Click here to this webpage then click on the article titled "NCLB - A Crossroads for Special Education" to find out what Gloeckler and Daggett have to say about the issue on of NCLB in special education.
Rather than being a solely two-sided argument, the authors list things options that those involved in Special Education react to No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). These options are: (1) do not do anything about it and just let it be, (2) allow the students with disabilities different standards, or (3) pull students with disabilities completely out of NCLB. The authors' opinion is that NCLB and Special Education can operate together, thus taking the second approach about modifying some things about NCLB to make that happen, but also that some change their mindset about NCLB as well. My personal opinion is that I agree with what the authors have said about Special Education and NCLB working together. Most of my siblings are involved in education in some sort of way in their careers and have had to deal with NCLB. I remember one time while I was in High School when one of my brothers told everyone how much he hating NCLB and all of the problems that it brought with it. That was always the sort of vibe that I got from my teachers at school as well about the issue. I had never heard of anyone that said how great it was and were overjoyed there were when the bill passed. I admit that after reading this article, my opinion about NCLB has changed somewhat, at least for the realm of Special Education (not necessarily for education as a whole). What I like most about what the authors said is that Special Education has reached a point of accountability. In its history, that has never happened for Special Education, so I see progress toward greater things. I see accountability as moving towards having good, certified and qualified teachers in Special Education, putting more trust into those with disabilities, and most importantly, I see it as a focus on abilities rather than disabilities. I feel that we are moving towards a better view of those with disabilities. One of things that I agree most with the authors is their suggestion to have a different approach for Annual Yearly Progress (AYP). I like the idea of changing AYP for students with disabilities to improvement rather than reaching a certain number or figure. The reason I like this idea the most is that it goes hand-in-hand with the Individualized Education Plan (IEP) goals that are the focus of Special Education. For these students, the focus should always be on reaching new heights and progress, so an approach for AYP that focuses on improvement would be perfect. One that I that I would change about what the authors suggested is to have Special Education teachers also be focused on a certain subject matter along with being trained for teaching those with disabilities. I the idea of it is great, but I do not see an actual implementation of it being carried out because it would be too difficult. Preparing for those with disabilities in and of itself is challenging. Having Special Education teachers also learn a subject matter on top of this would discourage more students to go into Special Education my opinion because the difficulty level would be higher. Do you agree with the author's point of view about making Special Education and NCLB working together or do you take the (1) or (3) as mentioned above, to NCLB? If you disagree with the authors', why do and what would you change about NCLB or why would you keep it the same? If you agree with the authors', what parts of their suggestions would you try to implement and which parts would you ignore or change and why?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
For the most part, I agree with suggestion number two. Children with disabilities should not be held to the same standard as other children. I do not think it is realistic to require special education teachers to both learn how to teach children with disabilities and be qalified to teach a specific subject as well, although that would be ideal. I do agree that if children with disabilities were completely taken out of the NCLB program that their learning needs would be ignored. The author mentions that some disabled children are not given some opportunities to grow and learn. I do agree that some children would grow more wit higher expectations, but I believe that if the teachers are aware of their student's growing abilities that they will be provided with plenty of opportunities to grow. Inclusion, which is becoming more and more common, also helps children to learn all the regular criteria of their age group.
ReplyDeleteI agree that changing the standards for students with disabilities is the best option. I do not think that it should be left as it is nor should special education be taken out of it all together. I feel that the standards for the students with disabilities should be modified and their abilities taken into account. Here in Utah a test called the UAA is given at the end of the year where specific goals chosen by the teacher are tested. This does not bring down the school’s score because the students are tested on subject matter that has been learned over the year. I agree that some students are misplaced into special education but if the teacher is attentive, recommendations for better placement can be made. I do not think it is practical for a teacher to learn one subject, unless the degree is in elementary education where you learn all subjects. This is where peer tutors can be a factor in having the child attend regular education classes in the subjects they are capable of handling.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the author’s point that the NCLB should work along with the special education program. I can really relate to the part of the article where it discusses how just recently children in special education are being exposed to normal education subjects and classrooms. Many believe that segregation for special education is the best way to teach children with disabilities; but they are wrong. I have a cousin who has physical and mental disabilities but he worked hard enough and was placed in a classroom with his fellow classmates and he graduated with a high school diploma. This was not a special diploma. He graduated just the same and met the same requirements as everyone else in his school. If the NCLB learns to work with the special education department I believe that they would both benefit from it. Most importantly, the students will benefit from it.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the author’s point of view that Special Education and NCLB need to work together, which is stated in option number two. Those with disabilities should still be monitored and included in the NCLB but they should be help up against different standards. I definitely do not agree with option one or two. Option one, not doing anything about it, should not even be considered an option because it is obviously an issue and there is a huge discrepancy between the standards that general education students meet and the standards of those in special education. Option two, pulling students with disabilities completely out of the NCLB, would make it too easy for them to be forgotten and give up because they are so far behind. One of the authors’ suggestions that I would try to implement would be not removing them from the accountability system because that allows them to get further behind and we need to be sure that they are being prepared for the competitiveness in today’s world. A suggestion I would change would be allowing those students with higher potential to be integrated into a general education class for individual subjects instead of rewiring how special education teachers are trained.
ReplyDeleteThe NCLB act has been a struggle for me to understand and agree with for a very long time. I understand that there must be a way to asess education in order to improve, but I have a problem with each state being held to different standards. I believe all states should be equal in their public eduaction requirements. I also believe that special education students should not be held to the same standards as those who are without a disability. How can they be? Each student is so very different, and all have individual special needs. I agree that there needs to be a way to include these students in state or national evaluations, but that it needs to be more improvement based, and not perecentage based. These students have IEP goals for a reason. These are the things they need to be working on. They are top priority. Their goals are not he same as all other students, and I don't believe we should try to make them the same. I feel that by placing all students under the same evaluation for NCLB we are not giving all the credit due to special education students. They are being evaluated on things that are not thier top priority, and not given credit for the things they have improved on that may be a part of their IEP goals, but are not a part of state examinations. So, in a way I believe that NCLB can be applied to special eduation, but also that the goals for special education state exams and those without disabilities should be very different.
ReplyDeleteI would agree with the authors that the best way to include children with special needs in NCLB is not to require them to reach the same standards and also not to completely count them out of the program, but to have different standards. I really like the idea of AYP because all students, disabled or not, have different levels they can reach, so simply seeing children progress from year to year is what the goal should be. The only problem I see is with the teachers. It’s very difficult to ask teachers to be able to teach both general ed and special ed, but then it’s also not ideal to have all students with special needs to only be in a special ed class and not participate in any general ed classes. It will simply be a lot of hard work and organization to train teachers, but it will be very worth it.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the author's view point in having NCLB and special education work together to bring the most success for each student. I agree with the suggestion number two to keep students in the accountability system but give them different tests and hold them to different standards. I think that it is impossible to keep the same standards for student with disabilities and without disabilities. The levels which they are on are completely different. I do not think it is a good idea or very practical to make teachers train and learn only one subject. I liked the idea of AYP because all students can progress from one level to another. Seeing this progress helps students to know they can succeed. Inclusion should looked at more and put into action due to the benefits it gives.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with the author's view point, in that special education should not be taken out of the No Child Left Behind Act, but the standards should be held at a lower level. Part of me doesn't like to say that standards should be lower for people with disabilities because we shouldn't put a limit on what they can accomplish. However, I know that there are severe disablitles that can not be held at the same level as those who are not disabled. So, I think that students should be held accountable individually and not as a whole. There's a big range of capabilities and disabilities in the special education world and so we need to take into consideration individual abilities. I guess that is where the IEP comes in to play. Lowering the standards of special education students in the NCLB seems the best option to me as long as we don't hold anybody back from their best potential.
ReplyDeleteIt is important to keep in mind other Special Education Laws in relation to NCLB such as The Education for the Handicapped Act (EHA) 1975 and the 1986, 1990, and 1997 Amendments.
ReplyDeleteSee the file named Special Education Laws under the Course Documents and Resources link on the class wiki.
I agree with the authors point. Special Education can and should work together with the NCLB. I think that holding expectations for special ed students is a good thing. I am a firm believer that people can rise to the occasion, and that underestimating somebody's capabilities is harmful. I think that holding each student to a different standard is a must because of the large range of disabilities seen in schools, however, I think that holding students to certain standards is the key thing here. I cannot realistically see how teachers will be able to focus on one subject as well as getting their special ed degree. Should then, regular school teachers be required to also get a special education degree for those students who will be integrated into normal classrooms? I can see the point they are trying to make, however I just don't see how realistic it is..
ReplyDeleteI too have a family full of teachers and they all have that same opinion. most of them do not like the no child left behind thing. I think that accountability for all students is an absolute must. with out some source of accountability it would be easy for our students not to care. I am not sure that no child left behind is right for every student. some students may be unable to accomplish every thing for no child left behind. I think it is the same concept as why we have IEPs it needs to been individualized for each student. No child left behind standards will work for some but for others it may not. It needs to be based on the student and what they are capable of accomplishing.
ReplyDelete