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.”

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.

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 re