Individuals with disabilities education improvement act of 2004 and IDEA regulations of 2006: Implications for educators, administrators, and teacher trainers

Focus on Exceptional Children

Volumn 39, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 1-24

  Yell, Mitchell L ^a   Shriner, James G ^b   Katsiyannis, Antonis ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

^c CLEMSON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84940363596     PISSN: 0015511X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.17161/foec.v39i1.6824     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Browder, D., Karvonen, M., Davis, S., & Fallin, K. (2005). The impact of teacher training on state alternate assessment scores. Exceptional Children, 71(3), 267-282.
2. Carnine, D. (2000). Why education experts resist effective practices and what it would take to make education more like medicine. Retrieved March 11, 2006, from http://www.edexcellence.net/foun dation/global/found.cfm?author= 72&keyword=&submit=search
3. Christenson, S. L., Hurley, C., & Evelo, D. (1998). Dropout prevention for high-risk youth with disabilities: Efficacy of a sustained school engagement procedure. Exceptional Children, 65, 7-21.
4. Deno, S. L. (1992). The nature and development of curriculum-based measurement. Preventing School Failure, 36(2), 5-10.
5. Dunn, C., Chambers, D., & Rabren, K. (2004). Variables affecting students' decisions to drop out of school. Remedial and Special Education 25(5), 314-324.
6. Finn, C. E., Rotherham, A. J., & Hokanson, C. R. (Eds.) (2001). Conclusions and principles of reform. In C. E. Finn, A. J. Rotherham, & C. R. Hokanson (Eds.), Rethinking special education for a new century (335-347). Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Institute. Retrieved March 7, 2005, from http://www.ppionline.org/ ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=110&subsecID= 181&ontented=3344
7. Gong, B., & Marion, S. (2006). Dealing with flexibility in assessments for students with significant cognitive disabilities. National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment, Inc. Retrieved April 25, 2006, from www.naacpartners.org/Products/Files/Gong %20& %20Marion%20assessment%20flexibility_041306.pdf
8. Greene, G. (2003). Transition pathways. In G. Greene & C. A. Kochhar-Bryant, Pathways to successful transition for youth with disabilities (pp. 198-229). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
9. Hassel, B. C., & Wolf, P. J. (2001). Effectiveness and accountability (Part 2): Alternatives to the compliance model. In C. E. Finn, A. J. Rotherham, & C. R. Hokanson (Eds.), Rethinking Special Education for a New Century (309-333). Washington, DC: Thomas Fordham Foundation. Retrieved March 7, 2005, from http://www. ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID= 110&subsecID=181& ontented=3344
10. H.R. Rep. No. 77 108th Cong., 1st Sess. (2003). Improving Educational Results for Children with Disabilities Act of 2003.
11. Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, H.R. 1350, 108th Congress (2004).
12. Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act Regulations (August 3, 2006). Downloaded on August 3, 2006, from http://www.ed.gov/policy/ speced/guid/idea/idea2004.html
13. Kleinert, H., & Kearns, J. (2004). Alternate assessments. In F. Orelove, D. Sobsey, & R. Silberman (Eds.), Educating children with multiple disabilities: A collaborative approach (4th ed.) (pp. 115-149). Baltimore: Paul Brookes.
14. Kortering, L. J., & Braziel, P. M. (1998). School dropout among youth with and without learning disabilities. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 34, 61-72.
15. Maag, J. W., & Katsiyannis, A. (2003). Practical considerations for selecting educational methodologies. Principal Leadership, 4(2), 35-38.
16. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. 70 Section 6301 et seq.
17. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 Regulations, 34 CFR Part 200. Retrieved March 21, 2005, from http://www.ed.gov/legislation/ FedRegister/finrule/2003-4/ 120903a.html
18. Pullin, D. (2005). When one size does not fit all: The special challenges of accountability testing for students with disabilities. In E. Haertel & J. Herman (Eds.), Annual Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. 104(1), pp. 199-222.
19. Rouse, M., Shriner, J., & Danielson, L. (2000). National assessment and special education in the United States and England and Wales. In M. McLaughlin & M. Rouse (Eds.), Special education and school reform in the United States & Britain (pp. 66-97). London: Routledge.
20. Scanlon, D., & Mellard, D. F. (2002). Academic and participation profiles of school-age dropouts with and without disabilities. Exceptional Children, 68(2), 239-258.
21. Sireci, S. G., Scarpati, S. E., & Li, S. (2005). Test accommodations for students with disabilities: An analysis of the interaction hypothesis. Review of Educational Research, 75, 457-490.
22. Sugai, G., & Horner, R. H. (2004). The evolution of discipline practices: School-wide behavior supports. Child and Family Behavior Therapy, 24, 23-50.
23. Thurlow, M. L. (2006, March). Accommodations in state policies: What a wonderful world of diversity. Presentation at Educational Testing Service Conference on Accommodation of Students with Disabilities on State Assessments, Savannah, GA.
24. Thurlow, M. L., Sinclair, M. F., & Johnson, D. R. (2002). Students with disabilities who drop out of school - Implications for policy and practice. Issue Brief, 1(2), 1-7.
25. Tindal, G. (2006, March). Accommodations research: Reconsidering the test accommodation validation process. Presentation at Educational Testing Service Conference on Accommodation of Students with Disabilities on State Assessments, Savannah, GA.
26. Title I - Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged; Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) - Assistance to States for the Education of Children with Disabilities; Proposed Rule, 70 Fed Reg. 74624 (2005) (34 C.F.R. § 200 and 300).
27. U.S. Department of Education. (2002). A new era: Revitalizing special education for children and their families. Washington, DC: President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education. Retrieved March 21, 2005, from http://www.ed.gov/inits/commissions boards/whspecialeducation/reports/index.html
28. U.S. Department of Education. (2005a, August 9). Alternate achievement standards for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities: Non-regulatory guidance. Retrieved on August 22, 2006, from http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/saa.html#guidance
29. U.S. Department of Education. (2005b). Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) data. Retrieved March 21, 2005, from http://www.ideadata.org/PartBReport.asp
30. Whitehurst, G. J. (2002). Evidence-based education. Retrieved September 10, 2001, from http://www.ed.gov/nclb/methods/what works/eb/evidencebased.pdf
31. Yell, M. L., & Drasgow, E. (2005). No Child Left Behind: A guide for professionals. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill/Prentice Hall.
32. Yell, M. L., Drasgow, E., & Lowrey, K. A. (2005). No Child Left Behind and students with autism spectrum disorders. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disorders, 20, 130-139.
33. Yell, M. L., & Shriner, J. G. (1997). The IDEA Amendments of 1997: Implications for special and general education teachers, administrators, and teacher trainers. Focus on Exceptional Children, 30(1), 1-20.
34. Yell, M. L., & Stecker, P. M. (2003). Developing legally correct and educationally meaningful IEPs using curriculum-based measurement. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 28, 73-88.