An Examination of a Fissure within the Implementation of the NCLB Accountability Process

Abstract

Introduction Under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), all schools are required to assess their students' academic competence in core subject areas. Most stakeholders accept the general goals of NCLB; however, most educators are extremely concerned that actual compliance will be difficult and in some cases impossible. Regardless of general attitude about the law, this requirement has become a driving force in public schools and has particular significance for the building principals, in that progressive consequences are imposed for consecutive years of academic failure of students. Furthermore, Faircloth (2004) clearly presented the quandary when she stated, Implication of the NCLB at the school level presents not only an administrative, but also an ethical dilemma; forcing school leaders to choose between two competing values, that of individual child and that of the school at (p. 32). Two populations that expressly reveal one of the ethical conflicts of NCLB are students with Individualized Education Plans (IEP) and students in rural schools. Each situation poses a very different set of concerns, but, taken together reveals a fissure within the implementation of NCLB. This study was designed to explore the disconnect that occurs as rural schools with small populations of students with IEPs comply with the letter but not the spirit of NCLB. Two questions are posed. Does the process as defined and implemented under NCLB have cracks which allow schools to avoid for many IEP students? Second, how do teachers and administers working in rural schools interpret and understand the process as defined in NCLB? Description of the Problem The component of NCLB requires that all groups of students meet established standards. Progressively, the required level of achievement must increase and the achievement gap between various groups must be reduced. The law states that all groups of students must demonstrate academic mastery by 20132014. In large schools, one of the most common reasons that schools do not make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) is that students with IEPs fail to make appropriate academic progress. However, many small rural schools avoid failure in the special education category because of small enrollments. The law allows each state to establish standards, assessments, and levels of proficiency. In addition, NCLB requires participation standards; however, the law allows each state to establish a minimum group size for reporting and purposes. Herein, is a basic dilemma or fissure within the law; for example, if the state threshold is 25 students (the group size in a category per grade), then the achievement of all groups with fewer than 25 students is not reported. Students in groups with small membership fall through the accountability cracks. In a recent analysis, Olson (2005) found that if the minimum subgroup size was 60 students, almost 100 percent of schools in five states would be able to meet requirements of AYP without reporting results for students with IEPs. In these schools, students with IEPs would not be considered in the process, because the number by grade was less than 60 students. Olson further indicated that 25 states require subgroups of 40 or larger before processes apply. It follows that in many rural schools, special education students are not part of the process. The functional impact is that a large group of students have been excluded from NCLB requirements. IEP Students in Rural Schools Reeves (2003) estimated that 25%-30% of the nation's students attend rural schools. It follows that 25%- 30% of students with IEPs are in those same rural schools and these students are not a part of the process as a NCLB group. However, these students are a part the total school process but the impact of failure to make AYP as a group is lost in the aggregation of the data. …

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 — 13 citations exist upstream.