Analysis of NCLB and IDEA 2004 - Research Paper Example

Schools that fail to meet the AYP objectives for two or more years are categorized as the institutions “in need of improvement”. Schools under this category may face various consequences (Thomas, Brian, J., Caroline, & Helen, 2010). The NCLB plan demands states to base tests on academic standards and start examining students in Math and reading in grades 3 through 8, on an annually basis. Furthermore, students should receive such tests at least once in grades 10 through 12. The most recent guideline recommends 100% proficiency in Mathematics and reading.

NCLB argues that each child must test on grade level in Math and reading. Furthermore, NCLB authorizes school districts to hire educators designated as “highly qualified” to teach major academic subjects in Title 1 plan. Lastly, the accountability section demands states to describe their strategies for closing the achievement gap and ensuring that all students including the disadvantaged ones attain academic proficiency (Beekman, 2009). IDEA 2004 targets building equity, responsibility and excellence in education for individuals with disabilities.

The plan demands special education teachers to be highly qualified. Furthermore, the plan guides that all students with disabilities should participate in state or district testing in alternate examination (Beekman, 2009). IDEA also states that short-term goals and standards with the exception of the category under alternate assessment should be placed in a temporary alternative setting for involvement in violence, weapons and drugs. In summary, IDEA guides that administrators and policy makers should run customized systems that accord special attention to students with disabilities.

The NCLB and IDEA provisions generate a serious controversy because they involve various sensitive aspects. Some scholars believe that the provisions provided by these plans are important for developing better education systems. However, critical observations argue that some provisions are vague and unattainable. For example, critics emphasize that the idea of 100% participation is unachievable because of the challenges associated with the disabled students. Furthermore, the idea of hiring “highly qualified” teachers may be unrealistic because students’ performance is not entirely dependent on teacher’s competence (McCaffrey, 2004).

NCLB and IDEA provisions are likely to affect my activities in the classroom. This is because; my actions must fall within the provisions’ guidelines. It is apparent that as a special education teacher, I have a major duty of ensuring successful implementation of NCLB and IDEA proposals. Often, attaining the plans’ objectives may be challenging because of the great gap between regular students and students with disabilities. However, being a special education teacher, I must devise strategies for handling all controversial concerns within my classroom (Thomas, Brian, J.

, Caroline, & Helen, 2010). Initially, NCLB and IDEA provisions oblige me into presenting high degrees of professionalism and competence when handling my students. This highlights that with the presence of the plans’ guidelines, the special education teacher career is likely to be a sensitive duty. For example, a provision of the NCBL plan emphasizes the need of hiring “highly qualified” teachers. This means that I should present commitment towards conforming to the standards of the