Students with disabilities and accountability reform: Challenges identified at the state and local levels

Journal of Disability Policy Studies

Volumn 17, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 28-39

  Nagle, Katherine ^a   Yunker, Carolyn ^a   Malmgren, Kimber W ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33750162078     PISSN: 10442073     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/10442073060170010301     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Ahearn, E. M. (1992). Analysis of state compliance monitoring practices (Project FORUM. ED352781).
2. Bogdan, R., & Bilden, S. K. (1992). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
3. Cohen, M. (2002, February). Implementing Title I standards, assessments, and accountability: Lessons from the past, challenges for the future. Paper presented for a conference sponsored by the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation. Retrieved February 27, 2003 from http://www.edexcellence.net/NCLBconference/ NCLBreport.pdf
4. Denzin, N. K. (1983). Interpretive interactionism. In G. Morgan (Ed.), Beyond method: Strategies for social research (pp. 129-146). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
5. Eisenhardt, K. M. (2002). Building theories from case study research. In A. M. Huberman & M. B. Miles (Eds.), The qualitative researcher's companion (pp. 5-36). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
6. Eisenhardt, K. M., & Bourgeois, L. J. (1988). Politics of strategic decision making in high velocity environments: Toward a mid-range theory. Academy of Management Journal. Academy of Management, 31, 737-770.
7. Fletcher, M. A. (2003, January 2). States worry new law sets schools up to fail. The Washington Post, p. A01.
8. Geertz, C. (1973). Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. In C. Geertz (Ed.), The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays (pp. 3-30). New York: Basic Books.
9. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies of qualitative research. London: Wiedenfeld and Nicholson.
10. Goldhaber, D. (2002, February). What might go wrong with the accountability measures of the "No Child Left Behind Act." Paper presented for a conference sponsored by the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation. Retrieved February 27, 2003, from http://www.edexcellence.net/NCLBconference/ NCLBreport.pdf
11. Goertz, M. E., Duffy, M. C., & Le Floch, K. C. (2003). Assessment and Accountability Systems in the 50 States: 1999-2000. CPRE Research Report Series RR-046, Consortium for Policy Research in Education [CPRE], University of Pennsylvania, Graduate School of Education, March 2001. Retrieved February 26th, 2003, from www.gse.upenn.edu/cpre/Publications/rr46.pdf
12. Cuba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1981). Effective evaluation: Improving the effectiveness of evaluation results through responsive and naturalistic approaches. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
13. Heubert, J. P., & Hauser, R. M. (Eds). (1999). High stakes: Testing for tracking, promotion and graduation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
14. IDEA Amendments of 1997, 20 U. S. G. § 1401 (26).
15. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
16. Linn, R. L. (2000). Assessment and accountability. Educational Researcher, 29(2), 4-16.
17. Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1999). Designing qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
18. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
19. Olson,L. (2002, April 3). Inadequate yearly gains are predicted. Education Week. Retrieved February 27, 2003, from http: www.edweek.org/ew/ newstory
20. Pettigrew, A. (1983). On studying organizational cultures. In J. Van Maanan (Ed.), Qualitative methodology (pp. 87-104). Beverly Hill, CA: Sage.
21. Qualis Research Associates. (1998). Ethnograph (V.5.07) [Computer software]. Colorado Springs, CO.
22. Ragin, C. C. (1987). The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative research strategies. Berkeley: University of California Press.
23. Sebba, J., Thurlow, M. L., & Goertz, M. (2000). Educational accountability and students with disabilities in the United States, and England and Wales. In M. J. McLaughlin & M. Rouse (Eds.), Special education and school reform in the United States and Britain. (pp.98-126). London: Routledge.
24. Thurlow, M. L., Nelson, J. R., Teelucksingh, E., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (2000). Where's Waldo? A third search for students with disabilities in state accountability reports (Tech. Rep. 25). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
25. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, P.L. 107-110, 115 stat. 1425 (200).
26. U.S. Department of Education. (2002). Title 1 Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged, Final Regulations, 34 CFR Part 200. Retrieved, December 12, 2002, from http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/finrule/2002- 4/120202a.pdf
27. Van Maanen, J. (1988). Tales of the field: On writing ethnography. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
28. Wenning, R. J., Herdman, P. A., & Smith, N. (2002, February). No child left behind: Who is included in new federal requirements? Paper presented for a conference sponsored by the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation. Retrieved February 27, 2003, from http://www.edexcellence.net/NCLBconference/NCLBreport. pdf
29. Yin, R. (1984). Case study research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.