Inclusion 1
Running Head: Inclusion
Inclusion and the No Child Left Behind Act
Laura Gamet
Virginia Tech
Inclusion 2
The No Child Left behind Act or the NCLB was passed in 2001 by President George
Bush. It was put into effect to ensure the equal education of all children through the act of
inclusion. Inclusion is the act of teaching children with special education needs in the same
classrooms with non-disabled students. This has raised concern among educators and parents
because they are worried it will have a negative impact on the non-disabled students’ education.
In this paper the impact that inclusion has on both the special needs children and the children
without disabilities is investigated through both tests and studies. In many cases it is
hypothesized that overall the NCLB and inclusion both have a positive impact on public school
education systems.
In a research article by Emma Smith she discusses exactly what the NCLB does and what
schools will have to do under this act. For the first time, Public law, linked high stakes testing
with strict accountability measures designed to ensure that at least in schools that receive
government funding, no child is left behind. On the other hand from this act some schools that
are otherwise successful could be labeled as failing because of their students results on strict
standardized tests. Any school that receives Title-1 funding is required to put these laws into
action and about 90% of America’s school districts receive this type of funding. A major
disadvantage of the new strict standardized tests is that the schools will be required to set targets
and monitor the progress of the students. If the progress of all the students hasn’t reached the
minimum proficiency level by 2014 then a corrective action will be taken, and in extreme cases
the school will be closed. Her research, although showing both positives and negatives of the act,
leans more towards a positive impact on the education system.
Inclusion 3
The Requirements under the No Child Left Behind act are clearly displayed in Candace
Cortiella’s research. Under this act it requires that all students with disabilities are included in
classrooms with non-disabled children. These students are then taught and tested in the same
way as the rest of the classroom. This is to ensure that with the standardized testing the progress
of these students is also tested. In order to keep the testing fair certain accommodation will be
made to suit the disabled child, this will help the student achieve a grade that shows their true
potential. Although many view this as unfair to the non-disabled students in no way is it meant to
be an advantage. Many confuse the accommodations with modifications. The teachers will not
be changing the test for those children or giving them answers, they will merely be giving the
test in a way that the disabled student will understand. An example of this would be that they
may read the test to the student instead of having them read it themselves. This sort of
accommodation will benefit all students and give them all a chance to score as high as possible.
Cortiella’s research, much like Smith’s, emphasizes the positive effect that inclusion can have on
students and the school system.
Over the past few years with many people trying to get all the facts about the
requirements of this act, many myths have emerges. In Carl Savich’s research he has helped
eliminate some of these with the pros and cons of the NCLB. Inclusion has resulted in greater
communication skills, greater social competence, and greater developmental skills for all special
education students who have been a part of the inclusive setting. Another advantage is that the
disabled students are able to make more friends in these classrooms which in turn will help build
positive self-esteem. Also over time inclusion will be much cheaper for the schools. The money
they are able to save from this will be able to be used to improve the education for all students,’
opposed to just the disabled students as before.
Inclusion 4
With all of these positives for the NCLB act there are also some topics of concern. Some
feel that instruction in the general education class would dilute and dissipate the specialized
attention they would normally receive in a special education class leading to a decrease or
standstill in their level of progress. Some also feel that teachers of these general education
classrooms are not adequately educated in how to teach the disabled children so they won’t be
able to help those students progress like the other students.
To address these concerns Afroditi, Farrell, Dyson, and Kaplan investigated the impact
that inclusion has on the non-disabled students in the classroom. Over the course of 26 studies
their results showed that 81% of the outcomes reported positive or neutral effects. With this data
we can see firsthand that the hypothesis, that NCLB has a positive impact, is in fact true. With a
positive or neutral effect on the non-disabled students and a number of positive outcomes for the
disabled students everyone wins.
The next step with the NCLB act is the effects of standardized testing. With Karen Hager
and Timothy Slocum’s research we are able to see the requirements of these tests. The standards
behind these tests refer to what the students should know and how well they should know it.
With inclusion every student is required to take these tests, even the disabled either under the
typical testing procedures or with slight accommodations.
The problems with these tests are expressed by Dan Goldhaber in his research against
standardized testing. They are that the schools progress and recognition is all based off one test.
This is not an accurate depiction of students’ knowledge because some students are highly
intelligent but are poor test takers also the psychology of the student on testing day could be in a
bad place. If bad test scores result teachers may be more apt to alter the scores to show a sense of
Inclusion 5
progress that really didn’t occur. All of these factor in to reasoning behind inaccurate results.
These standardized tests are the one thing that is keeping the No Child Left Behind act from
gaining support. With these tests it keeps many teachers and parents disagreeing with the
hypothesis that this act has a positive impact on education.
Although the testing requirements keep some skeptical on the importance of this act,
through the research of Ross Weiner, Daria Hall, Kim Reid, Alicia Broderick, and Heeral MehtaParekh we can see the progress that schools have gained over the years. At the beginning only
whites were allowed in schools and then as the years passed education began to change, many
mark this change with the phrase “inclusion by exclusion.” It started with blacks being allowed
in public schools, then disabled, and then non-english speaking students. Even though they were
allowed in the schools they were taught in separate classrooms. They explain that over time,
schools would concentrate on the students that excelled over the others or they would focus on
overall averages which would mask the gaps between various groups. This only allowed the
students who were not excelling to fall behind even more. Today with the NCLB act and
inclusion we were able to put an end to these actions by allowing the disabled students to learn in
a classroom with non-disabled children. These changes in the school system show much forward
progress in the education of children today and give evidence to the positive impact of the No
Child Left Behind act.
In conclusion the research results show that the hypothesis is in fact true. Although some
problems still persist with this act, there is still time to work them out to ensure positive results
for all children. With the No Child Let Behind act the school system is greatly increasing the
importance of equality and giving all children a fair chance to succeed.
Inclusion 6
I really liked the flow of your paper. I only counted seven sources but I could have
miscounted. I do not if you want to say your hypothesis is true. Yes you are looking for support
for your research, but I don’t think you want to say you’re right. Other then that I don’t have any
thing else to correct. You included everything
References
Cortiella, Candace. "No Child Left Behind: Determining Appropriate Assessment
Accommodations for Students with Disabilities." ERIC. National Center for Learning
Disabilities, Inc., New York, NY. 2005. Web.
Goldhaber, Dan. "What Might Go Wrong with the Accountability Measures of the "No Child
Left Behind Act"?" ERIC. Opinion Papers; Speeches/Meeting Papers, 2002. Web. .
Savich, Carl. "Inclusion: The Pros and Cons--A Critical Review." ERIC. Opinion Papers;
Reports - Evaluative, 2008.
Web.http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.lib.vt.edu:8080/ehost/detail?vid=4&hid=108&sid=c5505
1e7-1515-491a-a358f0ca85cc00e6%40sessionmgr112&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#db=
eric&AN=ED485633#db=eric&AN=ED485633
Hager, Karen D., and Timothy A. Slocum. "Alternate Assessment: No Child Left Behind during
Statewide Testing." ERIC. Information Analyses; Speeches/Meeting Papers, 2002. Web.
Weiner, Ross, and Daria Hall. "Accountability under No Child Left Behind." ERIC. EBSCO,
Sept.-Oct. 2004. Web. 8 Nov. 2009. .
Kalambouka, Afroditi, Peter Farrell, Alan Dyson, and Ian Kaplan. "The Impact of Placing Pupils
with Special Educational Needs in Mainstream Schools on the Achievement of Their Peers."
ERIC. EBSCO, Dec. 2007. Web. 8 Nov. 2009. .
Smith, Emma. "Raising Standards in American Schools: The Case of "No Child Left behind""
ERIC. EBSCO, July 2005. Web. 8 Nov. 2009. .
Reid, Kim, Alicia Broderick, and Heeral Mehta-Parekh. "Differentiating Instruction for Disabled
Students in Inclusive Classrooms." ERIC. EBSCO, 2005. Web. 8 Nov. 2009. .