Federal policy and the education of students with disabilities: Progress and the path forward

Focus on Exceptional Children

Volumn 41, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 1-16

  West, Jane E ^a   Whitby, Peggy J Schaefer ^b  

^a American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84940363644     PISSN: 0015511X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.17161/foec.v41i3.6864     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
2. Chubbs, J. E., (Ed.) (2005). Within our reach: How America can educate every child: An assessment by the Hoover Institution's task force on K-12 education. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
3. Cole, C. (2006). Closing the achievement gap series: Part III What is the impact of NCLB on the inclusion of students with disabilities. Education Policy Brief, Center for Evaluation and Education Policy, 4(11).
4. Commission on No Child Left Behind (2006). Children with disabilities and LEP students: Their impact on the AYP determinations of schools. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute.
5. Commission on No Child Left Behind (2007). Beyond NCLBA: Fulfilling the promise to our nation's children. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute.
6. Cortiella, C. (2007). Rewards & roadblocks: How special education students are faring under No Child Left Behind. New York: National Center for Learning Disabilities.
7. Dunn, J. (2008). Investigating the academic achievement of persistently low performing students. (Powerpoint presented to the Council of Chief State School Officers) Atlanta: Georgia Department of Education.
8. Dymond, S. K., Renzaglia, A., Gilson, C. L. & Slagor, M. T. (2007). Defining access to the general curriculum for high school students with significant cognitive disabilities. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 52(10), 1-15.
9. Education for all Handicapped Children Act of 1975, 20 U.S.C. section 1401 et seq.
10. Finn, C, Rotherham, A., & Hokanson, C. (2001). Rethinking learning disabilities, Rethinking special education for a new century. Washington, DC: PPI & The Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.
11. Florian, L. (2007) Reimagining special education. In L. Florain (ed.), The Sage handbook of special education. London: Sage.
12. HB 05-1246 Study Committee (December 31, 2005). Assessing students in the gap in Colorado. Denver: Colorado Department of Education.
13. Hendrick Hudson Central School District Board of Education v. Rowley (1982). Washington, DC: U.S. Supreme Court.
14. Hardman, M. L. & Dawson, S. (2008, Winter). The impact of federal public policy on curriculum and instruction for students with disabilities in the general classroom. Preventing School Failure, 52(2).
15. Individuals With Disabilities Education Act of 1990, 20 U.S.C. section 1401 et seq.
16. Individuals With Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, 105th Congress, 1st session.
17. Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, RL. 108-446 601 et seq., 118 Stat.2647.
18. Johnson, S. F. (2003) Reexamining Rowley: A new focus in special education law. Retrieved December 15, 2008, from www.harborhouselaw.com
19. Malmgren, K. W., McLaughlin, M. L., & Nolet, V. (2005). Accounting for the performance of students with disabilities on statewide assessments. The Journal of Special Education, 39(2), 89-96.
20. Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia, 348 F. Supp.866 (D.D.C. 1972).
21. Nagle, K., Yunker, C, & Malmgren K. W. (2006). Students with disabilities and accountability reform. Journal of Disability and Policy Studies, 17(1), 28-39.
22. National Center for Learning Disabilities (NCLD). (2008). Why students with learning disabilities need NCLB. New York: Author. Retrieved December 15, 2008, from http://www.ncld.org/content/ view/287/456023/
23. National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality and Public Agenda. (2008). Lessons learned: New teachers talk about their jobs, challenges and long-range plans. Washington, DC: Learning Point Associates.
24. National Council on Disability (NCD). (2008). The No Child Left Behind Act and the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act: A Progress Report. Washington, DC: Author.
25. No Child Left Behind Act, 20 U.S.C. 6301 et. seq. (2002). PL 107-110.
26. Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Citizens (PARC) v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 343 F. Supp. 279 (E.D. Pa. 1972)
27. Planty, M., Hussar, W., Snyder, T, Provasnik, S., Kena, G., Kena, G., et al. (2008). The condition of education 2008 (NCES 2008-031). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
28. President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education (2002). A new era: Revitalizing special education for children and their families. Washington, DC: Author.
29. Rabinowitz, S., Sato, E., Case, B. J., Benitex, D., & Jordon, K. (2008). Alternate assessment for special education students in the southwest region states, (Issues and Answers Report, REL 2008-No.044). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest. Retrieved July 14, 2009, from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/ edlabs
30. Swanson, C. B. (2008). Special education in America: The state of students with disabilities in America's high schools. Bethesda, MD: Editorial Projects in Educational Research.
31. Thompson, S. J., Johnstone, C. J., Thurlow, M. L., & Altman, J. R. (2005). 2005 State special education outcomes: Steps forward in a decade of change. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
32. Twenty Sixth Annual Report to Congress on Students With Disabilities. (2004). Washington, DC: United States Department of Education.
33. U.S. Department of Education. (2004). No Child Left Behind provision gives schools new flexibility and ensures accountability for students with disabilities, USDOE SPED fact sheet. Retrieved December 1, 2009, from http://www.ed.gov/nclb/freedom/local/ specedfactsheet.html
34. U. S. Department of Education. (2008a). Budget summary: Special education and rehabilitation services, Section II. B. Overview. Retrieved January 4, 2009, from http://www.ed.gov/about/over view/budget/budget08/summary/edlite- section2b.html#overview
35. U.S. Department of Education. (2008b). Progress by our schools and the U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: Author.
36. U.S. Department of Education. (January 8, 2009). Letters to chief state school officers regarding an update on several NCLB cornerstones. State status chart. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved January 8, 2009, from http:/www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/corner stones/index.html
37. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2007). The Condition of Education 2007 (NCES 2007-064), Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
38. U.S. House of Representatives. (2007). Discussion draft of Title 1 of NCLB. Washington, DC: Committee on Education and Labor, U.S. House of Representatives.
39. VanGetson, G. R., & Thurlow, M.L . (2007). Nearing the target in disaggregated subgroup reporting to the public on 2004-2005 assessment results (Technical Report 46). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
40. Washington Department of Education. (2003). Washington state proposal to ensure successful implementation of No Child Left Behind. Olympia: Author.
41. West, J. (2005). An opportunity slipping away. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, November, 677-678.
42. Wright, P. (2007). IDEA report cards: Did your state pass or fail? Wrightslaw. Retrieved on Jan 5, 2009 at http://www.wrightslaw. com/news/07/idea.report.cards.htm
43. Yell, M. L., Drasgow, E., & Lowery, K. A. (2005). No Child Left Behind and students with autism spectrum disorders. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 20(3) 259-267.
44. Yell, M. L., Katsiyannas, A., & Shiner, J. G. (2006). The No Child Left Behind Act, adequate yearly progress, and students with disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38(4), 32-39.