intensive interventions
that were provided to students who showed “high risk”
on the daily monitor logs.
Basic interventions consisted of four strategies:
(a) sharing general information with the student about the monitoring
system, (b) providing regular feedback to the student about his
or her educational progress, (c) regularly discussing the importance
of staying in school, and (d) problem-solving with the student regarding
risk factors. Intensive interventions drew upon three broad areas
of support: (a) problem-solving, (b) academic support, and (c) recreational
and community service exploration.
METHODOLOGY: An experimental
design was used to evaluate this program. One treatment group (47
students) and one control group (47 students) were selected from
a universe of students with emotional/behavioral disabilities enrolled
in a northern Midwest urban school district. All 94 students received
dropout prevention interventions in Grades 7 and 8. At the end of
eighth grade, the students were randomly assigned to either the
treatment or control group using a stratified selection procedure
(ethnicity, sex, socioeconomic status, disability, age, as well
as a variable referred to as the “profile rating”).
Half of the students continued to receive intervention through ninth
grade.
The effectiveness of the Check and Connect intervention
was assessed by conducting post-test comparisons between the treatment
and control groups in the ninth grade (pretest comparisons found
no differences). The appropriate test statistic was used (e.g.,
t-test, chi-square test of independence), depending on the type
of data.
EVIDENCE OF SUCCESS: Students
who received intervention through ninth grade were significantly
more engaged in school than control group students. The treatment
students were more likely to be enrolled in school at the end of
the year (91%) than were students in the control group (70%), X
2 (1) = 6.87, p < 0.05, and treatment students were more likely
to persist in school during ninth grade (85%) compared to the control
students (64%), X 2 (1) = 5.60, p < 0.05. The treatment students
were also more likely to complete their course assignments than
were control students, t(47) = 2.79, p < 0.05.
Similarly, the school performance measures indicated
that treatment students were significantly more engaged in school.
Students who participated in the Check and Connect intervention
through ninth grade earned, on average, significantly more credits
during the first year of high school than control group students,
t(90) = 4.01, p < 0.05.
Treatment students were also more likely to be on
track to graduate in 4 years (46%), earning 15 or more credits in
ninth grade, than students in the control group (20%), X2 (1) =
6.77, p < 0.05. Similarly, treatment students were more likely
to be on track to graduate in 5 years (68%), earning 12 or more
credits in ninth grade, than students in the control group (29%),
X2 (1) = 14.13, p < 0.05.
In addition, special education teachers rated students
in the treatment group as more academically competent, t(41) = 2.13,
p < 0.05, while general education teachers rated the treatment
students as demonstrating fewer behavioral problems, t(46) = 2.08,
p < 0.05. No significant difference between treatment and control
groups emerged on general education teacher ratings of academic
competence or special education teacher ratings of problem behavior.
CONCLUSIONS: The authors
conclude that Check and Connect participants (treatment group) were
more likely to be “engaged in school and on track to graduate.”
They persisted in school, completed class assignments, and earned
more course credits.
TITLE: STEPS TO SELF-DETERMINATION CURRICULUM
SOURCE: Field, S., &
Hoffman, A. (2002). Lessons learned from implementing the steps
to self-determination curriculum. Remedial & Special Education,
23(2).
OVERVIEW: The Steps to Self-Determination
curriculum was published in 1996 in response to the emerging emphasis
on self-determination in special education. This emphasis on self-determination
came about as persons with disabilities and their friends and families
began to advocate for roles and expectations for individuals with
disabilities that were more consistent with adult expectations,
and as educators, advocates, and policymakers searched for strategies
to improve post-school outcomes for students with disabilities.
The purpose of Steps to Self-Determination curriculum
is to help students develop the knowledge, beliefs, and skills that
they need to become more self-determined. Steps to Self-Determination
(Steps) is an 18-session curriculum based on a self-determination
model that includes five major components: Know Yourself, Value
Yourself, Plan, Act, and Experience Outcomes and Learn. The first
two components, Know Yourself and Value Yourself, describe the internal
processes that provide the foundation for self-determination, and
the latter three components describe specific skills that evolve
from that foundation and comprise the action stage of the model.
The action stage includes the achievement of skills associated with
self-determination and the evaluation and celebration processes
that enhance and crystallize a sense of self-determination.
Steps is an experientially-based curriculum. Students
establish and work toward goals as they learn self-determination
knowledge and skills. The curriculum was designed to be used in
integrated (i.e., including students with and without disabilities)
or separate (e.g., resource room, self-contained class) environments
and in a variety of scheduling arrangements. It can be included
in existing courses or taught as a separate class or extracurricular
activity. Teachers participate in the curriculum as co-learners
with the students, to provide role models and to create a collaborative
classroom climate. Parents or other significant persons in the students'
lives are also involved, to support the students' efforts.
As a result of the increased emphasis on self-determination,
the Steps curriculum has been used for 5 years in both high school
and middle school settings and in general and special education
settings. Through federally-funded outreach projects, specialized
support has been provided to assist teams in implementing the curriculum
in the states of Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Utah, and Washington.
Support for implementation of the curriculum has also been provided
in other states, through state and local initiatives.
METHODOLOGY/EVIDENCE OF SUCCESS:
The curriculum was initially field tested in diverse socioeconomic
and ethnic high school settings in the U.S. Midwest, and consisted
of a treatment group that used the Steps curriculum and a control
group that did not use the curriculum. A t test between the treatment
and the control group indicated a significant increase (p = .002)
in the correct responses on the Self-Determination Knowledge Scale,
with an effect size of 1.02. This effect size is considered to be
a very large treatment effect. To put this in perspective, if a
group's knowledge of self-determination skills was at the 50th percentile,
the curriculum would be expected to improve that level to the 85th
percentile. Second, the effect of a pre-test/post-test treatment
vs. control group of the effectiveness of the curriculum, as measured
by the Self-Determination Observational Checklist scores showed
a significant increase (p = .000) in student behaviors that are
considered to be correlates of self-determination. A subsequent
study of the Steps curriculum with students with behavioral and
learning disabilities found a significant pre-post increase in internal
locus of control after participation in the Steps curriculum, while
yet another did not find any significant post-test outcome.
CONCLUSIONS: Additional research
has found that use of the Steps curriculum resulted in an increase
in knowledge and behaviors associated with self-determination, an
increase in locus of control, and a decrease in features associated
with depression. Self-determined, innovative teachers have embraced
the process of change and implemented a self-determination focus
in ways that meet specific needs of students in their classrooms
through implementation of the Steps curriculum. This points to the
need to develop and implement additional resources to support the
self-determination of teachers.
TITLE: YOUTH IN TRANSITION (YIT)
SOURCE: Horne, R. L., &
Hubbard, S. (1995). Youth Transition Program (YTP) Case Study Report
(Draft Research Report). Washington, DC: National Institute for
Work and Learning, Academy for Educational Development.
OVERVIEW: This case study
discusses school-to-work transition for students with disabilities
through the Youth Transition Program (YTP), a statewide collaborative
effort including 26 communities throughout the state of Oregon.
YTP began in 1990 as a cooperative effort between the Oregon Department
of Education (ODE), the Oregon Vocational Rehabilitation Division
(OVRD), the University of Oregon (UO), and the local public school
systems.
The YTP was developed with the basic goal of placement
in meaningful competitive employment or career-related postsecondary
training for youth with disabilities. The YTP serves disabled youth
beginning in their completion year of high school and continues
for two years of follow-up services, depending upon the student's
needs. YTP's services are provided jointly by school and vocational
rehabilitation staff and include: paid job training with on-site
monitoring and support; job-related instruction in academic, vocational,
independent living, and personal/social content areas; individualized
transition planning; placement in a job upon leaving school; and
follow-up support.
The YTP serves disabled youth who are eligible for
vocational rehabilitation services and who are able to become competitively
employed without long-term support. This includes students who:
(1) are on track to complete school, but need YTP services to achieve
post-school vocational goals; (2) are still in school, but at great
risk of dropping out; and (3) have already dropped out of school,
and are unemployed or underemployed. YTP started as a pilot project
that included 7 sites. By 1993 13 local communities were serving
as YTP sites. When this study was conducted in 1995, a total of
26 communities representing 24 of 26 vocational rehabilitation field
offices and half of all high school districts in the state were
participating in YTP. Since 1990, through a combination of state
and federal funding, approximately 8.5 million dollars has been
allocated to support YTP activities through 1995. Statewide, over
1,500 students with disabilities will receive YTP services between
1990 and 1995.
METHODOLOGY: Unlike most
school systems and programs, YTP has carried out a comprehensive
evaluation effort to document the impact of the program on specific
student outcomes and systems change. Data were collected from each
site on a variety of demographic and programmatic factors (e.g.,
student demographic data, job placements, training efforts, community
outreach activities, improvements in coordination, etc.), and data
were collected during a two-year follow-up period. YTP outcome data
were analyzed relative to the outcomes of comparison groups, including
a statewide sample of students with disabilities who exit school,
a sample of non-YTP/VR clients in the state, and a nationwide sample
from the National Longitudinal Transition Study (NLTS) (Wagner and
Shaver, 1992). Second, YTP examined student outcomes separately
for two groups of program participants in order to determine of
the program's impact: (1) rural versus non-rural YTP participants;
and (2) YTP students identified as “at-risk” compared
to those not considered “at-risk.”
EVIDENCE OF SUCCESS: When
YTP compared employment outcomes for students' highest paying jobs
within two years of leaving school, YTP students:
- earned higher hourly wages than the students
in the Oregon disability sample ($5.69/hour vs. $5.31/hour).
- earned higher weekly wages ($181/week vs.
$157/week).
- were more likely to still be on the job (70%
vs. 56%).
- were less likely to have lost a job for negative
reasons (27% vs. 40%).
When YTP/VR clients were compared to VR clients of
similar ages, types, and disabilities, YTP clients were more likely
to:
- be determined eligible for VR services (76%
vs. 52%).
- remain in the rehabilitation process (57%
vs. 27%).
- earn higher weekly wages at closure ($177/week
vs. $143/week).
YTP examined student outcomes compared to a national
sample drawn from the NLTS in the areas of employment and productive
engagement. NLTS defines productive engagement as students either
working or participating in postsecondary activities. When the YTP
students were compared to the national NLTS sample for the first
two years out of school, YTP students were:
- more likely to be competitively employed
(67% vs. 46%).
- more likely to be employed full-time (39%
vs. 25%).
- less likely to be unemployed (32% vs. 46%).
- more likely to be productively engaged (95%
vs. 64%).
Another demonstration of YTP's success is the fact
that it appears to equally benefit students who are living in rural
areas and non-rural areas, as well as at-risk students.
CONCLUSIONS: In summary,
the Youth Transition Program had an impact on outcomes for students
who demonstrate moderate to severe disabilities and face significant
barriers to employment. The YTP shows that positive outcomes occur
when systems intervene early in the transition years and provide
for people-centered planning and placement activities. The program
also demonstrates encouraging effects on students' social development
when programs provide for students' independent living and social
support needs. YTP's success is also linked to the implementation
of a program designed from a research-base. The local success of
individual YTPs attest to the utility of incorporating universal
design concepts across sites, while maintaining program flexibility.
Finally, YTP can be credited with creating local systems change
through state-level support.
TITLE: TAKE CHARGE FOR THE FUTURE
SOURCE: Powers, L. E., Turner,
A., Westwood, D., Matuszewski, J., Wilson, R., & Phillips, A.
(2001). TAKE CHARGE for the Future: A controlled field-test of a
model to promote student involvement in transition planning. Career
Development for Exceptional Individuals, 24(1), 89-103.
OVERVIEW: This article describes
a randomized field-test of TAKE CHARGE for the Future, a multi-component
model to promote student involvement in transition planning. TAKE
CHARGE for the Future has as its centerpiece student-directed participation
in personally-relevant transition planning and preparation activities
in school, community, and home settings. Students learn that they
are responsible for promoting their own transition success: they
are exposed to specific strategies to identify, communicate and
achieve their transition goals, and they are provided with the information
and support necessary to ensure their success. Students complete
a self-help focused curriculum, and they receive coaching and support
to identify their transition goals, participate in their transition
planning meetings, formulate systematic plans for goal attainment,
and perform activities to achieve their goals. Information and support
are concurrently provided to school staff and families to expand
their capacities to assist youth. Peer support and mentorship opportunities
are organized to bolster youth transition knowledge, confidence
and support networks.
METHODOLOGY: Forty-three
youth (14 to 17 year olds) from 4 high schools in small, medium
and large communities in New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oregon and
Wisconsin participated in the study. The youth experienced learning,
emotional, orthopedic or other health disabilities. A two-independent
group, repeated measures design was utilized to evaluate the impact
of the intervention. Following consent, participants were randomized
to the treatment or wait list group. Subjects in the treatment group
participated in TAKE CHARGE for 4 months. The intervention included
5 elements: (a) individual, 50 minute bi-weekly coaching sessions
for youth, (b) monthly community-based workshops for youth, their
parents and successful adult mentors, (c) community activities performed
by mentors and students, (d) telephone and home visit support for
parents, and (e) inservice education for transition staff. Various
instruments were used to measure youth participation in transition
planning, student and parent transition awareness, youth empowerment,
and student participation in transition planning meetings.
Evidence: The findings generally
support the efficacy of the TAKE CHARGE model for promoting student
involvement in transition planning. Students who participated in
TAKE CHARGE had higher outcomes in measures of student involvement
in transition planning activities, transition awareness, empowerment,
and engagement in transition planning meetings than those in the
control group. Additionally, students in the treatment group were
more directive and engaged while other participants were less dominant
and more responsive to student engagement. Findings confirm that,
without systematic intervention to promote their involvement, many
students sit passively in their transition planning meetings while
others control the discourse.
CONCLUSIONS: On the whole,
the findings suggest that interventions such as TAKE CHARGE hold
promise for enhancing the transition planning of youth with disabilities.
Other approaches that emphasize skill development, mentorship, or
family support lend credibility to our findings, which highlight
the importance of these intervention components.
The most important contribution of this study is likely
its validation of the impact of a semester-long intervention on
the transition planning competence and behavior of youth, as judged
by youth, parents, educators, and outside observers. It is clear
that many of the competencies required for successful transition
planning – identifying and working toward future goals, building
partnerships with others, and managing barriers that arise –
are critical for success throughout life. If educators, parents
and community members can work together to assist young people to
cultivate these capacities during adolescence, it can lead to an
important investment in the future.
The authors note that the results of this study should
be interpreted cautiously because of the “relatively small
sample size” which impacts the generalizability of the findings.
References
American Youth Policy Forum & Center on Education
Policy. (2002). Educating Children with Disabilities. Washington,
DC.
Benz, M. R., Lindstrom, L., & Yovanoff, P. (2000).
Improving graduation and employment outcomes of students with disabilities:
predictive factors and student perspectives. Exceptional Children,
66(4), 509-529.
Blackorby, J., & Wagner, M. (1996). Longitudinal
postschool outcomes of youth with disabilities: Findings from the
National Longitudinal Transition Study. Exceptional Children, 62,
399-413.
Browder, D. M., & Cooper-Duffy, K. (2003). Evidence-based
practices for students with severe disabilities and the requirement
for accountability in "No Child Left... Journal of Special
Education, 37(3), 157.
Center on Education Policy. (2003). From the Capital
to the classroom: federal efforts to implement the No Child Left
Behind Act. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy.
Center on Education Policy. (2004). From the Capital
to the Classroom: Year Two of the No Child Left Behind Act. Washington,
DC: Center on Education Policy.
Cobb, B., Lehmann, J., Tochterman, S., & Bomotti,
S. (2000). Students with disabilities in transition: A review of
four reforms. In D. Johnson & E. Emanuel (Eds.), Issues influencing
the future of transition programs and services in the United States
(pp. 3-19). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Transition
Network, Institute of Community Integration.
Davies, P. T. (1999). What is evidence-based education?
British Journal of Educational Studies, 47(2), 108-121.
Davies, P. T. (2004). Is evidence-based government
possible? Paper presented at the Campbell Collaboration Colloquium,
Washington, DC.
Education Leaders Council. (2004). NCLB under a microscope:
a cost analysis of the fiscal impact of the No Child Left Behind
Act of 2001 on states and local education agencies. Washington,
DC: Education Leaders Council.
Education Week. (2004a). No Child Left Behind. Retrieved
March 1, 2004, from the World Wide Web: http://edweek.org/context/topics/issuespage.cfm?id=59
Education Week. (2004b). Quality Counts 2004: Count
me in. Special education in an era of standards. A special report
by Education Week. Bethesda, MD: Editorial Projects in Education,
Inc.
Elliott, S. N., Kratochwill, T. R., & McKevitt,
B. C. (2001). Experimental analysis of the effects of testing accommodations
on the scores of students with and without disabilities. Journal
of School Psychology Review, 39, 3-24.
ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education.
(2000). New ideas for planning transitions to the adult world. Arlington,
VA: ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education.
Field, S., & Hoffman, A. (2002). Lessons learned
from implementing the steps to self-determination curriculum. Remedial
& Special Education, 23(2).
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Eaton, S. B., Hamlett, C.
L., & Karns, K. M. (2000). Supplementing teacher judgments of
mathematics test accommodations with objective data sources. School
Psychology Review, 29, 65-85.
Furney, K. S., Hasazi, S. B., Clark-Keefe, K., &
Hartnett, J. (Fall, 2003). A longitudinal analysis of shifting policy
landscapes in special and general education reform. Exceptional
Children, 70(1), 81-94.
Gehring, J. (2003). Public Ignorant of ‘No Child'
Law, Poll Finds. Education Week, pp. 14.
Gersten, R., Chard, D., & Baker, S. (2000). Factors
enhancing sustained use of research-based instructional practices.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33(5), 445.
Goldstein, L. (2004, January 7). Long Awaited Spec.
Ed. Testing Rules Issued. Education Week.
Hart, D., Zafft, C., & Zimbrich, K. (2001, Winter).
Creating access to college for all students. The Journal for Vocational
Special Needs Education, 23, 19-31.
Hasazi, S. B., Furney, K. S., & DeStefano, L.
(1999). Implementing the IDEA transition mandates. Exceptional Children,
65(4), 555-566.
Helwig, R., & Tindal, G. (2003). An experimental
analysis of accommodation decisions on large-scale mathematics tests.
Exceptional Children, 69(2), 211-225.
Hoff, D. J. (2004a). Utah panel votes to quit No Child
Left Behind Act. Education Week.
Hoff, D. J. (2004b). Reporter's notebook: school aid
challenges at heart of conference for state lawmakers. Education
Week, 23(24), 23.
Institute of Education Sciences. (2003). Identifying
and implementing educational practices supported by rigorous evidence:
a user friendly guide. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Johnson, D. R., Sharpe, M., & Stodden, R. (2000).
The transition to postsecondary education for students with disabilities.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Institute on Community Integration.
Johnson, D. R., Stodden, R. A., Emanuel, E. J., &
Mack, M. (2002). Current challenges facing secondary education and
transition services: what research tells us. Exceptional Children,
68(4), 519-531.
Jordan, W. A., Lara, J., & McPartland, J. M. (1996).
Exploring the causes of early dropout among race-ethnic and gender
groups. Youth & Society, 28, 62-94.
Kahl, S. (Fall 2003). Implementing NCLB assessment
and accountability requirements in an imperfect world. Open Response
(an electronic newsletter by Measured Progress). Retrieved February
29, 2004, from the World Wide Web: http://www.measuredprogress.org/Resources/Newsletter/Fall2003/NCLB.html
Kennedy, S. E. M., Dodd, S. C. J., Harkin, S. T.,
Mikulski, S. B. A., Bingaman, S. J., Murray, S. P., Reed, S. J.,
Edwards, S. J., Clinton, S. H. R., & Miller, R. G. (2004). Letter
to Secretary Paige on the Bush Administration's failure to properly
implement No Child Left Behind. In U. S. S. o. E. R. R. Paige (Ed.).
Washington, DC.
Klingner, J. K., Ahwee, S., Pilonieta, P., & Menendez,
R. (2003). Barriers and facilitators in scaling up research-based
practices. Exceptional Children, 69(4), 411-429.
Kohler, P. D. (1993). Best practices in transition:
substantiated or implied? Career Development for Exceptional Individuals,
16, 107-121.
Lehr, C. A., Hansen, A. L., Sinclair, M. F., &
Christenson, S. L. (2003). Moving beyond dropout towards school
completion: an integrative review of data-based interventions. School
Psychology Review.
Lieberman, A. (2000). Networks as learning communities:
shaping the future of teacher development. Journal of Teacher Education,
51, 221-227.
Madison, M., Marson, A., & Reese, K. (1999). Passageway:
An Avenue into the Future. Paper presented at the Rural Special
Education for the New Millennium. Conference Proceedings of the
19th Annual American Council on Rural Special Education (ACRES)
March 25-27, 1999, Albuquerque, New Mexico (ERIC Document Reproduction
No: ED429740).
Marriott Foundation. (2004). Bridges...from school
to work. Retrieved February 24, 2004, from the World Wide Web: http://marriottfoundation.org/foundation
McDonnell, L. M., McLaughlin, M. J., & Morison,
P. (Eds.). (1997). Educating one and all: students with disabilities
and standards-based reform. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
McGrew, J. D., Thurlow, M. L., & Spiegel, A. N.
(1993). An investigation of the exclusion of students with national
data collection programs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
15, 339-352.
McLaughlin, M. J., Nolet, V. W., Rhim, L. M., &
Henderson, K. (1999). Integrating standards: including all students.
TEACHING Exceptional Children, 31(3), 66-71.
National Center on Educational Outcomes. (2003). Accountability
for assessment results in the No Child Left Behind Act: what it
means for children with disabilities. Minneapolis, MN: University
of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
National Council on Disability. (2000). Transition
and postschool outcomes for youth with disabilities: closing the
gaps to postsecondary education and employment. Washington, DC:
National Council on Disability.
Nietupski, J., Hamre-Nietupski, S., Curtin, S., &
Shrikanth, K. (1997). A review of curricular research in severe
disabilities from 1976-1995 in six selected journals. The Journal
of Special Education, 31, 36-55.
Pasternack, R. (2003). No Child Left Behind. A powerpoint
presentation. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office
of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS).
Pierangelo, R., & Crane, R. (1997). Complete guide
to special education transition services. West Nyack, NY: The Center
for Applied Research in Education.
Quenemoen, R. E., Lehr, C. A., Thurlow, M. L., &
Massanari, C. B. (2001). Students with disabilities in standards-based
assessment and accountability systems: emerging issues, strategies,
and recommendations. Discussion paper at the National Capacity Building
Institute, Honolulu, HI.
Scanlon, D., & Mellard, D. F. (2002). Academic
and participation profiles of school-age dropouts with and without
disabilities. Exceptional Children, 68(2), 239-258.
Schulte, A. G., Elliott, S. N., & Kratochwill,
T. R. (2001). Effects of testing accommodations on standardized
mathematics test scores: An experimental analysis of the performances
of students with and without disabilities. School Psychology Review.
Serebreni, R., Phillip D. Rumrill, J., James A. Mullins,
J., & Gordon, S. E. (1993). Project Excel: A demonstration of
the higher education transition model for high-achieving students
with disabilities. Journal on Postsecondary Education and Disability,
10(3).
Sinclair, M. F., Christenson, S. L., Evelo, D. L.,
& Hurley, C. M. (1998). Disability targeted: students with learning
and emotional/behavioral disabilities. Exceptional Children, 65(1).
Skinner, M. E., & Lindstrom, B. D. (2003). Bridging
the gap between high school and college: strategies for the successful
transition of students with learning disabilities. Preventing School
Failure, 47(3).
Smith, D. S., McLeskey, J., Tyler, N., & Saunders,
S. (2002). The supply and demand of special education teachers:
the nature of the chronic shortage of special education teachers.
Unpublished manuscript, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
Sparks, G. (1988). Teacher attitudes toward change
and subsequent improvements in classroom teaching. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 80(1), 111-117.
Stodden, R. A. (1998). School-to-work transition:
Overview of disability legislation. In J. Chadsey (Ed.), Beyond
high school: Transition from school to work. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
Publishing.
Stodden, R. A., & Dowrick, P. W. (2000). Postsecondary
education and employment of adults with disabilities. American Rehabilitation,
24(3), pp. 19-23.
Stodden, R. A., Galloway, L. M., & Stodden, N.
J. (2003). Secondary school curricula issues: impact on postsecondary
students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 70(1), 9-25.
Swanson, C. B. (2004). Who graduates? who doesn't?
a statistical portrait of public high school graduation, class of
2001. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Thurlow, M. L. (2002). Accommodations for students
with disabilities in high school, Issue Brief (Vol. 1). Minneapolis,
MN: National Center on Secondary Education and Transition.
Thurlow, M. L., Ysseldyke, J. E., & Silverstein,
B. (1995). Testing accommodations for students with disabilities.
Remedial & Special Education, 16(5), 260-270.
Tindal, G., Heath, B., Hollenbeck, K., Almond, P.,
& Harniss, M. (1998). Accommodating students with disabilities
on large-scale tests: An experimental study. Exceptional Children,
64, 439-450.
Turkstra, L. S. (2003). Evidence-based practice: let's
be reasonable. Journal of Medical Speech - Language Pathology.
U.S. Congress. (1997). Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (First Session ed.): One Hundred and Fifth Congress
of the United States of America.
U.S. Congress. (2002). No Child Left Behind Act: One
Hundred and Seventh Congress of the United States of America.
U.S. Department of Education. (2002a). Annual report
to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act. Washington, DC: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services.
U.S. Department of Education. (2002b). To assure the
free appropriate public education of all children with disabilities.Twenty-fourth
annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Education.
U.S. Department of Education. (2003). Interim report
for the study of state and local implementation and impact of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (1999-2000 School Year).
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special
Education Programs.
U.S. Department of Education. (December 9, 2003).
Title I--Improving the academic achievement of the disadvantaged.
Final regulations. Office of Elementary and Secondary Education,
Department of Education. Retrieved from the World Wide Web: http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/finrule/2003-4/120903a.html
U.S. General Accounting Office. (2003). Special Education:
federal actions can assist states in improving postsecondary outcomes
for youth. Report to the ranking minority member, Committee on Health,
Education, Labor and Pensions, U.S. Senate (GAO-03-773). Washington,
DC: U.S. General Accounting Office.
Weston, T. J. (1999). Investigating the validity of
the accommodation of oral presentation in testing (Doctoral dissertation).
Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Colorado.
Youth Advisory Committee of the National Council on
Disability. (2003). Students with disabilities face financial aid
barriers. Washington, DC: National Council on Disability. |