The Contradictions Between IDEA and NCLB Acts

In special education, some laws can contradict one another. Two of those are laws are No Child Left Behind and Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The paper will explain how they clash with special education and how NCLB hinders students with disabilities.

IDEA

When IDEA was introduced in 1975, it was originally formed to safeguard students with FAPE, however, the law has seen many adjustments since then. The law has two parts, Part B and Part C. Part B is designed for preschoolers and school-aged children, ages 3-22. Because of this law, millions of children obtain services needed to academically succeed. Here are 13 diagnosis that qualifies children for services but they are not immediately disqualified for having these disabilities. When a child has a disability that hinders them from successfully learning, they qualify for services. In the event that they are denied, parents have options such as the 504 plan to accommodate. To start the process of receiving services under IDEA, an evaluation must be requested. Once the disability has been identified, only then can the type of services needed be addressed. Following the evaluation, an eligibility meeting takes place. Once the student has been approved for services, a team of school officials will come together to form an IEP. This educational document will serve as a guide to the students’ academic goals, supports, and services. The law states that during this whole process parents can be included and an active participant.

NCLB

Each year about 12 billion dollars is allotted to schools to help underprivileged children. Along with changing NCLB to the Every Student Succeeds Act, there have been some other changes as well. In an effort to compete globally, schools needed to show accountability for the progress of all children. However, more focus was placed on minorities, special education and underprivileged children. The goal was to fill the achievement gap for K-12 students. To stay in compliance schools must meet testing requirements annually. In math and reading all students must remain proficient. If not, schools face sanctions as severe as closing schools. To help students be successful under this law, teachers are required to have a certification and bachelor’s degree also known as a highly qualified teacher. Teacher assistants should have a minimum of an associate’s degree or score high on evaluations.

Conflict

By requiring students meet the same benchmark criteria as their classmates at their current grade, NCLB has influenced specialized curriculum has produced positive effects. Nonetheless, testing standards tests that display how these standards are met are not precise measures of special education students' advancement. The main concern is the requirement of children with disabilities being held to the same learning standards as their nondisabled classmates. Children are frustrated and confused with testing, which causes a high failing rate. Then there are the teachers who are held responsible for the assessment scores. Exceptional teachers currently feel an extreme measured of weight for equal performance level of learning regardless of whether their inabilities restrain them from doing as such. Their requirements need to be raised and met, however must be estimated through the individual objectives and methods for testing. Through IDEA, children with disabilities are required to have an IEP developed by school officials. Their IEP serves as their blueprint for goals and objectives for the school year, which includes testing procedures. All of the time and effort put into the IEP process is wasted due to the testing standards that are set are unequally set (Lee & Eadens, 2014).

Those with moderated disabilities are suffering academically under NCLB as well. At the present time NCLB only acknowledges students with severe cognitive disabilities as needing alternate assessments. The legislation does not recognize the needs of students with moderate disabilities. Currently, NCLB just recognizes those with extreme intellectual inabilities as requiring modified testing. These students a falling below the testing standard too. IDEA states the individuals must be in general education classes with exposure to the curriculum. With the proper accommodations they are to engage and show progress alongside their peers (even if they are preforming under grade level).

Example: A school district in Portsmouth, VA follows IDEA, making sure fifth grader Harriet is placed in a general setting, with modifications. The school is following the IDEA law with the curriculum, placement and learning materials until its NCLB assessment time. Harriet now faces penalties because she is not proficient or at grade level. Teachers are facing consequences for Harriet’s lack of proficiency as well. Harriet’s parents then request a meeting and explained that Harriet has been in general education since first grade and they were promised that she would remain in this type of setting as she progressed through middle school. Now the parents are being told that Harriet no longer qualify to remain in the general setting because of the modified testing. This sudden decision cannot be warranted and it goes against with IDEA stands for. These laws that are passed are required to be implemented in the classroom in an effort to increase the academic success rate. However, it is very clear that they clash with each other when it comes to protecting individuals with disabilities.

Position

Notwithstanding these positive components, the law's utilization of top‐down responsibility weight that was more reformatory than helpful speaks to a defective way to deal with school improvement. Three explicit blemishes merit consideration. An underlying issue with the test‐based responsibility of NCLB is that it depends on a too constrictive perspective on learning. Some would think that hope for training and tutoring would be far more extensive than showing those how to do well on multiple‐choice tests. A more extensive view would perceive the job that institutions play in creating in those the learning and aptitudes that will empower them not only to prevail in the working field but rather to be productive contributors to society. Studies show that teachers are spending more time on tested subjects such as math, reading, which leaves little time for science, social studies and resource classes. Lessening of the educational programs undermines the potential for schools to advance other important subjects, for example, those for popularity or individual satisfaction.

NCLB has diminished what occurs in tested subjects. Due to budget cuts and convenience multiple choice tests have become the popular choice when grading, when takes away open-ended questions for special education. What's more, assessment‐based responsibility gives instructors motivating forces to 'educate to the assessment' as opposed to the more extensive areas that the test questions are intended to speak to. Proof of instructing to the test rises up out of the distinctions in assessment scores on the particular high stakes assessments utilized by states as a major aspect of their framework, and assessment scores on the NAEP, which isn't liable to this issue. NCLB additionally urged instructors to down size to small group settings. Different investigations record, for instance, that the motivating force for educators to concentrate on those close to the average/above average skill point has prompted decreases in the accomplishment of students who have fallen behind. NCLB has had an unfavorable impact on educator optimism and the damage it could be doing to those perusing a career in education. Despite the fact that analysts and policymakers every now and again point to educators as the most significant school factor for accomplishment, proof demonstrates that NCLB has decreased the optimism of instructors, particularly those in at-risk schools Further, clear proof of dishonest test scores by educators in some huge urban areas, including Atlanta, Chicago, and Washington, DC, regardless of whether constrained to little quantities of instructors, shows the extent of the weights confronting a few educators under high stakes responsibility of the sort forced by NCLB. Low educator confidence matters to some degree since it might well build instructor whittling down. In spite of the fact that we don't have much direct proof on how NCLB influences a steady loss, we do realize that the roughly 8 percent decrease rate of instructors in the United States is far higher than that in numerous nations and that lessening the rate would considerably moderate worries about anticipated educator deficiencies, and the expenses of the high revolving door rate (Houston, Marshall, & Mcdavid, 1993).

Conclusion

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) are two of the country's most significant government laws identifying with how students learn. While NCLB tries to improve the instruction all things considered - with an accentuation on those from at-risk families- - IDEA centers around the individual and looks to guarantee accommodation for those with inabilities, so they may take advantage of learning. However, there are downfalls to these laws in regard to special education and the lack of progress students are making, especially with the state-wide assessments.