Improving Educational Outcomes 

for Students with Disabilities

NATIONAL COUNCIL ON DISABILITY 

1331 F Street, NW, Suite 850 

Washington, DC 20004 

202-272-2004 Voice 

202-272-2074 TTY 

202-272-2022 Fax 

Lex Frieden, Chairperson 

May 17, 2004 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Acknowledgements......................................................................................................................... 3 

Executive Summary........................................................................................................................ 4 

Introduction................................................................................................................................... 12 

Methodology............................................................................................................................. 13 

Part I – Policies to Support Positive Outcomes for Students with Disabilities ..................... 16 

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act...................................................................... 16 

The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act ................................................................................... 17 

IDEA Reauthorization and Alignment with NCLB.................................................................. 21 

Perceived Impact of NCLB on Students with Disabilities........................................................ 23 

Impact of NCLB on the High School Dropout Rate of Students with Disabilities .................. 31 

NCLB’s Impact on Expectations for Students with Disabilities .............................................. 33 

Professional Development and Highly Qualified Teachers...................................................... 36 

Achievement Standards ............................................................................................................ 38 

Assessments and Accommodations .......................................................................................... 40 

Part II – Evidence-based Research and Practice ..................................................................... 45 

Effective Evidence-Based Practices for Students with Disabilities.......................................... 46 

Evidence-Based Practices to Reduce Dropout Rates for Students with Disabilities................ 48 

Evidence-Based Practices in Transition.................................................................................... 51 

Part III – Conclusions and Recommendations......................................................................... 70 

Appendix A: Interview Protocol................................................................................................... 77 

Appendix B: Evidence-Based Practices........................................................................................ 79 

References..................................................................................................................................... 87 
Acknowledgements 

An important component of this National Council on Disability (NCD) project was the 

discussion of key project issues with federal policymakers, national researchers, and practitioners 

from across the United States. Information garnered from this process provided critical 

perspective about these issues related to the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) and the 

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), students with disabilities, and the use of 

evidence-based research. NCD wishes to thank the following agencies and organizations for 

participating in this process: 

• Arlington, Virginia Public Schools 

• Colorado State University, Research and Development Center for the Advancement of 

Student Learning 

• Disability Access Information and Support (DAIS) 

• Social Security Administration (SSA), Office of Disability and Income Security 

Programs 

• SRI International, Center for Education and Human Services, Disability Policy Program 

• National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDE) 

• The Education Trust 

• The George Washington University, National Clearinghouse on Postsecondary Education 

for Individuals with Disabilities (HEATH) 

• TransCen, Inc. 

• U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences (IES) 

• U.S. Department of Education, National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation 

Research (NIDRR) 

• U.S. Department of Education, Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) 

• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration on 

Developmental Disabilities 

• U.S. House of Representatives, House Committee on Education and the Workforce 

• University of Hawaii at Manoa, Center on Disability Studies 

• University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes 

NCD also wishes to express its appreciation to Betsy Brand of the American Youth Policy 

Forum (AYPF) and Scott Swail of the Educational Policy Institute (EPI) for their insightful work 

in preparing this paper. 
Executive Summary 

The educational landscape for students with disabilities is undergoing vast changes. Thanks to 

the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and its push for increased access to 

education for students with disabilities, and the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), with its push 

for improved student outcomes, educators across the U.S. are reexamining their practices to find 

ways to close the achievement gaps between groups of students. Students with disabilities are a 

focus of this attention, as schools and states labor to improve their academic outcomes. 

Policymakers are studying both the reauthorization of IDEA and the ongoing implementation of 

NCLB to determine the most effective means for serving students with disabilities. 

The National Council on Disability (NCD) commissioned this paper to assist policy leaders and 

stakeholders in identifying, disseminating, and aligning evidence-based outcome producing 

practices with the Federal Government’s commitment to leaving no child behind in the 

attainment of a free appropriate public education. This paper is a precursor to a more detailed 

analysis that NCD will be conducting in coming months to provide additional input and 

recommendations to Congress and the Administration. NCD is an independent federal agency 

making recommendations to the President and Congress on issues affecting Americans with 

disabilities. NCD’s overall purpose is to promote policies, programs, practices, and procedures 

that guarantee equal opportunity for all individuals with disabilities, regardless of the nature or 

severity of the disability; and to empower individuals with disabilities to achieve economic selfsufficiency, independent living, and inclusion and integration into all aspects of society. 

NCD is particularly interested in how IDEA and NCLB are improving outcomes for students 

with disabilities and to what extent evidence-based practices are being used to make policy 

decisions affecting students with disabilities. The outcomes for students with disabilities in 

which NCD is most interested include: 

1) reducing the number/percentage of students with disabilities nation wide (currently at 

about thirty percent) who drop out of high school; 
2) increasing the number/percentage of students with disabilities nation wide (currently at 

about 56 percent) who graduate high school with a diploma as opposed to a certificate of 

attendance; and 

3) increasing the availability and usage of effective strategies to help students transition to 

and remain connected with postsecondary education. 

Data for this paper were gathered by conducting a literature review and a series of interviews 

with a panel of policymakers, researchers, and practitioners from across the country. The 

literature review included major databases, but unfortunately resulted in few evidence-based 

research studies for students with disabilities. The questions for the panel (See Appendix A) 

focused on the impact of NCLB on students with disabilities, alignment of NCLB and IDEA, and 

the use of evidence-based research in decision-making processes at the school and district levels. 

Major Findings with Regard to NCLB and IDEA 

This paper explores how attitudes and expectations for students with disabilities are changing as 

a result of NCLB and the impact of IDEA. Overall, there is strong support for increasing 

expectations for students with disabilities and helping them to improve their academic outcomes. 

At the same time, there is concern about how states and schools will manage this process, largely 

as a function of lack of knowledge of effective interventions and strategies. At times there 

appears to be some lack of will to undertake the difficult change, and fall back on excuses, but 

findings reveal a hope that these laws and policies will result in more equitable outcomes for 

students with disabilities. 

Many respondents in our interviews indicated that the focus on closing the achievement gap for 

certain student groups, such as students with disabilities, was a very laudable and necessary goal. 

One of the main messages is to change the low expectations people have for students with 

disabilities. 

Findings also show that there is a great deal of concern about how educators will respond to the 

possible poor performance by students with disabilities on standardized assessments and high 

stakes tests. The pressure to meet adequate yearly performance (AYP) and the use of high stakes 
tests to measure it is leaving states and districts with little time to think constructively how best 

to do that. Fears exist that high stakes tests may have a disproportionate impact on students with 

disabilities. “We’re very concerned about the unintended consequences of holding schools 

accountable for [the disability] population. We’re sensitive to the potential for pushing students 

out, for scapegoating students, for identifying these students as the reason that a school or a 

district isn’t measuring up.” (Mitchell D. Chester, assistant superintendent for policy 

development in the Ohio education department, cited in Education Week, 2004b, p. 16). 

Unfortunately, at this time, there is no data to indicate whether high stakes tests will increase the 

rate of dropout by students with disabilities, but it certainly needs more study. 

There are also concerns about how states and schools will handle measuring adequate yearly 

performance (AYP) for subgroups of students with disabilities and whether they can “game” the 

system by setting unrealistically high subgroup levels that most schools will not meet, and 

therefore won’t have to report performance numbers. Others felt that a particular school could be 

punished for low scores in a subgroup, and administrators fear including students with 

disabilities. 

One other concern expressed by several respondents is the limited focus on measuring academic 

skills because of the assessments required by NCLB. Particularly for students with disabilities, it 

is important to find ways to allow them to express their abilities in various ways, and they also 

benefit greatly from developing workplace competencies. 

The role of school leadership and teacher qualifications was also explored. Not surprisingly, 

respondents noted that when school leaders had the vision and commitment to increase 

expectations for students with disabilities, the teachers and staff held similar views and were 

supported in their efforts to change teaching to help individualized needs students achieve. 

A number of issues were raised regarding teachers. It was mentioned by several respondents that 

the push for highly qualified teachers is needed and that improved outcomes for students with 

disabilities should result from a better teaching force. But the logistical issues of finding and 

training those teachers is a difficult reality faced by schools. 
The types of assessments and accommodations used for students with disabilities are also under 

review by school leaders. They are working to align assessment accommodations and 

instructional accommodations and align all of that with the standards – very time consuming and 

difficult work. Others saw value in more frequent assessments of students, saying 

“[A]ssessments are fundamental to education reform in this country, whether a regular 

assessment or high-stakes test. NCLB does not necessarily require a high-stakes test, it is an 

accountability test—not necessarily the same thing. It is forcing the question of how to test and 

assess.” But a final concern was expressed about the misuse of assessments, “If students with 

disabilities aren’t accommodated or there aren’t alternative assessments, school scores will be 

affected. If so, the school will figure out a creative way of counting these kids out or the kids will 

choose to leave.” 

Evidence-Based Research and Practice 

This paper also provides a summary of relevant scientifically-based research, as well as a 

discussion of how such research is used by education practitioners and policymakers. 

Unfortunately, the amount of rigorous, evidence-based research on programs that promote 

positive outcomes for students with disabilities is severely limited. First, most research is aimed 

at young students and strategies to help them learn to read. Second, the few evaluations that are 

available usually involve a very limited number of students, sometimes fewer than a dozen, 

which makes drawing conclusions about a broader group very difficult. Third, most of the 

evaluations only focus on one type of disability (e.g. severe cognitive disability or learning 

disability), again making general applicability of findings difficult. And last, while a few 

scientifically rigorous studies of programs were identified, there were almost none in the area of 

dropout prevention, and only a few on the transition from secondary to postsecondary education. 

According to the research that does exist, strategies that seem to be most effective in helping 

students with disabilities persist in high school typically include counseling services, reading 

remediation, tutoring, attendance monitoring, or after-school clubs (Lehr, Hansen, Sinclair, & 

Christenson, 2003). Other services could include sustained and supportive monitoring 

interventions focused on school completion (Scanlon & Mellard, 2002). An early 1990s study of 

three dropout prevention programs for students with disabilities sponsored by the U.S. 
Department of Education found that five components were common to all programs: persistence, 

continuity and consistency; monitoring; relationships; affiliation; and problem-solving skills. 

To help students with disabilities transition from secondary to postsecondary education, 

strategies that appear to be most successful include: 

• Competence in: 

o functional academic skills (e.g., reading, math, writing, and problemsolving); 

o community living skills (e.g., money management, community access); 

o personal-social skills (e.g., getting along with others); 

o vocational skills (e.g., career awareness, job search); and 

o self-determination skills (e.g., self-advocacy, goal setting); 

• Participation in vocational education classes during the last two years of high 

school, especially classes that offer occupationally-specific instruction; 

• Participation in paid work experience in the community during the last two years 

of high school; 

• Participation in transition planning; 

• Graduation from high school; and 

• Absence of continuing instructional needs in functional academic, vocational, and 

personal-social areas after leaving school. (Benz, Lindstrom, & Yovanoff, 2000) 

Even when there are evidence-based practices, practitioners, for various reasons, don’t always 

end up using them. Two major barriers to the implementation of evidence-based practices are the 

lack of time and inadequate support from administrators. Other barriers include “pressures 

associated with high-stakes testing, insufficient materials, a mismatch between teacher style and 

the practice, a lack of fit between the practice and other methods mandated by the school district, 

and teachers’ lack of in-depth understanding of the practice or forgetting” (p. 413). Practitioners 

need incentives and technical assistance in using evidence-based practices, yet little is done to 

help them learn to apply research to practice. 
Comments were also made on the need to value the input by parents: 

Which is more valid, the work of an evidence-based research center or the 

experiences of families of children with disabilities? What is the basis for the 

criteria? Someone’s [research] numbers or someone’s real life experience? For 

example, a school district got an evidence-based strategy from a university, but a 

parent suggested something else that they knew would work with their child. The 

strategies were polar opposites...There are parent groups organizing around what 

really works for their child. (Researcher) 

Not only is a stronger research base sorely needed, but researchers must work more closely with 

practitioners and parents to help them understand how to use research findings and to incorporate 

and value practical and parental knowledge. 

Conclusions and Recommendations 

NCD recognizes that the bulk of change occurring in schools today is a result of NCLB’s focus 

on accountability and outcomes. The change being brought about is very fundamental and deep, 

but also difficult, in that it involves changing attitudes, beliefs, and values about all young people 

being able to achieve to high standards. Another barrier to change has been the lack of evidence 

about what works, as well as the lack of disaggregated data. Fortunately, there are signs of 

positive change and evidence that holding students, including students with disabilities, to higher 

expectations results in improved outcomes, which leads to the first recommendation, which is 

“stay the course.” 

Stay the Course. While some naysayers believe that NCLB sets too high a bar for students and 

schools, the vast majority of people believe that we must maintain high expectations for all 

students, particularly students with disabilities. 

Capacity Building. In order to help school leaders and education practitioners provide the 

support to help every child succeed to higher expectations, they need assistance in learning 

strategies that are effective. Public investments should be carefully directed to professional and 

leadership development efforts that are tightly linked to the specific needs of each school or 

district and that address capacity issues related to teaching and learning and helping all students, 

particularly students with disabilities, reach high standards. 
Highly Qualified Teachers. Standards for highly qualified teachers should not be relaxed, 

although limited flexibility in reaching those standards, especially for rural schools, is 

appropriate. The U.S. Department of Education should conduct research and analysis on 

effective methods of teacher preparation, including alternative routes to certification, with a 

particular focus on special education. The higher education system also needs to find ways to 

prepare highly qualified teachers in routes unlike those we know of today. 

Better Assessment Tools. A host of needs calls for a new generation of assessments that are 

designed to serve a broader range of students with diverse needs, are useful to inform instruction, 

and that measure a broader range of skills. The U.S. Department of Education can play an 

important role in supporting research and development efforts to create a new generation of 

assessments that are appropriate for a large number of diverse students; measure more than 

academic skills; can be used as instructional management tools; and result in an increased 

number of students taking alternative assessments. 

Support and Disseminate Evidence-Based Research and Practice. It is clear that we need 

more rigorous research on effective strategies for older students with disabilities. Both IDEA and 

NCLB should support an enhanced research agenda and the U.S. Department of Education 

should bridge research efforts by the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services and 

the Institute of Education Sciences. Research is particularly needed to understand how to teach 

more academic rigor to students with disabilities and to understand optimal assessment tools. 

Support for Students. While research for students with disabilities is limited, a range of other 

research on high school reform points to strategies that are successful in improving student 

outcomes. The U.S. Department of Education should provide technical assistance on strategies to 

help students increase engagement in high school, reduce dropout rates, and increase preparation 

for postsecondary education and careers by: setting higher expectations, greater instructional 

personalization, self-advocacy, ongoing counseling and mentoring, parental involvement, and 

connections to the community and postsecondary learning options. 
Final Thoughts 

The shift towards accountability, outcomes, and higher expectations in our schools is leading us 

in the right direction, although we recognize that schools face legitimate difficulties during this 

change process. But the response to these challenges should not be to back down on expectations 

for students with disabilities and those who have been perceived as unable to meet the standards. 

Policymakers and practitioners must remain committed to the goal of closing the achievement 

gap for all students. To lessen this commitment would be to return to the days and the mindset 

that only some students could reach, and deserved to be taught to, high standards. We now know 

that by setting high expectations, and helping students, teachers, administrators, and family 

members reach those high standards, we can close the achievement gap for all students. 
Introduction 

America is focused on educational reform like never before. The No Child Left Behind Act 

(NCLB) has raised awareness of the poor performance of many of our schools and students, 

particularly those in disadvantaged and lower-income neighborhoods. Because the federal law 

now requires states, communities, and schools to collect data on student performance, broken out 

by categories of students based on their race and other factors, such as native language and 

disability, the public is finally beginning to understand the true magnitude of the problem. But a 

recent study indicates that despite our growing awareness and concern, we may have seriously 

underestimated the number of students who drop out of high school, revealing that the problem is 

greater than imagined (Swanson, 2004). 

For many families with children in low-performing schools, or those who have children with 

individualized needs, the failure of our public schools to graduate every young person and 

prepare them for a career and livelihood comes as no surprise. Students with disabilities bear a 

particularly hard burden, as their rates of high school graduation, graduation with a diploma as 

opposed to a certificate of attendance, entry to postsecondary education, and success in the labor 

market are dramatically lower than rates for students without disabilities. More than 40 percent 

of secondary-aged students with disabilities do not attain a high school diploma at the end of 

high school, and dropout rates for youth with disabilities are three to four times higher than 

dropout rates for youth without disabilities. 

The focus on school reform, particularly high school reform, is timely and much needed. NCLB 

is helping to shed light on which states and schools are doing the best job preparing their young 

people, including students with disabilities, for the challenges of further learning and economic 

self-sufficiency. While the public is more engaged in these discussions every day, there remains 

a lack of awareness of what works to help young people with educational challenges succeed. 

Old attitudes persist as well, and the reform process must change minds, values, and cultures so 

that we believe all students can achieve to the highest standards and that we adults are committed 

to helping them meet those standards in every way we know how. 
The purpose of this research is to assist policy leaders and stakeholders in identifying, 

disseminating, and aligning evidence-based outcome producing practices with the Federal 

Government’s commitment to leave no child behind in the attainment of a free appropriate public 

education. NCD expects that policy leaders and stakeholders will be able to use this research for 

a variety of purposes including to: identify existing federal resources being used (e.g., via NCLB 

and IDEA); identify new federal resources to develop, enhance, and sustain programs; determine 

whether existing resources are used effectively; improve alignment of resources, policies, and 

educational reform efforts; develop or modify policies and legislation to ensure the optimal use 

of resources; develop knowledge-utilization partnerships; analyze the impact of legislative 

changes on current resources; evaluate program effectiveness; and, accelerate changes in the 

nation’s focus on leaving no child behind and improving educational results for all children. 

The American Youth Policy Forum and the Educational Policy Institute were commissioned by 

the National Council on Disability (NCD) to review certain federal and state-level programs, 

strategies, and policies that enhance educational practices and improve valued outcomes for 

youth with disabilities. In particular, NCD sought better understanding of the early impact of the 

No Child Left Behind Act on students with disabilities, and its interaction with the Individuals 

with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). In addition, NCD was interested in learning to what 

extent evidence-based research is used by policymakers and practitioners to make policy, 

programmatic, and instructional decisions for youth with disabilities. 

The main outcomes of interest include: 

• reducing the number of students with disabilities who drop out of high school; 

• increasing the number/percentage of students with disabilities who graduate high 

school with a diploma as opposed to a certificate of attendance; and 

• increasing effective strategies to help students transition to and remain connected 

with postsecondary education. 

Methodology 

There were two components to this paper’s research: a review of the literature and a series of 

interviews with policymakers, researchers, and practitioners from across the country. 
Literature Reviews

Two literature reviews were conducted. The first was conducted as an environmental scan of 

issues related to high school graduation and transition for students with disabilities. The second 

focused on evidence-based practices related to students with disabilities. 

Our review utilized a variety of search engines, including ERIC, HighBeam, and the NICI 

Virtual Library. We also reviewed dozens of websites related to students with disabilities, 

including the major sites of the U.S. Departments of Education and Labor. In the end, we 

reviewed 150 carefully selected research studies and articles, approximately 100 of which were 

used in this paper. With regard to evidence-based practices, our search focused on articles that 

(a) were published in a professional journal or by a professional organization; (b) contained 

information on a program or programs that curbed high school dropout, supported assessment 

and accommodations, and promoted transition; (c) contained outcome data related to the 

intervention; and (d) used some modicum of empirical rigor in evaluating the intervention (i.e., 

experimental and quasi-experimental designs; random controlled trials). 

Most of the research evaluations we reviewed focused on one type of disability (e.g. severe 

cognitive disability or learning disability), making general applicability of the findings difficult. 

In addition, the majority of the research was conducted at the elementary school level, rather 

than at the secondary level. Although we reviewed many published studies in an effort to identify 

evidence-based practices, we were consistently disappointed in the lack of empirical studies 

available on these issues, particularly with regard to dropout prevention. Many articles reported 

research results, but the methodology was often extraordinarily limited. Examples include selfreported interviews as the primary indicator of program success. The incorporation of control 

groups into research design was almost negligible. It is likely that more studies exist that have a 

higher level of empirical soundness to them, but they are not easily searchable, identifiable, 

collectable, or applicable. As we discuss later, there are two major challenges associated with 

research on evidence-based practices in special education: the paucity of research with an 

acceptable level of empiricism; and the relatively poor dissemination of such research to those 

who can benefit from this information. 
Interviews

For the interviews, a panel of 16 federal, state, and local policymakers, researchers, and 

practitioners from across the U.S. were invited to participate in this project. Participants were 

selected based on input from a variety of individuals and organizations. As a first round, we 

developed a list of 55 individuals from the literature and from our perception of who were 

leaders in the field. During the interviews, we asked panel respondents to suggest individuals 

who would be valuable to our review. In most cases, panel respondents supplied us with names 

that were already on our list. 

Panel respondents were guided through a series of questions developed for this project (see 

Appendix A: Interview Protocol on page 77). The questions were focused on the impact of 

NCLB on students with disabilities, the alignment of NCLB and IDEA, and the use of evidencebased research in decision-making processes at the school and district levels. All but one of the 

interviews were conducted by telephone. In several cases, participants were emailed follow-up 

questions to clarify their responses. Upon completion of the panel interviews, responses were 

collated and analyzed. 

This paper is divided into three sections. Part I provides a discussion of numerous provisions of 

NCLB and IDEA that affect student outcomes, as well as comments and insights from the panel 

on implementation and alignment. Part II focuses on evidence-based research and practices 

issues (and the lack thereof) related to NCLB and IDEA requirements. Part III provides 

conclusions and recommendations for research and practice. 

Appendices include the protocol used in interviewing the panel and a short synopsis of effective 

evidence-based programs and strategies. 
Part I – Policies to Support Positive Outcomes for Students 

with Disabilities 

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is one component of a three-tiered 

federal approach to supporting individuals with disabilities. The other two federal Acts are the 

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Passed in 1975 as 

Public Law 94-142 and later given its current title, IDEA provides the foundation upon which 

students with disabilities are protected from discrimination and guaranteed to receive services 

designed to meet their special education and related services needs (American Youth Policy 

Forum & Center on Education Policy, 2002). Prior to that, an estimated 6 million children and 

youth with disabilities were left on their own to garner educational services. IDEA requires 

states, districts, and schools to ensure that: 

• All children with disabilities ages 3 through 21 receive a free, appropriate public 

education that meets their unique needs, regardless of the type or severity of their 

disability. 

• Children with disabilities be educated in the least restrictive environment 

possible, meaning that most students are to be taught in a general education—or 

regular—classroom. Districts and schools are responsible for providing whatever 

supplemental services or accommodations are necessary to fulfill this 

requirement. 

• Each student with a disability is to have an Individualized Education Program 

(IEP) that describes the education and related services to be provided to that 

student. The IEP is developed by a small committee consisting of parents, special 

education personnel, teachers, and school administrators. The 1997 

reauthorization of IDEA required students aged 14 and older to sit on their own 

IEP committee. 

• Parents of students with disabilities have the right to notification, informed 

consent, due process, and involvement in key decisions about their child’s 

eligibility, placement, IEPs, and other areas. 
• Federal grants are authorized to help pay state and local costs associated with 

implementing IDEA mandates and serving students with disabilities. (American 

Youth Policy Forum & Center on Education Policy, 2002, p. 13) 

The 1997 reauthorization of IDEA provided the most significant amendments since the initial 

law was passed almost a quarter century earlier. Included in these amendments was an increased 

emphasis on student outcomes data, reduction of paperwork and procedural complexity, and a 

reduction or consolidation of separately-funded research, training, and support programs. 

(American Youth Policy Forum & Center on Education Policy, 2002) The law also included a 

stronger focus on strategies to help students transition from high school to postsecondary 

education or a career, and the development of a transition plan as part of their IEP. 

IDEA has been characterized as having fulfilled its primary goal of providing access for students 

with disabilities in public schools across America. In 1977, about eight percent of students were 

identified as having a disability and were receiving appropriate services. In 1999, 11 percent of 

all students were identified and served through IDEA (American Youth Policy Forum & Center 

on Education Policy, 2002). In 1977, 80 percent of students with disabilities were placed in 

institutions or separate facilities where many received little schooling. By 1997-98, 96 percent of 

students with disabilities were served in regular public schools (U.S. Department of Education, 

2003, p. ix). Even in the short time since the 1997 reauthorization of IDEA, the number of 

students served through IDEA has increased from 3.7 million to over 6.5 million. Additionally, 

students with disabilities are also spending more time in inclusive classrooms. In 1997-98, 46 

percent of students with disabilities spent at least 80 percent of their academic day in a regular 

classroom, compared to 31 percent a decade earlier (American Youth Policy Forum & Center on 

Education Policy, 2002, p. 20). 

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) 

On January 8, 2002, President Bush signed into law the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. The 

U.S. Department of Education touted the legislation as the “most sweeping reform of the 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act since its enactment in 1965” that “refines the federal 

role in K-12 education” (Pasternack, 2003). In addition to those claims, NCLB champions 
accountability for “all students, including student groups based on poverty, race and ethnicity, 

disability and limited English proficiency.” 

This legislative act contains four basic education reform principles: 

• stronger accountability for results; 

• increased flexibility and local control; 

• expanded options for parents; and 

• emphasis on teaching methods that have been proven to work. (National Center 

on Educational Outcomes, 2003). 

Through NCLB, states must implement statewide accountability systems covering all public 

schools and students based on: 

• Challenging state standards in reading and math (and science in 2005-2006); 

• Annual testing for all students in grades 3-8 and at least once in grades 10-12; and 

• Annual statewide progress objectives ensuring that all groups of students reach 

proficiency within 12 years (Pasternack, 2003). 

According to the National Center on Educational Outcomes, the main difference between IDEA 

and NCLB is that the former specifically governs services that are provided to students with 

disabilities and provides individual accountability through IEPs developed on the basis of each 

child’s unique needs. The National Center believes that NCLB complements the IDEA 

provisions by providing public accountability at the school, district, and state levels for all 

students with disabilities. Secondly, NCLB builds on IDEA law by requiring the participation of 

students with disabilities in state and district-wide assessments (National Center on Educational 

Outcomes, 2003). 

In its analysis of NCLB, the National Center on Educational Outcomes cited three critical areas 

of focus for those who serve students with disabilities: (a) academic content standards, which tell 

us what students should learn; (b) academic achievement standards, which tell us how well they 
should learn; and (c) assessments, which tell us how well students achieved those standards 

(National Center on Educational Outcomes, 2003). 

Adequate Yearly Progress 

A key requirement of NCLB that has been praised by some but is the brunt of criticism from 

others is the calculation of “Adequate Yearly Progress” (AYP). According to the legislation, 

states must bring all students up to the “proficient” level on state tests by 2013-14, and individual 

schools must meet a measure of adequate yearly progress targets in mathematics and reading or 

language arts with all student groups from one year to the next (Education Week, 2004a). There 

are a number of disincentives for schools and states to meet these targets, but at issue with AYP 

is that all subgroups—including students with disabilities—must show progress. Of greatest 

importance is that a school will not meet AYP if any one of its subgroups fails to meet AYP. 

Schools and districts that fail to do so over time will be subject to “improvement, corrective 

action, and restructuring measures” (Pasternack, 2003). A school can still make AYP if a 

subgroup does not make AYP, but only on the condition that the subgroup in question decreased 

in size by ten percent from the previous year’s percentage AND manages to make progress on 

graduation rates or one other indicator designated by the state. Additionally, ninety-five percent 

of all students within a subgroup are required to take the assessment. Consequences for failing to 

meet AYP are as follows: 

If a school fails to meet its adequate yearly progress target for two consecutive 

years, then it is designated as a school in need of improvement. Parents of 

students in a school so designated will be given the option of sending their 

children to another school. Continued failure of a school to attain AYP targets 

beyond two years can result in more severe consequences, to include restructuring 

or changes in governance. There are many more details to the accountability 

requirements pertaining to such things as inclusion rules and various situations, 

such as schools meeting their targets but with not all subgroups meeting them. 

(Kahl, 2003) 

Concern exists among state and local officials about how students with disabilities—especially 

those with significant or multiple disabilities—are included in the overall school count. The issue 

raised by some is that it is unfair to include students with significant cognitive disabilities in the 

calculation of AYP. Given that approximately one percent of all students (or 15 percent of 

students with disabilities) is considered severely disabled, the U.S. Department of Education 
offered an amendment to its guidelines in December 2003, now known as the “one percent rule.” 

This rule allows school districts to use alternative assessments (based on alternative standards) 

for up to one percent of all students to report either “proficient” or “advanced” in order to meet 

AYP (Goldstein, 2004). States are free to define which student groups or subgroups make up this 

one percent, but the policy is aimed at students with the most significant cognitive disabilities. 

Strong Public Support 

Despite challenges, NCLB has generally commanded wide support from policymakers, 

educators, and parents. According to a recent Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll, there appears to be 

strong public and private support for the principles behind NCLB (Gehring, 2003). However, the 

survey also found that the public does not necessarily believe that a “test” is the best means to 

meet the goals of NCLB. Also, a recent survey by the Center on Education Policy (2004) found 

that an “overwhelming majority” (p. vi) of states agree with the basic premises of NCLB. Fortytwo of the states surveyed agree that an accountability system based on content and performance 

standards would have a positive impact on student achievement, and seventy percent of states 

(33 of the 47 responding) believe that NCLB accountability requirements will help to raise 

student achievement a great deal. However, district-based respondents were not as optimistic as 

their state counterparts” (Center on Education Policy, 2004, p. vi). 

Of course, not all news is good news. A number of individuals and groups have very specific 

concerns. On January 8, 2004, a group of Democratic Senators sent a letter to U.S. Secretary of 

Education Rod Paige criticizing the Administration for underfunding NCLB by “$7.5 billion.” 

Although the senators consider NCLB to be a landmark Act that “made a clear federal 

commitment to improve the education of millions of students across the country,” they suggest 

that the U.S. Department of Education has been remiss on providing appropriate and timely 

technical assistance and guidance to states, districts, and schools, and also criticize NCLB 

language that focuses on AYP but can allow at-risk students—including students with 

disabilities—to experience higher dropout rates (Kennedy et al., 2004). 

The concern goes well beyond the halls of Congress. In state houses across the country, 

Democrat and Republican legislators are complaining about the burdens of NCLB’s program. 

Utah and Virginia are examples of Republican-controlled states that are considering action 
against NCLB. Virginia’s Republican-led House of Delegates overwhelming approved a 

resolution in January calling the No Child Left Behind Act “the most sweeping federal intrusion 

into state and local control of education in the history of the United States” (Hoff, 2004a). 

However, one study released in January 2004 announced that states should already have 

adequate funding to meet the requirements of NCLB (Education Leaders Council, 2004), 

although not all state legislators concur with the findings of that report (Hoff, 2004b). Still, 

others indicate that it is a matter of using the money differently to achieve different outcomes. 

During our interviews in support of this project, a district-level administrator discussed the 

financial burden associated with keeping up with NCLB requirements. “Certainly NCLB has 

added cost to us—testing time, testing organization, communications with testing populations. 

These things cost real money.” However, others questioned whether NCLB is accurately 

depicted as an unfunded mandate. 

The Center on Education Policy suggests that the Bush Administration and Members of 

Congress have made “lofty promises” for the success of NCLB and have underestimated the 

“magnitude of change that must occur in American public education to bring about those 

promises” (Center on Education Policy, 2003, p. iv). 

IDEA Reauthorization and Alignment with NCLB 

IDEA is currently in the process of reauthorization by Congress. While no large, sweeping 

changes are expected, a consideration during this round of amendments is how best to bring 

IDEA and NCLB into greater alignment. We asked our panel whether they believed that IDEA 

supports the goals of NCLB. As expected, the responses were diverse. Some felt that the two 

were diametric opposites and undermined each other, while a majority of our panel saw the two 

pieces of legislation working together. “In NCLB, [student] success is typically measured by a 

singular test score, where IDEA is a bunch of different measures, whatever is determined 

through the IEP and other policies.” Others disagreed: “I think IDEA and NCLB are mutually 

exclusive. One is focused on the individual and the other is focused on accountability” (District 

Administrator). But even the “individual” nature of IDEA has some critics: “The big 
unanticipated outcome of IDEA was that individual accountability will bring [students with 

disabilities] up, but it has hurt them by watering down the curriculum.” 

In Education Week’s recent Quality Counts report on special education, a lawyer was quoted as 

saying that the “individualized nature of IDEA is totally inconsistent with the group nature of 

NCLB, even though they talk about classes of kids who are disabled. To me, that’s a collision 

course, to hold a school responsible for Billy not reading at grade level, when Billy has a 

disability whose need is individually met at a prekindergarten level” (Lawyer Miriam K. 

Freedman, as cited in Education Week, 2004b, p. 13). Conversely, a district-level administrator 

saw IDEA and NCLB working in tandem: 

NCLB creates a system of accountability to support IDEA. But IDEA is built on 

individualization where NCLB is a broad requirement for groups. Schools and 

districts are having a difficult time trying to bring these issues together—making 

the right decision for each child but also making sure you meet the NCLB 

accountability requirements. 

Both pieces of legislation support the education of students; the disconnect is the 

relative importance of how you go about determining whether students are 

making progress. IDEA would suggest that you do an assessment that is 

appropriate for the child as determined by a committee. NCLB says you can do 

that as long as you meet AYP. (District Administrator) 

One of our panel respondents suggested that the problem isn’t the legislative language, but the 

enforcement of the legislation. “I think IDEA has been consistent with NCLB. The problem isn’t 

what’s in IDEA, but rather, what has been enforced.” An example was provided of the challenge 

of implementing the transition planning that was part of IDEA ‘97. “In a lot of places, those 

plans aren’t there or are group manufactured. Thus, the problem isn’t IDEA—it’s the 

implementation or enforcement of IDEA” (Federal Policymaker). 

A main element of the current reauthorization of IDEA is to align the two bills. “They are trying 

to integrate them,” said a researcher. “I think you will see pieces in the Senate bill that try to 

reaffirm NCLB. A bigger question is how do you do this? Everyone has gotten the new message 

that there is an attempted alignment at the federal level. Aligned in two areas: programs for 

students with disabilities will be aligned more closely with general curriculum and content 
structures; and teacher development for special education teachers will be more similar to that of 

regular teachers. Practically, very few states can meet the teacher standards now, let alone the 

changes that are expected. Most peoples’ perception of the requirement will jack up the 

percentage of teachers who are unqualified.” 

A federal administrator involved in the reauthorization process thinks the two laws are being 

aligned in the current reauthorization. “In the House and Senate bills there have been important 

changes to align the two laws. The fight of 27 years ago—to get the kids in the classroom—is 

largely over. It isn’t a fight that will ever be finished, but access is a given. Now, IDEA needs to 

reflect more on what gets done for these kids. The debate has changed to ‘What do you do with 

the child once he is there, not should he be there.’” 

Stated a representative of the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research 

(NIDRR): “I’ve reviewed it [IDEA] for the umpteenth time. With regard to inclusion, 

prevention, etc., that’s all the flavor of the mission of NCLB. I think the hardest part the 

Administration is facing is how to interpret the similarities to the public.” A special education 

researcher noted: “The verbiage would say yes, that IDEA supports NCLB, but to me it’s 

backwards. NCLB should really support IDEA. The testing seems to counterbalance the 

individualization of IDEA. Philosophically, it sounds like the same, but when you get into it, it 

truly does not support IDEA. Hopefully reauthorization will bring them together.” A 

representative from a national organization commented: “Obviously, the extent that the two can 

be mutually reinforcing, the better. There will be some tweaks in IDEA to make that happen. I 

don’t think there are fundamental conflicts.” 

Perceived Impact of NCLB on Students with Disabilities 

Overall, there is a general sense that NCLB can have and is already having a positive impact on 

most students with disabilities. However, the true impact of NCLB will depend on a number of 

factors, including the type of disability in question, how large the unintended consequences are 

from implementation of the law, how much states, districts and schools “game” the system, and 

how well these same entities provide support for special education teachers and 

paraprofessionals to meet the rigor required for adequate yearly progress (AYP). 
The Center on Education Policy (2004) found that most states and districts were taking No Child 

Left Behind very seriously and were working hard to meet the new federal requirements of AYP. 

“NCLB is doing what federal laws tend to do best —focusing the attention of a large, 

decentralized education system on the same set of goals” (p. v). But the Center also found that 

many school districts were having various difficulties enforcing the law because of stringent or 

unworkable requirements. 

Accountability 

Although most of our respondents agreed that it is too early to tell what impact NCLB will have 

when fully implemented, most agreed that it has had an early impact on how people think of 

issues related to accountability and students with disabilities. By including all students in the 

calculation of AYP, educators must concern themselves with the treatment and education of 

students with disabilities. IDEA has been the main legislative instrument to support the teaching 

and learning of students with disabilities, but NCLB provides the accountability mechanism to 

supplement the programs and regulations of IDEA. As one federal government director 

suggested, “NCLB emphasizes the greater responsibility of looking at what works in preventive 

interventions for students with individualized needs. Because it is accountability based, it will 

improve internal system changes.” A special education director at the school district level 

remarked, “all students count and all teachers count. Standards are raised and focus turns to good 

instruction.” Another respondent added: “By forcing states—for the first time—to include 

students with disabilities in their assessment and accountability systems, we know that these kids 

are going to count and progress is going to be measured.” 

The perception among most individuals is that if expectations and accountability rise, 

“phenomenal changes will occur.” However, how people truly perceive the barriers to inclusion 

and the education of students with disabilities could be the greatest barrier of NCLB. 

“My philosophy is that the attitudinal barriers are sometimes a bigger disability than the 

disability itself. This is very much how I see NCLB. The major thing is to change the low 

expectations people have toward students with disabilities. We’ve already seen some of 

the impact. It’s been pretty clear that there has been a focus on students with disabilities 

that we have never seen before. And in many cases, this is very good; in some not so 

good. I’ve seen two kinds of reactions: oh my goodness, we see poor performance, so 
what are we going to do to address this poor performance. Other states have made very 

positive, pro-active responses to the data they see. (Researcher) 

IDEA has largely been successful in getting students with disabilities served. One respondent 

from a national organization hopes that NCLB will enhance this achievement: “I hope that the 

net effect will be that people will focus much less on making sure students are served and much 

more on getting students with disabilities to reach state standards. There will be a shift from 

inputs and services to outcomes. I am cautiously optimistic.” 

The term “cautiously optimistic” probably best articulates the sentiments of most of the 

individuals interviewed for this review. A major consideration is how states and districts deal 

with this new layer of accountability. “We need to think about these kids achieving at a high 

level. IDEA stopped short of accountability. NCLB puts the accountability piece in. However, 

how well the accountability piece is thought out is another issue.” The AYP calculations have 

been a lightning rod of commentary in newspapers around the country, putting schools, districts, 

and states on the defensive. Because there is federal funding and control on the line, the stakes 

are high if compliance is not met within the federal guidelines. 

The stakes are so high, and subgroups are now so important in calculation of 

AYP, there is little time for the states to think constructively about how to go 

about that. States are trying to look at a broad range of issues that impact students 

with disabilities in AYP calculations, but localities are desperately trying to deal 

with it now to meet the legislative requirements. States are trying to provide 

guidance, but in terms of locals, the stakes are so high—you are asking them to 

think broadly, but they are working with immediate impact—immediate 

consequences. (Organizational Representative) 

Specifically, panel respondents pointed to a number of issues where there has been a more 

immediate impact on students with disabilities. Some of these areas include: 

Academics. Although there is no data to account for the brief time since January 2002 and this 

paper, there is belief that NCLB is partly responsible for the academic progress of students with 

disabilities. A leading national researcher on disabilities suggests that NCLB has improved 

reading, math, and science learning and teaching. It has brought up the academic progress of 
both good and bad schools. “It has not been universal, but it has—on average—benefited 

schools.” 

Data. While the availability of student-level data from schools, districts, and states has been 

problematic in the general education field, it has been more problematic for special education. 

Education Week found that only 13 of 37 states providing data to its national survey “tested 95 

percent or more of their special education students in reading and mathematics in grades, 4, 8, 

and 10, in the 2002-03 school year, or the most recent year for which data were available” 

(Education Week, 2004b, p. 7). Additionally, nine states and the District of Columbia could not 

provide any data (p. 13). 

But this is better than it has been, and many believe that NCLB is pushing districts and states to 

collect data for federal reporting purposes. “One of the reasons we [national center] got started is 

that there was no data on students with disabilities. People were asking how they were doing on 

large-scale assessments, and students with disabilities were not included. Now they are because 

of NCLB. So now we have some data. We may not like it, but at least have it.” 

A representative of a national organization added: “It’s not what the law does, but what people 

do to implement the law. I think NCLB will allow for collection of accurate data. Never before 

have I seen accurate data; NCLB may make that happen. Getting the data on the table will allow 

for a good discussion based on data.” Stated a district-level representative: “Data is horrific on 

the transition outcomes for students with disabilities, so this is a great opportunity to get it done.” 

Increased Dialogue/Knowledge of Standards. Whether one agrees or disagrees with NCLB, 

there has been an undeniable increase in dialogue among educators, policymakers, and 

researchers. Our panel respondents noted a renewed cooperation between general education and 

special education teachers and more joint programming and professional development. “I hear 

chief state school officers talking about it now,” noted one researcher. “It is a very different 

discussion these days.” Again, much of this has happened because of AYP and the inclusion of 

students with disabilities into the performance reporting for schools. 
NCLB has come at a time when the awareness, use, and support of academic standards are at 

their highest. Ninety percent or more of states reported having the same mathematics and reading 

content standards for students with and without disabilities (U.S. Department of Education, 

2003). “If I had asked teachers 10 years ago about standards, the comments would be much 

different; today, people are certainly aware of what all kids are supposed to learn,” stated a 

researcher. Studies in the mid-1990s substantiated the belief that students with disabilities were 

being left out of the standards process. Specifically, students with disabilities were being 

excluded from participation in standards-based curricula and assessments (Furney, Hasazi, 

Clark-Keefe, & Hartnett, Fall, 2003). It appears that this is indeed changing because of NCLB, 

but it is difficult to ascertain to what degree states and districts are following the standards 

movement. 

One panel respondent agreed that there has been a general shifting of special education services 

to be more in line with state standards due to NCLB, but warned that shifting and implementing 

do not equal achievement: 

What supports do students need to achieve these standards is an open question of 

what will happen. Most people are projecting in 3-4 years that there is a good 

possibility that dropouts will increase for special education students because there 

aren’t supports. There needs to be a reform of high school for students with 

disabilities. A lot of places are facing a big gap in what will occur. High schools 

have the kids in place who are a product of an older system; they have come up 

through segregated programs not addressing state standards; high school teachers 

are trying to address these standards, but the discrepancies are so large, that the 

kids are falling out. They are being babysat or not being supported to achieve 

standards at all. This is the frustration that we are hearing all over the country. 

(Researcher) 

Of course, the success of NCLB for students with disabilities depends to some extent on which 

disabilities are included. It is known that “disability” is a broad catchphrase that captures mild 

learning difficulties, behavior difficulties, mental retardation, and multiple disabilities. One 

researcher noted that there is cross-disability diversity, as well as within-disability diversity. 

“Within most disability categories, there are a good number of kids with sufficient supports— 

they will do all right. Many students are very close to being proficient in NCLB terms, but 
others—those with multiple disabilities, autism, mental retardation—have a long way to go. The 

story is much different for these different groups.” 

The impact, due in part to NCLB, also has a differential effect depending on the performance of 

a given state or district before the legislation was authorized. “We’ve seen large gains in 

performance in those states that are proactive [with regard to disability]. We’ve seen that kids are 

making improvements in performance.” Not all respondents share this enthusiasm for what is 

transpiring. “I think that the standards movement, as well as many policies under testing, has 

undermined the ‘Forgotten Half’” (Researcher). 

Unintended Effects of NCLB

As with all laws, there are always unintended consequences. “We’re very concerned about the 

unintended consequences of holding schools accountable for [the disability] population. We’re 

sensitive to the potential for pushing students out, for scapegoating students, for identifying these 

students as the reason that a school or a district isn’t measuring up.” (Mitchell D. Chester, 

assistant superintendent for policy development in the Ohio education department, cited in 

Education Week, 2004b, p. 16). This perception was widely held by our panel respondents. 

Several were worried about states “gaming” the system: 

I have some real concerns about how the school districts will translate the NCLB 

[provisions] about dealing with and reporting the progress of students with 

disabilities. The anecdotal evidence from earlier attempts to provide 

accountability (state mandated proficiency testing) show significant abuses in 

many states—none to the advantage of students with disabilities. If the future 

funding of school districts is contingent on the right level of progress, their 

response will be to not deal with the disability. (Practitioner) 

During our interviews, panel respondents discussed unanticipated outcomes and malicious 

compliance. “Some students with disabilities will do well on assessments and tests. But if you 

take students with disabilities as a large group we start talking about the potential of devastating 

effects. A particular school will be punished for low scores in a sub-group, and administrators 

fear including them.” Under NCLB, states must determine the size of the subgroup populations 

that will be included in the measure of average yearly progress (AYP), and it appears that some 

states and districts are using the size determination to avoid measuring certain categories of 
students. For example, respondents noted that several states and districts seem to be artificially 

raising their subgroup size to a level where there is little possibility that the “subgroup” will ever 

be reached. An example was given of a proactive district providing a reasonable level of 15 

students per subgroup in a school. In this case, if a school has only 10 students in a subgroup, 

their performance would not be included in AYP calculations. However, if the school had 15 

students or more in that subgroup, their performance would be counted. We heard that there are 

states that have artificially raised subgroup size to 100 or more, meaning there must be at least 

100 students within a subgroup to be considered in AYP, which, in the case of students with 

disabilities and non-English language learners, might be unlikely. 

The worry is that, the way NCLB is structured with subgroups, schools will work 

to keep the subgroup small enough as not to be considered; they could start 

moving students around to other buildings to keep under the limits. Let’s say you 

have 60 students with disabilities in a typically-sized elementary school (600 

kids). In Minnesota, that school has to be accountable as a subgroup, because they 

set a 15 person subgroup level per school. In Texas, virtually no school will be 

included. (Researcher) 

According to respondents, states that are proactive in dealing with disabilities are setting 

reasonable levels; those that have not been proactive are setting very high subgroup levels. There 

is a sentiment that AYP has created an unfair playing field for states that have historically 

provided proactive legislation and programs for students with disabilities and other subgroups. 

Implementation of the law, in terms of the very high stakes and consequences as 

disincentives to local administrators and practitioners, will vary by locality. Many 

people are focused on the consequences—to the extent that those who can 

manipulate legislation will. It becomes an issue of “the letter versus the intent of 

the law.” If we believe that other things have to be put in place for those 

subgroups to truly achieve the dream, then that will take a while. Otherwise, it 

will just be a legislative issue and local implementers will do what they need to do 

but no more. Those who have a deep conceptual belief will go further, but those 

who do not will only meet the letter of the law. (Organization Representative) 

There appear to be other ways for schools and states to flaunt the intent of AYP. Regardless of 

the numerical count of subgroup populations, school administrators may be under pressure to 

remove students with disabilities, as they will be for other subgroups, from their rosters. 

“Districts will find ways of making students with disabilities ineligible for the pool; maybe 
they’ll say only students going for a [high school] diploma will be considered, and move students 

to certificates. If this is left as a loophole, this would be an area where schools will try and play 

around.” A nationally-recognized researcher stated that she saw districts that were worried about 

performance reports and asked how they could get these kids out of their assessment system. 

Additionally, a school administrator remarked that another unintended consequence of NCLB is 

that as you improve the test scores of some higher performing students with disabilities your 

overall score may decrease because your best students do well enough that they no longer are 

considered special education, leaving your remaining pool with a lower standard. 

AYP also has the unintended consequence of switching the focus of assessments from workbased and alternative assessments to more traditional forms of evaluation and testing. Research 

shows that work-based learning opportunities provide a sound learning platform for students 

with disabilities (Cobb, Lehmann, Tochterman, & Bomotti, 2000; Johnson, Stodden, Emanuel, & 

Mack, 2002; Stodden, 1998), but panel respondents see that these opportunities may be lost 

through the focus on accountability and test outcome measures: 

Where I think NCLB is hurting is not as a piece of legislation itself, but as a 

continuation of the standards and accountability movement. I believe standards 

and accountability have done wonderful things around the country, and I have 

talked to legislators and practitioners who believe the same thing. However, what 

I think has been, frankly, a disaster are two things: (1) the exclusion of workbased programs from the original standards movement; and (2) the almost myopic 

focus by researchers and policymakers and bureaucrats at The U.S. Department of 

Education in using the results of state-level high stakes tests as the only 

acceptable outcome variable to measure the quality of educational interventions. 

We do not need to sacrifice work-based learning if we want to increase math 

literacy. I think that is a tragedy. (Researcher) 

Another panel member pointed similar criticism at the law: 

Work-based experience is amongst the most important aspects of keeping youth 

in school and to help them in future employment. Research has shown that this is 

one of the most important predictors of success of special education. Within 

NCLB, work-based learning opportunities are becoming more difficult for schools 

to coordinate for students due to the emphasis on standardized testing. This could 

be a method of instruction that has gone to the past. Students with disabilities 

could be dealt a major blow if this happens, unless alternative assessments are 

encouraged and developed. And this is true for every category of student. 
Whether in a resource room or self-contained classroom, whether their label is 

mental retardation or physical disability—research shows that all of these youth 

benefit from work-based learning opportunities. (Researcher) 

Educators from many fields are grappling with this issue of developing assessments that 

measure more than just academic skills. 

Impact of NCLB on the High School Dropout Rate of Students with Disabilities 

Our panel respondents were both positive and negative about the impact of NCLB on the dropout 

rates of students with disabilities. On the positive side, several respondents felt that the focus on 

AYP and accountability will heighten awareness of outcomes for students with disabilities that 

will yield better teaching and learning. 

I think dropouts will decrease. The combined emphasis of the President’s 

Commission on Excellence in Special Education Report (2003) and the timing of 

NCLB can be a catalyst for educators and administrators to want to keep students 

with disabilities in school. NCLB clearly demonstrates that no child, regardless of 

need or learning disability, should be left out of general education. Greater 

attention will be given to them. (Federal Administrator) 

A representative of an educational non-profit suggested that students with disabilities, like any 

other students, drop out not because school is too hard, but rather, because it is too easy. “Getting 

students to master skills needed in work and school will help them and encourage them to stay in 

school....I think the bar has been raised for students with disabilities, and I think they will meet 

it,” suggested a federal Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) official. “However, if they 

don’t get the remedial help now, they will never get it.” Another federal official thought that 

dropout rates could rise while states and districts struggle, but that in the long term “it will 

provide tremendous benefit and reduce dropout rates.” 

Although most of our respondents felt that some students with disabilities will do better in part 

due to NCLB, others saw a negative effect on the dropout rates of certain students. 

I actually think it will be a wash; some kids can actually benefit from it (from 

increased challenge). But some kids won’t, and will actually leave. There are 

some kids with learning disabilities and emotional disturbances who are not going 

to see their way through the tests and they will get discouraged. These kids may 
not get the type of services they actually need. If the focus of the school becomes 

the test, then where is the focus? If the kid needs therapy, the therapy is not 

directly related to test scores. (Researcher) 

Expulsion rates for students with disabilities is another issue linked to the dropout problem. The 

2003 Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities 

Education Act stated what is largely known in the research and policy world: that the size of a 

district and the percentage of students receiving free and reduced lunch were directly related to 

whether schools used expulsion strategies for students with and without disabilities. As the size 

of the school increased or as the percentage of students on free and reduced lunch increased, so 

did the school’s use of expulsion for disciplining students with and without disabilities (U.S. 

Department of Education, 2003, p. xvii). Some experts find that a good number of expulsions 

occur not because of the behavioral difficulties that students display, but rather, because of an 

effort by schools and districts to rid themselves of problem students. Stodden, Galloway, and 

Stodden (2003) posited that a real effect of standards-based reform could be an increased dropout 

rate for students with disabilities and a reduced rate of graduation. Such an effect could manifest 

itself in a number of ways. 

This is where we don’t have any research, so it remains to be seen. Intuitively, if 

there is no way of connecting students to what they are learning, students are 

prone to drop out. If students leave, schools don’t have to deal with them. It saves 

the school from the effort of accountability. So it isn’t necessarily a bad thing to 

force students out in some fashion. Either marginal performers or labeled students 

will be forced out, or one better: the student will say, “to heck with this, they’re 

treating me as trash, I might as well not be here.” Same outcome. (Researcher) 

I don’t think it will have any real impact on dropout rates. But here is what I think 

will happen. Based on my observations, school districts will help find ways to 

help students achieve on the test. In Texas, they kept students in grade nine 

forever. (Researcher) 

There is also a notion that the policy itself isn’t the problem. Rather, how the policy is ultimately 

implemented will be the defining outcome of NCLB on disability dropout and success. “I think it 

[NCLB] will increase dropouts. But it isn’t the policy; it is the practice that implements the 

policy. It seems almost inevitable.” (Researcher) 
I can’t say that NCLB will reduce the dropout rate. Conceptually speaking, yes, 

there is a potential for a reduction in dropout rates. In practice, we see significant 

challenges in place that could limit the effectiveness of NCLB for students with 

disabilities. People perceive a set of incentives that may or may not work to 

reduce dropout rates. Envisioned to work? Yes, but in practice it may be difficult. 

(Organization Representative) 

According to researchers, the State of Delaware recently realized three consecutive years of a 

continual decrease in dropout rates for students with disabilities. However, the rates went back 

up in 2003. “They don’t know why—don’t know if it was because or due to NCLB—but 

something changed. They are now about to undergo research to find out why.” 

I think it is an unknown yet. One thing we need to be very careful about is that we 

are mixing up high-stakes testing with NCLB. There are a lot of studies going on 

right now with conflicting results—that high-stakes tests can lead to increased 

dropout rates. But the data are out right now. The dropout issue is very critical to 

watch, and we’ve had just enough evidence that people can play with the 

numbers. There are enough people who are concerned that we have to be careful 

of the loopholes and really watch what is going on here. (Researcher) 

NCLB’s Impact on Expectations for Students with Disabilities 

While most teachers agree in principle that students with disabilities should be taught to higher 

standards, a recent survey by Education Week found that more than four in five teachers reject 

the notion that students who receive special education services should be held to the same 

standards and testing requirements as other students their age. Nearly as many say that students 

who receive special education services should be given alternative assessments rather than be 

required to take the same tests as general education students (Education Week, 2004b, p. 7). The 

survey also found that while teachers are positive about how much their students who receive 

special education services achieve each year, they also express reservations about whether all 

students with disabilities can actually meet state standards (Education Week, 2004b, p. 13). 

These findings are particularly interesting in light of the responses from our panel. As per other 

dialogues, our panel vacillated on much of the discussion of expectations of students with 

disabilities. One chord of agreement, however, was about expectations for various types of 
disabilities. “I think that attitudes about the potential of people with certain impairments, like 

sight, for example, have changed over time and will continue to change under NCLB. But 

students with cognitive disabilities and mental illness—there hasn’t been much change over the 

years with respect to expectations” (Federal Administrator). 

I think expectations for students with disabilities are lower than they are for 

students without disabilities. That isn’t always inappropriate. Sometimes they 

aren’t always unreasonable. I’m all for those with severe cognitive disabilities 

being in school to get what they can out of it, but knowing that they can only do 

so much. (Practitioner) 

A researcher agreed: “Expectations are higher than they used to be for students with disabilities, 

but I’m not sure if that is because of NCLB or IDEA.” 

Panel respondents seemed to agree that students with learning disabilities have different abilities 

than those with significant cognitive disabilities or than students whose disability impacts their 

attitude. Whether students should be considered, depending on their disability, at the same gradelevel as other students is open to discussion: 

If nothing else, NCLB has drawn a line in the sand; you must bring kids up to 

snuff; a kid may know content, because they have the auditory capacity, but 

reading is behind, thus they do not test well. We must continue to accommodate 

that student until we are testing what they actually know. Unfortunately, NCLB 

hasn’t been around long enough to demonstrate content knowledge as suggested, 

and it isn’t necessarily part of IDEA to test kids. (Federal Administrator) 

I can’t imagine that any logical person would think you could bring everyone to 

the same performance level given they come from different backgrounds and 

supports from home. However, I do think that we should set standards for gains 

and moving kids forward and moving them as far as we reasonably think they can 

go. Value added. (Researcher) 

I think there is no question that most school and district educators expect 

considerably less from students with disabilities, even when it goes beyond 

cognitive capacity. Expectations for students with disabilities are the lowest— 

period. When I work with these people, you get the “oh, OK, we might be able to 

do this for poor and minority kids, but students with disabilities? No way.” 

(Organization Representative) 
One researcher said that there is a belief among many that students who are enrolled and not 

functioning well at one grade level should be tested at a lower grade level. She suggested that 

this reflected a lower-expectation for students, with the result they fall further behind. But 

another panelist countered: “There are some students with disabilities who will never be at grade 

level. But through NCLB and IDEA, we are trying to show that students with disabilities have 

their own strengths and weaknesses and we try and work on those issues and meet whatever 

goals they set for themselves.” It was noted that this differential expectation contains a Catch-22 

of sorts: 

At some point, to say that they don’t have to meet the same standards suggests 

that there is some level of sorting out. It is that sorting out function that has been 

the problem with special education. If you are suggesting that there are alternate 

standards, it really opens up a set of problems. We need to balance it with 

individual needs. At what point do we keep the individual nature of IDEA over 

the more “here is the standard” of NCLB. Somewhere between the two is the 

answer. I don’t think the answer is suggesting that students with disabilities don’t 

need to meet the standard. There must be individual adaptation for students with 

severe disabilities or behavioral modification that must be addressed before you 

can meet standards. (Organization Representative) 

Making this acceptance of standards happen and turning that into practice is difficult work. 

“Things need to change early on—putting kids in general curriculum and making sure supports 

are in place. The expectation has to be the same but the approach must be different. You can 

make the same comment about English as a Second Language or high-risk students. You have to 

change the approach. If, at the local level, teachers can understand that not every student will get 

there the same way, then they can go about it. However, if educators can’t conceptualize that, or 

can’t be adaptable, then they cannot begin to conceive how to teach differently.” 

Some panel respondents found that expectations varied greatly for a number of other reasons. It 

was suggested that the building principal has much to do with the attitude that teachers, students, 

and parents have about students with disabilities. “Where there is collaboration between teachers, 

this seems to happen [expectations are higher]. Conversely, schools with principals overly 

concerned with accountability tend to have special education teachers who are less inclined and 

less confident working with general education teachers. When these things are seen as punitive, 

there is a negative view of students with disabilities because they are bringing down the group.” 
The truth is, these expectations vary from state-to-state, district-to-district, and school-to-school. 

“We’ve heard from people who say that students with disabilities can’t learn, shouldn’t be 

expected to learn. But we’ve heard the opposite; my students with disabilities are smarter than 

anyone else, it’s just giving them the tools to let them demonstrate it,” reported a federal 

administrator. “In general, teachers should have the same expectations of all their students. But 

specifically, it depends on the specific students.” 

Professional Development and Highly Qualified Teachers 

In addition to calling for high academic standards (NCLB Section 1111), NCLB also calls for 

states to ensure a high-quality teaching force in schools, high-quality professional development 

activities, and high-quality curricula (NCLB Sections 1114 and 1115). This is a challenge for 

public secondary and postsecondary education, which is currently struggling through teacher 

shortages and quality issues, to identify, attract, hire, develop and retain highly-qualified 

teachers. The success of NCLB on students with disabilities is, of course, dependent on teaching 

and learning in the classroom. The level of professional development, teacher preparation, and 

teacher induction will have an enormous effect on how well schools and districts meet AYP for 

at-risk children. 

At present, there are an estimated 39,000 special education teachers responsible for the education 

of over 600,000 students with disabilities (Smith, McLeskey, Tyler, & Saunders, 2002). 

According to Smith et al. (2002), many of these special education professionals lack “the most 

basic preparation to do their jobs” (p. 1). In terms of certification, it should be noted that just 14 

states and the District of Columbia require general education teachers to complete one or more 

courses related to special education to earn their licenses. This situation is of interest because 76 

percent of public school teachers teach students who receive special education services 

(Education Week, 2004b, p. 7). Still, national data illustrate that special education professionals 

are, as a group, more highly experienced than general education teachers. The average special 

education professional has taught for 14.3 years, 12.3 years of which were spent teaching special 

education. Over 90 percent of special education teachers were fully certified for their main 

teaching assignment, a rate almost ten percent higher than the national average for all educators. 
Fifty-nine percent of special education teachers had a Master’s degree, compared to forty-nine 

percent of regular education teachers (U.S. Department of Education, 2002b). 

This is important, because, as a representative from a national organization noted, “people are 

starting to understand, in a concrete way, that a good teacher impacts schools’ ability to help 

students with disabilities. Special education teachers are going to have more education and 

support. Under NCLB, only teachers who are highly qualified in academic content areas will be 

allowed to teach by 2005-06, although on March 15, 2004, the U.S. Department of Education 

issued a ruling providing additional flexibility for teachers in rural schools. NCLB has earmarked 

funds specifically to address the critical and growing need for teacher training and professional 

development. “Yet, supporting teachers in this way must be done systematically if it is to 

succeed” (Stodden et al., 2003, p. 14). But one researcher asked a more pointed question that has 

been largely unanswered: “Do the special education teachers know the standards related to 

NCLB?” 

Several respondents noted the importance of attracting highly qualified staff and ensuring that 

existing staff can meet the certification and subject-area levels of expertise required to meet state 

and federal requirements and ensure that all students meet AYP. “I’m concerned with what 

NCLB will do with instruction for students with disabilities. On one hand, I’m encouraged that 

the focus will result in better teaching and learning. However, I worry that we will not have 

sufficient numbers of qualified teachers to meet that need.” Says a special education director, 

In a good way, you are going to have better prepared and qualified teachers to 

meet the challenge. So, students with disabilities will be instructed by more 

highly-qualified folks. Of course, hiring and retaining these teachers is a 

challenge that school districts will have to deal with, and incentives and other 

programs will be important. This ultimately involves institutions of higher 

education since they need to train these teachers. Can they deliver? I don’t know. 

(District Administrator) 

Trying to find qualified staff was an inherent problem suggested by our panel. One district-based 

panel member noted that the issue of certification and credentialing will have to change. “In 

California, we have gone through a ton of credential changes over the past five years, making it 
very difficult for teachers to get certified in special education. It must be streamlined and 

efficient, and it’s not.” 

Achievement Standards 

Tightly linked to quality teaching and professional development are the standards by which 

students with disabilities are to be measured. Education Week reports that special education 

teachers express “reservations about whether all children with disabilities can actually meet state 

standards” (Education Week, 2004b, p. 13). 

Under NCLB, there are three guiding principles inherent in federal law: (a) there will be 

challenging standards; (b) all students, including students with disabilities, should have the 

opportunity to achieve these standards; and (c) policymakers and educators should be held 

publicly accountable for every student’s performance (Stodden et al., 2003). But standards are 

troublesome by some accounts. The National Center on Secondary Education and Transition’s 

Capacity Building Institute (2001) found that there are both positive and negative consequences 

to standards-based reforms for students with disabilities. Positive consequences included: 

• higher levels of learning and achievement toward common standards; 

• increased access to general education curriculum; 

• increased opportunities to learn grade-level material; and 

• more meaningful diplomas because the students and system are held accountable. 

Negative consequences included: 

• misinterpretation of achievement results and inappropriate use of scores; 

• higher rates of failure and dropouts due to challenging standards and 

inappropriate use of assessment data; 

• staff burnout and students cheating on tests; and 

• schools becoming less inclusive of students with disabilities because of test 

pressures and the probability that too many students with disabilities would lower 

the accountability index rating for the site (Quenemoen, Lehr, Thurlow, & 

Massanari, 2001). 
This stated, the U.S. Department of Education found that ninety percent or more of the states 

reported having the same math and reading content standards for students with and without 

disabilities in 1999-2000, and ninety percent of students with disabilities participated in 

statewide or districtwide assessments (U.S. Department of Education, 2003, p. xvii). Still, Cobb, 

Lehmann, Tochterman, and Bomotti (2000) suggest that the potential effects of current 

standards-based reforms are “extremely worrisome, since...intentions appear to be heavily 

weighted on the side of improvements for higher ability students” (p. 16). 

Several studies suggest that there is a lack of connection among special and general education 

reform efforts (McDonnell, McLaughlin, & Morison, 1997) (McGrew, Thurlow, & Spiegel, 

1993) (McLaughlin, Nolet, Rhim, & Henderson, 1999). The studies illustrated that many 

students with disabilities were being excluded from participation in standards-based curricula 

and assessments and thus received minimal or no benefit from reform efforts occurring in 

general education. 

Federal policy initiatives designed to address this situation included the 1997 

amendments to IDEA, which required students with disabilities to have access to 

the general education curriculum and state-mandated assessments; Goals 2000, 

which spoke to the need to ensure high performance for all students; and the No 

Child Left Behind Act, which emphasized the use of standards-based measures to 

assess and improve student performance and provided incentives and 

disincentives for schools failing to demonstrate adequate progress with respect to 

the standards. (Furney, Hasazi, Clark-Keefe, & Hartnett, 2003) 

Additional concerns about whether students with disabilities can meet the standards include 

research that shows that students with disabilities are negatively affected by traditional 

instructional practices at the high school level (Gersten, 1998) (in Stodden et al., 2003). Recent 

research efforts support the use of various instructional supports for “promoting both the 

participation of students with disabilities in the general education classrooms and their attaining 

individualized learning objectives” (Stodden et al., 2003, p. 13). Examples provided by Stodden 

et al. include revising the curriculum, redirecting content-area planning, enhancing and adapting 

content-area instruction and textbooks, engaging students in peer tutoring, teaching students how 
to learn, curriculum modification strategies, meta-cognitive approaches, learning strategies, and 

the use of a graphic organizer. 

And finally, Browder and Cooper-Duffy (2003) suggest that, in spite of NCLB’s focus on 

evidence-based practices, the inclusion of “students with significant cognitive disabilities in 

expectations for progress on states’ academic content standards appears to be a values-based, 

rather than an evidence-based, policy.” 

Assessments and Accommodations 

The 1997 reauthorization of IDEA and the more recent NCLB require states to ensure that all 

students take part in large-scale achievement testing, with or without the use of accommodations 

(U.S. Congress, 1997, 2002). In its Interim Report on State and Local Implementation of IDEA, 

the U.S. Department of Education found that states and districts have met this challenge with 

respect to statewide and districtwide assessments (U.S. Department of Education, 2003). The 

report states that ninety-six percent of schools reported administering a statewide assessment, of 

which ninety percent of students with disabilities participated. Of that group, two thirds used an 

accommodation. An additional three percent took an alternate test, and seven percent of all 

students who received special education services did not participate in any assessment. Two 

thirds (sixty-two percent) of schools reported administering a districtwide assessment, with 

similar participation rates as on statewide assessments (U.S. Department of Education, 2003, p. 

ix). 

With regard to the use of accommodations, the U.S. Department of Education reported that states 

and districts allowed widespread use of accommodations by students with disabilities to 

participate in statewide assessments (U.S. Department of Education, 2003). Almost all states and 

districts (approximately ninety-four percent or higher) allowed the use of presentation, setting, 

and timing accommodations for students with disabilities. According to Education Week’s 

Quality Counts, “Every state...provides at least one alternate assessment for students who 

received special education services if they cannot take part in regular state tests even with 

accommodations, or permits districts to do so” (Education Week, 2004b, p. 7). 
The most prevalent type of presentation accommodation in use was reading test directions aloud 

(eighty-eight percent of schools), and the use of accommodations did not appear to vary 

significantly by type of disability, with the exception of students with sensory impairments who 

had a greater reliance on Braille or large-print editions of tests, magnifying or amplification 

equipment and tape-recorded answers (U.S. Department of Education, 2003, p. xi). 

Not only are the numbers of students with disabilities taking large-scale tests increasing, but also 

their performance. According to the National Center on Educational Outcomes, the performance 

of students with disabilities on state assessments has increased in over half of the states and 

remained stable in one-third of the states (American Youth Policy Forum & Center on Education 

Policy, 2002, p. 28). 

Our panel of respondents had a number of comments about accommodations and assessments. 

One researcher noted that IDEA ‘97 required states to take assessments seriously, but not until 

NCLB did they “really take it seriously.” She added, “NCLB has pushed things forward, and 

everyone is paying attention to it. Before, things were happening in only the leading states. Now 

they’re happening everywhere.” 

The emphasis of IDEA and NCLB on achievement outcomes has resulted in schools and districts 

increasing their efforts to connect curriculum and assessments more intentionally with improved 

outcomes. Thurlow (2002) reports that “most assessment guidelines speak to the need for an 

alignment between assessment accommodations and instructional accommodations” (p. 4). But 

as one of our panel respondents said, not many are very far down this line. “There are people 

who saw this issue as soon as NCLB came out, but getting a critical mass of people to see this 

takes a while. They are starting to recognize issues and working with states to deal with issues. 

But again, it takes time, and people do not necessarily feel they have the time” (Organization 

Representative). 

Others cautioned that people shouldn’t make the assumption that accountability through NCLB 

automatically results in only high-stakes tests. “Assessments are fundamental to education 

reform in this country, whether a regular assessment or high-stakes test. NCLB does not 

necessarily require a high-stakes test, it is an accountability test—not necessarily the same thing. 
It is forcing the question of how to test and assess” (Federal Administrator). “There are no 

requirements for high-stakes tests,” said a representative of a national organization: 

How will the required assessments affect students with disabilities? By and large, 

we will be assessing students with regular assessments, perhaps modified; 

secondly, because you need to assess, you will be assessing students who weren’t 

assessed before. That should change because of NCLB. I am seeing the early 

stages of people thinking of this issue differently at the district level. I can’t 

necessarily say that actions are any different, but the thinking is progressing, 

which is a start. (Organization Representative) 

A high-ranking federal official from the Social Security Administration (SSA) said that “highstakes tests” should be used as a diagnostic instrument, and that it isn’t fair to use them as the 

end piece when students don’t really know how best to prepare for them. The problem of using 

these assessments for purposes other than student development is a broad concern: 

This is a complicated issue. I think if you have a test that measures absolute skills, 

you’re trying to figure out whether someone can read or add, I don’t have a 

problem applying it to everyone. On the other hand, if you are beginning to use 

results to let people in and out of programs, then it becomes complicated. If the 

tests are used for gathering information to rank schools or exclude or include, then 

I have a problem. This is often missing from the discussions. (Federal 

Administrator) 

Panel respondents continued to worry about malicious intent issues with the law, especially with 

regard to accommodations and accountability. “If students with disabilities aren’t accommodated 

or there aren’t alternative assessments, school scores will be affected. If so, the school will figure 

out a creative way of counting these kids out or the kids will choose to leave” (Researcher). He 

was skeptical of the true intent of some of America’s schools: 

Many schools are trying to hold special education programs at arms length. One 

example from Delaware. One school, when 8th grade students matriculate to the 

9th grade. Instead of putting them in high school (9th grade), they put them in a 

special “9th grade academy” so their scores don’t count. There are several results. 

First, it segregates them from other students, so there is no inclusion. Second, the 

students are forced to take the 9th grade in high school over, thus they are now a 

grade behind. For students, this then becomes a watershed—do I repeat the grade 

because they made me, or do I drop out? 
Panel respondents also pointed out the non-malicious types of outcomes. “I have a significant 

concern with grey-area students—those who are not taking alternative assessments but are not in 

the general curriculum/education. The students will be taking the tests but not really in a plan of 

accommodation. Those are the students who will potentially fall through the cracks” 

(Organization Representative). That panel member also pointed out her concern for the 

implications of spending time on testing. “Time spent on test preparation will take away from 

traditional time spent on transitioning issues. Some places are thinking about how to do this, but 

there are a number of places that are simply not doing it.” 

Another panelist reiterated what we know from the research literature. “We are all over the place 

in terms of how to accommodate students with disabilities, even within districts. What guidelines 

are schools and districts using to make these decisions? Guidelines need to deal with how 

students are accommodated and how much time students get for testing” (Federal 

Administrator). 

And one researcher voiced a concern common in the area of psychometrics: 

My general sense is that we should see a blip in scores (we’ve already seen a blip 

in participation in state tests, just by requiring it) because previously students 

weren’t focusing on academic content; now they are, so the scores should elevate. 

But once beyond the blip, how do you maintain? How do you get the level of 

supports necessary? Can schools maintain that support? (Researcher) 

The most recent issue with regard to assessments and accommodations in NCLB revolves around 

the “one percent” issue. In December 2003, the U.S. Department of Education outlined its final 

rule regarding the calculation of Average Yearly Progress (AYP) for students with disabilities. 

The rule allows states to “develop and use alternate achievement standards for students with the 

most significant cognitive disabilities for the purpose of determining the AYP of states, local 

education agencies, and schools” (U.S. Department of Education, December 9, 2003). An 

alternate achievement standard is an expectation of performance that differs in complexity from 

a grade-level achievement standard. An alternative assessment is an assessment designed for the 

small number of students with disabilities who are unable to participate in the regular state 

assessment, even with appropriate accommodations. Examples of alternative assessment may 
include teacher observation, samples of students’ work, and standardized performance tasks. In 

brief, the rule provides flexibility to states, districts, and schools to use, in the calculation of 

AYP, alternative assessments that score at the “proficient” and “advanced” level for students 

with disabilities, with a cap of one percent of all students. The Secretary of Education reserved 

the right to approve an exception for a specified period of time for a state, and the one percent 

cap does not pertain to individual schools to allow for flexibility, but only to districts and states. 

This rule took effect January 9, 2004 and will guide schools and districts and states for the 

current (2003-04) academic year. 
Part II - Evidence-Based Research and Practice 

An important component of No Child Left Behind is the focus on evidence-based practices. The 

U.S. Department of Education has moved toward a research-driven mandate supported by 

practices that rely extensively on random controlled trials (RCTs) and other high-end research 

methodology to inform policy and practice. The importance of this movement was illustrated by 

the retooling of the former Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI) into the 

Institute of Education Sciences (IES) in late 2002. 

The impetus for the move toward evidence-based research and practices emanates from the 

Department of Educations’s belief that educational research is often poorly constructed: 

The field of K-12 education contains a vast array of educational interventions – 

such as reading and math curricula, schoolwide reform programs, after-school 

programs, and new educational technologies – that claim to be able to improve 

educational outcomes and, in many cases, to be supported by evidence. This 

evidence often consists of poorly-designed and/or advocacy-driven studies. 

(Institute of Education Sciences, 2003, p. iii) 

According to Davies (1999), evidence-based policy “helps people make well-informed decisions 

about policies, programs and projects by putting the best available evidence from research at the 

heart of policy development and implementation.” IES uses the criteria set by the Campbell 

Collaboration, an international effort to promote and make available systematic reviews of 

research studies. 

Simply put, evidence-based research should be “systematically searched, critically appraised, 

and rigorously analyzed according to explicit and transparent criteria” (Davies, 2004, p. 7). The 

purpose is to produce information that will have enough rigor to appropriately inform the 

development of public policy and high quality programs. 

As stated, NCLB requires evidence-based research and practices to be used in the field. In fact, 

NCLB includes more than 100 references to “scientifically-based research” (Browder & Cooper-
Duffy, 2003). States receiving NCLB funding and providing subgrants to local educational 

agencies (schools or districts) must use the funding: 

...to implement a comprehensive school reform program that... has been found, 

through scientifically based research to significantly improve the academic 

achievement of students participating in such program as compared to students in 

schools who have not participated in such program, or ... has been found to have 

strong evidence that such program will significantly improve the academic 

achievement of participating children. (U.S. Congress, 2002, Section 1606(a)11(a 

& b)) 

IDEA also has provisions for conducting, using, implementing, and disseminating evidencebased research to improve educational practice and professional development, including the 

development of “model demonstration projects to apply and test research findings in typical 

service settings to determine the usability, effectiveness, and general applicability of such 

research findings in such areas as improving instructional methods, curricula, and tools, such as 

textbooks and media.” (IDEA ‘97 Section 672(c)(2) 

One of the current challenges relates to the scarcity of research that meets the criteria set by IES 

for evidence-based research. A second challenge, to be discussed later, is how to turn available 

evidence-based research into practice. 

Effective Evidence-Based Practices for Students with Disabilities 

The use of evidence-based practices in special education is a new initiative, largely due to 

language authorized during the 1997 reauthorization of IDEA. Practitioners often have difficulty 

finding practices that are based on rigorous evaluation methods, either through the use of random 

controlled trials or other experimental methods. In an analysis of research-based instructional 

practices for students with disabilities, Gersten, Chard, and Baker (2000) were able to locate only 

one empirical study, which happened to be a Klingner, Vaughn, Hughes, and Arguelles (1999) 

study of reading approaches in the classroom. According to Gersten et al. (2000), research on 

special education has largely been “in the form of self-reflective essays” (p. 445). 

Lehr et al. (2003) reported on an integrative review of published reports of dropout intervention 

outcomes. Out of more than 300 studies, 45 intervention studies were coded, and effect sizes 
were calculated for 17 studies. Not one study incorporated a random selection process; 24 

percent (only 11 students) used non-random procedures for selection but random assignment of 

participants to control and experimental groups; and 38 percent (17 students) assigned 

participants to control groups without random assignment. Only four studies (10 percent) utilized 

pre- and post-test controls. Another limitation of the research, according to the analysis by Lehr 

et al., is that only 9 of the 45 coded studies had some form of randomized design, of which 6 

were focused on the high school population. Only two of those studies were conducted after 

1994. The authors concluded that the greatest limitation of this review was that the status of the 

research base did not lend itself to conducting a meta-analysis, resulting in a “significant need for 

more rigorous research that incorporates sound methodology, evaluation, and impact data.” 

Nietupski, Hamre-Nietupski, Curtin, and Shrikanth (1997) identified 785 articles in their review 

of research from 1976 to 1995 on students with significant disabilities. Fewer than ten percent of 

these articles focused on cognitive/academic skills, instead primarily focusing on social skills 

and social inclusion (Browder & Cooper-Duffy, 2003). 

Browder and Cooper-Duffy (2003) found that critical limitations to research about students with 

significant disabilities include: 

• sparse literature on students with complex, multiple disabilities; 

• limited range of functional academics and lack of reading comprehension 

measures; and 

• lack of research on teaching a broader range of academics to this population (e.g., 

science). 

Our panel respondents suggested that finding and using evidence is a difficult task that is filled 

with a lot of grey area: 

In the field, none of the interventions are so powerful so as to completely knock 

competing paradigms out of the box. In medicine, if someone has a broken arm, 

there is no debate about how an arm is healed. The arm is stabilized and put in 

some kind of splint or cast so that bone tissues can heal. No debate. In disabilities, 

we struggle on how best to learn to read (gradually add skills to repertoire or is it 

something that happens when there is a purpose to do so?). Some programs are 

marginally better, but not that good that they blow other stuff out. Is it because we 
aren’t that mature as a field? The real success of NCLB will be whether there is a 

real change in how we think about these issues. (Researcher) 

Evidence-Based Practices to Reduce Dropout Rates for Students with Disabilities 

Dropout rates among students with disabilities have always been a serious challenge for 

educators, parents, and policymakers. Even though there have been positive decreases in the 

percentage of students dropping out of high school, one third of all students with disabilities drop 

out (American Youth Policy Forum & Center on Education Policy, 2002). Put another way, only 

slightly more than half of students with disabilities graduate from high school (see Figure 1). An 

additional eleven percent of students graduate with a certificate (U.S. Department of Education, 

2002a). 

Figure 1. Dropout and Graduation Rates of Students with Disabilities, 1993-94 and 1997-98 

60 

Number of students 

40 

20 

35 

51.7 

31 

56 1993-94 

1997-98 

0 

Dropout Rates Graduation Rates 

SOURCE: American Youth Policy Forum & Center on Education Policy. (2002). Educating Children with Disabilities. Washington, DC. 

Completion and dropout rates vary depending on the type of disability. As can be seen in Table 1 

below, students with emotional disturbances are the least likely to receive a diploma, or 

alternative credential, and are most likely to drop out. Conversely, students with sensory 

impairments are most likely to earn a diploma and complete high school, and are least likely to 

drop out. 
Table 1. High school completion and dropout rates by disability type, 2000-01 

Completion Rate 

Alternative Total Dropout 

Disability Diploma Credential Completion Rate Rate 

All IDEA students 57 11 68 29 

Emotional disturbances 39 6 45 53 

Learning disabilities 64 8 71 27 

Mental retardation 40 28 68 25 

Other cognitive disabilities 57 20 77 13 

Speech/language impairments 64 8 72 26 

Orthopedic impairments 64 11 76 18 

Sensory impairments 69 14 83 14 

Other health impairments 68 7 75 23 

Multiple disabilities 48 20 68 17 

Source: U.S. General Accounting Office. (2003). SPECIAL EDUCATION: Federal Actions Can Assist States in Improving Postsecondary 

Outcomes for Youth. Report to the Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, U.S. Senate (GAO-03-

773). Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Office. 

A problem with the dropout rate is the lack of up-to-date and accurate data on educational 

progress with respect to students with disabilities. The U.S. Department of Education (2003) 

reported to Congress that fewer states and schools reported on the dropout rates of students with 

disabilities than on the dropout rates of general education students, and only eighteen percent of 

states reported rates separately for students with disabilities and general education students (p. 

xii). 

Students with disabilities, like other students, drop out for a wide variety of reasons. According 

to Jordan, Lara, and McPartland (1996), these reasons can be categorized as those that push or 

pull students out of school. Push factors are usually considered the primary reasons for dropping 

out, and include repeating grades, low academic achievement, and insufficient evidence that 

school personnel care (Scanlon & Mellard, 2002). Factors that pull students out of school may 

include employment and pregnancy. 

Dropout prevention strategies for students with disabilities typically include counseling services, 

reading remediation, tutoring, attendance monitoring, or after-school clubs (Lehr et al., 2003). 

Other services could include sustained and supportive monitoring interventions focused on 

school completion (Scanlon & Mellard, 2002). An early 1990’s study of three dropout 

prevention programs for students with disabilities sponsored by the Office of Special Education 
Programs found that five components were common to all programs: persistence, continuity and 

consistency; monitoring; relationships; affiliation; and problem-solving skills (Lehr et al., 2003). 

Other researchers support these component areas, but warn about the efficacy of recent research. 

“The extent to which these interventions are systematically targeted for disengaged learners is 

unclear and closer examination suggests many of these practices are not evidence-based and 

have not been subjected to rigorous evaluation” (Lehr et al., 2003). 

Evidence-based dropout strategies

The research literature on effective dropout strategies is extraordinarily limited. While there 

appears to be an abundance of anecdotal evidence of success of programs and strategies, only a 

marginal number have an empirical basis for that success. As presented previously, Lehr et al. 

(2003) recently conducted a meta-analysis of dropout research, only to find that of the 300 

studies they reviewed, only forty-five studies could be coded, and only nine had some form of 

randomized design. In the end, only two conducted since 1994 were focused on high school 

students and had a randomized-control element in the evaluation. 

However, we were able to identify information on a few dropout programs for students with 

disabilities. Sinclair, Christenson, Evelo, and Hurley (1998) conducted an evaluation of “Check 

and Connect,” a dropout prevention and intervention procedure developed to encourage middle 

school youth at high risk for dropping out to remain engaged in school and on track to graduate 

(See Appendix B: Evidence-Based Practices). Central to Check and Connect is a system 

“monitor” to keep students, parents, and teachers focused on the educational goals. Interventions 

included the sharing of information with students about the monitoring system, providing 

feedback to students about their progress, regularly discussing the importance of staying in 

school, and conducting risk-factor problem-solving sessions. 

Ninety-four students were randomly assigned to a treatment or control group (n=47 each). 

Analysis found that students who received the Check and Connect intervention were more likely 

to still be enrolled after one year in the program (ninety-one percent vs. seventy percent) and 

more likely to graduate from high school within four years (forty-six percent vs. twenty percent). 
The PASSAGEWAY (Program to Assist Secondary Students in Achieving Gainful Employment 

for West Alabama Youth) Program was designed to help at-risk special education students who 

either were potential dropouts or already had dropped out get back on track (Madison, Marson, 

& Reese, 1999). The program worked with students in six Alabama counties, providing literacy 

and employment training, employment opportunities, flexible scheduling, and family counseling. 

Services were provided by trained professionals, graduate students, and industry partners. 

Students were divided into two strands: strand one was defined for incoming ninth, tenth, and 

eleventh grade students identified as at-risk of dropping out; strand two was defined for students 

with disabilities who had dropped out four years prior to entry into PASSAGEWAY. Although 

the research article suggests that there were no strand one dropouts in three years of operation, 

and that half of the strand two (disability dropouts) had gained employment, there is no empirical 

evidence of success. 

We reviewed several other programs that similarly were limited in their outcome data and 

analysis. For instance, the Transition Services Program of the Onondaga-Cortland-Madison 

Board of Cooperative Educational Services (New York), which serves students aged 13-21, most 

with mental retardation, serious emotional disturbance, specific learning disabilities, and 

multiple disabilities, claims to be “instrumental in reducing the dropout rate of at-risk students by 

increasing their awareness of opportunities available to them with training and a diploma.” 

Unfortunately, no evidenced-based data were available to support that statement. 

Evidence-Based Practices in Transition 

Transition from high school to postsecondary education and the workforce is a critical issue for 

students with disabilities, such that specific language was added to IDEA in 1997 to ensure that 

all students, by age 14 or earlier, would have a statement of transition services itemized in their 

IEP. In addition, IDEA also requires school districts to include students as participants in their 

transition planning meetings (Field & Hoffman, 2002). Regardless of the legislative language, 

research shows that the implementation of this policy has been slow and inconsistent across 

states (Hasazi, Furney, & DeStefano, 1999; Johnson, Sharpe, & Stodden, 2000; Johnson et al., 

2002; National Council on Disability, 2000). 
Fifty-seven percent of youth served under IDEA received a standard diploma and an additional 

eleven percent received an alternative credential when they left high school in 2000-2001 (U.S. 

General Accounting Office, 2003). In total, over 300,000 IDEA youth exited high school that 

year. Approximately thirty-seven percent of students with disabilities entered some type of 

postsecondary education (compared to seventy-eight percent for all high school graduates) 

(Blackorby & Wagner, 1996). Overall, an estimated 428,280 students with disabilities were 

enrolled in colleges in the United States in 1997-1998, almost half of whom were diagnosed as 

learning disabled (Skinner & Lindstrom, 2003). 

At the postsecondary level, the number of students reporting a disability has increased 

dramatically, climbing from less than three percent in 1978 to nearly nineteen percent in 1996 

(Blackorby & Wagner, 1996). To meet the needs of the students, there has been a ninety percent 

increase in the number of postsecondary programs offering opportunities for adults with 

disabilities to continue their education (Pierangelo & Crane, 1997). Nonetheless, the enrollment 

rate of people with disabilities in postsecondary institutions is still fifty percent lower than that of 

the general population, which has significant effects on the long-term employment prospects for 

people with disabilities (Stodden & Dowrick, 2000). It is hoped that an outcome of NCLB will 

be an increase in the number of students with disabilities who are prepared to pursue 

postsecondary education. 

Education and training after high school is becoming more important for all students, especially 

for students with disabilities. Recent changes in the labor market have increased the importance 

of postsecondary education as a factor in the job market, and postsecondary education provides 

the opportunity for students to maximize their preparedness for future job market trends 

(Stodden & Dowrick, 2000). But according to Stodden and Dowrick, adults with disabilities are 

negatively and disproportionately affected by changes in general employment trends. They, 

unfortunately, face labor market liabilities which place them in the position of being the “lasthired and the first-fired” (Stodden & Dowrick, 2000). 

In 1996, U.S. Census Bureau statistics indicated labor force participation rates at 

75 percent for people without a high school diploma, 85 percent for those with a 

diploma, 88 percent for people with some postsecondary education, and 90 

percent for those with at least four years of college. By contrast, only 16 percent 
of people with a disability and without a high school diploma currently participate 

in today’s labor force. However, this participation doubles to 30 percent for those 

who have completed high school, triples to 45 percent for those with some 

postsecondary education and climbs to 50 percent for adults with disabilities and 

at least four years of college (Stodden & Dowrick, 2000). 

Still, significant numbers of students with disabilities remain in special education programs 

beyond their eighteenth birthday while their non-disabled peers go on to postsecondary education 

or the workforce. According to Hart, Zaft, and Zimbrich (2001), reasons for this discrepancy 

include: 

• federal entitlements to public educational services that continue to age 21 (with 

most recent legislation through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 

Amendment, 1997); 

• low expectations that students with significant disabilities such as mental 

retardation will go on to college; and 

• adult service agencies with limited resources and long waiting lists. 

The U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO)(2003) recently reported that students with 

disabilities have a “fear” of losing public assistance, per the first bullet above. An unintended 

consequence of Social Security Administration (SSA) programs and regulations is the potential 

discontinuation of benefits once a student leaves high school and enters postsecondary education. 

In fact, the SSA “Ticket to Work” program, which serves individuals with disabilities (Title II of 

the Social Security Act) between the ages of 18 and 64, has reported serving less than one 

percent of eligible youth. GAO visited three states and was told by SSA officials, school 

administrators, teachers, advocacy groups, and others that fear of losing federal and state benefits 

is a significant barrier to participation in federal work incentive programs such as the Ticket to 

Work program. SSA has recently partnered with the U.S. Department of Education to reverse 

those policies and allow students in postsecondary education to continue to receive benefits. 

A senior administrator with SSA on our panel described it this way: 

Under the 1997 amendments to SSA, we are required to reevaluate the one 

million individuals under the age of 18 who receive Supplemental Security 

Income (SSI) services upon their 18th birthday, and apply adult eligibility. The 
result is that 30 percent of these kids are not eligible for Ticket to Work and other 

SSI services. What’s been happening is that students have apparently been 

dropping out in order to keep their SSI and Medicaid services. Together with the 

Department of Education, we are about to issue a rule this spring which reverses 

incentives: if you are on SSI, and enrolled in school, and have an IEP, then we 

will delay the eligibility ruling. If you want to be certain that your child continues 

to receive benefits, then we have now made it that keeping them in school is the 

best thing, not the other way around. The prior rule evidently was a disincentive 

to stay in school. (Federal Administrator) 

Financial aid is another barrier to postsecondary studies for students with disabilities. The Youth 

Advisory Committee of the National Council on Disability concluded that disabilities may 

prevent students from accessing financial aid for college and graduate school, because of 

“reduced course loads, extended number of semesters before the completion of a degree, 

difficulty with test taking and scholarship essay writing, an inability to participate in college 

work-study programs due to the nature of a disability, and discrimination against graduate school 

assistants with disabilities” (Youth Advisory Committee of the National Council on Disability, 

2003). 

In its study, the GAO (2003) identified the problems reported by various stakeholders in the 

transition process (see Table 2 below). As is evident in the table, each constituency had a 

different viewpoint. Students noted a lack of self-advocacy training, which helps empower them 

to develop the necessary skills to succeed in a postsecondary environment. Parents found that 

lack of information and support made it difficult to navigate the transitional period. Teachers and 

other educators talked about the problems in linking students with postsecondary and workforce 

opportunities and services. Researchers focused on the lack of work-based experiences for 

students, a notion we found mirrored by the researchers on our panel. And finally, government 

officials focused on the more tangible issue of transportation for students with disabilities. All 

are legitimate barriers to the successful transition of students, and all have their own set of 

difficulties in moving toward acceptable and appropriate remedies. 
Table 2. Problems reported by stakeholders in the transition process 

Stakeholders Transition problem 

Youth Lack of self-advocacy training 

Parents Insufficient information about transition process 

Teachers Absence of linkages between school systems and service providers 

Researchers Lack of vocational education and community work experience 

Federal, state, and local officials Lack of transportation 

Source: (U.S. General Accounting Office, 2003, p. 18, using data from National Youth Leadership Network 2001-02 Youth Survey, site visits, 

Study of Personnel Needs in Special Education (SPeNSE), NLTS2, and GAO interviews.) 

In a synthesis of special education literature, Skinner and Lindstrom (2003) identified six critical 

areas where students with disabilities are at a disadvantage compared to non-disabled students 

with regard to postsecondary education attainment: 

• deficits in study skills such as test preparation, note-taking, and listening 

comprehension; 

• problems with organizational skills; 

• difficulties with social interaction; 

• deficits in specific academic areas, with reading and written composition being 

the most frequent; 

• low self-esteem; and 

• higher school dropout rates. 

If these are the main challenges to transitioning to postsecondary life for students with 

disabilities, what policies and programs can remedy or ameliorate these challenges? To inform 

our discussion, we identified a taxonomy, developed jointly by Western Michigan University and 

the Transition Research Institute at the University of Illinois, of transition practices for students 

with disabilities (ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education, 2000). Based on an 

exhaustive review of the literature and reviews of model projects and exemplary programs, the 

findings were organized into the following five categories: 

• Student-focused planning; 
• Student development; 

• Interagency and interdisciplinary collaboration; 

• Family involvement; and 

• Program structure and attributes. 

The director of the study said they found that effective transition relied on “more than a special 

education teacher or a transition specialist to implement these practices—it takes the entire 

school community” (ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education, 2000). 

Skinner and Lindstrom (2003) identified the following factors that have shown empirical 

evidence in influencing success. These include: (a) the extent of student knowledge of the nature 

of their disability and compensatory strategies; (b) how able a student is to manage a disability in 

a proactive manner (e.g., self-advocacy, goal setting, knowledge of disability law, selection of an 

appropriate college, self-identification, organizing for living and learning, etc.); (c) the 

availability of emotional and academic support; (d) the severity of the disability (e.g., a diagnosis 

of Attention Deficit Disorder compared to learning disabilities); (e) strength of the student’s 

motivation; and (f) how willing he or she is to persevere under adverse conditions. 

Evidence-Based Transition Strategies

What practices work in transition? Unfortunately, the evidence-based research in this area is 

limited. In addition, the difficulty in targeting interventions during the complex period of 

adolescence has steered researchers away from high school and transition issues. It is difficult to 

determine which specific intervention at the secondary education level is responsible for an 

outcome, given the many inputs (adolescent development, curriculum, impact of peers, high 

school structure, teacher quality, etc.) Because of many of these complexities, research will 

likely continue to focus in the short term on early education and reading, leaving a void in 

research for secondary school students with disabilities, and transition. 

A secondary limitation to the research literature is the small size of studies. To provide an 

example within the transition arena, Serebreni, Rumrill, Mullins, and Gordon (1993) looked at 

the implementation and effectiveness of Project Excel, a six-week summer transition program 

designed to (a) facilitate the transition to college for incoming students with disabilities, and (b) 
promote academic excellence for high-achieving students with disabilities at the University of 

Arkansas. Program activities were clustered into three categories: psychosocial adjustment, 

academic development, and university and community orientation. 

According to Serebreni et al. (1993), students who participated in Project Excel received 

academic advising and personal counseling, and six hours of college credit, and participated in a 

wide range of social and recreational activities. On a post-program Likert scale evaluation 

questionnaire, students rated Project Excel as a good-to-excellent college preparatory experience. 

The study’s authors concluded that Project Excel enabled students to “develop friendships, 

successfully complete two college courses, and acquaint themselves with the university and 

surrounding community” (Serebreni et al., 1993). We use this example to show that, while 

Project Excel and other programs like it may be good models, it is difficult to make that 

assumption from this study due to obvious limitations, most specifically empirical rigor. The 

number of students included in the study was only 12. There are other examples of similarlychallenged studies where the sample size is—at best—limited. 

This stated, there are still “pockets” of information, some evidence-based, that are worthy of 

discussion. For instance, Benz, Lindstrom, and Yovanoff (2000) reviewed the research on 

transition factors associated with secondary and postsecondary outcomes for students with 

disabilities. Their search yielded six programmatic factors that resulted in better opportunities for 

students with disabilities: 

• Participation in paid work experience in the community during the last two years 

of high school; 

• Competence in: 

o functional academic skills (e.g., reading, math, writing, and problemsolving); 

o community living skills (e.g., money management, community access); 

o personal-social skills (e.g., getting along with others); 

o vocational skills (e.g., career awareness, job search); and 

o self-determination skills (e.g., self-advocacy, goal setting); 

• Participation in transition planning; 
• Participation in vocational education classes during the last two years of high 

school, especially classes that offer occupationally-specific instruction; 

• Graduation from high school; and 

• Absence of continuing instructional needs in functional academic, vocational, and 

personal-social areas after leaving school. (Benz et al., 2000) 

Hart, Zafft, and Zimbrich (2001) implemented and evaluated a model approach for creating 

access to college for all students, including students with disabilities who have a significant 

physical or mental impairment. The model, supported through an Office of Special Education 

Programs grant, was built around a student’s strengths and preferences, involved family 

members, and used a collaborative interagency team (Student Support Team) to create 

innovative strategies that support student access to inclusive college settings. A consortium of 

five urban high schools and their local college was created with the primary purpose of 

improving adult outcomes for students with significant disabilities. The project used a studentcentered framework and modeled many of the “best practices” outlined by the National 

Transition Alliance. 

The development of a Student Support Team (SST) at each high school was at the core of the 

model. The SST included college faculty, parents, students, and disability professionals, and its 

role was to develop individual services and supports for students who expressed an interest in 

pursuing postsecondary education. The SST met monthly to identify individual services and 

supports for participants, aged 17 - 22, with significant disabilities. Each SST developed a 

sample menu of individualized services and supports, some of which included academic 

coaching, transportation training, career connections to employment, mentoring, technology, and 

social networks (Hart et al., 2001). 

Hart et al. (2001) found that several (no numbers provided) of the 25 high school students with 

significant disabilities who were served through the project completed high school and continued 

to take courses at their local college. Others worked part-time and took a course, while still 

others worked in areas related to their preferences and college experiences. Students expanded 

their social networks to include peers without disabilities, and reported a greater sense of pride in 
themselves. As part of the project, a check-list was created to identify the essential skills or 

activities that each student needed to accomplish (see list below). 

Suggested activities to help prepare students with disabilities for college 

• Set postsecondary education & career goals (consider person-centered planning). 

• Obtain college catalogue(s) and review carefully with support from high school 

staff (e.g., guidance counselor) and your family, as needed. 

• Have the documentation of your disability updated. 

• Be able to describe how you learn best. 

• Know what accommodations and technology you may need (e.g., reader, note 

taker, scribe, books-on-tape, speech-to-text software, screen reader). 

• Know your rights and responsibilities under the laws (e.g., IDEA ‘97, ADA, 

Section 504). 

• Visit college(s) before making final choice. 

• Meet with college Disability Services Office (DSO) staff to talk about 

documentation and learn about the college accommodation system and how it 

differs from high school. 

• Discuss goals, learning needs, and how to access specific accommodations, 

including academic supports that are available for all students (e.g., tutoring, 

writing support) with DSO staff before classes begin. 

• Identify if the college has a mentorship program. If so, find out how to connect 

with a mentor. 

• Work with the high school and DSO to learn organizational and study skills and 

how to recognize when you need help. 

• Set up transportation prior to the start of school (e.g., driving, car-pooling, 

learning to use public transport, travel vouchers). 

• Attend summer orientation sessions and get to know the college campus before 

classes start. 

• Fill out financial aid forms and make sure that funding for all costs is arranged 

(e.g., tuition, books, fees, transportation). 

• Identify how financial support you receive impacts other benefits (e.g., SSI, 

SSDI). 

• Know what services are available through adult human service agencies (e.g., 

vocational rehabilitation — tuition, books, transportation, employment supports; 

One-Stop Career Centers). 
Research by Hasazi et al. (1999), Kohler (1993), and Benz et al. (2000) identified organizational 

factors associated with exemplary secondary and transition programs and better outcomes for 

students, including: 

• the use of written interagency agreements between schools and adult agencies to 

structure the provision of collaborative transition services, and 

• the establishment of key positions funded jointly by schools and adult agencies 

such as vocational rehabilitation to deliver direct services to students in transition. 

In 1989, the Marriott Foundation, with assistance from TransCen, Inc., initiated a program to 

enhance employment opportunity for youth with disabilities called “Bridges . . . From School to 

Work” (Marriott Foundation, 2004). The program was developed to address the traditionally 

high unemployment rate of youth with disabilities as they exit high school by providing them 

with critical job experience, and to help employers meet their human resources needs. The 

unique aspect of “Bridges” was paid internships for youth with disabilities during their last year 

of high school. Students are placed in internships in local companies where the employer pays 

the intern directly. 

In addition to the more than 6,000 youth who have benefited from this program to date, eightyfour percent of youth placed in employment successfully completed the program and eighty-nine 

percent of them received offers of ongoing employment. A follow-up study completed 24 

months after program completion found that, on average, fifty-seven percent of the students 

remained employed with an eleven percent increase in wages and a twenty-four percent increase 

in hours worked per week. Nineteen percent of the students were unemployed but pursuing 

further education (Marriott Foundation, 2004). 

The success of the Bridges program underscores the importance of paid work experience as an 

adjunct to high school curricula for youth, regardless of disability category or severity of 

disability. The Bridges program is particularly interesting because one of our panel respondents 

was involved in the evaluation of the program. This respondent reiterated the success of the 

program, but also worried that this type of program—an evidence-based practice that illustrated 
real results in workplace preparation—would be lost in an NCLB world of academic 

accountability measures. 

Other challenges found by the National Center on Secondary Education and Transition (NCSET) 

is that school administrators, teachers, staff, students, and community members do not 

necessarily believe that all students can achieve to high standards, that supports in high school do 

not adequately take into account the complexity of the transition process, and that students aren’t 

actively involved in their transition planning. To help demonstrate to teachers and staff what 

types of quality interventions are most successful, NCSET developed the following chart that 

compares standard and quality accommodations for students with disabilities: 

A comparison of minimum and quality accommodations 

Accommodation Quality Accommodation 

Secondary school student has been invited to 

participate in Individualized Education Plan (IEP) 

meeting. 

Student is invited and encouraged to participate in IEP 

meeting and then does. 

General academic standards are set for all secondary 

students in the state. 

High standards for both academics and career 

preparation are set for all secondary students in the 

state. 

The student’s educational goals are set to achieve 

outcomes within the current environment. 

The student’s goals focus upon outcomes to be 

achieved in both the current and future environments. 

Secondary school student (via parents) is regularly 

informed of student progress. 

Self-determination skills are infused into the secondary 

education curricula and self-determination is actively 

encouraged in parent/school interactions. 

A Statement of Needed Transition Services is included 

in the student’s IEP. 

The preparing environment (i.e. secondary school) is 

gradually molded to fit the receiving environment (i.e. 

post-secondary school). 

The post-secondary education student must initiate 

support provision. 

Students with disabilities and faculty members are 

given comprehensive information about, and 

encouraged to explore, various support options. 

In post-secondary school, diverse teaching materials 

are faculty-specific and require the student to personally 

advocate for accommodations. 

Post-secondary faculty increase their capacity to teach 

diverse learners, including students with disabilities. 

Source: Jones, M. (March, 2002). Providing a Quality Accommodated Experience in Preparation for and During Post-Secondary School, 

Information Brief (Vol. 1). Minneapolis, MN: National Center on Secondary Education and Transition. 

Evidence-Based Research on Assessments and Accommodations 

The lack of empirical evidence on accommodations and assessments for students with disabilities 

is discouraging. “Regrettably, there is virtually no current research regarding the differential 

effects that various accommodation services, supports and programs have in relation to 

postsecondary education access, participation and long-term outcomes such as student retention, 

graduation rates and high quality employment opportunities” (Stodden & Dowrick, 2000; Tindel, 
Heath, Hollenbeck, Almond, & Harniss, 1998). Thurlow, Ysseldyke, and Silverstein (1995) 

suggest that part of the reason for this dearth of evidence was the limitation in making testing 

accommodations available prior to the reauthorization of IDEA. 

Schulte, Elliott, and Kratochwill (2001) noted that, when selected and implemented 

appropriately, testing accommodations are believed to lead to technically sound test results. 

“Yet, to date there is limited experimental evidence to support this assertion” (Schulte et al., 

2001). In their study of the effects of testing accommodations on the mathematics test scores of a 

sample of 86 fourth-grade students, including 43 students with disabilities, Schulte et al. found 

that not all students benefited from testing accommodations. “In fact, approximately one third of 

students with and without disabilities in this study actually had lower scores in the 

accommodated condition than the non-accommodated condition” (Schulte et al., 2001). 

Furthermore, a report of results from a similar research project indicated that fourteen percent of 

students with disabilities and eight percent of students without disabilities experienced a negative 

effect of testing accommodations (Elliott, Kratochwill, & McKevitt, 2001). The researchers did 

not have any special explanation for why students had negative results, but called for more 

research. 

Helwig and Tindal (2003) conducted a randomly assigned study of the efficacy of teachers 

assigning accommodations to students for a mathematics achievement test with 973 general 

education and 245 students who received special education services at the elementary and middle 

school levels. The accommodation in question was reading aloud instructions and questions to 

students during the assessment. Summary findings indicated that teachers were unsuccessful at 

predicting which students would benefit from the accommodation, thus casting serious doubt on 

the assignment process. The authors found that prior studies resulted in similar outcomes (Fuchs, 

Fuchs, Eaton, Hamlett, & Karns, 2000; Weston, 1999), with the exception of Fuchs et al., who 

found that the efficacy of assignment could be increased if teachers had prior accommodation 

and testing information. 

Helwig and Tindal (2003) concluded that their study confirmed prior research that found that 

teachers are not accurate in their assignment of accommodations. However, they cautioned: 
The importance of accommodation decisions for students in special education 

remains, considering the need for validity in testing and federal mandates to 

include all students in large-scale testing programs. Because teachers are the 

individuals working closest with students, and possessing the greatest knowledge 

of each student’s capabilities, it is the job of researchers to develop methods to 

increase teacher efficiency rather than to bypass them in the decision-making 

chain. ( p. 223) 

The authors also caution that their findings should not discourage teachers from assigning a 

reading accommodation. Teachers and IEP team members should “rely on their knowledge of 

students’ reading and mathematics achievement, learning styles, classroom experiences, and 

testing behaviors.” (Helwig & Tindal, 2003, p. 224) 

While research on testing and accommodations for students with disabilities is very limited, 

emerging practices may help shed some light on how schools and school districts can improve 

outcomes for students. The Charlotte-Mecklenburg, NC school district asked all special 

education teachers to review the placement of students with disabilities in alternative 

assessments to determine if they could take standard assessments. Following a complete review, 

the school district discovered that 27 percent of the students who had been directed to take 

alternative assessments were successful in taking the regular assessment (some with 

accommodations). The district assistant superintendent indicated that they were able to make 

these determinations because teachers use student assessment data on a regular basis (in some

cases, every six to seven days) to manage their instruction and learning (Testimony of Jane 

Ryne, Assistant Superintendent Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, Charlotte, NC before the U.S. 

House of Representatives Committee on Education and the Workforce, Washington, DC, March 

3, 2004). 

Turning research into practice for students with disabilities

According to Klingner, Ahwee, Pilonieta, and Menendez (2003), two barriers to the 

implementation of evidence-based practices are (a) a lack of time and (b) inadequate support 

from administrators. Other barriers include “pressures associated with high-stakes testing, 

insufficient materials, a mismatch between teacher style and the practice, a lack of fit between 

the practice and other methods mandated by the school district, and teachers’ lack of in-depth 

understanding of the practice or forgetting” (p. 413). 
From a teaching and learning perspective, there are many factors that impact the use of evidencebased research in the planning and implementation of proven practices in the classroom. Sparks 

(1988) found that teacher beliefs, self-efficacy, attitudes, and perceptions all had an impact on 

whether and to what degree a teacher tried new strategies. Additionally, teachers who face 

challenges during the implementation of evidence-based practices will often revert to their 

traditional, comfortable practices (Lieberman, 2000). As Gersten, Chard, and Baker (2000) note, 

“Even when there is an awareness of the existing knowledge base, sustaining implementation in 

classrooms is infinitely more complicated than telling teachers and others that there is a 

knowledge base on effective practices and they should be using it.” Davies (2004) reports that 

moving research into practice “repeatedly shows that practitioners need incentives to use 

evidence and to do things that have been shown to be effective” (p. 20). 

Through their review of the extant literature, Klingner et al. (2003) identified the following ways 

that researchers overcome the burdens of implementation: 

• actively recruiting teachers and schools; 

• demonstrating both the general value of the practice and its potential for 

improving student performance on high-stakes tests; 

• assuring the feasibility and fit of the practice in the classroom; 

• developing an ongoing reciprocal partnership with school personnel; 

• providing teachers with sufficient mentoring and feedback; 

• maintaining open lines of communication; and 

• providing materials and other resources. (Klingner et al., 2003, p. 413) 

A federal administrator on our panel suggested that researchers don’t know how to push their 

research. “If you want to change behavior, you have to reach them where they are—parents at 

the grocery stores, teachers through the National Education Association and the American 

Federation of Teachers. We must get smarter about getting messages on research.” 

Turkstra (2003), using a medical model, fires off a warning about being too tied down by 

evidence-based practices (EBP): 
The potential danger of focusing on EBP is that it leads to a disproportionate 

emphasis on the tools of the experimental design rather than the specific questions 

that need to be answered. Evaluations and recommendations for clinical practice 

should not be based only on the amount of random controlled trials or other 

evidence but also on reasoned assessments of the problems inherent in attributing 

treatment cause to experimental effect; the degree of generalizability; and the 

scientific, social, and ethical implications of a decision in favor of or against 

assessing a cause to an effect. Also, such evaluations and recommendations 

should not discount the role of reasoned judgments made by experienced 

clinicians. 

Turkstra (2003) adds that “statistically significant” is not synonymous with “clinically 

meaningful,” that judgment is always required in individual cases, and random controlled trials 

may be impractical or inappropriate for answering many research questions. One of our panel 

respondents reiterated this issue: 

I believe that the Institute of Education Sciences and the U.S. Department of 

Education, in the promotion of evidence-based research, could be straightforward 

to the field in its knowledge that quasi-experimental designs only answer some 

types of research questions and other types of designs are essential to answering 

other types of questions. (Researcher) 

I think districts think they are using evidence-based research to inform practice, 

and the best districts are, but I do think it is hit or miss. They actually do it 

serendipitously, through colleagues, hearing someone speak, by following people. 

And it is also by how easily information can be accessed, not necessarily the 

quality. The marketing of it is often more important. We don’t necessarily find 

that the best quality evidence has the best quality distribution and marketing. So, 

the big need in our field falls on the backs of the regional technical assistance 

centers in special education. They need to filter the well-done studies from less 

well-done studies and promote the use of evidence-based practices as they go out 

and work with districts. (Researcher) 

A district administrator working through the challenges of NCLB stated that the U.S. 

Department of Education put together an evidence-based list of effective strategies for serving 

students with disabilities. “The research-based list from the federal level is based on ideology, 

not necessarily the quality of research. You have researchers arguing about whether it is a 

functional methodology or not or whether it is a good research methodology. The difference now 

is that the federal government has taken sides. This is a difficulty for us.” He adds, “I don’t think 
there are any barriers other than absence of knowledge and absence of research. Having it 

accessible; being able to understand it. I think we’ve been moving in that direction.” 

One researcher suggested that there is a potential collision ahead with regard to evidence-based 

practices and local decision making: 

Which is more valid, the work of an evidence-based research center or the 

experiences of families of children with disabilities? This has arisen several times. 

What is the basis for the criteria? Someone’s [research] numbers or someone’s 

real life experience? For example, a school district got an evidence-based strategy 

from a university, but a parent suggested something else that they knew would 

work with their child. The strategies were polar opposites. No one wants to touch 

this, especially those who defend NCLB. There are parent groups organizing 

around what really works for their child. Someone is going to have to address this. 

(Researcher) 

Practitioners and researchers on our panel were asked how they made district-level decisions on 

classroom strategies for students with disabilities. The strategies varied considerably. One school 

district was very constructive in its approach to research and program adoption. “When we 

adopted Open Court1

, we researched, read, talked to teachers, and visited school districts. Same 

with Language! [another literacy program]. We had people basically convince us that it was the 

way to go. We did due diligence.” Once through adoption, they didn’t stop there. “We actually 

used control groups to see how the program worked. Open Court was full hog—everyone did 

it—but we conducted correlation studies to prove its worth. We did test-matrix methodologies to 

see what areas in state assessments students weren’t performing, and then mapped the curriculum 

backward to Open Court to place a focus on those issues.” 

Another school district relied on its disability committee. “We have been looking at researchbased programs. We look at the validity of these programs, their norms, so we are adopting 

something that isn’t just packaged and is aligned with standards. This isn’t new. We’ve always 

done this. Last summer we had a pilot program using a new reading program to see how well it 

worked.” 

1 Open Court Reading is a research-based curriculum grounded in systematic, explicit instruction of phonemic 

awareness, phonics and word knowledge, comprehension skills and strategies, inquiry skills and strategies, and 

writing and language arts skills and strategies. 

(www.sraonline.com/index.php/home/curriculumsolutions/reading/ocr/622). 
Researchers weren’t entirely convinced that practice was sufficiently informed by evidencebased research. “They are definitely not using evidence-based research,” said one researcher. “It 

has more to do with accountability than what works, and most of the teaching is teaching to the 

test.” 

Removing barriers to adoption of evidence-based practices 

Because NCLB relies so heavily on evidence-based practices, the removal of barriers to the 

adoption of these practices is critical to the success of schools and districts in meeting AYP and 

also in meeting the individual goals of students with disabilities. Our panel listed a number of 

barriers to adoption in this early stage of NCLB. 

There needs to be some endorsement of research and practice to have it taken 

seriously. The Network for the Dissemination of Curriculum Infusion2

 is an 

example, where there are standards for program excellence. That’s what we 

need—some endorsement by a recognized organization or process. (Federal 

Administrator) 

Researchers don’t know how to get good research adopted. There must be a lot 

more marketing—best example was when [former U.S. Secretary of Education] 

Bill Bennett gave $1 million to package information on ADD (Attention Deficit 

Disorder) (through the Office of Special Education Programs). They packaged 

everything for teachers, students, parents, policymakers. They put ADD on the 

map. (Federal Administrator) 

Boards of education need to start looking at the data. Funding isn’t a good reason 

for not doing better. I think leaders of organizations aren’t looking at the right 

stuff. It doesn’t have to be driven by test scores. If we are looking at achievement 

and students aren’t improving, then something’s wrong. People who supervise 

principals and those who supervise the supervisors must start thinking this way. 

(District Administrator) 

As long as we consider just telling someone about evidence-based practice as 

translating research to practice, we will be in the same trouble. We need a 

fundamental switch to getting individuals involved, getting personal meaning, and 

engaging people to understand why “this” is a better way of doing things. Getting 

2

 The Network for Dissemination of Curriculum Infusion based at Northeastern Illinois University has been funded 

by the U.S. Department of Education to support the development of Curriculum Infusion programs on a national 

basis. The network is staffed principally by teaching faculty who have experienced success implementing 

Curriculum Infusion at Northeastern and disseminating the Curriculum Infusion process at national and regional 

meetings and workshops. (www.neiu.edu/~cinfusi/intro.htm#network). 
groups of teachers to adapt practice, help each other, creating knowledge. If 

simply telling people worked, it would have worked 25 years ago. Practitioners 

and administrators need to reflect. (Organization Representative) 

There was a concern among some panel respondents that curriculum marketers pushed school 

districts into believing that their products are evidence-based. “The biggest barrier is that they 

[educators] are convinced by sales people. How do they get beyond that? It’s pretty glitzy. The 

sales people can say what they want. It’s going to take the feds to come out with glitzy evidencebased stuff. It has to be easy to look at, simple to understand, so that they look and read it.” 

(Researcher) 

“There are a lot of curriculum marketers who distribute, but they don’t necessarily have the first 

part: the evidence-based piece,” said another researcher. “We need to follow the pharmaceutical 

practice of holding clinical trials.” 

Local folks are trying harder to get evidence of impact. But in most parts of the 

country, they are terribly dependent on publishers to provide that evidence. We 

need third-party, unbiased organizations and individuals to provide evidencebased information for use by practitioners, and it just doesn’t exist. (Organization 

Representative) 

A national organization representative said that the success in implementing evidence-based 

practices and improving the education of students with disabilities comes from a two-pronged 

approach: 

The evidence has raised our thinking to a new awareness. Everyone is now asking 

for the data. As a matter of influencing policy and practice, that becomes the 

evidence. That is clearly on a new level nationally, state, and locally. In terms of 

influencing policy, stories still show people what it means in practice. Aggregated 

data shows broad strategies, but people need to see what it means in practice. We 

need a balanced combination of database decision-making and the story of the 

scenario of what it looks like in practice. (Organization Representative) 

Researchers clearly understood their own limitations in pushing research to practice. “Many of 

us who do research consider the end work a journal article, and that in no way moves that work 

into usable information. There is a huge gap between what we determine is the end point and 

what educators require. We’ve always relied on ED [U.S. Department of Education] to do this.” 
Another strategy to help translate research is to assemble a cross-section of stakeholders to look 

at evidence-based practices. “We have to find simple, meaningful ways to look at these complex 

issues, and learn to learn with each other. Then that will become the means to a self perpetuating 

end.” One researcher remarked: “How do you get people to do something differently? How do 

you make change? Incentives? Motivators? What I see happening is the data that has to be 

generated by a school to stay above the level of being a non-performing school is driving all of 

this right now. If I can get scores up for schools, who cares what the method is.” 

Other strategies focused on faculty development and graduate training, the requirement of strong 

leadership with a clear vision for faculty development. “I think one barrier is that there is a 

tendency to see the kind of support that students need is contingent on well-trained teachers and 

staff. One-shot in-service is really insufficient. Pre-service and in-service training programs need 

to utilize evidence-based practice in how they prepare personnel.” 
Part III - Conclusions and Recommendations 

The release of this paper comes at an opportune time in many respects. The Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Act is currently in the process of being reauthorized, the reauthorization of 

the Higher Education Act is also underway, and the rules, regulations, guidance, and practice of 

how best to manage the implementation of NCLB are being refined, with states and communities 

learning from each other as they go. We believe this paper can help inform all of these efforts. 

Affecting change in any large organization is difficult, but making change in an enterprise as 

complex as the U.S. public educational system can seem overwhelming. Yet, as we have seen 

from the research and the comments contained in this paper, American schools are on the 

threshold of a fundamental, systemic, and structural redefinition of schooling. Just as American 

business and industry went through significant restructuring as a result of the quality 

improvement movement with its laser-like focus on outcomes, public education is moving down 

a similar path as it becomes oriented to outcomes and accountability, not inputs and process. 

The impetus for the recent wide-scale change in education can be traced to the No Child Left 

Behind Act. States and schools are scrambling to ensure that all their students are performing at 

proficient levels. The requirement of NCLB to provide outcome data on groups of students may 

be the most powerful motivator of this change. For the first time, communities are learning that 

their schools are not as good as they thought. Often, the low performance of at least two 

categories of students – students with disabilities and non-English language learners – has gone 

undetected. Low expectations for these and other groups of students (primarily low-income 

students and students from diverse cultures) have frequently resulted in dismal outcomes that are 

only now being widely reported in the press. Particularly for students with disabilities, we have 

labored under the false impression that disability means inability and let too many of our young 

people go through high school taking low-level, non-rigorous classes. 

Of course, change is never easy, and it certainly hasn’t been easy as the standards-based reform 

movement has taken hold and grown over the past decade. Almost daily reports in the media 

reflect dissatisfaction and anger over standardized testing programs, rigid and limited 
curriculum, and the threat of being named a low-performing school. The challenge is for the 

education enterprise to recognize that this is part of the evolutionary process of moving from an 

input-based system to an outcomes-driven system. There is no easy way to make the dramatic 

and far-reaching types of changes that need to be made in teaching, instruction, school design, 

professional preparation and development, assessment, and community input to reach our desired 

outcome: that every child is prepared for postsecondary education and training, a career, and 

participation in society. 

Signs of change are becoming evident across the country. In some cases, change is slower than in 

others, and in some communities, it is more difficult and more complex. The amount of social 

capital and the capacity of school leaders and teachers directly influence how quickly attitudes 

and values change and how rapidly schools can be restructured to increase student achievement. 

One obstacle that has slowed progress is the almost-nonexistent body of scientifically- and 

evidence-based research to help guide policymakers and practitioners in what works. In a similar 

vein, policymakers often have not collected the information they need (such as disaggregated 

data) to make informed decisions. At other times, data has been collected, but has not been used 

to inform policymaking in a meaningful way. 

Before NCLB focused on closing the achievement gap for all students, many educators paid little 

attention to the performance of certain groups of students, such as those with disabilities. While 

IDEA has been absolutely critical in increasing the number of students with disabilities who have 

access to inclusive classes, it has also, in some respects, resulted in a parallel education system. 

For many years, students with disabilities have been separated from their peers, not just 

physically, but through differential instruction, assessment, teacher corps, and accountability 

systems. At the local level, this has meant that students with disabilities were often left out of 

accountability systems, and many general educators did not feel responsible for the outcomes of 

students with disabilities. At the U.S. Department of Education, this parallel system has resulted 

in a similar approach of students with disabilities being “taken care of” by the Office of Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services. Other offices generally did not concern themselves with 

the outcomes of the students (just as non-English language learners were “taken care of” by the 
Office of English Language Acquisition). However, NCLB has changed that equation. Now, 

every office at the U.S. Department of Education must contribute to the performance of all 

students, including students with disabilities and non-English language learners. Every office 

must signal through its policy guidance, technical assistance, and programs that they are all 

working toward improved outcomes for all groups of students. From a leadership perspective, 

the Department of Education needs to ensure that every office is responsible for fully 

implementing NCLB. 

There are already many positive lessons to be learned in the implementation of NCLB from the 

field, and our respondents gave us many insights into what states and communities are doing to 

ensure that every student succeeds. The respondents also provided insights into the challenges 

faced by states and schools as they seek to fulfill the vision of NCLB. The following are our 

recommendations for policymakers, practitioners, and researchers as they work to improve the 

outcomes for students with disabilities, based on the findings of this paper. 

Stay the Course. While there are naysayers who believe that NCLB sets too high a bar for 

schools to meet, the vast majority of the public, researchers, and those interviewed for this 

project believe that we must maintain high expectations for all students, particularly students 

with disabilities. Providing exemptions for students with disabilities will only reinforce the belief 

that they cannot meet rigorous standards. Congress should not back down on its commitment to 

helping students with disabilities achieve the same high standards as other students. Already, we 

have seen that students with disabilities have been able to master rigorous curriculum and 

assessments, and given the necessary supports, these numbers should increase. We must, 

however, recognize the individualized needs of students with serious cognitive disabilities. The 

recent “one percent rule” and added flexibility for states to negotiate with the Department of 

Education in the consideration of Adequate Yearly Progress for students with severe cognitive 

disabilities is reasonable. To further maintain its commitment, Congress and the Department of 

Education will need to ensure consistent monitoring, compliance and enforcement of IDEA and 

NCLB. 
Capacity Building. Both the research literature and responses from our panel point to the 

importance of strong leadership at the school and district levels to encourage and support largescale change. Strong leadership is critical in the development of teachers and classroom practices 

that can improve student learning. In order for teachers and school leaders to help students with 

disabilities learn to higher standards, they often need to learn new instructional skills, as well as 

to change their beliefs and values. Not only do special education teachers need to learn new 

skills, but the general education teachers who are increasingly called upon to teach students with 

disabilities need more tools in their teaching arsenal. General and special education teachers need 

to learn to team teach, to understand multiple and diverse learning styles and methods for 

teaching heterogeneous groupings of students, using data and assessments as instructional 

management tools, and learn ways to change the culture of the school to one of success for each 

student. Strong leadership is needed at both the district and school levels to set high expectations, 

change the culture, and manage the capacity-building process. Learning about each of these 

activities involves a great deal of ongoing professional development for teachers and school 

leaders, team meetings, review of student and teacher work, and a supportive environment. 

Public funding should be carefully directed to professional and leadership development efforts 

that are tightly linked to the specific needs of each school or district and efforts that address 

capacity issues related to teaching and learning and helping all students, particularly students 

with disabilities, to reach high standards. The Department of Education must ensure that the 

billions of dollars available for professional development and instructional improvement through 

NCLB are used to support meaningful activities linked to each school’s capacity-building needs. 

Highly Qualified Teachers. Currently, many schools lack highly qualified special education 

teachers and teachers in certain disciplines. Rural and small schools face even greater challenges. 

The education system, including higher education, must find ways to prepare highly qualified 

teachers in routes unlike those we know of today. Additionally, schools and school districts need 

to encourage team teaching as well as the use of community resources to put a qualified 

individual in each classroom. The Department of Education should conduct research and analysis 

on effective methods of teacher preparation, including alternative routes to certification, with a 

particular focus on special education. Standards should not be relaxed, but limited flexibility 

such as that recently announced by the Department of Education to allow more time for teachers 
to demonstrate their qualifications in multiple disciplines and to give states flexibility in how 

they determine qualifications is a step in the right direction. 

Better Assessment Tools. While schools and school leaders are becoming more sophisticated in 

assigning students with disabilities appropriate accommodations when they are assessed, or in 

using alternative assessments, improvements to the regular or underlying large-scale assessments 

may have a greater impact on students with disabilities and many ultimately benefit all children. 

First, assessments can be universally designed so as to be used by the maximum number of 

children with diverse learning needs, not only students with disabilities, but also non-English 

language learners. This includes, of course, consideration of universal design of test preparation 

materials – which would obviously also be made available in alternative formats. Also, most 

statewide assessments currently in use measure only academic skills (as required by NCLB), but 

it is clear that the public, especially parents, would like assessments that measure more than just 

academic skills. For students with disabilities who might also be able to express themselves in 

ways other than academic knowledge, this could be very helpful. The Department of Education 

should conduct research and help develop assessments that measure a broader range of skills 

(such as workplace knowledge) that will help all students be more successful in careers and 

engaged as civic members of our society. Lastly, assessments need to be used by teachers and 

school staff on a more regular basis to provide feedback on instruction. Teaching and 

professional development programs should help teachers learn how to do this. The Department 

of Education has an appropriate role to support research and development efforts to create a new 

generation of assessments that: 

1) are appropriate for the largest number of diverse students; 

2) measure more than academic skills; 

3) can be used more effectivetly as an instructional management tool; and 

4) result in a reduction in the number of students who take alternative assessments. 

Congress should also support these activities in the IDEA reauthorization. 
Support and Disseminate Evidence-Based Research and Practices. NCLB’s focus on data 

and evidence-based research has led to a growing awareness of the importance of rigorous 

research and evaluations in making policy and programmatic decisions. Yet, we are hampered by 

the lack of quality studies, especially on students with disabilities, and especially in certain areas, 

such as dropout prevention. We clearly need a continued strong investment in high quality 

research, and both NCLB and IDEA should support the means to that end. The Department of 

Education should bridge research efforts conducted by the Office of Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services and the Institute of Education Sciences, and it should support research to 

understand how to teach more academic rigor to students with disabilities and develop optimal 

assessment tools. We look to Congress to support such activities in the reauthorization of IDEA. 

Even when research is available, it doesn’t automatically translate into practice in the classroom. 

The Department of Education should provide support and leadership in translating research into 

capacity-building tools and technical assistance for practitioners and teachers. It is our hope that 

the Institute of Education Sciences’ What Works Clearinghouse and other federal efforts will 

play a significant role in disseminating research in a way that is usable and meaningful to 

teachers in their daily work. 

At the same time, Congress and the Department of Education will need to obtain and use the 

research and evaluation data generated as a result of NCLB to inform and refine their decisions 

in terms of the: (a) guidance provided to states and locales that are implementing NCLB (and 

IDEA), and (b) overall direction the Federal Government provides in its implementation of 

NCLB (and IDEA). 

Lastly, because we are faced with a scarcity of quality research affecting students with 

disabilities, practitioners and policymakers must recognize that a great deal of practical 

knowledge does exist, and until more rigorous research becomes available, the Institute of 

Education Sciences should determine when this “craft and clinical knowledge” is legitimate. 

Supports for Students. While there is not a great deal of scientifically-based research on 

programs to help students with disabilities improve their educational outcomes, there are several 

studies and meta-analyses of effective practices that support a strong theoretical base for much of 
this work. There is also an emerging consensus on the principles of effective high schools and 

the conditions needed to increase student achievement for secondary school students. This body 

of knowledge needs to be integrated into the body of knowledge regarding students with 

disabilities. Given that we don’t have the luxury to wait for the returns of recent research-based 

studies, we should use the evidence we have regarding successful supports and interventions for 

students. Strategies for students to increase engagement in high school, reduce dropout rates, and 

increase preparation for postsecondary education and careers include higher expectations and 

goal setting, greater instructional personalization, self-advocacy, ongoing counseling and 

mentoring, parental involvement, and connections to the community and postsecondary learning 

options. The Department of Education should ensure that its technical assistance draws upon the 

knowledge base and practices from all offices in its efforts to improve outcomes for students 

with disabilities. 

Final Thoughts 

The shift towards accountability, outcomes, and higher expectations in our schools is leading us 

in the right direction, although we recognize that schools face legitimate difficulties during this 

change process. But the response to these challenges should not be to back down on expectations 

for students with disabilities and those who have been perceived as unable to meet the standards. 

Policymakers and practitioners must remain committed to the goal of closing the achievement 

gap for all students. To lessen this commitment would be to return to the days and the mindset 

that only some students could be and deserved to be taught to high standards. We now know that 

by setting high expectations, and helping students, teachers, administrators, and family members 

reach those high standards, we can close the achievement gap for all students. 
Appendix A: Interview Protocol 

This review, sponsored by the National Council on Disability, was designed to gain insight into 

policies and practices that have shown particular success in helping students with disabilities 

progress through the public school system. Because the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) 

requires school districts to factor in outcomes of students with disabilities into Adequate Yearly 

Progress (AYP) calculations, how districts serve the students under the law is of critical 

importance. 

Specifically, we were interested in identifying practices that effectively: 

• Reduce the number of students with disabilities who drop out of high school; 

• Increase the number/percentage of students with disabilities who graduate high school 

with a diploma as opposed to a certificate of attendance; and 

• Help students transition to and remain connected with postsecondary education. 

Given the focus of our review, we raised a number of issues with respondents, focused around 

the following questions: 

• What impact do you believe NCLB will have on programs and policies affecting 

outcomes for students with disabilities at the state, district, and school levels? Will NCLB 

help reduce the number of students with disabilities who drop out of high school or 

increase the numbers, as some have suggested? How will the required assessments or 

high stakes tests affect students with disabilities? Have you seen evidence of change at 

this early stage of implementation? 

• Does IDEA support the goals of NCLB? Could or should IDEA be changed to be more 

supportive of NCLB or to be better aligned with the goals of NCLB? 

• What about the Higher Education Act? Are there areas that could be amended to allow 

for greater participation by students with disabilities? 

• What do you think the expectations for students with disabilities in your school/district 

are? Are they the same as students without disabilities? Is it reasonable to expect that 

students with disabilities should meet the same expectations and standards as students in 

general education? 
• Are you aware of programs that produce these positive results for students with 

disabilities that have been evaluated or that are based on research? If so, please describe 

these programs (follow up for contact information). 

• Which special education populations/designations do you work with? 

• What do the programs look like? What are the practices employed? Are these programs 

and practices based on evidence or research? Is it research from the special education 

field or general education field? 

• Whom do these programs serve? Do they work selectively for some groups and not 

others? For which groups are they most effective? Can certain strategies work with 

students regardless of their disability? 

• What programs or strategies typically do not work? 

• What are the scientific criteria for effectiveness used to judge those practices? And who 

sets the criteria for determining what programs or practices would be used? 

• Which factors ensure OR prevent evidence-based outcome producing practices from 

being adopted by school districts, tribal governments, etc.? 

• What general steps need to be taken to remove the barriers to adoption of evidence-based 

outcome producing practices so that outcomes for students with disabilities are 

improved? 

• How does research-based evidence influence your programs and policies, as well as the 

staff involved in administering the programs or working directly with students? Are 

front-line staff familiar with research-based practices? 

• Who would you recommend we get in touch with regarding state and/or district practices 

that improve post-graduate opportunities for students with disabilities? 

- end -
Appendix B: Evidence-Based Practices 

Appendix B provides a sample of evidence-based research on four interventions aimed at 

students with disabilities. This list is not meant to be exhaustive of the research, but rather, an 

illustration of the type of research that is currently available. This said, we will note that finding 

evidence-based research on educational interventions and strategies for students with disabilities 

is a mind-numbing practice. Quite simply, there is little research in available distribution streams 

that fits the rigor suggested by either the Institute of Educational Sciences (which has funded 

most of the research in this area) or by the Campbell Collaboration, which provides the standards 

for empirical investigation of education and social science. We eagerly await the outcomes of a 

current Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP)-funded study by the Colorado State 

University on evidence-based practices for students with disabilities, expected to conclude in 

2005. That study, which will review more than 3,000 reports, studies, and articles, should shed 

considerably more light on evidence-based practices for students with disabilities. 

In our review, a large majority of studies relied on simple descriptive outcome data (e.g., 

percentage of students that completed the program; grade point averages of students, etc.). Very 

few utilized a control group, and even fewer used random assignment procedures to create 

treatment and control groups. Second, we feel that it is possible that some researchers have not 

bothered to publish their findings, or that publication bias has possibly eliminated their studies 

from publication. The reality is that, if unpublished in some form that prohibits dissemination, 

the studies literally might as well not exist. We believe that this has happened to many OSEPfunded projects. 

If anything is learned from our experience, the following summaries should serve to bring 

attention to the problem associated with finding evidence-based practices for professionals who 

serve students with disabilities. If they can’t find them, they can’t implement them. 

Please note that we use some verbatim language in the following research summaries to provide 

more accurate depictions of the programs, rather than a presentation of our insightful and 
creative ability to transform the words of others into something coherent. We just want to be 

accurate. We have provided references for each summary. 

TITLE: DROPOUT PREVENTION FOR YOUTH WITH DISABILITIES: EFFICACY 

OF A SUSTAINED SCHOOL ENGAGEMENT PROCEDURE 

SOURCE: Sinclair, M. F., Christenson, S. L., Evelo, D. L., & Hurley, C. M. (1998). Disability 

Targeted: Students with learning and emotional/behavioral disabilities. Exceptional Children, 

65(1). 

OVERVIEW: Check and Connect is a dropout prevention and intervention procedure developed 

to encourage middle school youth at high risk of dropping out to remain engaged in school and 

on track to graduate. The procedure was shaped by the collaborative efforts of individuals who 

interacted directly with the target students, including teachers, family members, and community 

outreach workers, as well as by the input of a district special education coordinator, researchers 

from the University, and the students themselves. A core component of the model is a “monitor” 

whose primary goal was to keep students, families, and teachers focused on the education 

process and reduce and prevent the occurrence of absenteeism, suspensions, failing grades, and 

other warning signs of school withdrawal. The monitor regularly checked students’ engagement 

with school and promptly facilitated efforts to build and maintain connections that would help 

students stay in school. A monitor working 20 hours per week carried an average caseload of 25 

students, and often worked with the same students over several years. 

Risk factors were logged each day by the monitor and tabulated each month (the “Check”). The 

“Connect” consisted of two interventions: basic interventions provided to all students at least 

once a month; and intensive interventions that were provided to students who showed “high risk” 

on the daily monitor logs. 

Basic interventions consisted of four strategies: (a) sharing general information with the student 

about the monitoring system, (b) providing regular feedback to the student about his or her 

educational progress, (c) regularly discussing the importance of staying in school, and (d) 

problem-solving with the student regarding risk factors. Intensive interventions drew upon three 

broad areas of support: (a) problem-solving, (b) academic support, and (c) recreational and 

community service exploration. 

METHODOLOGY: An experimental design was used to evaluate this program. One treatment 

group (47 students) and one control group (47 students) were selected from a universe of 

students with emotional/behavioral disabilities enrolled in a northern Midwest urban school 

district. All 94 students received dropout prevention interventions in Grades 7 and 8. At the end 

of eighth grade, the students were randomly assigned to either the treatment or control group 

using a stratified selection procedure (ethnicity, sex, socioeconomic status, disability, age, as 

well as a variable referred to as the “profile rating”). Half of the students continued to receive 

intervention through ninth grade. 
The effectiveness of the Check and Connect intervention was assessed by conducting post-test 

comparisons between the treatment and control groups in the ninth grade (pretest comparisons 

found no differences). The appropriate test statistic was used (e.g., t-test, chi-square test of 

independence), depending on the type of data. 

EVIDENCE OF SUCCESS: Students who received intervention through ninth grade were 

significantly more engaged in school than control group students. The treatment students were 

more likely to be enrolled in school at the end of the year (91%) than were students in the control 

group (70%), X 2 (1) = 6.87, p < 0.05, and treatment students were more likely to persist in 

school during ninth grade (85%) compared to the control students (64%), X 2 (1) = 5.60, p < 

0.05. The treatment students were also more likely to complete their course assignments than 

were control students, t(47) = 2.79, p < 0.05. 

Similarly, the school performance measures indicated that treatment students were significantly 

more engaged in school. Students who participated in the Check and Connect intervention 

through ninth grade earned, on average, significantly more credits during the first year of high 

school than control group students, t(90) = 4.01, p < 0.05. 

Treatment students were also more likely to be on track to graduate in 4 years (46%), earning 15 

or more credits in ninth grade, than students in the control group (20%), X2 (1) = 6.77, p < 0.05. 

Similarly, treatment students were more likely to be on track to graduate in 5 years (68%), 

earning 12 or more credits in ninth grade, than students in the control group (29%), X2 (1) = 

14.13, p < 0.05. 

In addition, special education teachers rated students in the treatment group as more 

academically competent, t(41) = 2.13, p < 0.05, while general education teachers rated the 

treatment students as demonstrating fewer behavioral problems, t(46) = 2.08, p < 0.05. No 

significant difference between treatment and control groups emerged on general education 

teacher ratings of academic competence or special education teacher ratings of problem 

behavior. 

CONCLUSIONS: The authors conclude that Check and Connect participants (treatment group) 

were more likely to be “engaged in school and on track to graduate.” They persisted in school, 

completed class assignments, and earned more course credits. 

TITLE: STEPS TO SELF-DETERMINATION CURRICULUM 

SOURCE: Field, S., & Hoffman, A. (2002). Lessons learned from implementing the steps to 

self-determination curriculum. Remedial & Special Education, 23(2). 

OVERVIEW: The Steps to Self-Determination curriculum was published in 1996 in response to 

the emerging emphasis on self-determination in special education. This emphasis on selfdetermination came about as persons with disabilities and their friends and families began to 

advocate for roles and expectations for individuals with disabilities that were more consistent 
with adult expectations, and as educators, advocates, and policymakers searched for strategies to 

improve post-school outcomes for students with disabilities. 

The purpose of Steps to Self-Determination curriculum is to help students develop the 

knowledge, beliefs, and skills that they need to become more self-determined. Steps to SelfDetermination (Steps) is an 18-session curriculum based on a self-determination model that 

includes five major components: Know Yourself, Value Yourself, Plan, Act, and Experience 

Outcomes and Learn. The first two components, Know Yourself and Value Yourself, describe 

the internal processes that provide the foundation for self-determination, and the latter three 

components describe specific skills that evolve from that foundation and comprise the action 

stage of the model. The action stage includes the achievement of skills associated with selfdetermination and the evaluation and celebration processes that enhance and crystallize a sense 

of self-determination. 

Steps is an experientially-based curriculum. Students establish and work toward goals as they 

learn self-determination knowledge and skills. The curriculum was designed to be used in 

integrated (i.e., including students with and without disabilities) or separate (e.g., resource room, 

self-contained class) environments and in a variety of scheduling arrangements. It can be 

included in existing courses or taught as a separate class or extracurricular activity. Teachers 

participate in the curriculum as co-learners with the students, to provide role models and to 

create a collaborative classroom climate. Parents or other significant persons in the students’ 

lives are also involved, to support the students’ efforts. 

As a result of the increased emphasis on self-determination, the Steps curriculum has been used 

for 5 years in both high school and middle school settings and in general and special education 

settings. Through federally-funded outreach projects, specialized support has been provided to 

assist teams in implementing the curriculum in the states of Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, 

Utah, and Washington. Support for implementation of the curriculum has also been provided in 

other states, through state and local initiatives. 

METHODOLOGY/EVIDENCE OF SUCCESS: The curriculum was initially field tested in 

diverse socioeconomic and ethnic high school settings in the U.S. Midwest, and consisted of a 

treatment group that used the Steps curriculum and a control group that did not use the 

curriculum. A t test between the treatment and the control group indicated a significant increase 

(p = .002) in the correct responses on the Self-Determination Knowledge Scale, with an effect 

size of 1.02. This effect size is considered to be a very large treatment effect. To put this in 

perspective, if a group’s knowledge of self-determination skills was at the 50th percentile, the 

curriculum would be expected to improve that level to the 85th percentile. Second, the effect of a 

pre-test/post-test treatment vs. control group of the effectiveness of the curriculum, as measured 

by the Self-Determination Observational Checklist scores showed a significant increase (p = 

.000) in student behaviors that are considered to be correlates of self-determination. A 

subsequent study of the Steps curriculum with students with behavioral and learning disabilities 

found a significant pre-post increase in internal locus of control after participation in the Steps 

curriculum, while yet another did not find any significant post-test outcome. 
CONCLUSIONS: Additional research has found that use of the Steps curriculum resulted in an 

increase in knowledge and behaviors associated with self-determination, an increase in locus of 

control, and a decrease in features associated with depression. Self-determined, innovative 

teachers have embraced the process of change and implemented a self-determination focus in 

ways that meet specific needs of students in their classrooms through implementation of the 

Steps curriculum. This points to the need to develop and implement additional resources to 

support the self-determination of teachers. 

TITLE: YOUTH IN TRANSITION (YIT) 

SOURCE: Horne, R. L., & Hubbard, S. (1995). Youth Transition Program (YTP) Case Study 

Report (Draft Research Report). Washington, DC: National Institute for Work and Learning, 

Academy for Educational Development. 

OVERVIEW: This case study discusses school-to-work transition for students with disabilities 

through the Youth Transition Program (YTP), a statewide collaborative effort including 26 

communities throughout the state of Oregon. YTP began in 1990 as a cooperative effort between 

the Oregon Department of Education (ODE), the Oregon Vocational Rehabilitation Division 

(OVRD), the University of Oregon (UO), and the local public school systems. 

The YTP was developed with the basic goal of placement in meaningful competitive 

employment or career-related postsecondary training for youth with disabilities. The YTP serves 

disabled youth beginning in their completion year of high school and continues for two years of 

follow-up services, depending upon the student’s needs. YTP’s services are provided jointly by 

school and vocational rehabilitation staff and include: paid job training with on-site monitoring 

and support; job-related instruction in academic, vocational, independent living, and 

personal/social content areas; individualized transition planning; placement in a job upon leaving 

school; and follow-up support. 

The YTP serves disabled youth who are eligible for vocational rehabilitation services and who 

are able to become competitively employed without long-term support. This includes students 

who: (1) are on track to complete school, but need YTP services to achieve post-school 

vocational goals; (2) are still in school, but at great risk of dropping out; and (3) have already 

dropped out of school, and are unemployed or underemployed. YTP started as a pilot project that 

included 7 sites. By 1993 13 local communities were serving as YTP sites. When this study was 

conducted in 1995, a total of 26 communities representing 24 of 26 vocational rehabilitation field 

offices and half of all high school districts in the state were participating in YTP. Since 1990, 

through a combination of state and federal funding, approximately 8.5 million dollars has been 

allocated to support YTP activities through 1995. Statewide, over 1,500 students with disabilities 

will receive YTP services between 1990 and 1995. 

METHODOLOGY: Unlike most school systems and programs, YTP has carried out a 

comprehensive evaluation effort to document the impact of the program on specific student 

outcomes and systems change. Data were collected from each site on a variety of demographic 

and programmatic factors (e.g., student demographic data, job placements, training efforts, 
community outreach activities, improvements in coordination, etc.), and data were collected 

during a two-year follow-up period. YTP outcome data were analyzed relative to the outcomes 

of comparison groups, including a statewide sample of students with disabilities who exit school, 

a sample of non-YTP/VR clients in the state, and a nationwide sample from the National 

Longitudinal Transition Study (NLTS) (Wagner and Shaver, 1992). Second, YTP examined 

student outcomes separately for two groups of program participants in order to determine of the 

program’s impact: (1) rural versus non-rural YTP participants; and (2) YTP students identified as 

“at-risk” compared to those not considered “at-risk.” 

EVIDENCE OF SUCCESS: When YTP compared employment outcomes for students’ highest 

paying jobs within two years of leaving school, YTP students: 

• earned higher hourly wages than the students in the Oregon disability sample ($5.69/hour 

vs. $5.31/hour). 

• earned higher weekly wages ($181/week vs. $157/week). 

• were more likely to still be on the job (70% vs. 56%). 

• were less likely to have lost a job for negative reasons (27% vs. 40%). 

When YTP/VR clients were compared to VR clients of similar ages, types, and disabilities, YTP 

clients were more likely to: 

• be determined eligible for VR services (76% vs. 52%). 

• remain in the rehabilitation process (57% vs. 27%). 

• earn higher weekly wages at closure ($177/week vs. $143/week). 

YTP examined student outcomes compared to a national sample drawn from the NLTS in the 

areas of employment and productive engagement. NLTS defines productive engagement as 

students either working or participating in postsecondary activities. When the YTP students were 

compared to the national NLTS sample for the first two years out of school, YTP students were: 

• more likely to be competitively employed (67% vs. 46%). 

• more likely to be employed full-time (39% vs. 25%). 

• less likely to be unemployed (32% vs. 46%). 

• more likely to be productively engaged (95% vs. 64%). 

Another demonstration of YTP’s success is the fact that it appears to equally benefit students 

who are living in rural areas and non-rural areas, as well as at-risk students. 

CONCLUSIONS: In summary, the Youth Transition Program had an impact on outcomes for 

students who demonstrate moderate to severe disabilities and face significant barriers to 

employment. The YTP shows that positive outcomes occur when systems intervene early in the 

transition years and provide for people-centered planning and placement activities. The program 

also demonstrates encouraging effects on students’ social development when programs provide 

for students’ independent living and social support needs. YTP’s success is also linked to the 

implementation of a program designed from a research-base. The local success of individual 

YTPs attest to the utility of incorporating universal design concepts across sites, while 

maintaining program flexibility. Finally, YTP can be credited with creating local systems change 

through state-level support. 
TITLE: TAKE CHARGE FOR THE FUTURE 

SOURCE: Powers, L. E., Turner, A., Westwood, D., Matuszewski, J., Wilson, R., & Phillips, A. 

(2001). TAKE CHARGE for the Future: A controlled field-test of a model to promote student 

involvement in transition planning. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 24(1), 89-

103. 

OVERVIEW: This article describes a randomized field-test of TAKE CHARGE for the Future, a 

multi-component model to promote student involvement in transition planning. TAKE CHARGE 

for the Future has as its centerpiece student-directed participation in personally-relevant 

transition planning and preparation activities in school, community, and home settings. Students 

learn that they are responsible for promoting their own transition success: they are exposed to 

specific strategies to identify, communicate and achieve their transition goals, and they are 

provided with the information and support necessary to ensure their success. Students complete a 

self-help focused curriculum, and they receive coaching and support to identify their transition 

goals, participate in their transition planning meetings, formulate systematic plans for goal 

attainment, and perform activities to achieve their goals. Information and support are 

concurrently provided to school staff and families to expand their capacities to assist youth. Peer 

support and mentorship opportunities are organized to bolster youth transition knowledge, 

confidence and support networks. 

METHODOLOGY: Forty-three youth (14 to 17 year olds) from 4 high schools in small, 

medium and large communities in New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oregon and Wisconsin 

participated in the study. The youth experienced learning, emotional, orthopedic or other health 

disabilities. A two-independent group, repeated measures design was utilized to evaluate the 

impact of the intervention. Following consent, participants were randomized to the treatment or 

wait list group. Subjects in the treatment group participated in TAKE CHARGE for 4 months. 

The intervention included 5 elements: (a) individual, 50 minute bi-weekly coaching sessions for 

youth, (b) monthly community-based workshops for youth, their parents and successful adult 

mentors, (c) community activities performed by mentors and students, (d) telephone and home 

visit support for parents, and (e) inservice education for transition staff. Various instruments 

were used to measure youth participation in transition planning, student and parent transition 

awareness, youth empowerment, and student participation in transition planning meetings. 

Evidence: The findings generally support the efficacy of the TAKE CHARGE model for 

promoting student involvement in transition planning. Students who participated in TAKE 

CHARGE had higher outcomes in measures of student involvement in transition planning 

activities, transition awareness, empowerment, and engagement in transition planning meetings 

than those in the control group. Additionally, students in the treatment group were more directive 

and engaged while other participants were less dominant and more responsive to student 

engagement. Findings confirm that, without systematic intervention to promote their 

involvement, many students sit passively in their transition planning meetings while others 

control the discourse. 

CONCLUSIONS: On the whole, the findings suggest that interventions such as TAKE 

CHARGE hold promise for enhancing the transition planning of youth with disabilities. Other 
approaches that emphasize skill development, mentorship, or family support lend credibility to 

our findings, which highlight the importance of these intervention components. 

The most important contribution of this study is likely its validation of the impact of a semesterlong intervention on the transition planning competence and behavior of youth, as judged by 

youth, parents, educators, and outside observers. It is clear that many of the competencies 

required for successful transition planning – identifying and working toward future goals, 

building partnerships with others, and managing barriers that arise – are critical for success 

throughout life. If educators, parents and community members can work together to assist young 

people to cultivate these capacities during adolescence, it can lead to an important investment in 

the future. 

The authors note that the results of this study should be interpreted cautiously because of the 

“relatively small sample size” which impacts the generalizability of the findings. 
References 

American Youth Policy Forum & Center on Education Policy. (2002). Educating Children with 

Disabilities. Washington, DC. 

Benz, M. R., Lindstrom, L., & Yovanoff, P. (2000). Improving graduation and employment 

outcomes of students with disabilities: predictive factors and student perspectives. 

Exceptional Children, 66(4), 509-529. 

Blackorby, J., & Wagner, M. (1996). Longitudinal postschool outcomes of youth with 

disabilities: Findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study. Exceptional 

Children, 62, 399-413. 

Browder, D. M., & Cooper-Duffy, K. (2003). Evidence-based practices for students with severe 

disabilities and the requirement for accountability in "No Child Left... Journal of Special 

Education, 37(3), 157. 

Center on Education Policy. (2003). From the Capital to the classroom: federal efforts to 

implement the No Child Left Behind Act. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy. 

Center on Education Policy. (2004). From the Capital to the Classroom: Year Two of the No 

Child Left Behind Act. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy. 

Cobb, B., Lehmann, J., Tochterman, S., & Bomotti, S. (2000). Students with disabilities in 

transition: A review of four reforms. In D. Johnson & E. Emanuel (Eds.), Issues 

influencing the future of transition programs and services in the United States (pp. 3-19). 

Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Transition Network, Institute of 

Community Integration. 

Davies, P. T. (1999). What is evidence-based education? British Journal of Educational Studies, 

47(2), 108-121. 

Davies, P. T. (2004). Is evidence-based government possible? Paper presented at the Campbell 

Collaboration Colloquium, Washington, DC. 

Education Leaders Council. (2004). NCLB under a microscope: a cost analysis of the fiscal 

impact of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 on states and local education agencies. 

Washington, DC: Education Leaders Council. 

Education Week. (2004a). No Child Left Behind. Retrieved March 1, 2004, from the World Wide 

Web: http://edweek.org/context/topics/issuespage.cfm?id=59 

Education Week. (2004b). Quality Counts 2004: Count me in. Special education in an era of 

standards. A special report by Education Week. Bethesda, MD: Editorial Projects in 

Education, Inc. 

Elliott, S. N., Kratochwill, T. R., & McKevitt, B. C. (2001). Experimental analysis of the effects 

of testing accommodations on the scores of students with and without disabilities. 

Journal of School Psychology Review, 39, 3-24. 

ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education. (2000). New ideas for planning 

transitions to the adult world. Arlington, VA: ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and 

Gifted Education. 

Field, S., & Hoffman, A. (2002). Lessons learned from implementing the steps to selfdetermination curriculum. Remedial & Special Education, 23(2). 
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Eaton, S. B., Hamlett, C. L., & Karns, K. M. (2000). Supplementing 

teacher judgments of mathematics test accommodations with objective data sources. 

School Psychology Review, 29, 65-85. 

Furney, K. S., Hasazi, S. B., Clark-Keefe, K., & Hartnett, J. (Fall, 2003). A longitudinal analysis 

of shifting policy landscapes in special and general education reform. Exceptional 

Children, 70(1), 81-94. 

Gehring, J. (2003). Public Ignorant of ‘No Child’ Law, Poll Finds. Education Week, pp. 14. 

Gersten, R., Chard, D., & Baker, S. (2000). Factors enhancing sustained use of research-based 

instructional practices. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33(5), 445. 

Goldstein, L. (2004, January 7). Long Awaited Spec. Ed. Testing Rules Issued. Education Week. 

Hart, D., Zafft, C., & Zimbrich, K. (2001, Winter). Creating access to college for all students. 

The Journal for Vocational Special Needs Education, 23, 19-31. 

Hasazi, S. B., Furney, K. S., & DeStefano, L. (1999). Implementing the IDEA transition 

mandates. Exceptional Children, 65(4), 555-566. 

Helwig, R., & Tindal, G. (2003). An experimental analysis of accommodation decisions on 

large-scale mathematics tests. Exceptional Children, 69(2), 211-225. 

Hoff, D. J. (2004a). Utah panel votes to quit No Child Left Behind Act. Education Week. 

Hoff, D. J. (2004b). Reporter’s notebook: school aid challenges at heart of conference for state 

lawmakers. Education Week, 23(24), 23. 

Institute of Education Sciences. (2003). Identifying and implementing educational practices 

supported by rigorous evidence: a user friendly guide. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Education. 

Johnson, D. R., Sharpe, M., & Stodden, R. (2000). The transition to postsecondary education for 

students with disabilities. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Institute on Community 

Integration. 

Johnson, D. R., Stodden, R. A., Emanuel, E. J., & Mack, M. (2002). Current challenges facing 

secondary education and transition services: what research tells us. Exceptional Children, 

68(4), 519-531. 

Jordan, W. A., Lara, J., & McPartland, J. M. (1996). Exploring the causes of early dropout 

among race-ethnic and gender groups. Youth & Society, 28, 62-94. 

Kahl, S. (Fall 2003). Implementing NCLB assessment and accountability requirements in an 

imperfect world. Open Response (an electronic newsletter by Measured Progress). 

Retrieved February 29, 2004, from the World Wide Web: 

http://www.measuredprogress.org/Resources/Newsletter/Fall2003/NCLB.html 

Kennedy, S. E. M., Dodd, S. C. J., Harkin, S. T., Mikulski, S. B. A., Bingaman, S. J., Murray, S. 

P., Reed, S. J., Edwards, S. J., Clinton, S. H. R., & Miller, R. G. (2004). Letter to 

Secretary Paige on the Bush Administration’s failure to properly implement No Child 

Left Behind. In U. S. S. o. E. R. R. Paige (Ed.). Washington, DC. 

Klingner, J. K., Ahwee, S., Pilonieta, P., & Menendez, R. (2003). Barriers and facilitators in 

scaling up research-based practices. Exceptional Children, 69(4), 411-429. 

Kohler, P. D. (1993). Best practices in transition: substantiated or implied? Career Development 

for Exceptional Individuals, 16, 107-121. 

Lehr, C. A., Hansen, A. L., Sinclair, M. F., & Christenson, S. L. (2003). Moving beyond dropout 

towards school completion: an integrative review of data-based interventions. School 

Psychology Review. 
Lieberman, A. (2000). Networks as learning communities: shaping the future of teacher 

development. Journal of Teacher Education, 51, 221-227. 

Madison, M., Marson, A., & Reese, K. (1999). Passageway: An Avenue into the Future. Paper 

presented at the Rural Special Education for the New Millennium. Conference 

Proceedings of the 19th Annual American Council on Rural Special Education (ACRES) 

March 25-27, 1999, Albuquerque, New Mexico (ERIC Document Reproduction No: 

ED429740). 

Marriott Foundation. (2004). Bridges...from school to work. Retrieved February 24, 2004, from 

the World Wide Web: http://marriottfoundation.org/foundation 

McDonnell, L. M., McLaughlin, M. J., & Morison, P. (Eds.). (1997). Educating one and all: 

students with disabilities and standards-based reform. Washington, DC: National 

Academies Press. 

McGrew, J. D., Thurlow, M. L., & Spiegel, A. N. (1993). An investigation of the exclusion of 

students with national data collection programs. Educational Evaluation and Policy 

Analysis, 15, 339-352. 

McLaughlin, M. J., Nolet, V. W., Rhim, L. M., & Henderson, K. (1999). Integrating standards: 

including all students. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 31(3), 66-71. 

National Center on Educational Outcomes. (2003). Accountability for assessment results in the 

No Child Left Behind Act: what it means for children with disabilities. Minneapolis, MN: 

University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. 

National Council on Disability. (2000). Transition and postschool outcomes for youth with 

disabilities: closing the gaps to postsecondary education and employment. Washington, 

DC: National Council on Disability. 

Nietupski, J., Hamre-Nietupski, S., Curtin, S., & Shrikanth, K. (1997). A review of curricular 

research in severe disabilities from 1976-1995 in six selected journals. The Journal of 

Special Education, 31, 36-55. 

Pasternack, R. (2003). No Child Left Behind. A powerpoint presentation. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services 

(OSERS). 

Pierangelo, R., & Crane, R. (1997). Complete guide to special education transition services. 

West Nyack, NY: The Center for Applied Research in Education. 

Quenemoen, R. E., Lehr, C. A., Thurlow, M. L., & Massanari, C. B. (2001). Students with 

disabilities in standards-based assessment and accountability systems: emerging issues, 

strategies, and recommendations. Discussion paper at the National Capacity Building 

Institute, Honolulu, HI. 

Scanlon, D., & Mellard, D. F. (2002). Academic and participation profiles of school-age 

dropouts with and without disabilities. Exceptional Children, 68(2), 239-258. 

Schulte, A. G., Elliott, S. N., & Kratochwill, T. R. (2001). Effects of testing accommodations on 

standardized mathematics test scores: An experimental analysis of the performances of 

students with and without disabilities. School Psychology Review. 

Serebreni, R., Phillip D. Rumrill, J., James A. Mullins, J., & Gordon, S. E. (1993). Project Excel: 

A demonstration of the higher education transition model for high-achieving students 

with disabilities. Journal on Postsecondary Education and Disability, 10(3). 

Sinclair, M. F., Christenson, S. L., Evelo, D. L., & Hurley, C. M. (1998). Disability targeted: 

students with learning and emotional/behavioral disabilities. Exceptional Children, 65(1). 
Skinner, M. E., & Lindstrom, B. D. (2003). Bridging the gap between high school and college: 

strategies for the successful transition of students with learning disabilities. Preventing 

School Failure, 47(3). 

Smith, D. S., McLeskey, J., Tyler, N., & Saunders, S. (2002). The supply and demand of special 

education teachers: the nature of the chronic shortage of special education teachers. 

Unpublished manuscript, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. 

Sparks, G. (1988). Teacher attitudes toward change and subsequent improvements in classroom 

teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(1), 111-117. 

Stodden, R. A. (1998). School-to-work transition: Overview of disability legislation. In J. 

Chadsey (Ed.), Beyond high school: Transition from school to work. Belmont, CA: 

Wadsworth Publishing. 

Stodden, R. A., & Dowrick, P. W. (2000). Postsecondary education and employment of adults 

with disabilities. American Rehabilitation, 24(3), pp. 19-23. 

Stodden, R. A., Galloway, L. M., & Stodden, N. J. (2003). Secondary school curricula issues: 

impact on postsecondary students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 70(1), 9-25. 

Swanson, C. B. (2004). Who graduates? who doesn’t? a statistical portrait of public high school 

graduation, class of 2001. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. 

Thurlow, M. L. (2002). Accommodations for students with disabilities in high school, Issue Brief 

(Vol. 1). Minneapolis, MN: National Center on Secondary Education and Transition. 

Thurlow, M. L., Ysseldyke, J. E., & Silverstein, B. (1995). Testing accommodations for students 

with disabilities. Remedial & Special Education, 16(5), 260-270. 

Tindal, G., Heath, B., Hollenbeck, K., Almond, P., & Harniss, M. (1998). Accommodating 

students with disabilities on large-scale tests: An experimental study. Exceptional 

Children, 64, 439-450. 

Turkstra, L. S. (2003). Evidence-based practice: let’s be reasonable. Journal of Medical Speech -

Language Pathology. 

U.S. Congress. (1997). Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (First Session ed.): One 

Hundred and Fifth Congress of the United States of America. 

U.S. Congress. (2002). No Child Left Behind Act: One Hundred and Seventh Congress of the 

United States of America. 

U.S. Department of Education. (2002a). Annual report to Congress on the implementation of the 

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: Office of Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services. 

U.S. Department of Education. (2002b). To assure the free appropriate public education of all 

children with disabilities.Twenty-fourth annual report to Congress on the implementation 

of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Education. 

U.S. Department of Education. (2003). Interim report for the study of state and local 

implementation and impact of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (1999-2000 

School Year). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special 

Education Programs. 

U.S. Department of Education. (December 9, 2003). Title I--Improving the academic 

achievement of the disadvantaged. Final regulations. Office of Elementary and 

Secondary Education, Department of Education. Retrieved from the World Wide Web: 

http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/finrule/2003-4/120903a.html 
U.S. General Accounting Office. (2003). Special Education: federal actions can assist states in 

improving postsecondary outcomes for youth. Report to the ranking minority member, 

Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, U.S. Senate (GAO-03-773). 

Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Office. 

Weston, T. J. (1999). Investigating the validity of the accommodation of oral presentation in 

testing (Doctoral dissertation). Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of 

Colorado. 

Youth Advisory Committee of the National Council on Disability. (2003). Students with 

disabilities face financial aid barriers. Washington, DC: National Council on Disability.