NCLB
In 2001, No Child Left Behind (NCLB) came into effect. It recognizes that all children can learn in some way and have the right to be taught (Maleyko & Gawlik, 2011). This law says that all students, including those in special education, are to be categorized as proficient in the subjects of math, reading, and science. Schools are expected to work toward getting 100% of their students to meet adequate yearly progress (AYP) (Gargiulo, 2010). Standardized state assessments measure how well the school and students are doing to meet their progress. The assessments will help translate into instructional accommodations that will coordinate special and general education so that all learners can be served (Gargiulo, 2010). The law is to ensure that all pupils are learning to the best of their ability.
Students need differentiated instruction and assessment to ensure increased achievement results. The aim of NCLB is to hold each state accountable in improving the quality of education all students are receiving and closing the achievement gaps. Because of the added responsibility, it is believed that students and schools will be more motivated to improve their education (Maleyko & Gawlik, 2011). With the main "...focus on academic outcomes and access to the general curriculum, there is increased pressure for accountability in the education of students with disabilities in general education classrooms. Therefore, collaboration between general and special educators is more important than ever, as is a need for a variety of assessment strategies to support and document improved outcomes for students" (Lingo, Barton-Arwood, & Jolivette, 2011, p. 6). Teachers are working together to promote enhanced student performance (Lingo, Barton-Arwood, & Jolivette, 2011).
To allow for the success of special education students, different types of achievement standards are described in NCLB. Alternate achievement is aligned with the state's content standards academically while promoting access to the general curriculum. This achievement is used for children with significant cognitive disabilities and there is not a huge overlap between alternate achievement and the student's grade level standards. Modified achievement is also aligned with academic content standards but it is not as rigorous in breadth or depth. The student can also earn a regular high school diploma and there is a big overlap with the standards at grade level. These two achievement standards do not replace the need for meaningful instruction for each student. "Neither alternate achievement standards nor modified achievement standards ignore the need for student-specific instruction that is not directly related to the academic content standards for general education..." (Yell, Shriner, & Katsiyannis, 2006, p. 7). The idea behind these two achievement standards is that the educational quality will be high and linked to academic content standards for the grade in which the student is enrolled (Yell, Shriner, & Katsiyannis, 2006).
No Child Left Behind does have its disadvantages when it comes to measuring achievement in schools. First, schools that are high performing rely on the social capital of their students. The children in these schools share more of the same values and behavioral norms. Schools depend on this capital to meet the requirements of NCLB. Schools can only control what goes on with the students in school; they cannot control society outside of this realm. "...schools cannot create other conditions in society where the students attend school with high levels of readiness, motivation, a high level of academic ability, and support from the home" (Maleyko & Gawlik, 2011, p. 612). Schools do not the social capital of their students.
Being held accountable for achievement is hindering the changing approach of education in the 21st century. "...the constructivist approach that supports the acquisition of the skills that are needed for students to become successful in the 21st century are in competition with the accountability provisions in NCLB that emphasize content based learning and the need to do well on a single measure" (Maleyko & Gawlik, 2011, p. 618). The curriculum is narrowed by the law and makes it hard for students to use higher order thinking, problem solving, and information processing skills that are needed in the 21st century (Maleyko & Gawlik, 2011). The importance of the results is thwarting the skills needed to thrive in the future. Student outcomes are weighted more than the process (Yell, Shriner, & Katsiyannis, 2006).
To learn more about No Child Left Behind click here.
IEP
Students need differentiated instruction and assessment to ensure increased achievement results. The aim of NCLB is to hold each state accountable in improving the quality of education all students are receiving and closing the achievement gaps. Because of the added responsibility, it is believed that students and schools will be more motivated to improve their education (Maleyko & Gawlik, 2011). With the main "...focus on academic outcomes and access to the general curriculum, there is increased pressure for accountability in the education of students with disabilities in general education classrooms. Therefore, collaboration between general and special educators is more important than ever, as is a need for a variety of assessment strategies to support and document improved outcomes for students" (Lingo, Barton-Arwood, & Jolivette, 2011, p. 6). Teachers are working together to promote enhanced student performance (Lingo, Barton-Arwood, & Jolivette, 2011).
To allow for the success of special education students, different types of achievement standards are described in NCLB. Alternate achievement is aligned with the state's content standards academically while promoting access to the general curriculum. This achievement is used for children with significant cognitive disabilities and there is not a huge overlap between alternate achievement and the student's grade level standards. Modified achievement is also aligned with academic content standards but it is not as rigorous in breadth or depth. The student can also earn a regular high school diploma and there is a big overlap with the standards at grade level. These two achievement standards do not replace the need for meaningful instruction for each student. "Neither alternate achievement standards nor modified achievement standards ignore the need for student-specific instruction that is not directly related to the academic content standards for general education..." (Yell, Shriner, & Katsiyannis, 2006, p. 7). The idea behind these two achievement standards is that the educational quality will be high and linked to academic content standards for the grade in which the student is enrolled (Yell, Shriner, & Katsiyannis, 2006).
No Child Left Behind does have its disadvantages when it comes to measuring achievement in schools. First, schools that are high performing rely on the social capital of their students. The children in these schools share more of the same values and behavioral norms. Schools depend on this capital to meet the requirements of NCLB. Schools can only control what goes on with the students in school; they cannot control society outside of this realm. "...schools cannot create other conditions in society where the students attend school with high levels of readiness, motivation, a high level of academic ability, and support from the home" (Maleyko & Gawlik, 2011, p. 612). Schools do not the social capital of their students.
Being held accountable for achievement is hindering the changing approach of education in the 21st century. "...the constructivist approach that supports the acquisition of the skills that are needed for students to become successful in the 21st century are in competition with the accountability provisions in NCLB that emphasize content based learning and the need to do well on a single measure" (Maleyko & Gawlik, 2011, p. 618). The curriculum is narrowed by the law and makes it hard for students to use higher order thinking, problem solving, and information processing skills that are needed in the 21st century (Maleyko & Gawlik, 2011). The importance of the results is thwarting the skills needed to thrive in the future. Student outcomes are weighted more than the process (Yell, Shriner, & Katsiyannis, 2006).
To learn more about No Child Left Behind click here.
IEP