Special education subgroups under NCLB: Issues to consider

Teachers College Record

Volumn 111, Issue 11, 2009, Pages 2479-2504

  Eckes, Suzanne E ^a   Swando, Julie ^a  

^a INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 73949094894     PISSN: 01614681     EISSN: 14679620     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Board of Education v. Spellings, 517 F.3d 322 (7th Cir. 2008).
2. Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982).
3. Board of Ottawa Township High School v. U.S. Department of Education, Case No. 05 C 0655, Motion to Dismiss (2005).
4. Board of Ottawa Township High School District v. U.S. Department of Education, Case No. 05 C 0655, Plaintiffs' Reply Brief in Support of Their Motion for Summary Judgment (2006).
5. Board of Ottawa Township High School District 140 v. U.S. Department of Education, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24057 (N.D. III. 2007).
6. Bracey, G. (2003). The 13th Bracey report on the condition of public education. Phi Delia Kappan, 85(2), 148.
7. California Department of Education. (2006). Fact Book 2006: Handbook of Education Information. Retrieved April 10, 2006, from http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/pn/fb/documents/factbook2006.pdf82 Corpus Juris Secundum Statutes Sec. 354 (2007).
8. Feller, V., & Bass, F. (2006, April 18). Congress leaders to probe No Child scoring [Electronic version]. Associated Press. Retrieved August 10, 2006, from http://www.political-news.org/breaking/25267/congress-leaders-to- probe-no-child-scoring.html
9. Fiore, T., Harwell, L., Blackorby, J., & Finnigan, K. (2000). Charter schools and students with disabilities: A national study. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
10. Frazor, E. (2006). No Child Left Behind in need of a new IDEA: A flexible approach to alternate assessment requirements. Golden Gate University Law Review, 36(2), 157-184.
11. Freudenberg, S. (2006, April 17). 2 million scores ignored in "No Child" loophole. [Electronic version]. Associated Press. Retrieved from August 10, 2006, from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12357165/from/RSS/
12. Gordon, S. (2006). Making sense of the inclusion debate under IDEA. Brigham Young University Law Review, 2006, 189-225.
13. Hagar, K. D., & Slocum, X A. (2005). Using alternate assessment to improve educational outcomes. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 24(1), 54-59.
14. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. (2004).
15. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 200 et seq. (2006).
16. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Senate Report, 108-185 (2003).
17. Keele, C. (2004). Is the No Child Left Behind Act the right answer for children with disabilities? UMKC Law Review, 72, 1111-1136.
18. Kibbler, A. (2006, September 26). Special standards: ISTEP for special ed students - unfair or a guarantee they won't be overlooked. The Herald-Times [Bloomington, IN], D1.
19. Kossar, K., Mitchem, K., & Ludlow. B. (2005). NCLB: A national study of its impact on special education and rural schools. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 24(1), 3-8.
20. Long, J. S. 1997. Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
21. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992).
22. McLaughlin, M. J., Embler, S., & Nagle, K. (2004). Students with disabilities and accountability: The promise and the realities. Should there be alternatives? Washington DC: Report for the Center on Education Policy.
23. Moores, D. (2005). The NCLB Act and IDEA: The uneven impact of partially funded federal mandates on education of deaf and hard of hearing children. American Annals of the Deaf, 150(2), 75-80.
24. National Association of Homebuilders v. Defenders of Wildlife, 2007 U.S. LEXIS 8312 (2007).
25. National Center for Learning Disabilities. (n.d.). No Child Left Behind and students with learning disabilities. Retrieved August 30, 2006, from National Center for Learning Disabilities Web site: http://www.ncld.org/
26. National Education Association. (2005, December). Department of Education to allow improved special education tests. Retrieved March 25, 2006, from http://www.nea.org/esea/specialedrules1205.html
27. National School Boards Association. (2006, August). Federal regulations: IDEA. Retrieved August 9, 2006, from http://www.nsba.org/
28. Neill, M., Guisbond, L., & Schaeffer, B. (2004). Failing our children: How No Child Left Behind undermines quality and equity in education. Retrieved April 10, 2006, from the National Center for Fair and Open Testing Web site: http://www.fairtest.org/Failing-Our-Children-Report.html
29. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 et seq. (2002).
30. Olson, L. (2004). Count me in: Special education in an era of standards. Enveloping expectations. Education Week, 23(17), 8-20.
31. Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman, 45 U.S. 1 (1981).
32. Pew Charitable Trust. (2004). States strive to include students with disabilities in testing and accountability systems, but huge achievement gaps remain. Quality Counts 2004. Education Week, 23(17), 7.
33. Plain, M. (2004). Results above rights? The No Child Left Behind Act's insidious effect on students with disabilities. Roger Williams University Law Review, 10(1), 249-278.
34. Purcell, L., East, B., & Rude, H. (2005). Administrative perspectives on the No Child Left Behind Act for students with disabilities in rural settings. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 24, 27-31.
35. Rentschler, T. (2006). No Child Left Behind: Admirable goals, disastrous outcomes. Widener Law Review, 12, 637-663.
36. Rosenbaum, S. (2004). Aligning or maligning? Getting inside a new IDEA, Getting behind No Child Left Behind and getting outside of it all. Hasting Women's Law Journal, 15(1), 1-38.
37. Schemo, D.J. (2004, August 30). School achievement reports often exclude the disabled. New York Times. Retrieved October 1, 2006, from http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res= 9D03E7D71F3EF933A0575BC0A9629C8B63
38. Shindel, C. (2004). One standard fits all? Defining achievement standards for students with cognitive disabilities within the No Child Left Behind Acts Standardized Framework. Journal of Law and Policy, 12, 1025-1088.
39. Snell, L. (2004, March 1). Accountability looms for special education. School Reform News. Retrieved April 8, 2006, from http://www.reason.org/ commentaries/snell-20040301.shtml
40. Thurlow, M. (2004). NCLB and the inclusion of students with disabilities in the accountability and assessment systems. The Beacon. Retrieved June 15, 2007, from http://www.harborhouselaw.com/articles/highstakes.nclb.inclusion. thurow.htm
41. Townsend, N. (2007). Framing a ceiling as a floor: The changing definition of learning disabilities and the conflicting trends in legislation affecting learning disabled students. Creighton Law Review, 40(1), 229-270.
42. U.S. Department of Education. (2005, December). To raise achievement of students with disabilities, greater flexibility available for states, schools. Retrieved March 25, 2006, from http://www.ed.gov/news/ pressreleases/2005/12/12142005a.html
43. U.S. Department of Education. (2006, January). Assessing students with disabilities: IDEA and NCLB working together. Retrieved March 25, 2006, from http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/speced/toolkit/index.html
44. Winerip, M. (2006, January 11). Bitter lesson: A good school gets an T." The New York Times. Retrieved February 8, 2006, from http://www.schneiderman.org/show.php?page=news&id=354&PHPSESSID= 3d82dc63a35bc733b808225ba82ccdd5
45. Yell, M. (2006). The law and special education. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
46. Yell, M., Katsiyannas, A., & Shiner, J. (2006). The No Child Left Behind Act, adequate yearly progress, and students with disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38(4), 32-39.