Special Education Subgroups under NCLB: Issues to Consider

Abstract

Background/Context There are few empirical studies exploring the alleged conflict between the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Objective The purpose of this study was to examine what impact the No Child Left Behind Act has had on students with disabilities. Research Design Specifically, using large data sets from three different states, this article examines how the students with disabilities subgroup has fared under the No Child Left Behind Act. Under NCLB, there are four different subgroups: race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, limited English proficiency, and students with disabilities. If any one of these subgroups fails to make adequate yearly progress (AYP) under NCLB, the entire school fails. Findings This study found that schools fail to make AYP most often because of the students with disabilities subgroup. The failure of the special education subgroup to make AYP occurs mainly because the students with disabilities subgroup is expected to maintain the exact same proficiency levels as their general education peers—a standard that has proved to be problematic because special education students often start out with lower average test scores than general education students. In addition, the students with disabilities subgroup is the only subgroup in which actual limitations on ability to learn might come into play. The existence of these limitations calls into question the wisdom of trying to close the general education–special education “achievement gap” at the same pace as the race- or class-based achievement gaps. In addition to quantitative methods, this study also used legal research techniques to examine the legal impact that the two laws are having on students with disabilities. Conclusions The study found that although judicial challenges may be one route to try to change the law, pressure at the state and local levels by educators and parents of students with disabilities working together with the U.S. Department of Education may have an impact as well.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 63 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.