Functionalism, Conflict, and Interactionism
The “No Child Left Behind” Act
The Effects of “No Child Left Behind” on Special Education and General Education Collaboration & Outcomes: A Qualitative Study
The “No Child Left Behind” Act
The Effects of “No Child Left Behind” on Special Education and General Education Collaboration & Outcomes: A Qualitative Study
Introduction
The primary aim of this research paper will be to determine how NCLB program impacts special education students, general collaboration and educational outcomes. NCLB was introduced by the Bush Administration in 2001 with the intent of improving the performance of sub groups and special populations in educational institutions across the nation. It is a revision of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and considered by many a “potent blend of new requirements, incentives, and resources” that poses a “significant challenge for states” (ECS, 2004).
The act basically sets deadlines that require states to expand the “scope and frequency of student testing, revamped accountability systems” and guarantee that teachers are qualified to instruct students in the subject areas they teach in (ECS, 2004). On paper the act seems like it would benefit educational institutions tremendously. NCLB also requires that states make “demonstrable progress” in the arena of standardized testing, and asks educators to ensure that a certain percentage of students are proficient in key areas including reading and math (ECS, 2004).
With regard to special education students and other sub-groups, the intent of the act is to narrow the gap that currently exists in many schools between disadvantaged students and advantaged students (ECS, 2004).
Despite the good intentions of the law there is a lot of controversy surrounding the act, particularly with regard to its efficacy and impact on special education students and members of other subgroups. Many schools are also struggling to simply comply with the basic requirements of the act, given the short amount
The Effects of “No Child Left Behind” on Special Education and General Education Collaboration & Outcomes: A Qualitative Study
The “No Child Left Behind” Act
The Effects of “No Child Left Behind” on Special Education and General Education Collaboration & Outcomes: A Qualitative Study
Introduction
The primary aim of this research paper will be to determine how NCLB program impacts special education students, general collaboration and educational outcomes. NCLB was introduced by the Bush Administration in 2001 with the intent of improving the performance of sub groups and special populations in educational institutions across the nation. It is a revision of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and considered by many a “potent blend of new requirements, incentives, and resources” that poses a “significant challenge for states” (ECS, 2004).
The act basically sets deadlines that require states to expand the “scope and frequency of student testing, revamped accountability systems” and guarantee that teachers are qualified to instruct students in the subject areas they teach in (ECS, 2004). On paper the act seems like it would benefit educational institutions tremendously. NCLB also requires that states make “demonstrable progress” in the arena of standardized testing, and asks educators to ensure that a certain percentage of students are proficient in key areas including reading and math (ECS, 2004).
With regard to special education students and other sub-groups, the intent of the act is to narrow the gap that currently exists in many schools between disadvantaged students and advantaged students (ECS, 2004).
Despite the good intentions of the law there is a lot of controversy surrounding the act, particularly with regard to its efficacy and impact on special education students and members of other subgroups. Many schools are also struggling to simply comply with the basic requirements of the act, given the short amount
Bibliography: Bailey, D. B. (2000). “The federal role in early intervention: Prospects for the future.” Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 20, 71. Bainbridge, M. D.T. (2002). “No child left behind: Facts and fallacies” Phi Delta Kappan, 83, 781. Donlevy, J. (2003). “Teachers, technology and training: No child left behind failing schools and future directions.” International Journal of Instructional Media, 30, Donlevy, J. (2002). “Teachers, technology and training: No child left behind in search of equity for all children.” International Journal of Instructional Media, 29,257. ECS. (October 2004). “ECS: No child left behind.” Education Commission of the States. Lewis, A. C. (2002). “Washington commentary – the will to leave no child behind.” Phi Delta Kappan, 83, 343. Lewis, A.C. (2003). “Washington commentary: A horse called NCLB.” Phi Delta Kappan, 84,179. N.A. (2003). “No child left behind the impact on social studies classrooms.” Social Education, 67, 291. Schrag, P. (2004). “Bush’s education fraud: The no child left behind act is self defeating, confusing and under funded.” The American Prospect, 15, 38. Young, S. (2003). “The challenges of NCLB: Some requirements of the no child left behind act are causing more chaos than cures and driving teachers, parents and administrators mad.” State Legislates, 29, 24.