No Child Left Behind and the Effects on Children with Special Needs - Research Proposal Example

?NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND AND THE EFFECTS ON CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL NEEDS  No Child Left Behind and the Effects on Children with Special Needs 25th November 2012 Abstract The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 is a significant evidence of bipartisan legislation devised to make the states more responsible in regards to federal funds that are allocated to these schools for their expenditure. The NCLB has had many implications that were not thought about when the bill was being hotly debated. This law has caused many challenges for those in the field of education and has been seen as an obstacle to equal children's education by many. The idea behind NCLB is plausible but it has dire impact on the children learning environment. Introduction Education has been at the centre for the United States national agenda for quite some time now. Since 1980’s the federal government has passed innumerable laws and twice reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act laced with standardized tests and advocated various kinds of innovations like charter schools and the National Board for Professional teaching Standards (Swenson, 2008). The No Child Left Behind Act of2001 was a significant step that illustrated an important portrayal of bipartisan legislation devised to make the states more responsible in regards to federal funds that were being dispensed by schools. NCLB has been in effect for more than eight years now since its legal conception in 2002. The various strategies employed to improve the level of education in the United States are greater stress on the areas of Reading and Mathematics, increased level of accountability, flexibility in the dispensing federal monies and providing greater choice and level of interaction to the parents of those children who were lacking behind in AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress). In order to increase the level of responsibility of schools standards tests are used in order to determine the fact that all the students are meeting the required standards. The result of these tests is also analyzed on the basis of sub-groups to ensure that all groups are achieving the set standards of education (No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 2008). As the scale for reaching the required standards have increased it has become more difficult to attain a suitable score from the state. No Child Left Behind makes it compulsory that the schools across the United should track the improvement and progress of all children with special education needs and students whose first language is not English. The Act advocates the schools to devise strategies so that such students attain similar score as their peers by the year 2014 (Harper, 2005). No Child Left behind Act advocates space and provisions for students with special education needs because not all children who are limited in English proficiency and have some kind of learning disability have the capability to take tests that are similar to those of other students in their standard. The allowances comprise of one-on-one testing periods, expanded test sessions, test booklets with large fonts, helping students to structure their answers and sign language translators (George & Margaret, 2007). The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) has advantages for the students with special needs or learning disabilities but it also includes certain barriers that might prevent these students from exercising all of the opportunities stated in the law (Cortiella, 2010). In the lieu of this paper we will be discussing the impact of NCLB on such students and assess its usefulness for children that require extra attention due to any kind of learning disability. This stipulation in the act helps the school administration; lawmakers, parents and the Education Department assess the improvement in the progress of students who are usually left behind in better academic attainment. NCLB with all its apparent advantages has initiated heated debates over the efficacy of standardized tests for the two groups that are the normal students and the students with special needs, and whether these tests are a sound indicator of their academic advancement or a mere waste of time and resources for students with special needs. The purpose of this research proposal is to assess the impact of NCLB on special education because students with special needs are usually the most susceptible when it comes to urban public schools. If special needs students are not getting suitable services because of the stipulations of the NCLB Act, than who is to be held responsible for these students not attaining their highest potential. The basic objective of the proposal is to focus on how government policy affects the programs and services employed for special needs students. The research proposal also aims to shed light on the necessity of focusing on special needs. Literature Review According to the review of literature on the topic, it has been highlighted that the NCLB Act has immensely affected students with special needs. The motivation that is provided for the low-performing students has decreased the level of expectations instead of increasing it. This is so because of the fact that the reaction of the law when the school fails to make adequate progress is not just providing extra help for students but also punishing the school. The NCLB law has set unrealistic goals like advocating that every child would test similarly on grade level in math and reading by the year 2014. According to various critics, achieving similar standard in mathematics and reading by 2014 is impossible. Joe Morton, the Alabama State Superintendent advocates that this goal is highly unrealistic and unlikely to be attained. Most of the literature on the subject maintains that the Act has not benefited many states. Some students just lack the capability to achieve in tests at the determined level for their age, regardless of the efficacy of the learning process. NCLB highlights the concept that one tool would act similarly for all. In the states that have high growth standards, most schools are punished for not increasing the below-average students’ achievement level like the students with learning disabilities. Such states ignore the fact that low-performing and disabled students need to be given special attention. They just make the common generalization that all students are the same and have a similar capabilities (John, 2010).NCLB fails to recognize the students as individuals, instead it sees the students as one collective group which is problematic as all students differ in strengths and qualities. Thus it fails to cater the students with special needs (Kurt, 2007). NCLB frequently uses ALL which only refers to ninety five percent of students. This is so because the states are required to provide information on assessment results of ninety five percent of students during the calculation of the scores for AYP. Students with Individual Education Plan have to be provided accommodations as dictated in the course of assessment. In scenarios where the character of assessment is not changed by the provisions, the scores of those students are counted in a similar way to those of other normal students. This shows that students are not exempted from evaluation by being considered to have special education needs. Usually a similar test is given to both the normal and disabled students. Therefore, it can be said that the NCLB fails to provide special services to low-performing and disabled students (Ken, 2006). NCLB aims at reducing racial and class discrepancies in academic performance through establishing common expectation for all students. The Act also requires that the schools to pay consideration to academic performance of the underprivileged students; students with special requirements, students from low income groups as well as students of different ethnicities. Conventional systems that were employed by the states considered only the mean school performance. This allowed the schools to be rated highly even in cases where there ware broad achievement discrepancies between underprivileged and privileged students (George & Margaret, 2007). Another interesting theme that is highlighted in the existing literature is the effect of NCLB on gifted students. The Act forces the schools to make sure that every student would meet the minimum skills needed in reading, writing and math. It states that nothing is required above the minimum levels set by the law. There is the lack of motivation and incentives required to improve the attainment of students above the set minimal level. Various schools either ignore or curtail programs that are unimportant in meeting the standard minimum skills (Science Daily, 2008). The NCLB Act does not initiate or makes accommodation for special programs for the gifted and high achieving students. Since last five years the federal funding for gifted education has gone down by thirty three percent (Wallis, 2008). Methodology Most of the data collected for this research is secondary. The evaluations that were mostly reviewed focused on one type of disability, for example severe cognitive disability or learning disability. This made the general applicability of the findings difficult. Most of the research which was carried out was based on elementary school level, rather than the secondary level. Many published studies identified evidence based practiced. However, it was disappointing to see how there was lack of empirical research present on these issues. The methodology was extraordinarily limited although many articles reported research results only. there is a possibility that more studies are available that provide higher levels of empirical soundness, but they are not easily searchable, identifiable or collectible or applicable. Apart from this we took material from a couple of online sites related to students with disabilities and special needs. As far as evidence based research is considered, most of it was from a professional journal or professional organizations. Recommendations The question that needs to be answered after all the data which has been collected is how can schools and individual teachers best serve gifted students and still meet the requirements of NCLB? To ensure the development of all students to their maximum ability, primarily the focus should be on encouraging, facilitating and monitoring individual growth. ‘Individual’ and ‘growth’ are the keywords here. This concept reminds us of the old one room schoolhouse. In this case, one teacher facilitates the instruction of each individual who belongs to a different age bracket, abilities and level of functioning. Suggestions have been given by various people to change NCLB. Susan Johansen has proposed to lift the ceiling on assessments use multiple assessments and held a requirement for teachers to meet the national standards. A better measurement of the student’s upper abilities can be obtained by lifting the ceiling on assessments. The Educators can estimate a more rounded view of a student’s potential in the fields of social and emotional. A more consistent level of teachers performance can be met if the teachers are required to meet the national standards. High performing students can know where they stand academically if the growth of individual student is measured in a given year, instead of testing to see if the minimum is reached. In this way where there will be an individualized tracking of students’ progress, it will be ensured that all students are learning. Individual student’s level of functioning can be calculated through the various computer accessed testing. Also, these tests have evolved to instant assessments. There are a series of questions. It begins with some basic questions. As the student is capable of answering the basic questions, the level of difficulty rises, hence, lifting the ceiling. The computer bank levels down with every incorrect answer of a student. This results in an accurate reading of a student’s ability. NCLB highlights the discrepancies in achievement between ethnic and low-income-sub groups and the general population. This is one of the positive outcomes of NCLB. The differences between these groups have also been highlighted in the gifted population. The excellence gaps by the schools can be improved if they actively seek out and develop high ability students from the ethnic minorities and low-income backgrounds. Special care should be taken about bias in testing and cultural differences. At times, a significant talent pool can be overlooked as a society. Extensive research in this area of acceleration shows that it is an effective and low cost educational intervention for students with high abilities. 18 types of accelerations have been identified. These include self paced instruction, early entrance to school, grade skipping, curriculum compacting and early college entrance. Dual credit programs, ability grouping, Advanced Placement (AP), and International Baccalaureate (IB) are some other posted suggestions for meeting the needs of the gifted students. It has been reported that the gifted students better matches with similar cognitive skills, rather than same age partners. Candidates are identified through the above grade level testing. It is suggested that a student should pace according to their own ability. Therefore, early kindergarten entry, skipping grades and curriculum compacting should be done accordingly. Administrators, educators and counselors often remain negative even though compelling evidence in favor of acceleration occurs. Acceleration may not be appropriate for all students therefore it should be considered on an individual basis. All appropriate options should be considered of before meeting the needs of the students. The role of Advanced Placement (AP) in educating intellectually gifted students was researched on by various theorists. On collecting and analyzing longitudinal data for about 30 years from around 4000 participants, they reached to a conclusion where they found that the AP courses were taken by the gifted students and they considered them as their favorite subjects. The intellectual students who had opted for these courses were then compared with their intellectual peers who did not opt for the AP courses. The students who had opted were seen to have achieved more, and more satisfied with the intellectual challenge as compared to their counterparts. A higher value on the academic and intellectual activities is placed by the students who take AP courses. However, their scores on the social and extra-curricular aspects of high school as compared to their peers doesn’t appears to be very attractive. The participants that were surveyed had to give responses in the form of ‘like’ or ‘dislike’. Participants who had more ‘likes’ were revealed as intellectual engagement, were seen to be associating with highly intelligent peers, taking math and language courses and ending up with academic success. However, the surveys that revealed ‘dislikes’ included, lack of intellectual engagement, slow paced instruction, unenthusiastic or controlling teachers , and lack of intelligent and motivated peers. Chubb argued that the students who are of higher abilities should be rewarded with financial rewards. Therefore, financial incentives should be fixed at proficiency levels. He also suggests that there should be use of ‘adaptive tests’ to track the progress of the students. These tests are designed to measure each student’s maximum level of performance. Questions are chosen from a bank of questions which are administered on the computer. Some of the recommendations for individual teachers included learning more about the educational needs of the gifted students, to take a course on gifted education, to collaborate with other teachers and parents to challenge students. They should also be trained in differentiating the curriculum to keep the high ability students engaged in learning. It is important for regular classroom teachers to learn how to better serve the gifted students. This could be done through taking classes on the characteristics learning styles of gifted students, or through in-services. It has been experienced that many teachers are skeptical about the fact that gifted children have different learning styles or special needs. Moreover, it is also seen that many of the classroom teachers are reluctant to collaborate with a gifted specialist. The concept of curriculum differentiation makes most of the teachers hesitant. However, with training, they can observe how the classroom can become a place for challenge, and learning at the same time at many stages. Gifted specialists should be embraced by classroom teachers as partners rather than competitors. The can actively seek for professional advice, assistance, ideas and collaboration from them. It should be realized that team work is imperative. It should involve students, parents, support staff, teachers, and administrators. Teacher and parents who have been gifted should advocate for their students (Boone, 2010). Furthermore, it was proposed that the federal government should intend to fund the mandates if they want to make them. This means if they expect the states to comply with the legislation, then the states should be given sufficient money to implement the mandates. If the government somehow fails to fund the states, then the funds has no obligation to comply with the mandates. Bibliography Boone, S.-K. R. (2010). The Effects of No Child Left Behind Policy on Gifted Education in the United States, Kansas and a Midwesteren Suburban School. Wichita. Cortiella, C. (2010, January). No Child Left Behind and Students With Learning Disabilities: Opportunities and Obstacles. Retrieved November 23, 2012, from greatschools.org: http://www.greatschools.org/special-education/legal-rights/856-NCLB-learning-disabilities-opportunities-and-obstacles.gs?page=all George, B., & Margaret, S. (2007). Evaluating No Child Left Behind. Future Survey , 16. Harper, L. (2005, August 21). No Child Left Behind's Impact on Specialized Education. Retrieved November 23, 2012, from pbs.org: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/indepth_coverage/education/no_child/impact.html John, T. (2010). Breathtaking Ignorance. American Conservative , 10. Ken, K. (2006). Federal Education Law & 21st-Century Skills. Education Week , 35. Kurt, E. (2007). Parents give thumbs down to No Child Left Behind. Mothering , 35. Science Daily. (2008, February 16). Negative Implications Of No Child Left Behind: As Graduation Rates Go Down, School Ratings Go Up. Retrieved November 24, 2012, from sciencedaily.com: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080214080530.htm Wallis, C. (2008, June 08). No Child Left Behind: Doomed to Fail? Retrieved November 24, 2012, from time.com: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1812758,00.html Read More