1

Amanda Peterson
CI 405
11/17/10
NCLB and Students with Disabilities
In 1965, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was enacted to provide
Iederal Iunding Ior education programs primarily Ior disadvantaged students. The ESEA is the
central Iederal law in pre-collegiate education. It was last reauthorized in 1994. On January 8
th
,
2002 the No Child LeIt Behind Act (NCLB) oI 2002 was signed into law. NCLB is a
reauthorization oI ESEA. NCLB continued to detail and delineate the education programs that
were originally instated by ESEA, but it added new accountability mandates that need to be met
by states in order Ior them to receive Iunding Ior the programs. The primary goal oI NCLB is to
close 'achievement gaps between various student demographic groups. An achievement gap is
a major diIIerence in measurable achievement between two or more groups. A key aspect oI
NCLB is that the states are required to bring all students to state-designated proIiciency levels in
reading and math by 2014. Students with disabilities constitute one oI the NCLB-designated
demographic subgroups with overall lower achievement levels. Although NCLB has thereIore
Iocused greater attention on the education and assessment oI SWD, there are concerns that the
impact oI NCLB has not been entirely positive and especially concerns about the way in which
the achievement oI SWD is assessed. This paper will address those concerns and some suggested
ways to address them when NCLB is reauthorized.
The primary accountability mandate in NCLB relates to assessment oI student
achievement. NCLB requires that states develop standards Ior reading, math, and science; and
then develop assessments based on their standards. Students must be tested annually Irom grades
2

3 to 8 in reading and math, tested twice in the elementary grades in science, and then in reading,
math, and science at least once in grades 10-12. For each grade level Ior reading and math, states
must establish proIiciency levels (speciIic test scores) that all students must achieve by 2014.
NCLB also requires that student achievement gains Irom year to year (annual yearly progress or
AYP) must be assessed and reported. All demographic subgroups, must show progress each year,
including students with disabilities. II all subgroups do not make progress, then a school 'Iails to
make AYP, is considered to be 'in need oI improvement, and is subject to both school
improvement eIIorts and successive sanctions.
SWD must be assessed annually in math and reading like all other students but there are
Ilexible assessment guidelines. Students with disabilities may be assessed in the Iollowing ways
(unless otherwise noted, the proIicient and advanced scores Ior all students being appropriately
assessed may be counted towards AYP): general state assessment, general state assessment with
appropriate accommodations, alternate assessment based on grade-level academic achievement
standards, alternate assessment based on modiIied academic achievement standards (up to 2
percent oI all proIicient and advanced scores may count towards AYP), and alternate assessment
based on alternate academic achievement standards (up to 1 percent oI all proIicient and
advanced scores may count towards AYP). Students with disabilities are also aIIorded a set oI
legal protections and Iederal Iunding under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA). The IDEA provides eligible students with special education and related services that
allow them to beneIit Irom education just like all other students. IDEA makes locating,
identiIying and serving students in need oI special education the responsibility oI all public
schools, and, not all students with disabilities are eligible Ior special education services. Only
when the impact oI a disability is such that the student requires additional services and supports
3

to beneIit Irom the educational program is special education available. IDEA requires that
schools develop individual education plans (IEPs) Ior all special education students.
Almost Iourteen percent some 6.6 million oI this nation`s school-age children receive
some level oI additional support through special education and are categorized as students with
disabilities. According the Center on Education Policy 'The Iederal No Child LeIt Behind Act
(NCLB) holds schools, districts, and states accountable Ior improving the academic achievement
oI all students, including the nearly 14 oI public school students who receive special education
services because they have an identiIied disability (Center on Education Policy). About 14 oI
the nation`s prekindergarten to grade 12 students receive service Ior students with disabilities. OI
these students 'About 40 have speciIic learning disabilities, about 22 have speech or
language impairments, about 8 have mental retardation, and the rest have visual or hearing
impairments, emotional disturbances, autism, or other disabilities (Center on Education Policy).
In order to look at the achievement oI students with disabilities on a national basis, it is
typical to compare 'NAEP scores oI students with disabilities to the scores oI students without
disabilities. The National Assessment oI Educational Progress is a national testing system that
was instituted prior to NCLB and it tests a representative sample oI K-12 students in all content
areas in alternate years. States receiving NCLB Iunds must participate in the 4th and 8th grade
NAEP testing. NAEP is generally agreed by educators to be a valid and reasonable assessment oI
student achievement, with questions designed to assess both basic knowledge and critical
thinking skills. When looking at the achievement levels oI students in the US as a whole, NAEP
data is used rather than state test data. (State test score data is not comparable Irom state to state.)
According to the NAEP website, On the 4th grade test, Irom 2002-2007, average test scores Ior
4

students with disabilities rose Irom 187 to 191, while average test scores Ior non-SWD rose Irom
221 to 224. On the 8
th
grade Math tests Irom 2003-2009, average test scores Ior students with
disabilities rose Irom 242 to 249, while the average scores Ior students without disabilities rose
Irom 282 to 287. This data shows that there have been small increases in both SWD and non-
SWD. A report published by the Center Ior Educational Policy stated that 'The trends . suggest
that students with disabilities are making progress on state tests. Average test scores Ior this
subgroup have increased, and the percentages oI students reaching the basic, proIicient, and
advanced levels have risen in most states (Center on Education Policy). But there still remains a
very large gap between the scores oI the students with disabilities and those without. This is a
major issue that has been brought up due to NCLB. 'DiIIerences in the percentage proIicient
between these groupsoIten exceed 30 or even 40 percentage points in reading and math (Center
on Education Policy). This can be a very disturbing thought and it makes one realize that
something needs to be done.
There are two general perspectives that people have about NCLB`s eIIect on students
with disabilities. The Iirst is that NCLB has had a positive eIIect on students with disabilities.
'Five years aIter the enactment oI NCLB, there is general consensus that NCLB has resulted in a
much stronger Iocus on accountability Ior the perIormance oI students with disabilities (Reder).
A stronger Iocus on accountability Ior the perIormance oI students with disabilities means that
these students are being given a more eIIective and appropriate education than they would iI
schools were not being held accountable Ior their students` success. Inclusion is when students
with disabilities are more integrated into regular education classrooms and settings. Some
believe that when students with disabilities are included in general classrooms they may receive
a much more enriched education. It is also believed that 'schools and districts must now pay
5

attention to the perIormance oI all students, which means students with disabilities are getting
attention they did not have beIore ('The No .). This is a very good thing Ior students with
disabilities because they may now be getting a better quality educational experience due to the
Iact that they are now expected to succeed.
The second perspective is that NCLB has had a negative eIIect on students with
disabilities. 'While participation has seen a dramatic increase due to NCLB`s participation
requirements, the participation has not always been meaningIul. For example, while the
percentage oI special education students participating in state assessments in Texas increased
Irom 47 percent in 2000-2001 to 99 percent in 2003-2004,more than halI oI those tested were
given an 'out oI level test (Cortiella). An out-oI-level test is a test that assesses students in a
speciIic grade level with tests that were made Ior lower grade level students. Another idea that
has been brought about as a result oI NCLB is inequity oI the resources that are available to
school. Some believe that NCLB 'has Iailed to account Ior the wide range oI students with
disabilities and the diIIering needs and resources oI public schools in the United States. Thus,
some schools are more equipped to meet the needs oI students with disabilities than others
('NCLB`s This inequality can cause some schools to resent the administration and government
since they are not given the same resources to help the students to the reach their Iull potential.
This can lead to 'concern that students with disabilities may be blamed Ior a school Iailing to
make AYP ('NCLB`s.). It would be a very detrimental thing Ior students without disabilities,
teachers, and administration to begin to resent students with disabilities iI they are the reason that
school does not make AYP. This would undo decades` worth oI eIIort to help people with
disabilities be seen as equal to those without disabilities.
6

Many organizations and individuals have identiIied what they believe to be problems
with assessing students with disabilities under the NCLB guidelines. In some schools, the SWD
group is the only subgroup to Iail to make AYP so the school as a whole Iails even though all
other subgroups may have high achievement. This MAY lead to states or schools using various
practices to avoid identiIying and/or assessing and/or reporting on SWD. For example, states
may manipulate the subgroup size (larger or smaller) in order to decrease the chances oI a school
not making AYP. Also, it means that school improvement measures and sanctions come into
play in a school that doesn`t need them and this attention is better given to truly Iailing schools.
In the 2003-2004 school year nationwide 'Thirteen percent oI schools that did not make AYP
that year Iell short solely because oI the test perIormance oI the subgroup with disabilities
(Center on Education Policy). This means that some schools are receiving help that they really
don`t need when they could be given to schools that really need help. Related to this is the idea
oI want quantiIies a subgroup. 'N-sizes are the number oI students in a certain subgroup that
need to be present in order Ior the subgroup`s scores to count toward AYP. II a subgroup has less
than the 'n-size, then the groups score does not matter in terms oI the school making AYP. It is
obvious that is states have larger 'n-sizes may not need to count subgroups such as students
with disabilities toward AYP so they may be more likely to make AYP. This is a very big issue
that some proIessionals have with NCLB. 'N-sizes currently in use range Irom 5 to 100 and
the average is 40. Yet a 2005 study . |Iound that| once a state`s 'N-size reaches 20 or 30
students, signiIicant percentages oI special education students are not accounted Ior as a separate
subgroup in AYP determinations (Cortiella). A small 'n-size can be very beneIicial Ior
students because schools are then likely held more accountable Ior the success oI all oI its
students.
7

NCLB is up Ior reauthorization this year. One thing that should deIinitely be added is a
national set oI standards and proIiciency levels Ior all students in all states. 'The No Child LeIt
Behind Act gave states the latitude to deIine what constitutes proIicient perIormance, as well as
perIormance at the basic and advanced levels, in terms oI their own tests, cut scores, and content
standards (Center on Education Policy). II there were a national set oI standards and proIiciency
levels all students would be on a level playing Iield. Right now students are deemed as proIicient
in one state but would not be proIicient in one state. This is completely unIair to states that have
lower proIiciency levels and standards. As part oI these new national standards, the people in
charge need to develop modiIied standards and assessments speciIically Ior SWD at the national
level. This is very important because SWD will actually be able to succeed with these changes
rather than drowning is a sea oI Iailure. Part oI these changes should also include the deIining oI
a national 'n-size or a speciIically outlined way oI determining 'n-size so that it would be the
most Iair Ior everyone. The National Center Ior Learning Disabilities suggests an 'N-size oI no
greater than 20 Ior all categories oI student groups in AYP determinations (Cortiella).
Legislation should be added that details that students with disabilities should be assessed on
things other than academic skills attainment. Their assessments should be broadened to include
occupational, employability, and liIe skills because students with disabilities spend a large
portion oI their school days learning these skills to prepare them Ior liIe outside oI school.
The Iour-year graduation requirement should be change to allow students with disabilities
a longer period oI time to achieve high school completion. Since IDEA allows students with
disabilities to stay in high school until age 21, NCLB must be amended to be consistent with
IDEA and prevent students with disabilities Irom appearing as non-completers iI they do not
graduate in Iour years. There are many changes that need to be made to NCLB and hopeIully
8

those in charge will listen to knowledgeable people who will help make NCLB what it was
intended to be.
The Department oI Education`s thoughts about the reauthorization oI NCLB Ior students
with disabilities are as Iollows:
'While the primary Iunding Ior programs speciIically Iocused on supporting students
with disabilities is through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the ESEA
reauthorization proposal will increase support Ior the inclusion and improved outcomes oI
students with disabilities. The proposal will help ensure that teachers and leaders are better
prepared to meet the needs oI diverse learners, that assessments more accurately and
appropriately measure the perIormance oI students with disabilities, and that more districts and
schools implement high-quality, state- and locally determined curricula and instructional
supports that incorporate the principles oI universal design Ior learning to meet all students`
needs.
Although this statement seems very beneIicial to students with disabilities it really isn`t that
much compared to other groups and litigation that needs assistance. There needs to be more
Iunding Ior students with disabilities in relation to NCLB than is already oIIered through IDEA
and NCLB in order to IulIill the changes that need to be made such as new tests which are very
costly to create. Students with disabilities needs more Iunding Ior NCLB related areas.
I believe that NCLB in general has beneIitted students with disabilities because it has
helped schools to be more accountable Ior all students. BeIore NCLB schools were expected to
give their students the best quality education that they could give, but now they are actually held
accountable Ior the quality oI education they provide students with disabilities. My high school
is in its sixth year at the school improvement stage. My school makes AYP in every subgroup
except that Ior students with disabilities. My high school is the regional Ieeder school Ior deaI
and hard oI hearing students and has a very large amount oI students with disabilities. I think that
my school could greatly be beneIitted by the changes I have proposed Ior NCLB. The students
would perIorm better on tests iI they were to include assessment oI occupational, employability,
and liIe skills because these students would do well on these tests. Also a national set oI
9

standards and test would help the students at my high school because their results would actually
be comparable to other states. This is important because iI Illinois is not doing as well as other
states on the tests, they can look into what the school are doing that is helping the students so
much so that they can help the students oI Illinois. This NCLB paper has led me to question what
we can do as Iuture educators to help students with disabilities to succeed at the same level as
their peers. Something needs to be done soon or else the students that are in school now won`t
receive what they should rightIully have been getting their whole lives, a good education.




















10

Cit at io ns

Cor t ie l l a, Ca ndace. " How Spec i a l Educat io n St ude nt s ar e Far i ng Under
No Chi l d Le It Be hi nd. " at i onal Ce nt e r f or Learni ng Di sabi l i t i e s.
Nat io na l Ce nt er Ior Le ar ni ng Di s a bi l i t i e s, 26/ 03/ 2009. We b. 23 Sep
2010.
ht t p: / / www. nc l d. or g/ i nde x2. php?opt i onco mco nt e nt &t as kvi e w&i
d524&pop1&page 0~.

Ce nt er on Educ at io n Po l i c y "Ha s Pr ogr es s Bee n Made i n Ra i s i ng
Ac hi e ve me nt Ior St ude nt s wit h Di s a bi l it i e s ?. " Ce nt e r on Educat i on
Pol i cy. Ce nt er on Educ at ion Po l i c y, 09/ 2009. We b. 23 Sep 2010.
ht t p: / / www. ce p-
dc. or g/ docume nt / doc Wi ndow. c I m? I us e act io ndocume nt . vi e wDocu me
nt &docume nt i d298&docume nt For mat I d4624~.

"Mea sur i ng t he Ac hi e ve me nt o I St ude nt s wit h Di s a bi l i t i e s . " ed. gov.
Unit e d St at es Gover nme nt , 04/ 2007. We b. 23 Sep 2010.
ht t p: / / www2. ed. go v/ par e nt s/ nee ds/ spece d/ t woper ce nt . ht ml ~.

"NCLB` s Ac count a bi l i t y Pr ovi s io ns Io r St udent s wit h Di s a bi l i t i e s Ce nt er
on Educat io n Po l i c y Roundt a bl e Di s c uss io n. " Cent e r on Educ at i on
Pol i cy. Ce nt er on Educ at ion Po l i c y, 01/ 05/ 2007. We b. 23 Sep 2010.
ht t p: / / www. ce p-
dc. or g/ docume nt / doc Wi ndow. c I m? I us e act io ndocume nt . vi e wDocu me
nt &docume nt i d206&docume nt For mat I d3911~.

Reder , Na nc y. " ACCOUNTABI LI TY FOR STUDENTS WI TH
DI SABI LI TI ES. " Cent e r on Educat i on Pol i cy. Nat io na l Assoc i at io n
oI St at e Dir ect or s OI Spec i a l Educ at ion, 05/ 2007. We b. 23 Sep
2010. ht t p: / / www. c ep-
dc. or g/ docume nt / doc Wi ndow. c I m? I us e act io ndocume nt . vi e wDocu me
nt &docume nt i d206&docume nt For mat I d3913~.

"The No Chi l d Le It Be hi nd Act and t he I ndi vi dua l s wit h Di s a bi l it i e s
Educat io n Act : A Pr ogr es s Repor t . "at i onal Counci l on Di sabi l i t y.
Nat io na l Counc i l on Di s a bi l it y, n. d. We b. 23 Sep 2010.
ht t p: / / www. ncd. go v/ newsr oom/ publ i c at ions/ 2008/ NoChi l dLe It Be hi
ndI DEAPr ogr e s sRepor t . ht ml ~