The Relationship of Reading Achievement of Students with Disabilities and Least Restrictive Environment Practices
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31686/ijier.vol3.iss3.331Keywords:
least restrictive environment, reading achievement, students with disabilities, inclusionAbstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between Kentucky least restrictive environment (LRE) practices and the state’s assessment annual measureable objectives (AMO) in reading for students with disabilities. This research was designed to determine whether districts achieved AMO targets for reading within LRE, and whether a relationship exists between special education students’ placement and assessment scores attained for the disability subpopulation in the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Reports. Results from this study indicated that one district achieved the scale score for reading achievement. Nine districts achieved reading AMO targets due to safe harbor, while nine districts achieved reading AMO due to confidence interval for students with disabilities. Also, the results indicated a higher correlation for students who received services in a separate location for less than 20% of the school day.
Downloads
References
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, 347 U. S. 483 (1954).
Kozleski, E., & Smith, A. (2005). Pursuit of an equity agenda in American education.
Remedial and Special Education, 26(5), 270-280.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A Nation at Risk: The
Imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
Lips, D. (2008). A Nation at Risk: The case for federalism and school choice. The
Heritage Foundation, 2125, 1-10.
Borek, J. (2008). A Nation at Risk at 25. Phi Delta Kappan, 89(8), 572-574. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170808900807
TheSilentEpidemic3-06FINAL.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. (2008). A nation accountable: Twenty-five years after A
Nation at Risk. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2008). The nation’s report card: Long term-
trend. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Hunt, J.W. (2008) A nation at risk and no child left behind: Déjà vu for Administrators? Phi Delta Kappan, 89(8), 580-585. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170808900809
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, U.S.C. § 6301 (2002).
Jarrow, J. (1999). Understanding the law to give students with disabilities full potential.
Washington, D.C.: National TRIO Clearinghouse.
Harriott, P., & Wolfe, W. (1998). The reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA): What educators and parents should know. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 13(2), 88-93.
National Center on Education Outcomes. (2004). Expectations for students with cognitive
disabilities: Is the cup half empty or half full? Can the cup flow over? Retrieved
from http://www.cehd.umn.edu/NCEO/onlinepubs/Synthesis55.html
Katsiyannis, A., Shriner, J., & Yell, M. (2006). Individuals with Disabilities Educational
Improvement Act of 2004 and IDEA Regulations of 2006: Implications for educators, a dministrators, and teacher trainers. Focus on Exceptional Children, 39(1), 1-24.
Handler, B.R. (2006, September/October). Two acts, one goal: Meeting the shared vision of No Child Left Behind and Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004. The Clearing House, 80 (1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.3200/TCHS.80.1.5-8
Kentucky Department of Education. (2011a). Kentucky continuous monitoring progress
self-assessment document fall reporting period. Retrieved from http://www.education.ky. gov/nr/rdonlyres/a6f5b5ff-2c0a-4503-99e9 ff8f23302795/0/20102011 fallkcmpinstructionmanual.pdf
Kentucky Department of Education. (2012). Kentucky Department of Education’s open
house. Retrieved from http://openhouse.education.ky.gov/
Kentucky Department of Education. (2011b). No Child Left Behind adequate yearly
progress report-2011. Retrieved from http://www.education.ky.gov/KDE/
Harriman, N. (2005). Perceptions of students and educators on the impact of No ChildLeft Behind: Some will and some won’t. Rural Special Education DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/875687050502400112
Quarterly, 24(1), 64-69.
American Diploma Project. (2004). Ready or not: Creating a high school diploma that
counts. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.achieve.org/
ReadyorNot
Blackorby, J., & Schiller, E. (2011). Growth in the reading achievement of students with
disabilities, ages 7 to 17. Exceptional Children, 78(1), 89-106.
Cook, B., Gerber, M., & Semmel, M. (1999). Attitudes of principals and special
education teachers toward the inclusion of students with mild disabilities.
Remedial and Special Education, 20(4), 199-256.
Finkel, D. (2011). New directions for special education. District Administration,47(6),
-57.
Hawkins, V. (2007). Narrowing gaps for special-needs students. Educational Leadership,
(5), 61-63.
Inman, T., & Roberts, J. (2009). Strategies for differentiation instruction. Waco, TX:
Prufrock Press, Inc.
Davis Bianco, S. (2010). Improving Student Outcomes: Data-driven Instruction and Fidelity of Implementation in a Response to Intervention (RTI) Model. TEACHING Exceptional Children Plus, 6(5) Article 1. Retrieved 03.10.2015 from http://escholarship.bc.edu/education/tecplus/vol6/iss5/art1
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2015 Janet L Applin, Rhonda Simpson, Nedra Atwell
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Copyrights for articles published in IJIER journals are retained by the authors, with first publication rights granted to the journal. The journal/publisher is not responsible for subsequent uses of the work. It is the author's responsibility to bring an infringement action if so desired by the author for more visit Copyright & License.
How to Cite
