No Child Left Behind: Some Facts 1. No Child Left Behind: Some Facts. Adam Welcher

Transcription

1 No Child Left Behind: Some Facts 1 No Child Left Behind: Some Facts Adam Welcher EDUC 340 Professor Heather Schilling May 8, 2009

2 No Child Left Behind: Some Facts 2 Abstract The passage of No Child Left Behind Act in 2001 was a controversial one. A critical goal that NCLB had was that all children, including those students labeled special needs, would work up to their grade level in core subjects. While in theory this goal was thought to be a good one, the implementation of it brought questions to many people s minds. Some interesting facts regarding some of the strategies that have been used to achieve these goals, along with some of the test results from students with special needs are discussed in great depth in the following paper. Much of the talk regarding NCLB in discussion is negative; however, some of the positive aspects of the act are also discussed.

3 No Child Left Behind: Some Facts 3 Legislation has been the primary weapon in the federal government s continuous effort to improve public education in the United States. Beginning in the 1950 s and continuing with Lyndon Johnson s landmark Elementary and Secondary Schools Act, funding was created for programs like professional development for teachers, acquisition of instructional materials, and resources to support educational and parental involvement programs. Education funding progressed steadily in the following decades without any blockbuster legislation. That all changed in President George W. Bush s No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) has become one of the most controversial pieces of legislation to hit the education world in recent memory. No one can argue with the ideals of the federally-mandated goals, and everyone agrees that all children deserve the best possible education. It is the implementation of these goals that has caused the conflict and debate. In an ideal world, all children work up to their grade level in core subjects; but in reality, learning disabilities prevent many children from that achievement. Special education students and their needs must be taken into consideration when evaluating a school or teacher s effectiveness. The challenge of helping special education students achieve the goals set forth by NCLB has caused much debate and discussion in education circles. Upwards of 6.5 million special-needs students attend schools in the United States (National Center for Students with Disabilities). Who are these special education students being directly impacted by the requirements of NCLB? These children come from many different backgrounds, and often times many different cultures. Some of these special-needs children are not fluent speakers of English. Significant numbers of students also receive services such as Title I and speech or hearing, as well as general special education services. It is often challenging to identify the students requiring

4 No Child Left Behind: Some Facts 4 special services, and many of them spend most, if not all, of their day in a general education classroom. Classroom teachers, through no fault of their own, often do not have the materials or resources to address these students special needs. In a study done by the National Center for Learning Disabilities, 48 percent of students classified as having special needs spend at least 80 percent of their school day in a general education classroom. Another 29 percent spend at least 40 percent of their day in a regular classroom. These numbers are confusing and difficult to evaluate because each state has a different method of identifying students receiving special education services. In the school year, the percentages ranged from 10.5 in California to 20.2 in Rhode Island (Digest of Education Statistics, 2005, Table 52). Recent reports have called into question the rigor, or difficulty, of some states academic content standards. A comparison of the number of students that scored proficient or better on individual statesponsored reading assessments versus the percentage that scored proficient or better on the reading portion of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) revealed some staggering proficiency gaps, some in excess of 60 percent. More than half of the states showed a proficiency gap of more than 40 points, including Indiana (Education Week, Editorial Projects in Education, 2007). An interesting study, the Special Education Elementary Longitudinal Study, also suggested that special education classification is often used to separate out minority students, especially African-American boys. African-American students comprise more than 20 percent of the students receiving special services; however they make up only 17 percent of public school enrollment. The study further illustrates that special education

5 No Child Left Behind: Some Facts 5 designation also includes a disproportionate number of children considered to be living in poverty. Twenty-four percent of students considered to have special needs or disabilities live in households at or below the poverty line. This is significantly higher than the 16 percent of the general population living in poverty. The fact is, parents of students living in poverty are just as likely to be employed, but are more likely to have substantially lower incomes. The study also reveals that African-American children with disabilities are especially at risk, as they are more likely to be poor and are less likely to be living with two parents than other students with disabilities. Their households average fewer adults and more children. Mothers of African-American children with disabilities were found to be, much more likely than those of Caucasian children to have given birth as teenagers, to not have a high school diploma, and to be unemployed (Special Education Elementary Longitudinal Study, (SEELS), 2004). An overlap exists between students that receive special education and those who, historically, have made up low-achieving groups. Addressing the needs of those students was the driving force for the passage and implementation of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. One reason for the disparity with special education students lies in the frequent failure to include these students in the state assessments that have become a requirement for all other students. Requirements in the 1994 version of the ESEA, and the 1997 version of IDEA, say that special education students should participate in all state-wide assessments, and their participation be publicly reported. States have often chosen to ignore these requirements with no repercussions. Children have too frequently been excluded on a large scale (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (data) idea.org). Without full participation, accountability has become an

6 No Child Left Behind: Some Facts 6 issue nearly impossible to address, nor can it be insured that the necessary attention and improvements will be made to help these struggling students succeed. Historically, when a student had an Individualized Education Plan (IEP), states exempted them from having to take state-sponsored testing because of their special education status. However, with the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act in 2001, even students with the most severe learning disabilities were required to take the standardized test. Under the current system, only one percent of the student population falls in the category of students that can be allowed to take an alternative form of assessment. This fact frustrates many parents and educators, as many more students classified as special-needs find it very difficult, if not impossible, to achieve a passing score on an assessment that does not take into consideration their particular learning disability. The implementation of NCLB and its requirement that all students perform to a pre-determined standard brings into question the purpose and importance of Individualized Education Plans (IEP s.) It also widens the gap of student performance, since students with special needs score so low in comparison to their classmates. A student s IEP should contain the current academic performance, specific goals, objectives, transitional tools, and more (Hallahan & Kauffman, 2003). Many reports and studies, including ones done by Ysseldyke (2004), show students with disabilities are being exposed to general curriculum that they would not have been exposed to before the passage of No Child Left Behind. Further studies by the same researchers have shown that the individualized aspects of a student s IEP are being forfeited in an attempt to design IEP s that match the general education curriculum. Educators designing IEP s

7 No Child Left Behind: Some Facts 7 must shift their focus from forming an individual plan most suited to a student s development to teaching general curriculum mandated by the state. The individualized section of a child s IEP, which makes their IEP uniquely qualified to address their educational needs, has begun to be sacrificed. This brings to the table the question, If schools are not going to abide by and use these IEP s to help each individual child s needs, then why even bother using them? If schools are resorting to some of the methods indicated in these studies, their strategies are in direct violation of the 2004 amendment to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). This legislation directly addressed the need and significance of IEP s, and issued the mandate that every student with a disability be provided with one. Research by Sharpe and Hawes (2003) demonstrates the necessity that an IEP closely compliment the state educational standards to be effective in addressing the student s needs. This contradicts the original plan of IDEA, which was to individualize instruction based on student need, in favor of academic standards that seek to standardize instruction for all students. Arguments made by advocates of the IEP, and in defense of students with special needs, advance the belief that these students need IEP s serving their specific needs, and these needs should not be ignored by standards imposed by NCLB (Sharpe and Hawes, 2003) A further challenge imposed on the educational system by the implementation of NCLB has been to make it more difficult for interested educators to become special education teachers. Not only must an educator receive a degree in special education, he or she is now required to earn certification in each particular subject they want to teach. In fact, according to studies done in 2004, at least 10% of the special education

8 No Child Left Behind: Some Facts 8 workforce did not meet the rigorous demands of qualification under NCLB. The increased certification requirements make it more difficult to attract potential teachers interested in working with special education students (Seed, A.H., 2008). The impact of NCLB on teachers and administrators has dramatically changed the approach that schools must take in their special education programs. With the mandate to make academic achievement and assessment the main focus of classrooms, many special education teachers feel as if they must teach only to state standards, taking away much of the freedom and creativity that allows them to make their classroom environment most effective. The restriction to teach only to standards does not allow them the flexibility to address the specific needs of individual students. With the increased inclusion of specialneeds students in general education classrooms, teachers and special educators often feel unprepared for the challenges of teaching students with such a wide range of learning abilities. Special educators are being forced to modify the methods they have effectively used and feel ill-equipped to teach standard-based classes. The additional stress and rigid qualifications may steer many interested candidates away from a career in education (Seed, A.H., 2008). With most of the publicity surrounding NCLB and its implementation being negative, it is easy to believe that its existence is all bad. However, there is evidence of success on many levels by students and teachers. Research by the National Center on Educational Outcomes, a federally-funded center that monitors the participation of special education students in state-sponsored assessments, showed some dramatic improvements on elementary reading assessments. NCEO looked at the results of special education students from 25 states on standardized reading assessments from 2001 to

9 No Child Left Behind: Some Facts In 2001, the special education students demonstrated an average proficiency of 34 percent. That proficiency rate jumped to 43 percent by Five states showed a growth rate of over 20 percent by students with special needs on the state s assessment taken by all students. This significant increase in proficiency demonstrates the willingness of states to address reading intervention issues at the earliest level to assure NCLB compliance. In an Education Week study, which revealed a large proficiency gap between two different reading assessments, special needs students posted great gains on the National Assessment of Educational Progress test. The scale for the number of fourth graders in 2000 that were considered proficient was 167. In 2005, that scale jumped to 190, while the performance of the students without special education status showed no significant improvements (National Assessment of Educational Progress, 2005). With the constant negative publicity that has developed since the passage and implementation of NCLB, it would be easy to judge the federally-mandated legislation as a defeat to the education system. However, according to Brigham (2004), educators must, take this opportunity to strengthen the education system. Educators are always seeking to improve the educational success of their students and the discussion continues on the best way to accomplish that goal. There are many ideas and suggestions that have been put forth, but some have become more mainstream than others. The redefinition of the purpose and reasons for an IEP and ensuring its usage and proper implementation has become a key discussion that needs to be resolved. The requirement of special educators to be a highly qualified teacher must be addressed to allow interested candidates into

10 No Child Left Behind: Some Facts 10 the classroom. Successful resolution of such basic definitions will allow teachers and administrators to work together to provide all students the best possible education. As legislators work to improve and better define the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act, it is of the utmost importance that they take great care to maintain the accountability of the special education students in a way that allows them to have successes. The NCLB has put a great stress on educators and special education students; it must be ensured that both groups are afforded the opportunities to succeed. Many obstacles must be overcome, but solutions can be found. The achievement gap will only be closed by legislators and educators working together to develop strategies to successfully address the needs of all students.