Running Head: Problems and Solutions Surrounding The NCLB Act and AYP for Students with Disabilities 1

Aron Helfinstine Educational Research 5113 Problems and Solutions Surrounding The NCLB Act and AYP for Students with Disabilities Southeastern University June 15, 2011

Running Head: Problems and Solutions Surrounding The NCLB Act and AYP for Students with Disabilities 2
Table of Contents I. II. III. IV. Abstract...3 No Child Left Behind Act Brief Summary................4 Individuals with Disabilities Act of 2004......4 NCLB Controversy.....5 A. Academic Progress and Subgroups.......5 B. AYPs Fabricated Report Card......6 V. Data Presentation and Analysis.........7 A. The Teachers Argument with NCLB..........7 B. Virginias Efforts to Make a Change.......8 C. Surveying the Accommodations of Special Educators......9 D. The National Center of Educations Survey of the States........10 V1. VII. Home-School Communication is Raising AYP.........10 Assessing Disability Students............12 A. National Council on Disability 2008 Report..12 B. National Assessment of Education Progress - The Nations Report Card...13 C. The U.S. Department of Education Alternative Assessment Plan..14 VIII. Discussion............14 A. State Educational Departments: Consider Virginia and Alabamas Efforts...15 B. Raise AYP now by Incorporating Home-School Communication..........15 C. Improve Accountability...........16 D. Student Tracking.........16 E. Modified Assessment and Teachers argument with the NCLB Act.......16 IX. X. Conclusion..........17 References...19

Running Head: Problems and Solutions Surrounding The NCLB Act and AYP for Students with Disabilities 3 Abstract Since the establishment of the No Child Left Behind Act in 2001, country-wide controversy and debate have swept the school systems. NCLBs intention was to provide federal funding for education programs, specifically for disadvantaged students; however, statistics do not necessarily support the intended purpose because students with disabilities are not being properly educated and assessed. Many changes have been made over the years in regards to classifying students with disabilities, especially learning disabilities. Not only has this affected the assessment of students with disabilities, but it also has skewed individual schools adequate yearly progress (AYP). Some schools are even disregarding their disability students academic progress in order to boost their overall AYP. Data suggest that many schools and teachers are illequipped to succeed at meeting the requirements posed by the NCLB Act while a common standpoint identified by nearly all special-education teachers concludes that the NCLB Act is ultimately requiring an impossible feat for disability students to succeed; however, hope remains as some schools are taking responsibility for their lack of disability student progress and making the changes necessary to better equip principals and teachers with effective tools, strategies, and techniques to progress their students AYP while also meeting the requirements of the NCLB Act. A student tracking-monitoring system, a proposed restructurization of the assessment of disability students, and home-school relations are among many developing solutions currently being utilized among others discussed in this paper. Simply put - federal mandate regarding the education and assessment of students with disabilities remains at the core of debate surrounding the No Child Left Behind Act. This study identifies the common trends, problems, and solutions found in the relationships currently surrounding the NCLB Act and AYP for students with disabilities.

Running Head: Problems and Solutions Surrounding The NCLB Act and AYP for Students with Disabilities 4 No Child Left Behind Act Brief Summary The No Child Left Behind Act is a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), the central federal law in pre-collegiate education. The ESEA first enacted in 1965 and last reauthorized in 1994, provided federal funding for education programs geared towards disadvantaged students. Federal legislation was ultimately passed by Congress and signed into law on January 8, 2002. The NCLB Act continued to define and describe these education programs as well as adding new accountability mandates that must be met by states in order to receive funding for the programs; in turn, establishing a primary goal to close the achievement gaps between the various student demographic groups in public schools. In short, all states must bring all students to state designated proficiency levels in reading and math by 2014 (S. Dean, personal communication, October 8, 2009). According to Mareno, NCLB provided the framework for President George W. Bush's bipartisan education reform plan intended to ensure that every child in U.S. public schools has equal access to high-quality education. Bushs Office of Secretary believes NCLB Act includes the following components: (1) Accountability for Results, (2) Unprecedented State & Local Flexibility, (3) Focusing Resources on Proven Educational Methods, and (4) Expanded Choices for Parents & Reduced Red Tape (Mareno, 2007). Individuals with Disabilities Act of 2004 The Individuals with Disabilities Act of 2004 strictly applies to students with disabilities while the NCLB Act applies to all students. This law guarantees children with disabilities the right to free appropriate public education. It places the responsibility of locating, identifying, and serving students in need of special education in the hands of all public schools. Overall, it

Running Head: Problems and Solutions Surrounding The NCLB Act and AYP for Students with Disabilities 5 provides eligible students with special education and related services that allow them to benefit from education just like all other students (Cortiella, 2007, p. 5). The definition of a specific learning disability has remained the same over the years, but ways that schools can determine whether a student has a specific learning disability has significantly changed. The changes make it easier and quicker for schools to classify a child as having a disability, allowing students to take full advantage of the accommodations and alternate assessments available. IDEA defines specific learning disabilities by stating: a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, which disorder may manifest itself in the imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or do mathematical calculations (Cortiella, 2009, p. 1). Previously, students were required to show a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and academic achievement. However, this has been removed from the IDEA. Supporters of these changes argue that the discrepancy requirement was leading to late identification and misidentification and thus delayed children receiving of special education service. Cortiella (2009) states, Equally important was the growing evidence that such a requirement was particularly problematic for students living in poverty, students with culturally different backgrounds, or those who native language was not English (p. 1). NCLB Controversy Academic Progress and Subgroups More specifically, controversy regarding the education and assessment of students with disabilities revolves around one of the major NCLB mandates, academic progress. Since states

Running Head: Problems and Solutions Surrounding The NCLB Act and AYP for Students with Disabilities 6 are required to bring all students to proficiency, individual schools must meet state adequate yearly progress (AYP) for both their student population as a whole and for certain demographic subgroups, such as students with disabilities. Kevin Carey, an education expert, defines a subgroup as a group of students that in most cases have been underserved by the education system (Tulenko, August 14, 2007). Minimum subgroup size, frequently called N-size, refers to the minimum number of students within each subgroup a school or district must contain across the grades assessed before the requirement to achieve AYP for the subgroup is required (Cortiella, 2007, p. 18). In other words, if a school has 43 students with disabilities and the subgroup N-size is set at 45, then those students with disabilities do not appear within the NCLB accountability system. AYPs Fabricated Report Card What if AYPs results across the nation were actually, well, not even actual? Research is confirming such a case. Disappointing as it may be, schools, principles, and teachers the ones responsible for reporting our childrens grades in their truest reflection possible are fabricating their own report card in order to show a yearly AYP increase. Bill Thorntons research provided data that further confirmed this shocking phenomenon. He randomly selected and examined 23 small rural schools and their district data to determine how they met AYP requirements for students with Individualized Educational Plans (IEP). He also analyzed school improvement plans for efforts to ensure compliance with NCLB and conducted site visits at selected schools that failed to make AYP. (Thornton, B. 2006, p. 3). His results confirmed that many schools were not being held accountable for achievement of special education students as data confirmed as many as 30% of IEP students were being

Running Head: Problems and Solutions Surrounding The NCLB Act and AYP for Students with Disabilities 7 excluded from the accountability process, which is inappropriate. His research proposed an even bigger question: if this is happening to IEP students could it also be occurring with other subgroups identified by NCLB? The most global conclusion of this study is that accountability is needed of all groups of students identified by NCLB (Thornton, B. 2006, p. 5). Currently each state is required to establish a single statewide accountability system that will effectively measure student AYP (Ratcliffe, M. 2009, p. 38). Our students do not have the privilege of falsifying their own report card, so why do our schools get to? Accountability is needed of all groups of students identified by NCLB and those responsible for AYP should develop ways to maintain accountability for accurately reporting all students AYP. Data Presentation and Analysis The Teachers Argument with NCLB While these goals and standards set through NCLB are ideal, they are not realistically attainable. John Merrow addresses this issue in The News Hour segment on No Child Left Behind, discussing its impact on some of the best educators in our country. More specifically, he interviews Anthony Cody, a nationally certified teacher. (Less than 2% of all teachers obtain this level of certification). Cody states, No Child Left Behind has cast a pall over the whole urban educational system. It has created unrealistic expectations and punished us for not meeting them. If I say that No Child Left Behind sets unrealistic goals, then the very name of the law says that, by implication, I am leaving children behind. I am not interested in leaving anyone behind, but Im not going to say that I am a failure because he came to me reading at the fourthgrade level and Ive only managed to move him up to the fifth- or sixth-grade level in one

Running Head: Problems and Solutions Surrounding The NCLB Act and AYP for Students with Disabilities 8 year. But, the law says Im a failure because hes not proficient. Hes not at grade level. (Tulenko, August 16, 2007). Likewise, Cody speaks on behalf of all the teachers who feel the pressure of NCLB on students with disabilities to achieve more than is attainable. Statistics back their frustrations as they reveal students with disabilities still not achieving proficiency. The argument is not that the students are not learning and progressing in their education, but they are instead impossibly capable of advancing certain educational grade levels in such a short amount of time according to where the NCLB states the student should be. Virginias Efforts to Make a Change Robert Jones said it best in his article dealing with strategies to achieve high school success in accordance with the NCLB Act and AYP: Achieving success on the NCLB goals of AYP and Highly Qualified Teachers (HQT) will depend in significant part on the collaborative efforts of high school principals and teachers and the support they receive from the central office administration. Clearly, change has to occur. As Bear Bryant once said, "Cause something to happen." (Jones, R. 2009, p. 2). Jones did just that. In Virginia, special education high school students were failing, dropping out, and were not meeting the requirements of the NCLB and IDEA; contrarily schools and teachers were not using the correct methods to instruct these students so they might succeed. To meet the need, Jones partnered with the Virginia Department of Education and together launched a series of six state-wide workshops. Their qualitative-developmentally based research allowed all teachers and principals in Virginia to attend and work together in creating more effective strategies instructing special education students. Numerous best practices and

Running Head: Problems and Solutions Surrounding The NCLB Act and AYP for Students with Disabilities 9 effective strategies emerged in a set-list geared to equip all Virginia schools in the areas of 1) collaboration; 2) personalization; and 3) curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Though the study has recently been implemented, 2009 School Year, Jones and the Virginia Board of Education anticipate an overall increase in the AYP of both special and regular education across the state of Virginia. Surveying the Accommodations of Special Educators
Teachers and other Individualized Education Program (IEP) team members use a variety of strategies when they make decisions about instructional and assessment accommodations. Instructional accommodations are changes and supports that enable students with disabilities to meaningfully access the curriculum during instruction. The Alabama Department of Education, with support from the National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO), developed a survey of special education teachers in Alabama on the factors and considerations affecting accommodations decisions for instruction and assessment by surveying 2,575 respondents to the survey; 95% were special education teachers. Their quantitative study provided an overall insight into how IEP teams select instructional and assessment accommodations (Altman, J. R., et al, 2010, p.1). More than 57% of the survey respondents indicated that a key criterion considered by the IEP team in the instructional accommodations process for a student was the students present level of functioning, whereas 28% identified the difficulty of content standards being taught as an important factor. (See Appendix A). These are generally considered to be sound criteria for IEP teams to consider. (Atman et al., p. 13). Forty-nine percent of the special education teachers indicated that assessment accommodations decisions were based on successful classroom accommodations trials during instruction, and thirty-eight percent of special education teachers identified the subject matter being

Running Head: Problems and Solutions Surrounding The NCLB Act and AYP for Students with Disabilities 10
taught or tested as an important consideration. (See Appendix B). According to Elliott and Thurlow (2006), it is appropriate to try accommodations to see which work for specific students. (Atman et al, p. 14). The results of this study suggest that special education teachers are knowledgeable about accommodations, but may have some gaps in their knowledge about how to effectively select and implement accommodations for instruction and assessment. Local Education Agency (LEA) personnel need training in accommodations so teachers and IEP teams will have a better understanding of the process. There may also be a need for teacher preparation programs to provide training in accommodations decision making for pre-service special education and general education teachers (Atman et al., p.14).

The National Center of Educations Survey of the States In 2007, The National Center of Educational Outcomes developed an extensive Needs Assessment and Information Gathering Data-Survey Set on the participation and performance of students with disabilities in state and national assessments. This study was both qualitative and quantitative in form. The test was administered to the States Educational Directors across the U.S. in attempts to determine if progress had been made to increase the participation of students with disabilities in state-wide assessments (National Center of Education, 2008). Their research provided numerous descriptive results found within their data, three of most important to note are as follows: 1) More than half of the states attributed positive trends in the participation and performance of students with disabilities in assessment and accountability systems. 2) Most states now have policies on the selection and use of accommodations and on alternate assessments for students with disabilities. 3) Most states

Running Head: Problems and Solutions Surrounding The NCLB Act and AYP for Students with Disabilities 11 record the specific accommodations used by a student on test day and few use a tracking system to consistently monitor students who often perform poorly. According to data sets, those who do are able to show an increase in their students performance (Altman, J. R., 2008, p. 6). Home-School Communication is Raising AYP Dr. Ratcliffes study examined the relationship between Annual Yearly Progress scores mandated by the NCLB Act and correlates of effective schools. Interestingly enough, his hypothesis predicting no direct relationship between AYP and correlates of effective schools was proven incorrect through the findings of his study. (Ratcliffe, 2009, p. 94).

In his Key Findings report one variable in particular, PACI (Parent and Community Involvement), clearly contributed as a precursor variable to a relationship between AYP and effective school correlates. PACI contributed nearly 40%. In addition, 2 other variables, CAS (Collaboration Among Staff) 7% & MSP (Monitoring Student Progress) 4.7%, also contributed to a relationship between AYP scores and schools. (Ratcliffe, 2009, p.98-99).

Dr. Ratcliffes findings concluded, Using this data-driven research to identify and focus on high-return, context-specific correlates (that are unique to each particular educational setting) should improve student academic achievement across the delineated subgroups and should result in improved AYP scores. (Ratcliffe, 2009, p.100). His quantitative PACI data clearly concludes a proven solution by which many schools could raise their students AYP progress.

Fenells research identified common challenges found when trying to establish effective home-school communication. His findings revealed parents schedules or lack of time tend to be the greatest factor hindering proper home-school relations. He also noted that inadequate

Running Head: Problems and Solutions Surrounding The NCLB Act and AYP for Students with Disabilities 12 economic resources, poor teacher parent outreach and communication, power differentials such as discrimination towards single mothers, and finally poor communication skills for both parents and teachers also create hurdles for parents to become involved in their students AYP. (Fenell, Z. 2011, p.1) Margaret Caspe supports Ratcliffes findings in her recent research conducted with the Harvard Family Research Project. Caspe concluded, Current research indicates that home-school communication is among the most important factors in developing strong relationships between teachers and family while also promoting an increase in students AYP. (Caspe, M. 2011, p.3) Her research identified common trends found after proper teacher-parent communication had been established including an improved student performance, trust between student-teacherparents, higher levels of student self-efficacy, and improved future student educational planning for parents and teachers. (Caspe, M. 2011). Assessing Disability Students National Council on Disability 2008 Report If a school is failing, it does not necessarily mean that the school is not providing a good, quality education. It depends on how the students are being assessed. Students with disabilities may make significant progress, yet still not be able to achieve at the specified grade level. However, students with disabilities do have a wide variety of options when it comes to taking the state assessment. They may take the general state assessment, with or without accommodations, or take an alternative assessment for students with severe disabilities, yet there are still

Running Head: Problems and Solutions Surrounding The NCLB Act and AYP for Students with Disabilities 13 complications with these assessment options. (National Council on Disability [NCD], 2008). Quoted in the NCD 2008 report, If a student takes the general assessment with nonstandard accommodations, his or her score may not be counted toward the proficiency rating of the local education authority. Additionally, it was evident from our interviews that policies regarding standard and nonstandard accommodations vary greatly from state to state (National Council on Disability [NCD], 2008). National Assessment of Education Progress - The Nations Report Card National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) is generally referred to as the nations report card. It is a statistically significant test that is conducted in all states and provides average measures of student achievement across the country. The NAEP is believed to be a more constant measure of achievement across states than AYP proficiency levels. In 2000, for the state of Illinois, 77% of students with disabilities were below the basic achievement level for mathematics in 8th grade. Over time, it has increased significantly. In 2009, only 62% of students with disabilities were below (NCD, 2008). Cortiellas research reveals how NAEP scores vary from state to state. Some states have seen significant improvement, such as Illinois, while others have not, such as Alabama and California. As a result, it is difficult to judge the effectiveness of No Child Left Behind on NAEP scores. Nevertheless, special education students are posting substantial gains on the NAEP. For example, the scale score for 4th graders in reading increased from 167 in 2000 to 190 in 2005 while the performance of students without special education status showed no significant improvement. (Cortiella, 2007, p. 17).

Running Head: Problems and Solutions Surrounding The NCLB Act and AYP for Students with Disabilities 14 The U.S. Department of Education Alternative Assessment Plan Until recently students with disabilities were evaluated the same way as every other student through general state assessments. Some may argue that all students should be assessed in the same manner; otherwise, all students are not receiving an equal education. However, by not providing an appropriate assessment, students without disabilities are actually being given an advantage. By offering an alternate assessment for students with disabilities, the education system is successfully providing an equal opportunity for education to all students. In 2007, the U.S. Department of Education presented the possibility of a newer, more realistic assessment for students with disabilities. The Department (2007) reported, Alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards will provide a more appropriate measure of these students achievement of grade-level content [as well as] give teachers and parents information that can be used to better inform instruction (p. 1). Additionally, these alternate assessment scores will be included in each states accountability system as long as there are not more than two percent of all students assessed. Discussion State Educational Departments: Consider Virginia and Alabamas Efforts State Educational Departments across the nation should consider the methods of the Virginias Department of Education. Their efforts to make a change by taking responsibility for their lack of disability student progress and facilitating ways to increase their scores should bear much fruit in the coming years ahead due to their extensive efforts to equip principals and teachers with effective tools, strategies, and techniques to increase their disability students AYP scores. With the data gathered from the Alabama department of Education we can see a

Running Head: Problems and Solutions Surrounding The NCLB Act and AYP for Students with Disabilities 15 common need for training and preparation programs to better equip teachers in making efficient accommodations for both instruction and assessment. State departments should begin the process of implementing the training needed identified by the Alabama and Virginia Departments of Education for Special Education Teachers to better equip these teachers for more efficient accommodations instructing and assessing disability students.
Raise AYP Now by Incorporating Home-School Communication

Dr. Ratcliffes Parent and Community Involvement data clearly concludes a proven solution by which many schools could raise their students AYP progress. A current and common trend in educational research, home-school communication is receiving much attention and continues to validate this method as an overall effective strategy in raising all students overall AYP performance. Data confirms, once teachers overcome the hurdles in establishing better PACI, trust is established between the teacher, parent, and student; in turn, facilitating better future educational planning for students and improved student AYP. Improve Accountability Bill Thorntons research confirmed as many as 30% of IEP students were being excluded from the accountability process. Naturally, if this is happening to IEP students, is it not occurring with other subgroups identified by NCLB? Accountability is needed of all groups of students identified by NCLB and those responsible appointed by the state for accurately reporting students AYP.
Student Tracking

Running Head: Problems and Solutions Surrounding The NCLB Act and AYP for Students with Disabilities 16
The National Center of Educations data proved how states that use a tracking system to

consistently monitor students were able to show an increase in their students performance. If this was enforced nationwide AYP scores would finally experience a truer sense of accountability; in turn, ultimately reflecting more valid and reliable AYP scores.
Modified Assessment and Teachers argument with the NCLB Act

The U.S. Department of Education proposition of a more realistic assessment for students with disabilities answers the most common problem identified by special education teachers trying to meet the requirements of the NCLB Act by the use of alternating assessment scores. It would be of great benefit for teachers across the nation to embrace the words of John Cody and help facilitate his stance on success versus failure according to the NCLB Act when he states, I am not interested in leaving anyone behind, (in reference to the No Child Left Behind Act), but Im not going to say that I am a failure because my student came to me reading at the fourth-grade level and Ive only managed to move him or her up to the fifth- or sixth-grade level in one year. But, the law says Im a failure because hes not proficient. Hes not at grade level. Those are unrealistic expectations and we as teachers should not be punished for that. Conclusion Due to the changes made identifying students with disabilities, there is a vast difference in the number of students with disabilities over the years and how they are being assessed. In other words, this calls into question whether any improvement made is a result of actual improvement or if it could be a result of the change in methods of testing students with disabilities or as data suggest, skewing the AYP results in order to achieve favorable outcomes.

Running Head: Problems and Solutions Surrounding The NCLB Act and AYP for Students with Disabilities 17 The Alabama and Virginia Departments of Education took responsibility for their sluggish AYP performance and took the steps necessary to facilitate change and begin the process of implementing the training needed to better equip teachers to succeed at accommodating, instructing, and assessing disability students. State departments across the nation should consider their efforts and express the same concern. Furthermore, schools can easily and effectively begin the process of raising their AYP scores by equipping their teachers to establish better home-school communication. And finally, by implementing a student tracking system, improving AYP accountability, and adopting the U.S. Departments of Educations modified assessment plan, in correlation with adopting other key factors mentioned above, one can expect to see AYP increase across the nation while more efficiently meeting the needs of the No Child Left Behind Act for all students alike. As my knowledge has broadened while conducting my educational research, I have developed the firm belief that the education and assessment of students with disabilities following the mandates laid down by both the No Child Left Behind Act and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act needs to be reevaluated. I strongly believe that each student has the right to an equal opportunity for education, yet children are not receiving this same opportunity for education across our country, whether due to demographics, geographic location, or special accommodation needs, not to mention the ways by which each state differs by which they educate. Alternate assessments, even as simple as general state assessments with appropriate accommodations are necessary for students with disabilities to properly express what they have learned. Additionally, in some cases, it must be considered that certain students with disabilities will never be able to meet the state requirements to be proficient at their grade level. I am opposed to the simple evaluation of proficiency currently being used to assess students with

Running Head: Problems and Solutions Surrounding The NCLB Act and AYP for Students with Disabilities 18 disabilities and believe progression would be a better scale on how students with disabilities are learning. If a student enters the 5th grade with the reading comprehension of a 2nd grader, it is important to help this student progress as a reader. If, at the end of the year, this student can now read at a 4th grade reading level, they will not be able to pass a general state assessment; however, they have progressed tremendously from an individual standpoint. I believe that this is a better measurement of how students are learning through progression rather than where they stand relative to other students. After peer reviews have been completed and a final draft submitted and approved via my professor Dr. Ratcliffe, this literature review paper will be submitted to the following publishers for possible recognition; The Academe-Bulletin of the AAUP, the American Journal of Education, and the American Educational Research Journal.

Running Head: Problems and Solutions Surrounding The NCLB Act and AYP for Students with Disabilities 19 References Altman, J. R., Lazarus, S. L., Thurlow, M. L., Quenemoen, R. F., Cuthbert, M., & Cormier, D. C. (2008). 2007survey of states: Activities, changes, and challenges for special education. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota,National Center on Educational Outcomes. The Aspen Institute Commission on No Child Left Behind. (2007). The Facts: Ensuring Students With Disabilities Achieve Academic Success. Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved June 10 2011. http://www.aspeninstitute.org/sites/default/files/content/docs/commission%20on%20no% 20child%20left%20behind/DisabilitiesBackgrounderFINAL5.8.07.pdf Caspe, Margaret. (2011) Home-school communication: Whats all the commotion? Harvard Family Research Project. 2011 Presidents and fellows of Harvard College. Found at www.hfrp.com on May 29, 2011. Cortiella, C. (2007). Rewards & roadblocks: How special education students are faring under No Child Left Behind. National Center for Learning Disabilities, 1-26. Retrieved May 28, 2011, from http://www.ncld.org/images/stories/OnCapitolHill/PolicyRelatedPublications/Rewardsan dRoadblocks/RewardsandRoadblocks.pdf Cortiella, C. (2009). IDEA 2004 close up: Evaluation and eligibility for specific learning disabilities. Great Schools, 1-4. Retrieved October, 14, 2009, from http://www.greatschools.net/LD/school-learning/evaluation-and-eligibility-for-specificlearning-disabilities.gs?content=943&page=all

Running Head: Problems and Solutions Surrounding The NCLB Act and AYP for Students with Disabilities 20 Fenell, Zachary. Homeschooling and Education: Dialogue and communication between school and home. Homeschooling and Education, found at www.ehow.com on May 29, 2011. Jones, R. E., et. al., Special Education and Regular Education: Achieving High School Success with the NCLB and the IDEA. Catalyst for Change v. 35 no. 2 (Fall 2008) p. 19-24 Mareno, L. (2007). Bushs no child goals not met by quarter of schools. Retrieved June 10 2011, from http://www.nmclb.update. McLaughlin, M. J. Evolving Interpretations of Educational Equity and Students with Disabilities [Part of a special issue: Changing Conceptions of Special Education]. Exceptional Children v. 76 no. 3 (Spring 2010) p. 265-78 McNeil, M. 2008 September 24). States cite capacity gap in aid for schools on nclb. Education Week 28, (5), 40. Retrieved June 6, 2011, from H.W. Wilson. National Council on Disability. (2008). The No Child Left Behind Act and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: A progress report. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Ratcliffe, M. (2009). A study on the correlates of effective schools and Student Learning. Beaufort, GA: LAD Custom Publishing Thornton, B., et. al., An Examination of a Fissure Within the Implementation of the NCLB Accountability Process. Education (Chula Vista, Calif.) v. 127 no. 1 (Fall 2006) p. 11520. Retrieved from H.W. Wilson June 11 2011.

Running Head: Problems and Solutions Surrounding The NCLB Act and AYP for Students with Disabilities 21 Tulenko, J. D. (Executive Producer). (2007, August 14). The NewsHour [Television broadcast]. New York: Learning Matters, Inc. U.S. Department of Education. (2007). Measuring the achievement of students with disabilities. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Running Head: Problems and Solutions Surrounding The NCLB Act and AYP for Students with Disabilities 22 Appendix Appendix A. Top Factors for Decision Making on Instructional Accommodations

Running Head: Problems and Solutions Surrounding The NCLB Act and AYP for Students with Disabilities 23 Appendix B. Considerations Reported by Respondents as Most Important in Making Assessment Accommodations Decisions