No Child Left Behind 1

No Child Left Behind: Its Affect on Students with Disabilities

Kathryn Stirk

University of Illinois
 No Child Left Behind 2

No Child Left Behind: Its Affect on Students with Disabilities

Since the establishment of the No Child Left Behind Act in 2001, the act has been central

to country-wide controversy and debate. Its primary intention was to provide federal funding for

education programs, specifically for disadvantaged students including both students with

disabilities and limited English proficiency students. However, statistics do not necessarily

support this, calling into question how to properly educate and assess disadvantaged students,

more specifically students with disabilities. 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 school’s

adequate yearly progress (AYP). While some support these changes, others strongly oppose

them. In other words, federal mandate regarding the education and assessment of students with

disabilities remains at the core of debate surrounding the No Child Left Behind Act.

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, federal legislation ultimately passed by Congress

and signed into law on January 8, 2002, is a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary

Education Act, 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, primarily

for disadvantaged students. NCLB 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. The primary goal of NCLB is to close the “achievement gaps”

between various student demographic groups. In other words, all states must bring all students to

state designated proficiency levels in reading and math by 2014 (S. Dean, personal

communication, October 8, 2009).

 No Child Left Behind 3

More specifically, controversy regarding the education and assessment of students with

disabilities revolves around one of the major NCLB mandates, academic progress. Since states

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. Each subgroup must reach the set testing standard

in order for an individual school to achieve AYP. 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). Although each group is obligated to meet the specific

testing standards, NCLB allows each state to set the precise size of each subgroup. “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.

While NCLB applies to all students, the Individuals with Disabilities Act of 2004 strictly

applies to students with disabilities. 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 “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).

Data Presentation and Analysis

 No Child Left Behind 4

While these goals and standards set through NCLB are ideal, they are not realistically

attainable. John Merrow addresses this issue in The NewsHour segment on No Child Left

Behind, discussing its impact on some of the best educators in our country. More specifically, he

interviews Anthony Cody, who is nationally certified, a distinction that only two percent of

teachers ever attain. 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 I’m not going to say that I am a failure because he came to me reading at the fourth-

grade level and I’ve only managed to move him up to the fifth- or sixth-grade level in one

year. … But, the law says I’m a failure because he’s not proficient. He’s not at grade

level” (Tulenko, August 16, 2007).

Not only do teachers feel the pressure of NCLB on students with disabilities to achieve more

than is attainable, but statistics also show that students with disabilities are still not achieving

proficiency. However, this does not necessarily mean that they are not learning and that their

education is not progressing.

Although more and more children with disabilities are not being included in state

accountability systems, people continue to argue that schools are not achieving AYP solely

because of students with disabilities. The Commission on No Child Left Behind from The Aspen

Institute presents a case study analyzing student achievement data from the 2004-05 academic

school year in five states: California, Florida, Michigan, Georgia, and Pennsylvania. It addresses
 No Child Left Behind 5

the number of students with disabilities who did not make AYP as well as whether or not the

schools missed AYP solely based on the specific subgroups that did not pass. While California

had a small percentage of AYP solely affected by a specific subgroup, students with disabilities

in this case, Georgia reported a much larger number, approximately 1% compared to 38%

respectively (Aspen Institute, 2006). While 38% still appears to be a small number of students

relative to the total, a difference between 1 and 38 is a significant difference and provides

evidence that changes need to be made in order to better educate students with disabilities. Some

may argue, however, that this information and statistics cannot be accurately compared.

Although students with disabilities appear to not have a noticeable effect on California’s AYP,

California out of all five states analyzed reports the lowest percentage of students represented in

the subgroup as well as the lowest percentage of schools reporting AYP for that subgroup, thus

the information can be deceiving. While California appears to show improvement, the data may

be skewed.

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

complications with these assessment options. “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 (LEA). [Additionally], it was evident from our interviews that

policy regarding standard and nonstandard accommodations vary greatly from state to state”
 No Child Left Behind 6

(National Council on Disability [NCD], 2008). Once again, it is difficult to judge how well

students are being assessed or not since it is impossible to compare data between students and

states.

National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) is generally referred to as the

“nation’s report card”, and it is a statistically significant test that is conducted in all states.

Originally, NAEP was not intended to be used as a diagnostic instrument. However, it provides

average measures of student achievement across the country. While NAEP has limitations, as do

all assessments, it 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). While

that may still appear to be a large number of students who are below achievement, it is

statistically different than the scores in 2000. However, NAEP scores do 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).

Perspectives and Positions

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
 No Child Left Behind 7

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 as “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 “sever 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’s receiving of special education services. 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).

Although the changes made in identifying students with disabilities may be helpful in

offering each student the best education possible, it also skews the nation’s data regarding

achievement and AYP. Due to the changes made, there is a large 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.

Furthermore, up 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
 No Child Left Behind 8

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.

In my opinion, 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 demographic background, geographic location, or

the need for special accommodations. Alternate assessments, even as simple as general state

assessments with appropriate accommodations such as an extended test time, are sometimes

necessary in order for students with disabilities to properly express what they have learned.

Additionally, in some cases, students with disabilities will never be able to meet the state

requirements asking each student to be proficient at their grade level. Personally, I believe

progression rather than simple evaluation of proficiency is a better scale on how students with

disabilities are learning. If a student enters the 4th grade with the reading comprehension of a 1st

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 3rd grade reading level, they will not be able to pass a general state
 No Child Left Behind 9

assessment, yet they have learned so much throughout the year. Their reading comprehension

has increased by two grade levels. I believe that this is a better measurement of how students are

learning rather than where they stand relative to other students.

Furthermore, it is difficult to determine what state requirements should be. Each

individual student produces different results on state assessments. While majority of students

will fall in the middle, creating the average and in turn producing the state expectations, there

will always be students who fall both above and below these expectations. There are so many

factors that affect a student’s education, thus their education along with each individual school

should not be evaluated simply by the result of one simple state assessment.
 No Child Left Behind 10

References

The Aspen Institute Commission on No Child Left Behind. (2006). Children with disabilities

and LEP students: Their impact on the AYP determinations of schools. Washington DC:

U.S. Government Printing Office.

Cortiella, C. (2007). Rewards & roadblocks: How special education students are faring under No

Child Left Behind. National Center for Learning Disabilities, 1-26. Retrieved October

14, 2009, 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-specific-

learning-disabilities.gs?content=943&page=all

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.

Tulenko, J. D. (Executive Producer). (2007, August 14). The NewsHour [Television broadcast].

New York: Learning Matters, Inc.

Tulenko, J. D. (Executive Producer). (2007, August 16). The NewsHour [Television broadcast].

New York: Learning Matters, Inch.

 No Child Left Behind 11

U.S. Department of Education. (2007). Measuring the achievement of students with disabilities.

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.