A STUDY OF THE MEMPHIS CITY SCHOOLS DIVISION OF EXCEPTIONAL

CHILDREN: IS THE DISTRICT MAKING THE GRADE?

by

Albert J. Slater

BARRY PERSKY, Ph.D., Faculty Mentor and Chair

MARY DERESHIWSKY, Ph.D., Committee Member

TYJAUN LEE, Ph.D., Committee Member

Barbara Butts Williams, Ph.D., Dean, School of Education

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Philosophy

Capella University

March 2009
 UMI Number: 3358596

INFORMATION TO USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

______________________________________________________________

UMI Microform 3358596

Copyright 2009 by ProQuest LLC
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
_______________________________________________________________

ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346
© Albert J. Slater, 2009
 Abstract

The purpose of this research was to evaluate the Memphis City Schools (MCS) Division

of Exceptional Children through an assessment of the proficiency gap between K–12

students with and without disabilities on state tests. The study consisted of a causal-

comparative research design, with disaggregated data that was taken from standardized

test results garnered from the Tennessee Department of Education (TNDOE) annual

report cards regarding the percentages of students with and without disabilities in grades

K–12 deemed as below proficiency, and having proficiency or advanced proficiency and

meeting current standards. Using 2 measures (mean and mode) of central tendency on the

Criterion Referenced Tests (CRTs), Middle Grades Writing Assessment (MGWA),

Tennessee High School Graduation Tests (THSGTs or Gateway exams), and Tennessee

High School Writing Assessment (THSWA), this study compared the 2 groups. The

comparisons were made by test type, subject area, grade level, and school type. The study

found that the MCS Division of Exceptional Children needs to reevaluate the current

delivery of services and better align those services for the students with disabilities in the

district. The mean for both elementary- and middle-school math achievement gap for

2005-06 was 40.03%. The mean for both the elementary- and middle-school reading

achievement gap for 2005-06 was 30.51%. It appears that MCS is leaving students with

disabilities behind in meeting essential reading and math standards set forth by the No

Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act.

 Table of Contents

List of Tables v

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1

Introduction to the Problem 1

Background of the Study 2

Statement of the Problem 5

Purpose of the Study 5

Rationale 7

Research Questions and Hypotheses 8

Significance of the Study 8

Definition of Terms 10

Assumptions and Limitations 15

Nature of the Study 16

Conceptual Framework 17

Organization of the Remainder of the Study 18

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 20

Antecedents of Special Education 20

Individuals With Disabilities Education Act of 1975 21

The Special Education Legal System 23

The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act 24

Needs Assessment 35

The Tennessee Growth Model Pilot Program 35

The Tennessee Department of Education 39

iii
 Approved Accommodations for Students With Disabilities 41

The Memphis City School District 42

Recent Studies 43

Summary 45

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY 47

Overview of the Problem 47

Research Design and Methodology 48

Data Collection 53

Data Analysis 58

Ethical Issues 59

Summary 60

CHAPTER 4. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS 62

Descriptive Data 64

Data Analysis 64

Summary 87

CHAPTER 5. RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 91

Summary of the Study 91

Summary of Findings and Conclusions 94

Recommendations 102

Implications 107

REFERENCES 110

iv
 List of Tables

Table 1. Testing Schedule 6

Table 2. Elementary Grades Reading, Language Arts, and Writing Achievement

Gaps for Students Meeting or Exceeding CRCT Standards 70

Table 3. Middle Grades Reading, Language Arts, and Writing Achievement Gaps
for Students Meeting or Exceeding CRCT Standards 70

Table 4. High-School Grades Reading, Language Arts, and Writing Achievement

Gaps for Students Meeting or Exceeding CRCT Standards 71

Table 5. Elementary Grades Math Achievement Gaps for Students Meeting or

Exceeding CRCT Standards 72

Table 6. Middle Grades Math Achievement Gap for Students Meeting or

Exceeding CRCT Standards 73

Table 7. High-School Grades Math Achievement Gap for Students Meeting or Exceeding
CRCT Standards 74

Table 8. Mode Performance for Elementary Reading/Language Arts/Writing

CRCT Scores 75

Table 9. Mode Performance for Elementary Math CRCT Scores 75

Table 10. Mode Performance for Middle Grades Reading, Language Arts, and
Writing CRCT Scores 76

Table 11. Mode Performance for Middle Grades Math CRCT Scores 76

Table 12. Mode Performance for High-School Grades Reading/Language Arts/

Writing CRCT Scores 77

Table 13. Mode Performance for High-School Grades Math (Algebra I) CRCT
Scores 78

v
 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

Introduction to the Problem

According to the Tennessee Department of Education (TNDOE, 2007), Memphis

City Schools (MCS) Division of Exceptional Children for the school years 2004, 2005,

and 2006 exhibited consistent noncompliance with the federal Individuals with

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The Memphis City School District, like all other

school districts, is mandated by the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act (2002) to provide

a high-quality public education to all students, collect data on the academic achievement

of American students, by using standardized testing programs, and report annual progress

in closing the achievement gap between at-risk students and their peers. In 2004, a 50%

gap existed in math students with disabilities and those without disabilities in grades 3

through 8. In 2004, 88% of students in grades 9 through 12 with disabilities failed their

math exam, whereas only 60% of students without disabilities failed the same exam

(TNDOE). IDEA guarantees students with disabilities the right to a free appropriate

public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment (LRE). Despite these federal

education rights afforded by IDEA and NCLB and the efforts of the Memphis City

School System, how well the district is educating its students with disabilities remains a

question.

1
 Background of the Study

The concept of special education now has spanned several decades in America.

The term special education is considered instruction that is modified or specialized for

those students with definitive or specific needs. In 1975, Congress enacted legislation

designated as blockbuster to empower school districts to provide a plan to help teachers

execute action for children in need of specific help to be successful in the classroom, and

then to report on the performance and progress of all students with disabilities. Called the

Education for All Handicapped Children Act and originally enacted in 1966, with the title

Education for the Handicapped Act of 1975 (U.S. Department of Education [USDOE],

n.d.a), the act was later renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990

(Public Law 101-476). The law was renamed to Individuals with Disabilities Education

Improvement Act (IDEIA), in 2002, at the time of passage of the No Child Left Behind

Act. The new act mandates a FAPE in the LRE, regardless of the severity of an

individual’s disability. An achievement gap continued to exist, however, between

students with and without disabilities when the NCLB was enacted (USDOE, n.d.b). The

premise of NCLB remains that all children reach proficiency on state academic

achievement standards and assessments.

Two quantitative evaluation approaches support the premise: the projection model

(Tennessee growth model pilot) and a needs assessment model. The projection model

pilot began with elementary- and middle-school adequate yearly progress (AYP)

determinations based on 2005-06 testing (TNDOE, 2006). Tennessee was the first and

only state fully approved to implement its own high-quality growth model pilot, which

follows the principles of the No Child Left Behind Act. The Tennessee growth model

2
tracks individual student achievement from one year to the next, giving schools credit for

student improvement over time. A pilot program allows the U.S. Department Office of

Education (USDOE) to evaluate growth models rigorously and ensure their alignment

with NCLB, and then share these results with other states (TNDOE, 2007). Secondly,

NCLB mandates a needs assessment that “enables researchers to measure the precise

extent of any discrepancy between an existing state and a desired state” (Gall, Borg, &

Gall, 2003, p. 558). Specifically, this means that schools should measure where their

students are in terms of meeting federal mandates and to compare the measures to where

the mandates wants them to be. The NCLB also mandates a testing program that serves as

a way to assess how well schools are closing or narrowing the achievement gap between

various groups of students. Test results are reported according to student subgroups to

identify those students most at risk of being left behind (TNDOE).

All proponents of NCLB understand that the ultimate goal is to have all districts

reach or exceed target goals set by TNDOE for students with and without disabilities. At

MCS, the Division of Exceptional Children should provide a need assessment of

quantitative evaluation, which is the first step taken before any fully evaluation of the

educational program, which is often omitted or overlooked (Patton, 1998). That step is

required because the students with and without disabilities are not performing at

proficiency level, which the percentage differs according to each assessment given. Since

1999, the Memphis City Schools (MCS) Division of Exceptional Children has never

performed at actual or near the TNDOE’s percentage for proficiency (TNDOE, 2007),

and each year the proficiency percentage changed for each Gateway assessment.

3
 In New York, the Ardsley School District decided to analyze test scores in an

nontraditional manner called a growth model to tracks the progress of students as they

moved from grade to grade rather than comparing, the current year’s third-graders with

scores from last year (Hu, 2007). Now, more than eight states—including Tennessee,

Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Iowa, and North Carolina—have been

approved to implement similar growth models, and the state of Ohio has a conditional

approval for this (Klein, Wiley, & Thurlow, 2006).

Special education students were displaced from pull-out classes to regular

education classes when researchers see their standardized test scores rise in the prior year.

Additionally, the New York City Department of Education has begun grading each public

school A to F for the first time in 2007; more than half of that evaluation is based on how

individual students’ progress on standardized tests (Hu, 2007). The growth model pilot

program enrollees hoped that the new program will strengthen the movement to amend

the No Child Left Behind Act to allow such alternative assessments of student progress.

The act was up for reauthorization in 2007 (Association for Supervision and Curriculum,

Development [ASCD], 2007).

Many urban environments agreed that growth models were a fairer measure of

assessment under the No Child Left Behind Act because districts recognized that poor

and minority students often started out behind and thus have more to learn to reach state

standards. By the same token, many suburbs did favor growth models because those

models can evaluate students at all levels rather than focusing on only lifting those at the

bottom, thereby further justifying instruction costs to parents and school boards at a time

of shrinking budgets (Hu, 2007).

4
 The needs assessment model is another quantitative approach used for evaluation.

According to Gall et al. (2003), needs assessment models “enable researchers to measure

the precise extent of discrepancy between an existing state and a desired state” (p. 558).

Statement of the Problem

The NCLB Act has been in existence for the past 8 years. The MCS Division of

Exceptional Children has not done enough during the timeframe to improve the

achievement gap between students with and those without disabilities. The district’s

Division of Exceptional Children has met the NCLB benchmark only 1 of the 3 past

years, FY 2005-06. However, grades 3 through 8 did meet the federal benchmarks.

According to Hall and Kennedy (2006), the elementary schools are attaining their grade

levels, but the middle and high schools still are not.

It is unclear how the MCS Division of Exceptional Children effectively used the

growth model pilot concept that Tennessee implemented in FY 2005-06. There are still

no comprehensive quantitative evaluation studies about how the district is closing the

achievement gap between the students with disabilities and those without disabilities.

There is a need for more statistical knowledge to learn the progress of the program;

specifically, there is a current gap in necessary knowledge for proper evaluation of the

program.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this research was to evaluate the Memphis City Schools (MCS)

Division of Exceptional Children through an assessment of the proficiency gap between

K–12 students with and without disabilities on state tests. The study reviewed records of

5
the students with and without disabilities from MCS Division of Exceptional Children

during the past 3 testing years by grade levels: Grade levels 3 through 8 in reading,

language arts, and math (referred to as the Tennessee Comprehensive Achievement

Program [TCAP]) and grades 9 through 12 in Algebra I and English II (and Biology I but

it is not considered for AYP under NCLB), and they are referred to by lawmakers as the

TCAP Secondary Assessments (English II and Algebra I); the Middle Grades Writing

Assessment (MGWA); and the Tennessee High School Writing Assessment (THSWA).

Table 1. Testing Schedule

Reading/
Grade Language
Level Arts Writing Math English II Algebra I

3 X X

4 X X

5 X X X

6 X X

7 X X

8 X X X

9 X

10 X X

11 X X X

12 X X

6
 Rationale

By year 2014, all MCS students are expected to be able to earn proficiency on

Tennessee’s standardized tests. The NCLB Act has ensured the citizens of Memphis that

accountability will be met or MCS (and other districts) will be severely penalized by

TNDOE with possible school closure or district takeover (Gelpi, Fetter, & Setters, 2007).

The conclusions provided by this quantitative study can only add to the understanding of

the literature and research base. The study determined how one large urban MCS

Division of Exceptional Children had or had not shrunk the proficiency gap as NCLB

prescribed and examined the methods used to accomplish that goal.

It is the responsibility of all stakeholders to ensure that all learners, whether

disabled or nondisabled, have the necessary supports to improve any achievement gaps.

NCLB has made provisions for students whose schools do not measure up to standards.

These school districts must provide the option of allowing students to move to a better

public school; or provide those students the opportunity to receive free tutoring, and

entitlement that the act refers to as supplemental educational services (Hess & Finn,

2007).

To speak to that point, the National Center for Educational Statistics indicates that

in 1993, 4.7 million children attended a public school of choice. The number rose to 6.85

million by 1999 (Hess & Finn, 2007). IDEA also ensures that special education students

must be afforded a FAPE that equates to high achievements on standardize tests.

Furthermore, such high achievements should be a derivative (offshoot) of the general

curriculum.

7
 Research Questions and Hypotheses

The study is guided by the following research questions and hypotheses:

Research Questions

1. For state tests in reading, language arts, writing, and math, what is the mean
achievement gap between students with disabilities and those without
disabilities in terms of meeting or exceeding the standards by test year and
grade level?
2. For state tests in reading, language arts, math, and writing, what is the mode
performance of students with disabilities and those without disabilities by test
year and grade level?

Hypotheses

1. There is a significant difference between students with and without disabilities

on state tests in reading/language arts/writing achievement for the years 2003-
04, 2004-05, and 2005-06.

2. There is a significant difference between students with and without disabilities

on state tests in math achievement for the years of 2003-04, 2004-05, and
2005-06.

3. There is a significant difference between students with and without disabilities

on state test performance in reading/language arts/writing achievement for the
year 2005-06 due to the creation of Tennessee’s NCLB growth model pilot
program.

4. There is a significant difference between students with and without disabilities

on state tests in math achievement for the year 2005-06 due to the creation of
Tennessee’s NCLB growth model pilot program.

Significance of the Study

The question of academic performance as measured by achievement on

standardized tests takes on increased relevance in an age of high stakes testing and

accountability. The notion appears to have given rise to teachers’ ability to teach today’s

students to understand the subject being taught and to perform proficiently on those

standardized tests, especially special needs students. For instance, children with

8
disabilities may learn but not test well (i.e., those with forms of dyslexia or attention

deficit hyperactivity disorder).

The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 requires that schools make sure

that all students, including students with disabilities, make AYP as measured by test

scores, and other academic markers (McLaughlin & Thurlow, 2003). Schools that served

students with disabilities have shown to have poorer test scores. Because TNDOE created

the tests, scored the tests and archived all the tests given, those test scores offer an

excellent opportunity for retrospective longitudinal research. In essence, the scores were

graded and recorded upon completion in an unbiased, nonsubjective manner. They were

all objective tests. The records were then available to the public (at least for the past 12

years) through the TNDOE Web site. Students, parents, and educational policymakers

were also advised of the testing outcomes, namely, below proficiency, proficiency, or

advanced proficiency.

According to Gall, Gall, and Borg (2007), evaluation studies were an important

tool in policy analysis and program management. In addition, evaluation studies yield

valuable data about costs, benefits, and problems with programs. As for evaluation of

special education programs, the same information can help schools raise awareness about

how well the special education programs are closing the achievement goals set by NCLB

and IDEA. One particular stakeholder group that will benefit from this awareness will be

parents in terms of understanding their child’s rights and their rights under IDEA.

Teachers and principals, as a stakeholder group will also benefit from the awareness to

understand how important their voices are in requesting more dollars for professional

development that will aid in improving documented deficiencies in delivery of

9
instruction. Boards of Education would benefit as well in terms of creatively locating

state, government and local funds to pay for innovative programs that can improve

learning for the special needs population.

Special education supervisors and directors will benefit from the assessment by

understanding where best to place money for programs to allow teachers participate in

professional development throughout the country and allow high-school teachers to select

an endorsement track from one of the pivotal testing areas: Reading/language arts, math,

and science (biology), the three testing areas required for a regular high-school diploma.

The MCS Division of Exceptional Children (special education department) should pay

for the teachers’ classes and provide a stipend to each teacher for completion of the

endorsement. Teachers will benefit by being competent in core classes that are seemingly

plaguing special needs students, who are seeking to gone on to colleges or trade schools

after graduation. Parents will benefit because their children’s schools will no longer be

the headline for the local newspaper due to failure of the state assessments. Students with

disabilities and nondisabled students will benefit from having an additional highly

qualified teacher in the classroom, which should aid in increasing skills sets in the

classroom and competency on standardized tests.

Definition of Terms

The following terms are defined here operationally as they will be used in the

study.

Above (status). Students at a school that made significantly more progress in a

subject than students in the average school in the state (TNDOE, 2006).

10
 Achievement gap. The difference between the percentage of students without

disabilities meeting or exceeding standards on state achievement tests and students with

disabilities meeting or exceeding standards on state achievement tests. The standards are

the same for both groups (TNDOE, 2006).

Adequate yearly progress (AYP). Measures a school or school system’s ability to

meet required federal benchmarks with specific performance standards from year to year

(TNDOE, 2006).

Annual report card (ARC). A report that contains annual test results and other

information relevant to schools and their progress toward meeting the goals of student

achievement and graduation. The ARCs for the past 12 years can be found on the state’s

Web site (TNDOE, 2006).

Below (status). Students in this school made significantly less progress in this

subject than students in the average school in the state (TNDOE, 2006).

Civil rights manifesto. A public declaration of principles, policies, or intentions,

especially of a political nature (Balaji, 2007).

Criterion Referenced Test (CRT). Measures an individual student’s performance

against a predetermined set of standards that are established based on the determined

curriculum (TNDOE, 2006)

Gateway exams. Students who entered the ninth grade in 2001-02 must attain a

score that indicates proficient or advanced on each of the Gateway examinations in three

subject areas—mathematics, science, and language arts—in order to earn a high-school

diploma. These scores are not grade specific but rather course specific (TNDOE, 2006)

11
 High priority school/system. A system that has missed the same federal

benchmark for more than 1 consecutive year. There are different levels of high priority

schools/systems: School Improvement 1, School Improvement 2, Corrective Action,

Restructuring 1, Restructuring 2, and SEA/LEA Reconstitution Plan (TNDOE, 2006).

High School Grade Writing Assessment. The writing test administered in grade 11

that requires students to respond and write on a state-selected topic (TNDOE, 2006).

Highly qualified teacher. Any public elementary or secondary school teacher who

holds at least a bachelor’s degree, is fully licensed in Tennessee, and submits the required

documents to demonstrate competency in the content area(s) being taught (TNDOE,

2006).

Individualized education program (IEP). A document that specifies the long- and

short-term goals of an instructional program, where the program will be delivered, who

will deliver the program, and how its progress will be evaluated (Salvia & Ysseldyke,

1998).

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The blockbuster legislation

passed by Congress in 1975 and reauthorized in 1990 to improve the lives of students

with disabilities under the auspices of delivery of a free, appropriate public education

(FAPE) in the least restrictive environment (LRE) (Public Law 101-476). This law was

formerly called the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (Public Law 94-

142).

Instructional Resource Program. The Instructional Resource Program serves

students who are experiencing mild-to-moderate learning problems but can function in a

12
regular classroom with supportive services from an instructional resource teacher

(Memphis City Schools, 2007).

Middle Grades Writing Assessment. The writing test administered in grades 4, 5,

7 and 8 requiring students to write an essay on a state-selected topic (TNDOE, 2006).

Multiculturalism. Encourages equal respect and scholarly interest among different

cultures in a society (National Multicultural Institute, 2009).

No Child Left Behind (NCLB). The act approved by U.S. Congress in 2001 that

requires schools to have 100% proficiency among students in math, reading, and

language arts by 2014. Students must also meet graduation and attendance standards

(USDOE, 2002).

Projection model. TNDOE supplementation of the statutory AYP model under the

NCLB growth model pilot program (TNDOE, 2006). The core principles of the

projection model follow:

1. The projection model will encourage districts to bring all students to a high
standard of proficiency and eliminate gaps in reading/language arts and
mathematics.

2. The projection model requires low-achieving students to make accelerated

progress toward proficiency and does not alter this expectation based on
student characteristics.

3. The proposed accountability system produces separate accountability

decisions in reading/language arts and mathematics.

4. The proposed accountability system includes all students in tested grades in

both assessment and accountability, holds schools accountable for the
performance of student subgroups, and includes all schools and districts.

13
 5. Tennessee has had annual assessments in reading/language arts and math in
each of the grades 3–8 since 1992 and high-school exams since 2001. These
assessments produce comparable results from year to year and grade to grade,
and expect to be approved through the peer review process for the 2005-06
school year.

6. The projection model uses individual student projection data derived from the
student’s prior achievement data. The state’s longitudinal data system tracks
student progress across time and also across schools and districts.

7. The accountability system requires that all subgroups attain a 95%

participation rate in each subject area and that all students attain a 93%
attendance rate.

Special education. The combination of legal procedures, programs, and/or

services provided to students with disabilities within a school district, and mandated by

the Individuals with Disabilities Educational Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEIA). One of

its main goals is to provide specially designed instruction intended to meet the unique

educational needs of a child assessed as having a disability (TNDOE, 2006).

Students with disabilities. Students or youth aged 3 through 21 who are

considered disabled under IDEA and meet at least one of the following categories of

eligibility for identified special education services: autism, mental retardation, learning

disability, emotional disturbance, traumatic brain injury, speech or language impairment,

visual impairment, deafness and hearing impairment, orthopedic impairments, other

health impairments (TNDOE, 2006).

Students without disabilities. Students who do not meet eligibility for special

education services (TNDOE, 2006).

Target school/school system. A target school/school system is one that missed a

federal benchmark in at least one area of accountability for the 1st year. There are no

sanctions/penalties for target schools/systems. The U.S. Department of Education offers

14
technical assistance to help keep target schools/systems from becoming high priority

schools/systems (TNDOE, 2006).

Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program (TCAP). Assesses students in

grades 3 through 8 annually on reading/language arts, math, science, and social studies

content areas. For high-school students, grades 9 through 12, the TCAP assessment is

referred to as the Gateway exams, consisting of exams for English II, Algebra I, and

Biology I, but it is not being reviewed in this study due to its nonfactoring of a school’s

AYP (TNDOE, 2006).

Title 1. Federally funded programs for those high poverty schools that target

children with low achievement scores (USDOE, n.d.a).

Assumptions and Limitations

The following assumptions were made during the initial stages of the study:

1. Data reported on annual report cards are accurate and free of errors.

2. Interpretations of standardized test scores used in this study were valid.

3. Within a school system, the desired circumstance is to have all students begin
at the proficiency level, and progress toward advancement.

4. Quantitative data presented were obtainable from annual report cards

published by TNDOE.

5. The projection model identifies all students with or without disabilities who
were not proficient on their standardized tests.

The following limitations were associated with this study:

1. The students’ test-related anxieties, level of test preparation, and other

affective influences could impact test performance.

15
 2. The projection model pilot does not provide the same assistance to parents of
high-school students who student failed one or more of the Gateway exit
exams. The projection model pilot only follows those elementary- and middle-
schools students who have not passed the TCAP assessment.

3. The projection model pilot does not credit schools for students who have
projections above proficiency. It follows only those students who have failed
to pass the standardized test (TCAP assessment).

Nature of the Study

This quantitative study used statistical techniques to analyze its data, along with

the support of two measures of central tendency to compare the performance of MCS

students with and without disabilities on Tennessee achievement tests administered from

2003-04 through 2005-06.

TNDOE compiled and published the test performance data in its annual report

cards. The educational evaluation of this study was based on the needs assessment

evaluation for the students and the predetermined growth pilot model. The premise of

NCLB is that a curriculum should be designed around its objectives, and the test

performance scores should meet and enhance the objectives of that curriculum.

The primary purpose of NCLB is to identify underperforming schools that need to

improve in order to retain federal funding; in addition, another purpose is to highlight

specific performing schools where students can enroll as an option.

The performance of the MCS Division of Exceptional Children for students with

and without disabilities was compared by analyzing grades 3 through 8 on reading,

language arts, and math CRTs; grades 5, 8, and 11 on the Writing Assessment; grade 10

English II and Algebra I on Gateway exams; and grade 11 on the Writing Assessment. To

evaluate these results, two measures of central tendency, mean and mode will be used.

16
According to Salvia and Ysseldyke (1998), “the mean is the arithmetic average of the

scores in a distribution; and the mode is the score most frequently obtained score in a

distribution” (pp. 89–90).

At each tested grade level, test performance of student data was assessed to

determine how the majority of students, both with and without disabilities, performed on

the CRTs, the Writing Assessments, and the Gateway exams. The mean achievement gap

between those students with and without disabilities will be determined by grade level,

test year, test type, and subject area. The mode of test performance for students with and

without disabilities on each state test will also be clearly determined.

Conceptual Framework

In this study, the test scores of students with and without disabilities for FY 2003-

06 will be the impetus to determine whether the MCS is implementing enough measures

or the correct measures to ensure its special needs students are performing as well or

better on state assessments than the district’s regular education students. Memphis City

Schools in its 2003-04 reading scores were found to have an achievement gap of nearly

46% based on the average performance of students with and without disabilities. Two

quantitative evaluation approaches was considered for this study: a needs assessment and

the Tennessee growth model pilot study program. Both were used to determine if the

MCS Division of Exceptional Children was able to bridge a long-term record of student

achievement data that says that those students with disabilities were receiving the

essential services to help them become proficient on the Tennessee’s standardized exams

into its present No Child Left Behind Act accountability system.

17
 According to Heubert and Hauser (1999), “testing plays a critical role in

determining who qualifies for special education services, but traditionally accountability

in special education has not relied mainly on assessment” (p. 192). It has relied on school

professionals’ documentation of skills that a child can or cannot perform, and how well

they do perform on various skills. The concept that was used to determine the level of

standardized testing is based on a child’s IEP (IDEA, 1975). This document is a roadmap

for the child’s teachers to use when educating the child to provide a FAPE in the LRE.

Because the IEP is protected under the law, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

of 1975, the assumption is that each child’s accommodations and modifications were

followed for the 2003 through 2006 testing years. Large-scale assessments were not

given to special education students due to their educational training being directed to

specific skills pursuant to the IEP, and the concentration was not placed on the broad

content domains that are normally given for large-scale assessments (Heubert & Hauser,

1999).

Organization of the Remainder of the Study

The remaining chapters of this dissertation present a literature review and

discussions of research methods, data analysis, and results, and offer conclusions and

recommendations. Majority literature themes discussed in chapter 2 include antecedents

of special education, IDEA, the special education legal system, NCLB, needs assessment,

challenges to NCLB, Black disparities, multiculturalism, fixing NCLB, the needs

assessment, The Tennessee Growth Model Pilot Project, TNDOE, approval

accommodations for students with disabilities, The Memphis City School District, recent

studies, and finally, the summary. Chapter 3 discusses methods used to conduct the
18
research study. Sections in chapter 3 include quantitative research design strategy, ethical

issues, data collection, and data analysis.

Chapter 4 will contain an overview of the study sample, as well as findings and

results of the study. It will also report the findings for each research question and/or

related results of hypothesis testing. Chapters 2 through 4 each conclude with chapter

summaries. Chapter 5 will include a discussion of the findings, conclusions offered, and

recommendations for further research as well as recommendations for practical

application of study results.

19
 CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

The Memphis City Schools (MCS) Division of Exceptional Children has not been

the focus of any studies in recent years. However, the district has certainly has had an

exorbitant amount of print coverage since the enactment of NCLB. MCS has had, at one

point, more than 100 of its schools on Tennessee’s failing list during the past 5 years of

NCLB. Oddly enough, the problems of MCS and the district’s inability to raise its student

graduation rate and the passing of the Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program

(TCAP) assessments already occurred prior to NCLB enactment.

This chapter offers theoretical and research support for conducting an assessment

of the MCS Division of Exceptional Children to reduce the proficiency gap between

students with and without disabilities. The following subsections will be included here:

Antecedents of Special Education, IDEA, the Special Education Legal System, NCLB,

Needs Assessment, the Tennessee Growth Model Pilot Program, Tennessee Department

of Education, Approved Accommodations for Students With Disabilities, The Memphis

City School System, Recent Studies, and a chapter summary.

Antecedents of Special Education

The nation’s special education system has gone through a myriad of changes since

its inception. The U.S. Supreme Court decided in Brown v. Board of Education of

Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), that the parents of children with disabilities who asked why

the same principles of equal access to education for Black children attending school with

20
White children did not apply to their children. Like the NAACP, these parents based their

arguments on the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which provides that no state shall

deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The concepts

of equal protection and due process are thus fundamentally important to special education

(Medley, 1994).

Many years ago, children with disabilities usually received differential treatment.

They were excluded from certain educational programs or were given special education

only in separated settings. Basically, when the courts were asked to rule on the practice of

such denial and segregation, judges examined whether the treatment was rational or

necessary (Williams, 1977). Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka and other similar

cases have been instrumental in the development and implementation of the subsequent

federal legislation, notably the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 1975).

Individuals With Disabilities Education Act of 1975

Nearly 30 years ago, Congress passed Public Law 94-142, the Individual with

Disabilities Education Act. It was commonly called blockbuster legislation and hailed as

the law that would have a widespread impact on education. It became exactly that and

more for children with disabilities, regular and special educators, school administrators,

parents, and other stakeholders. The outcome of the IDEA is that society had more

concern for treating people with disabilities as full citizens with the same rights and

privileges that all other citizens enjoy (IDEA Partnerships Project, 2002).

The IDEA ensures that all children with disabilities receive the essential services,

such as a free, appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment, any

related services tailored to provide for that person’s unique needs, the rights of parents or
21
guardians being protected, provision of financial assistance to states and local

governments to provide that education, and oversight regarding the effectiveness of the

education given to children with disabilities (Heward, 2000).

When a child comes to school with a disability, the school must provide them

whatever services are needed to ensure learning at the public institution. In essence, the

zero reject provision mandates that absolutely no children with disabilities between the

ages of 6 and 17 will be denied special education services. More importantly, if the state

is providing FAPE to children without disabilities between ages 3 to 5 and ages 18 to 21,

it must also educate special needs children as well (Heward, 2000).

Schools cannot use a single assessment to determine whether a child is eligible for

special education services. They must seek nonbiased, multifactor methods of evaluation

to determine whether a child has a disability and whether special education is actually

needed. The essential testing and evaluation procedures must also not discriminate on the

basis of race, culture, or native language (Williams, 1977).

Under FAPE, all children with disabilities, regardless of type or severity shall

receive an education at the expense of the public; that is without any cost to that child’s

parents. Specifically, an individualized education program (IEP) must be developed and

implemented for each student with a documented disability. An IEP must be used, as a

roadmap to instruct the educator on the child’s unique needs (Johnson, Dupuis, Musial,

Hall, & Gollnick, 2002).

In addition to FAPE, IDEA mandates that students with disabilities be educated

with children without disabilities to the maximum extent necessary/possible and students

with disabilities be pulled out to attend separate classes or schools only when the nature

22
or severity of the disability dictates such action. In LRE, the IDEA favors inclusion in the

regular classroom. The IEP must justify and explain why the student is not participating

with their peers in the regular classroom, extracurricular activities, and any other

nondisabled activities. Therefore, schools must provide a continuum of placement

alternatives (Civil Rights Act, 1964).

The Special Education Legal System

Although schools for the disabled date back to 1817, it was not until 1955 that

every state had special education laws. In 1966, Congress passed the Education for the

Handicapped Act, which established the Bureau of Education for the Handicapped and

provided grants to the states for research and educator training. The Education for All

Handicapped Act of 1975 followed and required a FAPE for all children regardless of

their disability, an IEP, and education in the LRE. The Education for All Handicapped

Act of 1975 later changed in 1975 to the IDEA (Heward, 2000).

NCLB, the most provocative change in the Elementary and Secondary Education

Act (ESEA), since it was enacted in 1965 “redefines the federal role in K–12 education

and will help close the achievement gap between disadvantaged and minority students

and their peers” (USDOE, n.d.b, ¶ 1). The primary focus of NCLB is testing. Both NCLB

and IDEA have major implications for special education students in terms of achieving

grade level proficiency on state tests.

23
 The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act

History of the Statute

Public Law 107-110, the NCLB, became law effectively in January 2002 and

amended Title I of the ESEA (USDOE, n.d.a). The goal of NCLB was to close or narrow

the achievement gap among all American students, so that no child, regardless of

socioeconomic status or ability, is left behind. Its purpose was to “ensure that all children

have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education and

reach, at a minimum, proficiency on challenging state academic achievement standards

and state assessments” (USDOE, n.d.a, ¶ 1).

Title I of NCLB was “Improving the Academic Achievement of the

Disadvantaged.” Its purpose was to “ensure that all children have the opportunity to

obtain a high-quality education and reach proficiency on challenging state academic

achievement standards and state assessments” (USDOE, n.d.a, ¶ 2). Another important

element of Title I of NCLB was the need for schools/districts to meet the educational

needs of several subgroups of students, including children with disabilities (USDOE,

n.d.a).

NCLB requires every state to test grade-level reading and the math proficiency of

students in grades 3 through 8 and inform parents of their children’s progress in those key

subject areas (Herzenhorn, 2003). The act mandates certain test development and

verification steps. To meet these requirements, states must align their math and reading

proficiency tests with its current state academic content standards and verify learning

results by administering the federally funded National Assessment of Education Progress

(NAEP) assessment to a sample of fourth- and eighth-grade students (ASCD, 2007).

24
 Under NCLB, states must use annual report cards to provide parents with details

of how individual schools perform on required tests. These results are reported according

to student subgroups, so the groups of students most at risk of being left behind can be

identified. Schools are urged to make this information available to parents in ways that

are easily accessible and understandable (USDOE, 2005). NCLB holds schools

accountable for student learning and reporting how well students perform on achievement

tests (USDOE, 2005). NCLB requires states to define student deficiencies using a variety

of indicators based on test scores of the state’s lowest-achieving group or its lowest

achieving schools, whichever requires a higher threshold (ASCD, 2007).

Within the NCLB 5-year plan, Secretary of Education, Margaret Spellings,

outlined specific results, among which are that all 50 states and the District of Columbia

have accountability plans in place; no child in grades 3 through 8, in the 50 states and the

District of Columbia is left unassessed; 90% of schools have highly qualified teachers;

and an unprecedented number of students will receive tutoring to help them pass the

required assessment testing (USDOE, 2005).

The Nation’s Report Card from 1999 to 2004 reported that the gap between

Black, 9-year-olds, narrow with margins in reading and math narrowing by 9 points and 5

points, respectively compared to their White counterparts (USDOE, 2005). NCLB set the

goal of math and reading proficiency for all students by 2013-2014, utilizing state-

managed plans to improve student achievement. The act allows states the right to allocate

up to 50% of non–Title I funds to programs of their choosing (ASCD, 2007). This

program justifies the philosophy stated by Secretary of Education, Margaret Spellings as

“No Child Left Behind is designed not to dictate processes, but to promote innovation

25
and improve results for kids” (USDOE, 2005, ¶ 6) and to motivate teachers by providing

incentives, probably financial, for the best teachers to serve the most challenging

students.

Administrative Challenges to the NCLB

Seven years out from the infamous 2014 deadline for all students to read and

apply math at grade level or above, still some states show ambivalence as to how

effective and genuine the No Child Left Behind Act actually is. Colorado, Connecticut,

Idaho, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, Virginia, Vermont, and Utah have introduced

legislation to rid themselves of parts of NCLB (ASCD, 2007).

According to Hess and Finn (2007), the belief is that every child will not be left

behind, but some will still remain behind by 2014 in attaining the expected proficiency in

reading and math. Could this be a realistic viewpoint of the infamous 2014 cutoff year for

100% proficiency on all standardized tests for all students? Hess and Finn believe that

NCLB has been masquerading as an education accountability system; however, it is only

a civil rights manifesto. In all fairness, Hess and Finn also agree that NCLB has brought

about some positive changes: Overhauling poorly achieving schools, creating an urgency

within the fabric of schools (all stakeholders), and allowing for more local control on

how to improve failing schools. NCLB, however, does not state specifically that kids are

mandated to learn anything (USDOE, 2002). It would then seem that the focus is on the

assessment and not actual learning. Therefore, the emphasis then on district performance

en masse rather than individual student learning achievements that last.

On the other hand, if students do not perform well on the state assessments, their

schools do not suffer; no sanctions occur unless procedural requirements, such as no

26
adequate gains for 2 continuous years in one category are not met, a major rationale for

conducting this study. Hess and Finn (2007) suggested that if developers of NCLB had

used effective behavior changes when devising the act, then more realistic and achievable

expectations would have been created and gathered with decent incentives and

punishments, thus making NCLB actually a worthwhile piece of legislation.

According to Costrell and Peyser (2003), the No Child Left Behind Act provides

adequate funding for effective implementation. It is estimated that each student tested

costs a mere $20 (Costrell & Peyser), whereas the Memphis City average per-pupil cost

is $8,708 (TNDOE, 2006). This shows that testing is not costly for MCS, but to prepare

for the test by hiring more teachers and providing supplemental educational services

makes the average per-pupil cost rise. Petrilli’s 2007 “Testing the Limits of NCLB”

reported another implementation issue: In 2005, less than 1% of eligible students

participated in NCLB school choice and less than 20% took advantage of the free

tutoring. According to Petrilli, due to the lack of parental involvement, a choice program

set up in Washington, DC, failed to implement its school voucher system adequately. As

a result, the school voucher program had nearly one half of its school vouchers left

unused in its early years (Petrilli).

NCLB now 8 years out does not recognize good schools as such, whereas poorly

performing schools are given a pass (Peterson, 2007). For example, in Memphis,

Tennessee, a charter school called Yo! Memphis, a performing arts high school, received

accolades for helping poorly performing students to achieve academically and on stage,

but was closed 2 weeks into the school year due to its failure to make adequate yearly

progress (AYP) gains in Algebra I for 2 years running (Aarons, 2007). The local BOE

27
voted overwhelmingly (7-1) to close the charter school for that reason. Yo! Memphis was

the first charter school in Tennessee to be closed because of NCLB deficiencies (Aarons).

According to Peterson (2007), if NCLB is to fulfill its mission, Congress needs to

make some major repairs or risk seeing those opposed to all forms of school

accountability assume control of the political battleground. Peterson’s “A Lens That

Distorts” indicates the gains made by fourth- and eighth-graders are lost by the time

students reach age 17. This distortion needs to be minimized and that specific

accountability needs to be emphasized (Peterson). The imperfections found in

implementing NCLB need refocusing and retooling, so that schools receiving the

designation of passing but have not performed better than schools with the label of

failing, are not given that designation only because it did not make gains (not making

AYP; Peterson).

Peterson and West (2006) asked a relevant question in the article, “Is Your

Child’s School Effective?” and found that tracking Florida schools that made AYP

showed indeed how inadequate the AYP measuring tool is. The schools that earned AYP

compared those pairs of schools to those schools that did not make AYP. In the final

analysis, 30% of the time the AYP schools that did not perform as well as those schools

that did not earn the AYP designation.

Peterson and Hess (2006) suggested that a few states (Massachusetts, Maine, and

South Carolina) have set high standards of proficiency; however, on the lower end of the

spectrum, states like North Carolina, Oklahoma, and Tennessee have set standards that

fall well below the national mark.

28
 Massachusetts is not making the grade (not making AYP); however, it has the

highest standards in the country. By contrast, Tennessee has only 7% failing schools, of

which Memphis represents 2.5%; and also one of the “lowest operational definitions of

proficiency” (Peterson & West, 2006; TNDOE, 2007).

Black Disparities

The concept of special education has been in business in the United States since

1965, as a lucrative psychiatric program that cost taxpayers billions of dollars. In 1998,

approximately 1.5 million minority children were identified as having mental retardation,

emotional disturbance, or a specific learning disability, with some minority groups

identified in those categories at more than twice the rate of White children (Heward,

2000). Black children were almost three times as likely as White children to be labeled

mentally retarded (Losen & Orfield, 2002).

Systemic problems with special education identification and placement can put

minority students disproportionately at risk of receiving inadequate or inappropriate

special education services, or being identified as such. Thus, minority children deemed

eligible for special education are in double jeopardy of discrimination, namely, on the

basis of both race and disability, according to Losen and Orfield (2002). The suggestion

is not that special education programs be cut, but rather that access to effective special

education support and services needs to be more equitable. The years have passed and

many Black children over age of 14 could read, “In 1930, 80% of Blacks could read [and]

by 1990, only 56% of Blacks over age of 14 could read” (Losen & Orfield, p. xv).

Nationally, Black students are nearly three times as likely as White students to be

identified as mentally retarded, and in some states are over 4.5 times as likely to be

29
identified that way. In terms of the likelihood of being identified as having a specific

learning disability, Black students are only about 1.3 times as likely to be identified in

that way as are White students (Losen & Orfield, 2002). A common disparity for both

categories is poverty.

Unfortunately, once socioeconomic factors are accounted for, the effect of race

still remains significant. Black males are at a greater risk of being disproportionately

labeled mentally retarded, especially when factors associated with wealth and better

schooling increase. Black males are also at increased risk for mental retardation and

emotional disturbance identification as the White population of a school district increases

(Losen & Orfield, 2002).

Reportedly huge differences in risk ratios for identification of mental retardation

versus hard disability categories (e.g., hearing or visual impairment) between Black and

White students. In Connecticut, Black students are 4.76 times more likely than White

students to be identified as mentally retarded, but only 1.22 and 1.60 times more likely be

identified, respectfully, as having hearing and visual impairment (USDOE, 2002). In

Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, and Ohio, more Black children are identified as mentally

retarded as having a specific learning disability. However, there are no other states where

this circumstance is true.

In addition, Losen and Orfield (2002) stated that the significant difference

between the mental retardation categorization and a specific learning disability was that

more than 80% of students categorized as mentally retarded are educated in resource

classrooms, or substantially separate settings, whereas only about half of students with

specific learning disabilities are educated in these separate settings. This

30
overrepresentation of mental retardation significantly increases the risk for Black students

being educated in less restrictive settings. Because subaverage intelligence and absence

of adaptive behavior are the conditions required to be diagnosed as a mental retarded

person, it would prove to be malfeasant to allow Black students to be separated for

nondisabled students for the majority of the school day. Therefore, the Black students’

least restrictive environments need to be studied on a case-by-case basis (Losen &

Orfield).

Russo and Talbert-Johnson (1997) suggested that the government should

highlight/create a definition that would consider the proportion placed in special

education as disproportionate if a population’s placement percentage fell above or below

10% of their percentage of school-age population; thus Black placements below 14.4% or

above 17.6% would be considered disproportionate. For example, Memphis City Schools

(MCS) was sanctioned by the federal government for having more than 15% of its

student population classified as mentally retarded, especially Black boys (P. Bean,

personal communication, September 19, 2007).

Blacks represent 28% of all students in special education in the nation including

34% of children’s programs for mental retardation. By contrast, only 8% of the nation’s

public school teachers are Black (Daniels, 1998). Moreover, over 67% of students placed

in special education are male (Russo & Talbert-Johnson, 1997). Further, demographic

studies repeatedly show that minority students, particularly Black males, are

disproportionately referred for behavior and learning problems compared to their

majority counterparts, a circumstance that can lead to high rates of below-proficiency on

the state standardized assessments (Russo & Talbert-Johnson).

31
 Peterz (1999) evaluated the degree to which Black students were overrepresented

and misplaced in special education as a result of current testing and placement practices,

insufficient parental knowledge of special education rights and responsibilities, and the

need for more cultural diversity training for teachers. One of the recommendations was

for the use of Black psychologists, increased parental support and knowledge, and a non-

biased test for placement as well as increased preservice and in-service training for

school psychologists.

Alternative Testing

Testing is not required for all students with disabilities if they have cognitive

difficulties, but they would benefit, instructionally, from an alternate assessment. States

have been approved to offer alternate assessments built on the portfolios of student work

or activities that will also demonstrate knowledge through performance of specific tasks

(USDOE, 2005). The federal government allows states flexibility in their designing the

most appropriate format for alternate assessments (USDOE, 2005).

NCLB stipulates a 1% cap on the number of proficient or higher scores from

alternative assessments from states (USDOE, 2003b). This policy exception grants

individual states the right to administer alternative testing based on the instructional level

to the most cognitively disabled students, not to exceed 1% of all students in the grades

being tested at the state or local educational agency (LEA) level (USDOE, 2003b).

For the MCS Special Education Department, this 1% of all students equates to

about 1,600 students with disabilities. Nationally, the 1% exception rounds out to about

9% of the students with disabilities population not taking the test but rather given the

alternative assessment. However, the exception still leaves 91% of students with

32
disabilities, known as gap kids, who “do not meet the definition of students with severe

disabilities, nor are they appropriate candidates for regular assessments and standards”

(National Conference of State Legislatures Task Force on No Child Left Behind, 2005, p.

30). There appears to be a conflict between the rights of gap kids to individual protections

offered by IDEA and the No Child Left Behind Act. It appears that the gap kids are stuck

taking the regular state assessments if a regular high-school diploma is desired.

Multiculturalism

IDEA 1997 was a comprehensive piece of legislation intended to provide a more

equitable program for multicultural learners with exceptionalities against discrimination.

Major concepts of service delivery under this law include services and rights that respect

the dominant language of the student and family. By logical extension, multicultural

learners must be referred for special education services based upon educational need, not

cultural, ethnic, or linguistic differences. Apparently, these learners fall through the

cracks of the general education system and in many cases are referred for that reason to

have special education services.

Currently, the assessment and instructional procedures for teaching multicultural

learners with exceptionalities are designed for English-proficient, middle-class, and

suburban, European American students with well-educated parents who have both the

time and resources to help their children gain the most from the regular education

systems. This section relates the demographic profiles of multicultural groups in the

United States and also the intrinsic and extrinsic causes of ethnic and socioeconomic

disparities.

33
 Given the major demographic changes taking place today, we try to identify

challenges facing general and special educators. These challenges involve addressing

issues of teacher bias, teacher expectations, assessment, and learning and teaching style

incompatibilities. To transform these challenges in general and special education to

working goals of transformation, a paradigm shift in multicultural teaching and learning

must occur.

Fixing/Revising the No Child Left Behind Act

The U.S. Department of Education (2002) agreed that Congress’s intent is to

“place greater emphasis on improving educational results, moving away from the low

expectations that have often plagued students with disabilities and seeking expanded

opportunities necessary for students with disabilities to allow them to prosper in the 21st

century” (p. 5).

Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings suggested that states submit proposals

to participate in a NCLB growth model pilot program (USDOE, 2005). Adding growth

models as a way to satisfy federal requirements to demonstrate adequate yearly progress

could make it easier for some schools to avoid penalties because they would then receive

credit for students who improve performance but still fall below proficiency levels. This

pilot program could also increase pressure on high-performing schools that sail

consistently above state standards to continue to prove that their students are still able to

advance (ASCD, 2007).

Federal education officials agreed in 2005 to a pilot program that allows up to 10

states to experiment with growth models, but emphasizing that they remain responsible

for ensuring that all students did reach reading and math standards by 2014, and show

34
consistent gains along the way. Seven states—North Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas,

Delaware, Ohio, Florida, and Iowa—have joined the pilot program so far. The USDOE

also green-lighted Alaska and Arizona to use growth models to analyze their data from

the 2006-07 school year (ASCD, 2007).

Needs Assessment

This evaluation approach is based on the premise of a need, which uses the

connotation that there is a difference between what a desired set of conditions is and what

conditions actually exist (Gall, Gall, and Borg, 2007). Specifically, a need results from a

circumstance of want versus a reality of what aspect is actually present. According to

Gall, Gall, & Borg, a statement of need “reflects a judgment about the present merit of

the curriculum” (p. 575). A needs assessment is closely related to objective-based models

of evaluation.

According to J. Roth, there are five types of desired circumstances: ideals, norms,

minimums, desires (wants), and expectations (Gall, Borg, and Gall, 1996). These five

types can be considered to be the limitations of needs assessment, because the definition

of need does not clearly answer the question, “What is the desired set of conditions?” For

the MCS Division of Exceptional Children, the answer would be to have all of its special

needs students to earn a proficient mark on their graduation required exit exams, and

TCAP assessments for the lower classes.

The Tennessee Growth Model Pilot Program

Special education is intended to be individualized and tailor-made for each child

with a special need. The Education of All Handicapped Children Act (IDEA, 1975)

35
ensured that all children, despite their disability, would have the right to enter into the

public education system and receive a free and appropriate education. For the past 32

years, many general and special educators have carried out only the letter mandate and

not the true spirit of this legislation. As a result, many scholars (e.g., Daniels, 1998;

Russo & Talbert-Johnson, 1997) have questioned whether or not special education is a

form of resegregation under the guise of educational reform. How will Tennessee’s

growth model pilot program actually affect MCS Division of Exceptional Children and

most importantly, the individual students? Will it help its (MCS) students improve their

test scores, or will it only help their schools not be placed on the high priority list as a

failing school?

The significance of actual affordability to pursue a growth model pilot program

has helped Tennessee schools, 47, based on the 2004-05 data (TNDOE, 2006). If these

schools had been without the assistance of this projection model, they would not have

met AYP for that school year (TNDOE, 2006). According to TNDOE (2006), the purpose

of the NCLB growth model pilot program is to blend a long-term purview of student

achievement data into its present NCLB accountability system. That is, “the system will

encourage schools to put individual students who have yet to reach proficiency on

accelerated paths to meeting state achievement standards” (p. 1).

Admittedly, the Tennessee growth model pilot program was written to help

elementary- and middle-school students and not high-school students (TNDOE, 2006).

According to Hall and Kennedy (2006), both elementary and middle grades were doing

better in becoming proficient on standardized assessments, but high schools were not

performing well. If the premise of NCLB is to ensure that school students graduate in

36
four and one-half years, Tennessee’s growth model pilot program does not include a plan

to improve the proficiency achievement rates of those students; thus does that mean that

USDOE is allowing Tennessee to leave its own high-school students behind?

According to Piche (2007), the USDOE has approved only seven growth-pilot

programs because most states are not “ready, willing and able to carry out a credible,

statistically sound growth-based accountability system” (p. 2). After states witnessed how

the Bush administration has implemented the law, the growth model concept grew out of

the Title I status model, where states were looking to earn credit for improvement in

proficiency by their students in reaching AYP in math by the 2014 deadline (Piche).

A growth model can work well, if Congress will take into consideration those

states with “pitifully low standards (compared to those indicated by the National

Assessment of Educational Progress), deficient data and student-tracking systems, and a

poor track record on including English language learners and students with disabilities”

(Piche, 2007, p. 2).

Further, Brownstein (2007) contended that NCLB should be reauthorized and that

it is not written with the intention of pacifying or appeasing people who are not interested

in changing America educational system. It is meant to produce serious changes in

America educational system, especially in reading and math. Brownstein reported that

Kati Haycock, president of Education Trust—a group that advocates for low-income

children, recommended that the billions of dollars spent yearly on improving teacher

quality should be aimed instead toward high-poverty schools rather than simply at

district-wide programs.

37
Tennessee Diploma Project

Aarons (2007) reports that Tennessee’s current Governor Phil Bredesen outlined

his plan to overhaul its school system using the Tennessee Diploma Project to improve

both accountability and standards. The premise behind this project is to “align high

school standards with college requirements by instituting a new curriculum in state

schools in 2008 and mandating tougher tests in 2009” (p. A1). Tennessee has the largest

gap of any state between what it says is proficient ability in math and what the national

test says students should know (Peterson & Hess, 2006). The gap is over 60 percentage

points, which is why Governor Bredesen is developing the current project (Aarons).

According to “Graduation Profiles” in Education Week (2007), graduation rates for the

2002-03 class in the Memphis City School District is 48.4%; Tennessee’s statewide

graduation rate is 62%, below the 70% overall graduate rate in the United States.

Another reason for Governor Bredesen’s decision to implement the new project

was new funding from the Basic Education Plan or BEP 2.0. For example, MCS is

scheduled to receive a large portion of $70 million in additional state funding due to the

conditions set forth under BEP 2.0. The Governor persuaded state legislators to increase

the tax on cigarettes (Aarons, 2007). In addition, these funds have been set aside for at-

risk students and schools with higher populations of English language learners, what the

former Commissioner of Education Lana Seviers refers to as pinpointing the need. The

funds will also be used for advanced placement classes and after-school tutoring

(Aarons).

38
 The Tennessee Department of Education

The Division of Accountability of the Tennessee Department of Education

(TNDOE) is responsible for improvement in the effectiveness of all schools and school

systems in the state. Secondly, the “vision is to ensure that no child is left behind and to

ensure that every child in Tennessee receives an adequate education” (TNDOE, 2007).

The goals of the Division of Accountability (TNDOE, 2007) follow:

1. Assist educators in understanding the use of student performance data for

school improvement

2. Provide an inclusive reporting document for each school and school system
that can details disaggregated student performance data

3. Provide systematic technical assistance, including a collaborative approach to

school improvement

4. Link school improvement teams from regional offices to other departmental

initiatives in a service delivery model for high priority schools

5. Identify high priority schools based on student performance data

6. Provide technical assistance through the exemplary educator program and

departmental resources for identified high priority schools

7. Develop a systemic process for measuring success in implementing

improvement in low-performing schools

8. Provide a collaborative approach for distributing /providing federal and state

resources for school improvement

9. Provide a variety of grant opportunities for innovation in Tennessee schools

10. Improve student performance in all Tennessee schools

11. Act as a catalyst within/for the Department of Education to bring a focus on

school improvement initiatives

39
Annual Report Card

The Tennessee Education Improvement Act of 1992 established accountability

standards for all public schools in the state and required the Department of Education to

produce a Report Card for the public to assess each year. Tennessee state law (Tennessee

Code Annotated 49-1-601) has since been amended to match the regulations in the No

Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act and meet the required federal benchmarks established for

all schools, school systems, and the state. Additionally, the state board of education has

revised its performance standards and requirements to meet the performance criteria in

the new federal law.

The goal of NCLB is to ensure that all students in all schools are academically

proficient in math, reading, and language arts by 2014. Until that time, schools, school

systems, and the states will be measured on their ability to move toward that goal. In

other words, schools, school systems, and the states must show that an increasing greater

percentage of its students are meeting required proficiency standards.

Schools, school systems, and the states must meet proficiency benchmarks in nine

subgroups, including five race/ethnicity groups; students with disabilities; limited English

proficient students; economically disadvantaged students; and school proficiency as a

whole. The report card is organized into four parts or sections: system/school profile,

student achievement, value added (TVAAS data), and AYP. Data required by No Child

Left Behind are defined in drop-down boxes that contain explanations for each criterion.

Grades are assigned to appropriate criteria, and a grade scale is available for an

explanation of specific scaling.

40
 Schools and school systems that do not meet required federal benchmarks for 1

year are assigned the status target. Schools and school systems that do not meet the

federal benchmark for 2 or more consecutive years in the same category are assigned the

status high priority (TNDOE, 2007).

Unfunded Mandate

The NEA filed the first lawsuit against NCLB, claiming it to be an unfunded

mandate in 2005. Lautenschlager (2004), Wisconsin’s attorney general, filed a legal

opinion questioning the federal government’s ability to force states to subsidized federal

mandates. The state of Wisconsin indicated it would have to pay $2.5 billion in total

expenditures to meet the NCLB mandates, and it wanted the federal government to

subsidize that amount due to laying down those mandates (Lautenschlager). In the

previous year, 2003, the Public Agenda organization agreed that 89% of superintendents

and 88% of public school principals called NCLB an unfunded mandate. The National

Association of State Boards of Education (NASBE) recommended that the federal

government distribute $7 billion to pay for the implementation of testing alone. Since

then the NCLB has allocated $400 million to states for accountability (Claycomb,

Haynes, & Cosby, 2002).

Approved Accommodations for Students With Disabilities

A student’s individualized education program (IEP) should be followed during

both classroom and standardized assessments, particularly, if a student needs a specific

instrument to level the playing field with those students without a disability. Read-aloud

is a very common accommodation that should be included on every child’s IEP, and

should cover the student and the teacher if the child cannot read well (TNDOE, 2006).
41
 The Memphis City School District

Located on the bluffs of the Western part of Tennessee, Memphis is the country’s

18th largest city and its 21st largest school district. Metropolitan Memphis is home to

over 1 million people, of which 650,100 live in the city according to the 2000 census

(City of Memphis, 2006).

The 2006 unemployment rate was 11.9%, and the per capita income was $19,235

(U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2006). In 2003-04, 86.4% of students enrolled in the

Memphis City School System were Black, and 8.9% were White. Of the 115,928 students

enrolled in 2003-04, 14,876 (or 12.8%) were students with disabilities. In 2004-05,

84.9% of students enrolled in the Memphis City School System were Black, and 9.7%

were White. Of the 117,740 students enrolled in 2004-05, 15,990 (13.6%) were students

with disabilities. In 2005-06, 85.1% of students enrolled in the Memphis City School

System were Black, and 8.9% were White. Of the 116,528 students enrolled, 16,333

(14.0%) were students with disabilities (TNDOE, 2006).

The Memphis City School District has 192 total schools, which break down into

32 high schools, 25 middle schools, 108 elementary schools, 4 junior high schools, 6

career and technical centers, 10 charter schools, and 7 special schools (Memphis City

Schools, 2007).

The MCS Division of Exceptional Children 2003-04 reading results, which fell in

the bottom quartile and indicated an achievement gap between students with and those

without disabilities, are one of the reasons for selecting this study (TNDOE, 2006).

TNDOE calculated the average reading achievement gap for grades 10 through 12 (the

Gateway Algebra I begins in grade 9 for some students) at 24.8% based on the average

42
performance of students with and without disabilities on the 2003-04 Gateway in

Language Arts. Although the students without disabilities did not perform exceptionally

well, between grades 10 through 12, in 2003-04, their results were 63%, which is nearly a

40% achievement gap over those students with disabilities (TNDOE, 2006).

Recent Studies

On the one hand, there have been a host of studies to report the status of

schools/districts that are struggling to close the achievement gap between students with

and without disabilities. According to Hall and Kennedy (2006), “the middle and high

school results are cause for concern” (p. 2), which means that states are making progress

at the primary level. On the other hand, there are less than a handful of studies completed

since the implementation of NCLB in 2001 that speak to the achievement gap between

students with and without disabilities.

With that said, in Tennessee, the MCS District was found to have nearly a 50%

achievement gap in math on the 2005-06 CRT between students tested in grades 3

through those tested in grade 8 (TNDOE, 2007). As for high school, for grades 9 through

12, the MCS District was found to have nearly a 46% achievement gap in reading on the

2003-04 TCAP (English II Gateway assessment) (TNDOE). These results became the

impetus for this study.

In Richmond County Public Schools in Georgia, a review of the 2005-06 school

year noted a nearly 41% CRCT performance gap in reading between students with and

without disabilities in grades 3 through 8 (Suber, 2007).

Bottge, Rueda, Serlin, Hung, and Kwon (2007) conducted a study to determine

how well enhanced anchored instruction (EAI) aided students with disabilities and
43
students with learning disabilities in shrinking the achievement differences in anchored

math problems in an inclusive class. The study monitored students in grades 6 through 8.

The results revealed that students with a learning disability scored very low on pretests;

however, their percentages were comparable to their nondisabled peers and the

knowledge was maintained after several weeks of instruction via a comprehensive test

(Bottge et al.).

Another study was completed by Saint-Laurent (2001) to answer why there was a

performance gap. First, the study posits that low-achieving special education students

tend to remain in the special education program whereas higher learning special needs

students tend to exit the program (Thurlow, House, Scott, & Ysseldyke, 2000). Secondly,

many studies agree that more students with mild disabilities tend to drop out then do

those who have more severe disabilities (McMillen, Kaufman, & Klein, 1997; Rossi,

Herting, Wolman, & Quinn, 1997; Wagner, D’Amico, Marder, Newman, & Blackorby,

1992). Another posit suggests that the tests given in higher grades may be less valid for

students with disabilities, resulting in poorer performance (Saint-Laurent). In Tennessee,

the exit exams (Algebra I, English II) have the lowest difficulty of all the states (Peterson

& Hess, 2006). Therefore, if the MCS exit exams are based on an eighth-grade level,

should not it be expected that mild disabled students should have the ability to earn a

proficient score on eighth-grade level exams? Conversely, Thurlow et al. suggested that

“test difficulty, test content and curriculum mismatch, and reduced use of testing

accommodations may combine to reduce the validity of the scores for students with

disabilities” (p. 163).

44
 However, because the exit exams for some states are more or less difficult than

other, this posit is questionable. According to Saint-Laurent (2001), a comparison of

gains made yearly between general education and special education students may be

problematic, because one year may not be enough time to realize the benefits of special

education services.

In Kentucky, the performance trends were tracked and the achievement gap

reported between students with and without disabilities on the 1996 reading test was less

than .25 in 4th grade, almost .70 in 8th grade, and over .80 in 11th grade” (Ysseldyke &

Bielinski, 2000). The data showed that the achievement gap quadrupled from 4th grade to

11th grade. The data suggested that the achievement gap between students with and

without disabilities should be the same at 11th grade as it is at 3rd grade. It appeared that

the students with disabilities were not benefitting from education to the same degree as

their peers without disabilities.

Summary

Students with disabilities are guaranteed the right to a high-quality education

under both the NCLB and IDEA. IDEA ensures that students with disabilities receive a

FAPE in the LRE, whereas NCLB aims to ensure that the achievement gap between

students with and those without disabilities is nonexistent by year 2014.

A needs assessment evaluation of student achievement measures the

actual/ongoing discrepancy between existing circumstances and the desired state of

academic performance for groups of students. A review of the literature found no

comprehensive studies that assessed the Memphis City Schools report cards and

determined how well that school system is closing the achievement gap between students
45
with and without disabilities. However, Memphis City Schools in 2003-04 for reading

found an achievement gap of 40% based on average performance of students with and

those without disabilities.

The second evaluation of the study is the Tennessee growth model pilot program.

The NCLB growth model pilot program means to consolidate a long-term purview of

student achievement data into its present NCLB accountability system.

The Tennessee growth model pilot program is not designed to help high-school

students be successful in passing the required Gateway exams. Evidence supports that

elementary schools students have improved and are becoming proficient on standardized

assessments, but the decline in proficiency continues at both the middle- and high-school

levels.

46
 CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY

Overview of the Problem

The NCLB Act has been in existence for the last 8 years. The Memphis City

Schools (MCS) Division of Exceptional Children has not done enough to improve the

achievement gap between students with and those without disabilities during that time

span. The district’s MCS Division of Exceptional Children has only met the NCLB

benchmark in 1 of the 3 past years, FY 2005-06. However, grades 3 through 8 did meet

the federal benchmarks. According to Hall and Kennedy (2006), the elementary schools

are making the determined grade level, but the middle and high schools are not. It is

unclear how the MCS Division of Exceptional Children effectively used the growth

model pilot concept that Tennessee implemented in FY 2005-06. There are no

comprehensive quantitative evaluation studies at this point for how well the district is

closing the achievement gap between the students with and students without disabilities.

Restatement of the Problem

The purpose of this study is to determine the quality level of the MCS Division of

Exceptional Children and will this program help district students with and without

disabilities to bridge the current achievement gap as prescribed under the principles of

NCLB. The study is guided by the following two research questions and four hypotheses.

Research Questions

1. For state tests in reading, language arts, math, and writing, what is the mean
achievement gap between students with disabilities and those without

47
 disabilities in terms of meeting or exceeding the standards by test year and
grade level?

2. For state tests in reading, language arts, math, and writing, what is the mode
performance of students with disabilities and those without disabilities by test
year and grade level?

Hypotheses

1. There is a significant difference between students with and without disabilities

on state tests in reading, language arts, and writing achievement for the years
2003-04, 2004-05, and 2005-06.

2. There is a significant difference between students with and without disabilities

on state tests in math achievement for the years 2002-03, 2004-05, and 2005-
06.

3. There is a significant difference between students with and without disabilities

on state tests in reading, language arts, and writing achievement for the year
2005-06 due to the creation of Tennessee’s NCLB growth model pilot
program.

4. There is a significant difference between students with and without disabilities

on state tests in math achievement for the year 2005-06 due to the creation of
Tennessee’s NCLB growth model pilot program.

Research Design and Methodology

The Purpose and Scope of the Evaluation

The purpose of this study is to determine the quality level of the MCS Division of

Exceptional Children and its capability to help its students with and without disabilities

and improve the current achievement gap as prescribed under the principles of NCLB.

This study adopts a causal-comparative design methodology of students with and

students without disabilities in the MCS Division of Exceptional Children during the

2003-06 school testing years by grade levels: Grades 3 through 8 and 9–12 for reading,

language arts, and math for the Tennessee Comprehensive Achievement Program

(TCAP); Gateway exams (Tennessee High School Graduation Tests or THSGTs) in

48
Algebra I and English II; the Middle Grades Writing Assessment (MGWA); and the

Tennessee High School Writing Assessment (THSWA). The performance data will come

from the Tennessee Department of Education (TNDOE).

Quantitative Approach

There are many evaluation models available to researchers. According to Gall,

Gall, and Borg (2007), a researcher needs to clarify their reasons for an evaluation

request when selecting a model or approach. Secondly, researchers’ approaches can differ

in philosophies of evaluators, purpose of the study, questions being asked, data collection

methods, the relationship between the researcher, the organization or administrator

requesting the evaluation, and the areas being evaluated (Gall, Gall, & Borg).

Gall, Gall, and Borg (2007) also listed four types of evaluation research:

educational research and development, expertise-based evaluation, qualitative, and

quantitative. This evaluation study will utilize a quantitative approach because of its

reliance on the use of recorded data and statistical techniques to analyze that data.

Silverman (2000) suggested that a quantitative approach relies on numeric data and

statistical logic and attempts to project a set of numeric data in cumulative form, based on

the arranging of that data. A causal-comparative research design will be used here to

compare the quantified test data of two groups of students, namely those with and those

without disabilities.

A set of generalizations based on the analytical assessment of the data using a

positivist epistemological perspective of causation will be produced for this study. A

positivist view of causation in evaluation research assumes “that features of the social

environment constitute an independent reality and are relatively constant across time and

49
settings” (Gall, Gall, and Borg, 2007, p. 25). In positivist inquiries, quantitative

researchers develop further knowledge and insight by collecting statistics on observable

behaviors of samples and then subjecting that numeric data to statistical analysis (Gall,

Gall, and Borg).

Study Population and Sample

Electronic records archived at the TNDOE Web site will be reviewed for each of

the 119 MCS public schools selected for this study in order to determine percentages, by

year, of students with and without disabilities who met or exceeded standards on the

CRTs by grade level and subject area, the MGWA, Gateway exit exam by subject area,

and the THSWA. The CRT results in reading, language arts, and mathematics from

grades 3 through 8 will be reviewed for the 19 middle schools, 3 junior high schools, and

71 elementary schools. MGWA performance results will be also reviewed for the 19

middle schools and 3 junior high schools, and descriptive statistics gathered regarding

each school’s total student enrollment and the percentage of students in each school

enrollment in special education.

The study sample included elementary-, middle-, and junior high–school CRT

results for 2003-04, 2004-05, and 2005-06. CRT performance results for 1999–2002 will

be excluded because of limited test administration and failure of students with

disabilities; 2006-07 results have not yet made available, but are requested. The

mathematics, language arts, writing, and reading assessment results will be reviewed

because they will be the only subject area tests administered to grades 3 through 8 during

the years selected for the study, namely, 2003-04, 2004-05, and 2005-06.

50
 Other subjects like science and social studies will be not selected for study

because they were not considered by USDOE for AYP purposes for grades 3 through 8

during the test years selected. Therefore, 93 CRT accountability report card entries (three

subject area tests over 3 testing years for grades 3 through 8) will be reviewed for each of

the 71 elementary schools in the study, and 22 CRT accountability report card entries

(three subject area tests over 3 testing years in grades 3 through 8) will be reviewed for

each of the 19 middle schools and 3 junior high schools included in the study.

MGWA test results will be reviewed for 19 middle schools and 3 junior high

schools from 2003-04 to 2005-06 (each year’s TNDOE published report cards) to

produce a total of 93 records. Gateway exams (English II and Algebra I) result in two

subject areas and THSWA results from 2003-04 to 2005-06 for the 26 high schools

selected for the study will also be reviewed, for a total of 119 report card records. In test

years prior to 2003-04, the researcher will review TNDOE annual report cards for the

efficacy of data collection to ensure that enough students with disabilities were tested for

those results to be included in the report cards. In all cases, the researcher will assume

there is date accuracy for the data obtained from TNDOE reports cards.

Convenience sampling will be used because of the specific scope of the study and

the ease of accessing performance records related to the Memphis City School District.

The records related to the MCS system should be easy to access on the TNDOE Web site

and should be ample and adequate for the purpose of this study.

During the school year 2006-07, MCS had 37 schools on the state’s high priority

list. At the beginning of the 2007-08 school year, MCS had 17 schools on the same high

priority list; however, for the sake of this study, the researcher looked at how many

51
schools failed their students with disabilities 2 years after the passing of NCLB in 2001

and thereafter. The researcher further explored the MCS Division of Exceptional

Children consistent efforts to raise the achievement gap between the students with and

those without disabilities.

Sources of Information

Study data consisted of disaggregated MCS standardized test performance results

that were published electronically in annual report cards as percentages of students with

and without disabilities and classified as (a) not meeting standards (e.g., below

proficient), (b) meeting standards (e.g., proficient), or (c) exceeding standards (e.g.,

advanced proficient). Tennessee report cards do contain annual test performance data and

other information relevant to schools and their progress to meet the goals of student

achievement and graduation (TNDOE, 2006).

Archival Data

State-mandated tests for reading, language arts, writing and math were generated

by TNDOE and administered throughout the state during specially designed times during

the school year. These tests were developed to be criterion-referenced tests in which

desegregated scaled cut scores indicate failing, proficient, and advanced levels of

performance. A scaled cut-off score of 400 is used to designate a pass proficiency at each

grade level. Tests of reading and math are given in third, fifth, and eighth grades. These

tests were developed by teams of educational experts and testing specialists in order to be

both valid and reliable measures of standard mastery of specific curricula goals at each

grade levels (TNDOE, 2006.)

52
 According to Salvia and Ysseldyke (1998), reliability is “the ability to generalize

from a sample to a domain” (p. 163). That is, the research should be able to repeat a

procedure that yields the same results on repeated trials. When common results continue

to exist, then validity is present. Statistical techniques were used to analyze data in this

quantitative research project. The research design strategy consisted of data analysis

procedures incorporated in such a way as to enable another researcher to repeat the study

and aid dissertation readers in linking the research questions to study evidence and how

the researcher reached the conclusions.

Data Collection

This quantitative evaluation study was accomplished in three phases: planning,

data collection, and data analysis. First, the planning phase was chosen as the scope of the

evaluation and methodology, identifying limitations of methodology and strategies for

minimizing impact, and addressing ethical issues. A field test of the proposed research

procedures was taken place in this planning phase to determine if any modifications need

to be made to the research design. Phase II addressed data collection from annual reports

published by TNDOE, and Phase III produced data analysis using measures of central

tendency.

Planning

According to Gall, Gall, and Borg (2007), the steps in conducting program

evaluation should include clarifying the reasons for conducting an evaluation, selecting

an evaluation model, identifying stakeholders, deciding what to evaluate, and designing

the study. These reasons, in essence, were the same program evaluation steps followed

for other types of research studies.

53
 An evaluation study may be initiated by a researcher because of personal interest

in doing the study, a request by an organization or person, or both (Gall, Gall and Borg,

2007). A researcher will need to clarify the reason for conducting the study, and if the

rationale is based on personal interest, then the researcher must specify a sensible reason

for the evaluation and ensure that the rationale is both ethical and reasonable (Gall, Gall

and Borg, 2007).

With that statement in mind, the researcher’s aim was to assess the MCS Division

of Exceptional Children through a statistical analysis of the achievement gap on state

achievement tests between students with and without disabilities was an area of personal

interest. As a stakeholder, the researcher was involved in, affected by, and interested in

the program and its analysis.

According to Gall, Gall, and Borg (2007), stakeholders can help clarify the

reasons for the study, what questions to ask, choice of research design, interpretation of

results, and how and to whom to report findings. For this evaluation study, stakeholders

were identified as state and federal education officials, state and federal policymakers,

and Memphis citizens, parents, students, educators, administrators, and board members.

Silverman (2000) suggests that it was not possible to assess every aspect of a

problem, because doing so would be too wide-ranging. Rather it is important to focus on

“depth rather than breadth” (p. 64). One of the best ways to select a doctoral evaluation

focus was to write good evaluation questions (Silverman).

According to Johnson (2003), good evaluation questions address dimensions for

program performance that can then be compared to an ongoing standard or set criterion to

make an evaluative judgment. Furthermore, good evaluation questions are specific,

54
measurable, answerable, realistic, reasonable, and appropriate to local needs and able to

contribute to knowledge development beyond a local program (Johnson). How to select

questions for an evaluation study involves generating a list of questions, issues, concerns

and problems that was to be addressed in this chosen evaluation study, and reducing that

list to a manageable number (Gall, Gall, and Borg, 2007).

Needs Assessment

In this study, two types of quantitative evaluation approaches were reviewed:

needs assessment and the growth pilot model. (Gall, Gall, and Borg, 2007) indicated that

needs assessment models “enable researchers to measure the precise extent of

discrepancy between an existing state and a desired state” (p. 575). For example,

Memphis City Schools might make the assertion that it would need to place more

emphasis on its special education program if there was a significant performance gap

between achievement tests for students with and those without disabilities. The district

would in effect be saying that a discrepancy exists between the current program’s

outcomes and the desired outcomes for these student groups. This statement of need

expresses a judgment about the present merit of the program and also provides a clear

basis for setting objectives for program improvement (Gall, Gall, and Borg, 2007).

One principle behind the NCLB-mandated testing program was that it served as a

way to assess how well schools were shrinking the achievement gap between various

groups of students. Test results were reported by a student subgroup to identify students

most at risk of being left behind (USDOE, 2001). Through NCLB, policymakers are in

effect saying that there is a discrepancy between expected grade-level performance for all

students and the actual grade-level performance of all students.

55
 The implication was one of need that reflected a judgment about the existing

condition (i.e., performance below grade level) and a desired condition (i.e., performance

at or above grade level). Another implication for schools and programs making

inadequate progress in closing the achievement gap is that weaknesses exist in their

instructional programs. This evaluation study was based on the same premise as the needs

assessment model and sought to “measure the precise extent of discrepancy between an

existing state and a desired state” (Gall, Gall, and Borg, 2007, p. 575).

The ultimate goal of the study was to make a judgment about the quality of the

MCS Division of Exceptional Children, based on an assessment of the achievement gap

between students with and those without disabilities on state tests. The study was based

on two interrelated premises derived from the needs assessment and growth model pilot

program models. (1) Student achievement as measured by standardized test scores will

determine the worth of the instructional program, and (2) standardized test scores offer

one “measure of the precise extent of discrepancy between an existing state and a desired

state” (Gall, Gall, and Borg, 2007, p. 575).

NCLB Growth Model Pilot Program

The second quantitative approach was used in this study was the NCLB growth

model pilot program. In response to an alarming number of failing schools and districts,

the USDOE had asked individual states to propose a NCLB growth model pilot program

to reflect how schools and districts can help students meet or exceed standards on

achievement tests by 2013-14 (TNDOE, 2006). By focusing acute attention on the

performance of student subgroups—students in poverty, students with disabilities,

students with limited English proficiency, and students in racial and ethnic minorities—

56
NCLB had hopes of eliminating any striking disparities in student achievement across the

nation.

According to TNDOE (2006),

Of Tennessee’s two growth models, a value added model that estimates district,
school, and teacher effect scores and a projection model that estimates individual
students’ projected scores on future assessments, only one is appropriate for the
NCLB growth model pilot program. (p. 2)

The state of Tennessee chose to propose a “projection model to test the efficacy of

integrating longitudinal analysis of students’ achievement data into its NCLB

accountability system” (TNDOE, 2006). Primarily, the goal of that system was to

encourage schools to put individual students who have yet to reach proficiency on

accelerated paths toward meeting state achievement standards. Secondly, the program

was to encourage schools to identify and provide appropriate interventions for students

who were at risk of falling below proficiency (TNDOE, 2006). However, since the

program’s approval, the state had implemented this system for elementary- and middle-

school AYP determinations based on 2005-06 testing (ASCD, 2007).

Because the AYP determinations were based on why the TNDOE originally

proposed the projection model, the projection model is designed to supplements the

statutory AYP model. The projection model used student projection data to determine the

percentage of students, by subgroup and subject area, who were projected to attain

proficiency on the state assessment 3 years into the future. It used seventh- and eighth-

grade projections for fourth- and fifth-grade students respectively, and high-school

graduation exam projections for sixth- and eighth-grade students. The model used

current-year scores for third-grade students, students new to the state, and students who

do take alternative assessments (TNDOE, 2006).

57
 Schools and districts meet AYP proficiency requirements through the projection

model if all subgroups meet the annual measurable objective in both reading/language

arts and mathematics. Based on an analysis of 2004-05 data, the state estimates that

approximately 13% (47) of schools that do not meet AYP under the statutory status/safe

harbor model will meet AYP by using this projection model (TNDOE, 2006).

The Memphis City School District is made up of 192 total schools, which break

down to 32 high schools, 25 middle schools, 108 elementary schools, 4 junior high

schools, 6 career and technical centers, 10 charter schools, and 7 special schools

(Memphis City Schools, 2007). At the beginning of the 2004-05 school year, MCS had

over 100 schools on the state’s high priority list for not meeting NCLB standards for 2

consecutive years or more. At the beginning of the 2005-06 school year, MCS had 57

schools on the state’s high priority list for not meeting NCLB standards for 2 consecutive

years or more.

Data Analysis

The primary objective of statistical analysis is to evaluate the mean achievement

gap between students with and those without disabilities in the MCS System, and to

determine how well the MCS Division of Exceptional Children is shrinking the

achievement gap between students with and without disabilities.

The results will be collated using two measures of central tendency: mode and

mean. According to (Gall, Gall, and Borg, 2003), “the mean [is] calculated by dividing

the sum of all scores by the number of scores [and mode is] the most frequently occurring

score in [each] distribution” (p. 132). Mode performance of students with and without

disabilities on state tests in reading, language arts, math, and writing will be determined
58
by grade level for each test year studied. For students with and those without disabilities

who met or exceed standards, the mean achievement gap will be determined by grade

level, test type, year, and subject area.

In addition, the focus is also to determine whether the MCS Division of

Exceptional Children is not being cited under the conditions of NCLB due to the

implementation of TNDOE’s growth pilot model program. The end purpose of the

statistical analysis will be to judge the effectiveness of the MCS Division of Exceptional

Children in closing the achievement gap between students with and without disabilities

across grade levels and from one test year to another.

The instrument to be used to chart the performance scores for CRTs, MGWA,

THSGTs, and THWT will be Microsoft Excel and spreadsheets developed by school,

grade level, test year, and subject area for two groups of students (those with and those

without disabilities). Microsoft Excel formulas will be used to calculate mean

performance by grade level for students from each group to determine whether it meets or

exceeds the declared standards, and to measure the dispersion or variability around that

average, which is the standard deviation. Also, formulas will be used to show the

difference between the means of the proficiency gap for each group by grade level and

also school type. Charts will be devised to assess the mode performance and mean

performance and to depict mean performance by grade level, school type, and subject

area.

Ethical Issues

There were no ethical issues related to this evaluation study because it did not

directly involve human participants. Data was collected from a source in the public
59
domain. According to Silverman (2000), evaluation studies based on information in the

public domain do not raise questions of ethics and legitimacy. The study also will not

directly involve human subjects and, therefore, presents no risks of psychological, social,

or physical harm.

Data will come from archived test performance for two subgroups of students,

those with and those without disabilities and will be evaluated using measures of central

tendency. TNDOE published annual data of school report cards will not include statistics

about individual student performance. Therefore, the study should not pose any ethical

risks of harm or breach of confidentiality for specific individuals.

Summary

The purpose of this research was to evaluate the Memphis City Schools (MCS)

Division of Exceptional Children through an assessment of the proficiency gap between

K–12 students with and without disabilities on state tests. The study was designed around

two significant premises derived from a needs assessment and a growth model pilot

program. Gall et al. (2007) stated the standardized test scores offers one “measure of the

precise extent of discrepancy between an existing state and a desired state” (p. 575). The

study was a causal-comparative quantitative research design because it compared the

quantified test data of two groups of students.

The study produced a set of generalizations based on a critical assessment of the

collected data, using a positivist epistemological perspective of causation. Electronic

records archived at the TNDOE Web site was reviewed for each of the 119 Memphis

City Schools selected for the study to determine percentages, by year, of students with

and without disabilities who either met or exceeded standards on the CRTs by grade level
60
and subject area: the MGWA, THSGTs by subject area, and the THSWA. The CRT

performance results in reading, language arts, and mathematics for grades 1 through 8

will be reviewed for the 19 middle schools, 3 junior high, and 71 elementary schools

included in the study. MGWA performance study results will also be reviewed for the 19

middle schools and 3 junior high schools. Descriptive statistics was gathered regarding

total student enrollment and the number of students enrolled in special education for each

school.

The study was conducted in three phases: planning, data collection, and data

analysis. The planning phase consisted of choosing a research design and methodology,

identifying limitations of the methodology and strategies for minimizing study impact,

and addressing of any ethical issues. A field test was conducted in the planning phase to

determine if any modifications needed to be made to the planned research design. Phase

II included data collection from annual report cards published by TNDOE. Phase III

consisted of data analysis using two measures of central tendency, mode and mean.

Microsoft Excel spreadsheets were used to chart the performance of each test by school,

grade level, test year, and subject area for the two groups of students. Microsoft Excel

formulas will be used to calculate mean performance. Charts were designed and used to

evaluate the mode performance and depict mean performance.

61
 CHAPTER 4. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The purpose of this research was to evaluate the Memphis City Schools (MCS)

Division of Exceptional Children through a precise assessment of the proficiency gap that

exists on state tests between grades 3 to 12 students with and without disabilities. There

has not been any documented research about MCS’s ability or inability to improve

reading and math standards for students with and without disabilities. Most recent

discussion (newspaper) has surrounded the district’s looming failing schools on the

state’s high priority list since the inception of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. The

Act’s purpose was to “ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and significant

opportunity to obtain a high-quality education and reach, at a minimum, proficiency in

meeting the challenging state academic achievement standards and state assessments”

(USDOE, 2002, ¶ 1). When a child comes to school with a disability, that school must

provide them with whatever services are needed to ensure learning takes place at the

public institution (Heward, 2000). That included helping student gain the necessary skills

for acquisition of the general curriculum, in order to, at the minimum, meet proficiency

on the state assessments.

As a stakeholder in the Memphis City Schools (MCS) Division of Exceptional

Children, the continuous print on failing schools was the impetus for this study. The

study consisted of a causal-comparative research design, using disaggregated data taken

from standardized test results garnered from the Tennessee Department of Education

62
(TNDOE) 2003–2006 annual report cards. This concern the percentages of students with

and without disabilities in grades 3 to 12 that are deemed as below proficiency, meeting

proficiency or advanced proficiency, and meeting current standards. TNDOE was not

required to use scores of children K–2 for adequate yearly progress (AYP) purposes;

therefore, the K–2 scores were not discussed in this study.

The study was guided by the following research questions:

1. For state tests in reading, language arts, math, and writing, what is the mean
achievement gap between students with disabilities and those without
disabilities in terms of meeting or exceeding standards by test year and grade
level?

2. For state tests in reading, language arts, math, and writing, what is the mode
of performance for students with disabilities and those without disabilities by
test year and grade level?

The study was guided by the following hypotheses:

1. There is a significant (more than 10-point spread) difference between students

with and without disabilities on state test performance in reading/language
arts/writing achievement for the 3 years 2003-04, 2004-05, and 2005-06.

2. There is a significant (more than 10-point spread) difference between students

with and without disabilities on state test performance in math for the 3 years
2002-03, 2004-05, and 2005-06.

3. There is a significant (more than 10-point spread) difference between students

with and without disabilities on state test performance in reading/language
arts/writing achievement for the year 2005-06 due to the creation of
Tennessee’s NCLB growth model pilot program.

4. There is a significant (more than 10-point spread) difference between students

with and without disabilities on state test performance in math for the year
2005-06 due to the creation of Tennessee’s NCLB growth model pilot
program.

This remainder of the chapter will present and discuss descriptive data, data

analysis, results, and summary of results.

63
 Descriptive Data

The study incorporates the mean and mode achievement of electronic records

archived at the TNDOE Web site. The records were reviewed for each of the 119 MCS

public schools selected for this study to determine percentages by year of students with

and without disabilities who met or exceeded standards on the CRTs by grade level and

subject area, the Middle Grades Writing Assessment (MGWA), Gateway exit exam by

subject area, and the Tennessee High School Writing Test. The CRT results in reading,

language arts, and mathematics from grades 3 through 8 are reviewed for 19 middle

schools, 3 junior high schools, and 71 elementary schools. MGWA performance results

are also reviewed for 19 middle schools and 3 junior high schools.

Data Analysis

Research Questions 1 and 2 were analyzed using disaggregated MCS standardized

test performance results published electronically on annual report cards as percentages of

students with and without disabilities and classified as: (a) not meeting standards (e.g.,

below proficient), (b) meeting standards (e.g., proficient), or (c) exceeding standards

(e.g., advanced proficient). Each spring, students in grades 3–8 take the Tennessee

Comprehensive Assessment Program (TCAP) Achievement Test, which is a timed,

multiple-choice assessment that measures skills in reading, language arts, mathematics,

science, and social studies. However, the latter two areas of study were not judged under

NCLB for meeting AYP. Student results were reported to parents, teachers, and

administrators. Criterion-referenced test scores were used to measure how well a student

has learned Tennessee’s state curriculum rather than how that student compared with a

64
national group. Criterion-referenced scores were also used to identify student areas of

strength or need (TNDOE, 2006).

Research Question 1

Research Question 1 was, “For state tests in reading, language arts, math, and

writing, what is the mean achievement gap between students with disabilities and those

without disabilities in terms of meeting or exceeding state standards by test year and

grade level?”

The data reviewed for Research Question 1 came from the electronic annual

report cards for 119 MCS schools. The purpose of the electronic annual report card was

to determine the percentage of students by test year, grade level, and school for students

with and without disabilities who have met or exceeded standards on reading, language

arts, writing, and math for the 3 years, 2003-04, 2004-05, and 2005-06. The mean was

derived by calculating the reported percentages of students with and without disabilities

who met or exceeded standards on reading, language arts, math, and writing.

Research Question 2

Research Question 2 was, “For state tests in reading, language arts, math, and

writing, what is the mode performance of students with disabilities and those without

disabilities by test year and grade level?”

The data reviewed for Research Question 2 derived from the electronic annual

report cards from 119 MCS schools. The purpose of the electronic annual report card was

to determine the percentage of students by test year, grade level, and school for students

with and without disabilities who have met or exceeded standards on reading, language

arts, writing, and math for the 3 years, 2003-04, 2004-05, and 2005-06. The mode

65
performance was a process of determining whether the majority of students with and

without disabilities per grade level met or did not meet expected state standards for

reading, language arts, writing, and math.

Hypothesis 1

Hypothesis 1 was, “There is a significant difference between students with and

without disabilities on state tests in reading/language arts/writing achievement for the 3

years 2003-04, 2004-05, and 2005-06.”

The data reviewed for Hypothesis 1 came from the electronic annual report cards

for 119 MCS schools. The purpose of the electronic annual report card was to determine

the percentage of students by test year, grade level, and school for students with and

without disabilities who have met or exceeded standards for reading, language arts,

writing, and math in the 3 years, 2003-04, 2004-05, and 2005-06.

TNDOE has developed acceptable minimum cut-off scores for schools and

districts to comply with goals under NCLB. For reading, language arts, and writing,

TNDOE reports the data as one score. This one score helps to determine whether a school

has met the requirement per year as AYP under the NCLB requirements for students with

and without disabilities.

Hypothesis 2

Hypothesis 2 was, “There is a significant difference (more than 10-point spread)

between students with and without disabilities on state tests in math achievement for the

3 years 2002-03, 2004-05, and 2005-06.”

The data reviewed for Hypothesis 2 comes from the electronic annual report cards

for 119 MCS schools. The purpose of the electronic annual report card was to determine

66
the percentage of students by test year, grade level, and school for students with and

without disabilities who have met or exceeded standards in reading, language arts,

writing, and math for the 3 years 2003-04, 2004-05, and 2005-06. TNDOE has developed

acceptable minimum cut-off scores for schools and districts to comply with goals under

NCLB. For math, TNDOE reported the data as one score. This one score data helped to

determine whether a school has met the requirement per year as AYP under the NCLB

requirements for students with and without disabilities.

Hypothesis 3

Hypothesis 3 was, “There is a significant difference (more than 10-point spread)

between students with and without disabilities on state tests in reading/language

arts/writing achievement for the year 2005-06 due to the creation of Tennessee’s NCLB

growth model pilot program.”

The data reviewed for Hypothesis 3 came from the electronic annual report cards

for 67 MCS elementary and middle schools. The purpose of the electronic annual report

card was to determine the percentage of students by test year, grade level, and school for

students with and without disabilities that have met or exceeded standards for reading,

language arts, writing, and math in the school year 2005-06.

According to Hess and Finn (2007), the belief is that every child will not be left

behind, but some will still remain behind by 2014 in attaining the expected proficiency in

reading and math. Therefore, TNDOE has developed an approved NCLB growth model

pilot program to help schools meet their AYP requirements under the NCLB for students

with and without disabilities. The primary focus was on ensuring that a student who

failed to meet proficiency on the state TCAP for grades 3 through 8 would give the state

67
an acceptable score as a best estimate of what the child could score on the TCAP

assessment 3 years later. For example, a child in fourth grade would have to earn a higher

score on the TCAP assessment, but also a passing score on the seventh-grade TCAP for

the school to receive credit toward its AYP. Would students with and without disabilities

thus have met the reading/language arts/writing AYP requirement of NCLB had it not

been for the benefit of the growth model pilot program? Has the growth model given

MCS an unfair advantage over its neighboring states like Mississippi and Arkansas, who

do not enjoy the luxury of such a creation and are sanctioned for not meeting AYP?

Hypothesis 4

Hypothesis 4 was, “There is a significant difference (more than 10-point spread)

between students with and without disabilities on state tests in math achievement for the

year 2005-06 due to the creation of Tennessee’s NCLB growth model pilot program.”

The data reviewed for Hypothesis 4 came from the electronic annual report cards

for 67 MCS elementary and middle schools. The purpose of the electronic annual report

card was to determine the percentage of students by test year, grade level, and school for

students with and without disabilities that have met or exceeded state standards on

reading, language arts, writing, and math for the school year 2005-06.

TNDOE has developed an approved NCLB growth model pilot program for the

purpose of helping schools meet their AYP requirements under the NCLB between the

students with and without disabilities. Would students with and without disabilities have

met the math AYP requirement of NCLB had it not been for the benefit of the growth

model pilot program? Has the program given MCS an unfair advantage over its

68
neighboring states like Mississippi and Arkansas, who do not enjoy the luxury of a

creation and are sanctioned for not meeting AYP?

Results for Research Question 1

Research Question 1 was, “For state tests in reading, language arts, writing, and

math, what is the mean achievement gap between students with disabilities and those

without disabilities in terms of meeting or exceeding the standards by test year and grade

level?”

Reading, Language Arts, and Writing Achievement Gaps

In Table 2 it appears that MCS reduced its mean elementary grades in reading,

language arts, and writing CRCT achievement gaps across all test years included in the

study. During the 1st year, the gap was very high (35.33). During the 2nd year, only the

third-graders actually had a significant drop of 15 percentage points. However, that group

had a slight increase of 5.64% in the last year of the study. The achievement gap for

fourth-graders had an actual increase between the 1st and 2nd year of the study. During

the 3rd and last year of the study, there was a decrease (2.43%).

Table 3 reports MCS reduced its mean middle schools grades in reading, language

arts, and writing CRCT achievement gap across all test years included in the study.

During the 1st year, the gap was extremely high; nearly every 1 out 2 students that were

tested failed. During the 2nd year, only the sixth-graders actually had a significant drop,

which was 8 percentage points. However, that group had a slight decrease in the last year

of the study of less than 0.5-percentage point. The achievement gap for eighth-graders

had an impressive drop of 15 percentage points between the 2nd and 3rd years of the

69
study. Overall, the middle schools still presented with 1 out of every 3 students meeting

standards in reading, language arts, and writing.

Table 2. Elementary Grades Reading, Language Arts, and Writing Achievement Gaps for
Students Meeting or Exceeding CRCT Standards

Grade Level 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06

3 32.86 17.10 22.74

4 34.74 37.57 29.61

5 38.40 31.40 26.43

Mean (st. dev.) 35.33 (2.82) 28.69 (10.50) 26.26 (3.44)

Table 3. Middle Grades Reading, Language Arts, and Writing Achievement Gaps for
Students Meeting or Exceeding CRCT Standards

Grade Level 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06

6 43.25 35.84 35.44

7 46.23 41.50 35.09

8 48.27 46.30 33.76

Mean (st. dev.) 45.93 (2.52) 41.21(5.24) 34.76 (0.89)

The high-school test percentages for reading, language arts, and writing can be

misleading. The district was not required to test students on the Gateway English II

assessment in the ninth grade, but must test students in the 10th grade. However, in the

ninth grade students do take the End of Course assessment. Those students who took the

test in the ninth grade were probably overage students, who were in the English II class,

70
and needed to pass the test to move on to the next grade level. Also, the achievement gap

in 2003-04 for the ninth-graders was extremely high, but based solely on one school

reporting results of 20% from students with disabilities versus students without

disabilities who had a mean of 69.47%. Conversely, that one school had students without

disabilities having a mean of 82 on the reading/language arts/writing area, a finding that

made the gap appear enormous.

In 2004-05, the students with disabilities had a higher mean percentage than did

students without disabilities due only to three schools reporting; students without

disabilities had 17 schools reporting. Students with disabilities actually had a better mean

in the 10th and 11th grade than did the students without disabilities. The mean slightly

doubled from the 9th to the 10th grade in the 1st and 2nd years of the study. As displayed

in the last column of Table 4, in the last year of the study, TNDOE did not disaggregate

the data per subgroup as required under NCLB; therefore, the mean was derived from

students with disabilities versus all students.

Table 4. High-School Grades Reading, Language Arts, and Writing Achievement Gaps
for Students Meeting or Exceeding CRCT Standards

Grade Level 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06

9 49.47 -3.32 43.63

10 -18.49 14.37 43.63

11 -17.29 16.87 43.63

12 18.24 33.53 43.63

Mean (st. dev.) 7.98 (32.49) 15.36 (15.08) 43.63 (0.00)

71
Math Achievement Gap

Table 5 shows that, overall, the math achievement gap diminished for elementary

schools by 5% at the end of the study; however, the gap for students in grades 3, 4, and 5

increased from the 1st year to the 2nd year of the study. In 2004-05, the mean

achievement gap elevated to a high of 47.68%, nearly a 1-to-2 ratio. Each elementary

grade level and test year showed that students without disabilities overwhelmingly

surpassed those students with disabilities in math achievement.

Table 5. Elementary Grades Math Achievement Gaps for Students Meeting or Exceeding
CRCT Standards

Grade Level 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06

3 34.82 36.30 35.20

4 41.23 42.08 35.91

5 45.53 47.68 36.75

Mean (st. dev.) 40.52 (5.89) 42.02 (5.69) 35.96 (0.78)

From 2003-04 to 2005-06, Table 6 shows the mean middle school had high gap

percentages. Incidentally, grade 6 had a 6.83% increase in the gap from 2003-04 to 2004-

05 and a miniscule decrease in the last year of the study. Grade 7 also had a miniscule

decrease in the gap for the 3 years of the study. Grade 8 had almost 6 percentage points

of spike in the 2nd year of the study and a small decline in the gap during the final year of

the study. Overall, the middle school means elevated during each of the 3 years of the

study.

72
Table 6. Middle Grades Math Achievement Gap for Students Meeting or Exceeding
CRCT Standards

Grade Level 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06

6 40.15 46.98 44.48

7 44.94 44.34 44.27

8 46.11 50.04 43.54

Mean (st. dev.) 43.73 (3.16) 47.12 (2.85) 44.09 (0.50)

Table 7 shows that the high-school grades for the math achievement gap on the

surface looked impressive, except 2005-06 showed grades 9 through 12 with a high

32.52% increase in the achievement gap. However, TNDOE did not disaggregate the data

in the final year of the study as it did in the initial 2 years of the study. Therefore, the

researcher noted that students with disabilities scores were identified and compared

against all students. Also, the 1st year of the study for grades 10 and 11 were extremely

low in favor of MCS students who performed well on the math assessment, the Gateway

Algebra I test. One additional point to mention, however, is that many schools did not

report or had less than five students without disabilities who took the math assessment.

The total number of students tested for 2005-06 as displayed in the last column of Table 7

shows that more than one half of the schools reported scores of students with disabilities.

73
Table 7. High-School Grades Math Achievement Gap for Students Meeting or Exceeding
CRCT Standards

Grade Level 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06

9 23.32 24.19 42.90

10 3.03 -8.97 42.90

11 -15.34 -.85 42.90

12 2.67 27.15 42.90

Mean (st. dev.) 3.42 (15.80) 10.38 (18.00) 42.90 (0.00)

Results for Research Question 2

Research Question 2 was, “For state tests in reading, language arts, writing and

math, what is the mode performance of students with disabilities and those without

disabilities by test year and grade level?”

Table 8 shows that in 2005-06, students without disabilities failed to meet the

reading, language arts, and writing standards. In grade 4, students without disabilities and

students with disabilities both did not meet standards during either year of the study. In

grade 5, the students with disabilities did not meet standards in either testing year. On the

other hand, students with disabilities did meet standards in the last 2 years of the study.

In the 3 testing years, for grades 3 through 4, both students without disabilities

and students with disabilities did not meet the math standards. However, in grade 5, only

students without disabilities met the standards in the final 2 years of the study.

74
Table 8. Mode Performance for Elementary Reading/Language Arts/Writing CRCT
Scores

2003-04 2004-05 2005-06

Grade
Level SWOD SWD SWOD SWD SWOD SWD

3 M D M D D D

4 D D D D D D

5 D D M D M D

Note. D = did not meet, M = met, SWD = students with disabilities, SWOD = students without disabilities.

Table 9. Mode Performance for Elementary Math CRCT Scores

2003-04 2004-05 2005-06

Grade
Level SWOD SWD SWOD SWD SWOD SWD

3 D D D D D D

4 D D D D D D

5 M D M D M D

Note. D = did not meet, M = met, SWD = students with disabilities, SWOD = students without disabilities.

Table 10 shows that, in 2003-04, grades 6 through 8 did not meet state standards

in either category. The next 2 years of the study did not change very much, except that

students without disabilities showed improvement in grade 8. Also, grade 7 did not meet

standards for 3 consecutive years for students without disabilities and also students with

disabilities. For all the test years, the students with disabilities never met state standards

during the 3 testing years.

75
Table 10. Mode Performance for Middle Grades Reading, Language Arts, and Writing
CRCT Scores

2003-04 2004-05 2005-06

Grade
Level SWOD SWD SWOD SWD SWOD SWD

6 D D D D M D

7 D D D D D D

8 D D M D M D

Note. D = did not meet, M = met, SWD = students with disabilities, SWOD = students without disabilities.

Table 11 shows that in the 1st year of the study, 2003-04, neither subgroup had a

majority of students meeting the math standards. However, in grade 8, students without

disabilities tied; that is, 11 of 22 schools met or exceeded the standards. In 2004-05,

neither students without or with disabilities met the standards. In 2005-06, students

without disabilities made gains in grades 6 and 7, but not in grade 8. Students with

disabilities in the final year of the study, 2005-06, did not meet the math standards.

Table 11. Mode Performance for Middle Grades Math CRCT Scores

2003-04 2004-05 2005-06

Grade
Level SWOD SWD SWOD SWD SWOD SWD

6 D D D D M D

7 D D D D M D

8 50-50 D D D D D

Note. D = did not meet, M = met, SWD = students with disabilities, SWOD = students without disabilities.

76
 As shown in Table 12, in reading, language arts, and writing performance mode

for high schools, the standards were not met. In all 3 testing years, MCS students without

and those with disabilities did not meet the reading standards for high school. In the last

year of the study, the state did not disaggregate the data, and therefore, the researcher

reported only the categories given. With that said, grades 9 through 12 for the category

All Students appear to have not met state standards, including the standards for students

with disabilities.

Table 12. Mode Performance for High-School Grades Reading/Language Arts/Writing

CRCT Scores

2003-04 2004-05 2005-06

Grade
Level SWOD SWD SWOD SWD SWOD SWD

9 D D D D D D

10 D D D D D D

11 D D D D D D

12 D D D D D D

Note. D = did not meet, SWD = students with disabilities, SWOD = students without disabilities.

As shown in Table 13, on the high-school level for the 3 years of the study, the

majority of students without disabilities and students with disabilities did not meet the

math high-school (Algebra I) standards. Incidentally, no grade level, in 2003-06, was

ever close to meeting or exceeding the state standards in math (Algebra I). In reviewing

the annual report cards, they showed that no grade level was ever close to meeting or

exceeding the state standards.

77
Table 13. Mode Performance for High-School Grades Math (Algebra I) CRCT Scores

2003-04 2004-05 2005-06

Grade
Level SWOD SWD SWOD SWD SWOD SWD

9 D D D D D D

10 D D D D D D

11 D D D D D D

12 D D D D D D

Note. D = did not meet, SWD = students with disabilities, SWOD = students without disabilities.

Results for Hypothesis 1

Hypothesis 1 was, “There is a significant difference between students with and

without disabilities on state tests in reading/language arts/writing achievement for the

years 2003-04, 2004-05, and 2005-06.”

In 2003-04, the TNDOE target for reading/language arts at the

elementary/middle-school level, as determined by the percentage of students at

proficient-or-above level, was 77. At the high-school level in 2003-04, the TNDOE target

for reading/language arts/writing, determined by the percentage of students at proficient-

or-above levels, was 86. For the remaining 2 testing years, 2004-05 through 2005-06, the

TNDOE target for reading/language arts/writing at the elementary/middle-school level, as

determined by the percentage of students at the proficient-or-above level, was 83. As for

the high-school level, the TNDOE target for reading/language arts, as determined by the

percentage of students at the proficient or above level, was 90.

78
 When compiling the means for students with and without disabilities in reading,

language arts, and writing for the testing years of 2003-04 through 2005-06, the average

mean was 33.83. Thus, over one third of Memphis City Schools students with disabilities

that were tested did not met the reading standards versus students without disabilities that

were tested. Further, the average of 33.83 implies that the students with disabilities needs

are not met under the principles of NCLB.

Aside from the fact that the Memphis City Schools may have incurred sanctions,

the students with disabilities for each testing year appeared to have been denied the

support that was necessary to succeed on the state tests in reading, language arts, and

writing. There have been no documented sanctions against the MCS Division of

Exceptional Children per se, but the district has been sanctioned by TNDOE for its

schools having not met AYP after 6 years of continuous decline.

The middle grades, or grades 6 through 8, appeared to need the most assistance in

meeting the standards. In each of the testing years (2003-04 through 2005-06), the

Memphis City middle-school grades averaged 40.63 and did not meet the reading

standards. This result means that nearly one half of the students with disabilities that were

tested did not meet the reading standards.

At the high-school level, namely grades 9 through 12, the researcher could not

fairly state a compiled average due to the final testing year not having the data configured

into subgroups as stated under the accountability section of NCLB.

However, the researcher chose to compile the data of 2003-04 through 2004-05,

which does show that students without and with disabilities accrued a major difference of

30.90%. This high percentage of difference is a trend that continues to suggest that the

79
Memphis City Schools Division of Exceptional Children needs to implement programs to

help its special needs population become more successful in terms of state reading

standards.

According to Costrell and Peyser (2003), the No Child Left Behind Act provides

adequate funding for effective implementation. It is estimated by NCLB that each student

tested costs a mere $20 (Costrell & Peyser), whereas the Memphis City Schools average

per-pupil cost is $8,708 (TNDOE, 2006). This obvious difference shows that testing is

not costly for MCS, but to prepare for the test by hiring more teachers and providing

supplemental educational services makes the average per-pupil cost rise considerably.

Petrilli’s 2007 “Testing the Limits of NCLB” reported another implementation

issue: In 2005, less than 1% of eligible students participated in NCLB school choice, and

less than 20% took advantage of the free tutoring. Perhaps if more special needs students

took advantage of the free tutoring, the test scores would rise significantly, which would

prevent such an alarming gap between Memphis City Schools students with and without

disabilities.

Therefore, Hypothesis 1 is supported. There is a significant difference between

students without and with disabilities in reading, language arts, and writing achievement

for the years of 2003-04 through 2005-06.

Results for Hypothesis 2

Hypothesis 2 was, “There is a significant difference between students with and

without disabilities on state tests in math achievement for the years 2003-04, 2004-05,

and 2005-06.”

80
 In 2003-04, the TNDOE target for math at the elementary/middle school-level, as

determined by the percentage of students at the proficient-or-above level, was 72. At the

high-school level in 2003-04, the TNDOE target for math, as determined by the

percentage of students at the proficient-or-above level, was 65. For the remaining 2

testing years, 2004-05 through 2005-06, the TNDOE target for math at the

elementary/middle-school level, as determined by the percentage of students at the

proficient-or-above level, was 79. As for the high-school level, the TNDOE target for

math, as determined by the percentage of students at the proficient-or-above level, was

75.

When compiling the means for students with and without disabilities in the area

of math for the testing years 2003-04 through 2005-06, there was an average of 39.18.

This average suggests that nearly every 2 out of 5 Memphis City Schools high-school

students with disabilities who tested did not met the math standards versus students

without disabilities who tested. Further, the average implies that for students with

disabilities, their needs are not met under the principles of NCLB. Aside from the fact

that Memphis City Schools may have incurred sanctions, the students with disabilities in

each testing year appeared to have been denied the support that was necessary to succeed

on the state tests in math.

The middle school, or grades 6 through 8, showed a mean of 44.98 for the 3

testing years of the study. This average indicates that nearly 1 of 2 Memphis City Schools

students with disabilities did not meet the state math standards.

At the high-school level, grades 9 through 12, the researcher could not fairly state

81
a compiled average due to the final testing year not having had the data configured into

subgroups, as so stated under the accountability section of NCLB.

However, the researcher chose to compile the data for 2003-04 through 2004-05,

which shows that students without and students with disabilities had only a small

difference of 16.38%. This small difference could be perceived as a decrease in the

achievement gap between students without and students with disabilities; however, that is

not the case. For clarity’s sake, in the first 2 testing years for math in the study, there

were 183 entries that had no data reported, reported as n < 5, or stated as DNR, a finding

that indicates that the school did not report any data. There were a possible 486 entries

for data that could have been reported. However, only 183 entries included data. Lastly,

the high percentage gap between students with and without disabilities continues to

suggest that Memphis City Schools Division of Exceptional Children needs to implement

programs to help its special needs population become more successful on the state math

exams.

According to Costrell and Peyser (2003), the No Child Left Behind Act provides

adequate funding for effective implementation. Conversely, in “Testing the Limits of

NCLB,” Petrilli (2007) suggested that less than 1% of eligible students participated in

NCLB school choice and less than 20% took advantage of the free tutoring in the United

States. Perhaps, if more special needs students took advantage of the free tutoring, their

test scores would rise significantly, which would prevent such an alarming gap between

Memphis City Schools students with and without disabilities.

82
 Therefore, Hypothesis 2 is supported. There is a significant difference between

students without and with disabilities in math achievement during the years 2003-04

through 2005-06.

Results for Hypothesis 3

Hypothesis 3 was, “There is a significant difference (more than 10-point spread)

between students with and without disabilities on state tests in reading/language

arts/writing achievement for the year 2005-06 due to the creation of Tennessee’s NCLB

growth model pilot program.”

Tennessee’s NCLB growth model pilot program was designed to aid

schools/districts in meeting AYP. In general, a school/district can earn AYP status if it

has a 95% participation rate, annual measurable objectives in reading/language arts for all

students, and/or shows improvement in meeting the objectives of the state (TNDOE,

2006).

According to TNDOE, under flexibility granted through the growth model pilot

program, Tennessee will incorporate individual student projection data into AYP

calculations in a manner that supports the Bright Lines of NCLB and follow the intent of

the safe harbor exception clause. The Bright Lines of NCLB state “that states must assess

students regularly, disaggregating data, hiring highly qualified teachers and informing

parents of their options in a timely manner” (TNDOE, 2006). As for safe harbor, TNDOE

states that safe harbor is generally given when a school has had a reduction in the

percentage below proficiency. By incorporating the individual student projection data

into AYP, Tennessee will encourage schools to put individual students who have yet to

reach proficiency on accelerated paths to meet state achievement standards. It will also

83
encourage schools to identify and provide appropriate interventions to those students at a

risk of falling below proficiency. USDOE approved Tennessee for this change for

elementary and middle-school AYP determinations based on state testing for the 2005-06

school year.

Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings suggested that states submit proposals

to participate in a NCLB growth model pilot program (USDOE, 2005). Adding growth

models as a way to satisfy federal requirements to demonstrate adequate yearly progress

could make it easier for some schools to avoid penalties because they would then receive

credit for students who improve performance, but still fall below proficiency levels. This

pilot program could also increase pressure on high-performing schools that score

consistently above state standards to continue to prove that their students are still able to

advance (ASCD, 2007).

In the final testing year, 2005-06, the Memphis City Schools elementary- and

middle-school reading data did not signify whether the state had applied the growth

model pilot program. The mean for both the elementary- and middle-school reading

achievement gap for 2005-06 was 30.51%. That percentage is still high and reflects that 1

of 3 students with disabilities who tested on reading assessment did not meet the

standards. Further, the 30.51% deficit speaks to the position that if TNDOE implemented

the growth model pilot program in 2005-06 to each of the Memphis City Schools

elementary- and middle-school students with disabilities as documented, how high would

the actual mean achievement gap for reading have become for those students?

Therefore, Hypothesis 3 is inconclusive. TNDOE did not indicate within the

annual report cards which MCS schools were benefactors of Tennessee’s NCLB growth

84
model pilot program. Consequently, it is unclear whether there is a significant difference

between students without and students with disabilities in reading and language arts

achievement during the year 2005-06 due to the creation of Tennessee’s NCLB growth

model pilot program.

Results for Hypothesis 4

Hypothesis 4 was, “There is a significant difference between scores for students

with and students without disabilities on state tests in math achievement for the year

2005-06 due to the creation of Tennessee’s NCLB growth model pilot program.”

Tennessee’s NCLB growth model pilot program was designed to aid

schools/districts in meeting AYP. In general, a school/district can earn AYP status if it

has a 95% participation rate, annual measurable objectives in reading/language arts for all

students, and/or shows improvement in meeting the objectives (TNDOE, 2006).

According to TNDOE, under the flexibility granted through the growth model

pilot program, Tennessee was to incorporate individual student projection data into AYP

calculations in a manner that supports the Bright Lines of NCLB and follows the intent of

the safe harbor exception clause. The Bright Lines of NCLB state “that states must assess

students regularly, disaggregating data, hiring highly qualified teachers and informing

parents of their options in a timely manner” (TNDOE, 2006). As for safe harbor, TNDOE

states that safe harbor is generally given when a school has had a reduction in percentage

below proficiency. By incorporating the individual student projection data into AYP,

Tennessee encouraged schools to put individual students who have yet to reach

proficiency on accelerated paths toward meeting state achievement standards. It also

encouraged schools to identify and provide appropriate interventions to students who are

85
at risk of falling below proficiency. USDOE approved Tennessee for the change in

elementary- and middle-school AYP determinations based on testing for the 2005-06

school year.

Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings suggested that states submit proposals

to participate in a NCLB growth model pilot program (USDOE, 2005). Adding growth

models as a way to satisfy federal requirements to demonstrate adequate yearly progress

could make it easier for some schools to avoid penalties because they would then receive

credit for students who improve performance but still fall below proficiency levels. The

pilot program was to increase pressure on high-performing schools that sail consistently

above state standards to continue to prove that their students are still able to advance

(ASCD, 2007).

In the final testing year, 2005-06, the Memphis City Schools elementary- and

middle-school math achievement data did not signify whether the state actually applied

the growth model pilot program. The mean for both elementary- and middle-school math

achievement gap for 2005-06 was 40.03%. The percentage is high and reflects that every

2 of 5 students with disabilities who tested on the math assessment did not meet the

standards. Further the 40.03% deficit speaks to the position that if TNDOE implemented

the growth model pilot program in 2005-06 to each of the Memphis City Schools

elementary- and middle-school students with disabilities as documented, how high would

the actual mean achievement gap for math have been for those students?

Therefore, Hypothesis 4 is inconclusive. TNDOE did not indicate within the

annual report cards which MCS schools were benefactors of Tennessee’s NCLB growth

model pilot program. Consequently, it is unclear whether there is a significant difference

86
between students without and students with disabilities in math achievement during the

year 2005-06 due to the creation of Tennessee’s NCLB growth model pilot program.

Summary

Memphis City Schools Division of Exceptional Children was found to have a

39.18 math achievement gap between students without and students with disabilities for

2003-04 through 2005-06. This looming skills deficit led to a detail-oriented evaluation

of achievement performance on state assessments for both groups by grade level and

testing years for the division. The study was carried out by reviewing annual report cards

that reflect how well both groups performed on the reading and math assessments given

by TNDOE as a requirement of NCLB.

Study results were discussed through two research questions and four hypotheses

that related to calculating the mean achievement gap by test year and grade level,

computing the mean achievement gap by test year and grade level, and determining the

mode performance of each group of students by test year, grade level, and test type for

119 Memphis City Schools, and reviewing the TNDOE growth model pilot program.

Overall, the study found that the Memphis City Schools Division of Exceptional

Children decreased its mean elementary- and middle-grade reading, language, and

writing achievement gaps across all test years. However, Memphis City Schools Division

of Exceptional Children failed to show progress in reducing its reading mean

achievement gap on the high-school language arts assessment. The elementary math

achievement gap showed inconsistent progress across the test years. In addition, across

the middle school, math achievement gap increased every test year. On the high-school

87
side, the math achievement gap increased every test year, with the gap in the final year

being four times that for the 1st test year.

As for mode performance, the elementary reading mode performance for students

without disabilities showed inconsistent progress during the 3 test years. On the other

hand, students with disabilities never made progress on any test year. Grades 3 through 4

never met the elementary mode performance of math achievement for both groups;

however, grade 5 performance was met by students without disabilities, but not by

students with disabilities.

In middle-grade reading mode, performance showed inconsistent progress during

the 3 test years for students without disabilities; however, students with disabilities did

not show any progress during the 3 test years. In the middle grades, math mode

performance also showed inconsistent progress during the test years for students without

disabilities; however, students with disabilities did not meet math CRCT standards.

For high-school reading- and math-mode performances, students without and

students with disabilities tested each year did not met the Gateway standards for English

II and Algebra I. It appears that the MCS Division of Exceptional Children should

conduct a needs assessment to gauge how to improve the achievement gap between

students with and without disabilities. Specifically, the need results from a circumstance

of want versus a reality of what aspect is actually present. According to Gall, Gall, and

Borg (2007), a statement of need “reflects a judgment about the present merit of the

curriculum” (p. 575). A needs assessment is closely related to objective-based models of

evaluation, which stem from the curriculum.

88
 The significance of actual affordability to pursue a growth model pilot program

has helped Tennessee schools, namely 47, based on the 2005-06 data (TNDOE, 2006). If

these schools had not had the assistance of this projection model, they would not have

met AYP for that school year (TNDOE, 2006). According to TNDOE (2006), the purpose

of the NCLB growth model pilot program is to blend a long-term purview of student

achievement data into its present NCLB accountability system. That is, “the system will

encourage schools to put individual students who have yet to reach proficiency on

accelerated paths to meeting state achievement standards” (p. 1). Unfortunately, the state

did not make the data available for further discussion by advising which schools were the

benefactors of the innovative program in 2005-06.

Hess and Finn (2007) also agreed that NCLB has brought about some positive

changes: Overhauling poorly achieving schools, creating an urgency within the fabric of

schools (all stakeholders), and allowing for more local control on how to improve failing

schools. NCLB, however, does not state specifically that students are mandated to learn

anything (USDOE, 2002). It would then seem that the focus is on assessment and not

actual learning. Therefore, the emphasis becomes district performance en masse rather

than individual student learning achievements that last.

On the other hand, if students do not perform well on the state assessments, their

schools do not suffer; no sanctions occur unless procedural requirements are not met,

such as no adequate gains for 2 continuous years in one category, a major rationale for

conducting this study. Hess and Finn (2007) suggested that if developers of NCLB had

used effective behavior changes when devising the act, then more realistic and achievable

89
expectations would have been created and gathered, using decent incentives and

punishments and, making NCLB actually a worthwhile piece of legislation.

Finally, Costrell and Peyser (2003) suggested that each student tested costs a mere

$20, whereas the Memphis City Schools average per-pupil cost is $8,708 (TNDOE,

2006). Although the actual testing is not costly for MCS, to prepare for testing is costly

due to the hiring of more teachers and providing supplemental educational services that

makes the average per-pupil cost rise considerably. In addition, Petrilli (2007), in

“Testing the Limits of NCLB,” purported that less than 1% of eligible students participate

in NCLB school choice and less than 20% take advantage of the free tutoring nationally.

Perhaps, if more local special needs students took advantage of the free tutoring, the test

scores would rise significantly, preventing such an alarming gap between Memphis City

Schools students with and without disabilities.

Chapter 5 will discuss the findings of the research questions and each of the

hypotheses to offer practical recommendations for future research and practice, as well as

discussing the clear implications of the study for future research.

90
 CHAPTER 5. RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

A general assumption was a large number of Memphis City elementary, middle,

and high schools that have made adequate yearly progress (AYP) based on the Tennessee

Department of Education’s (TNDOE’s) short list of high priority schools. However,

many of these school’s special needs students have severely under performed on the state

assessments in reading and math. The impetus of this study, came in part, from the 2004

state performance scores where a 50% gap existed in math scores between students

without disabilities and students with disabilities in grades 3 through 8 (TNDOE, 2007).

In 2004, 88% of students in grades 9 through 12 with disabilities failed their math exam,

whereas only 60% of students without disabilities failed the same exam (TNDOE, 2007).

These artifacts, though alarming, revealed issues that the Memphis City Schools (MCS)

Division of Exceptional Children must confront. It appeared that there were systemic

problems that were causing the special needs students to continuously, for the past 3

years of the study, trail their nondisabled peers.

Summary of the Study

The purpose of this research study was to evaluate the Memphis City Schools

(MCS) Division of Exceptional Children through an assessment of the proficiency gap

between K–12 students with and without disabilities on state tests. The study was

designed around two significant premises: a needs assessment and a growth model pilot

program. Gall, Gall, and Borg (2007) stated the standardized test scores offer one

91
“measure of the precise extent of discrepancy between an existing state and a desired

state” (p. 575). The study was a causal-comparative quantitative research design that

compared the quantified test data of two groups of students. Specifically, they were

students with and without disabilities on state tests for reading, writing, language arts,

and math.

A review of the literature showed where students with disabilities are guaranteed

the right to a high-quality education under both the NCLB and IDEA. IDEA ensures that

students with disabilities receive a FAPE in the LRE, whereas NCLB aims to ensure that

the achievement gap between students with and those without disabilities is nonexistent

by year 2014.

A needs assessment evaluation of student achievement measures the

actual/ongoing discrepancy between existing circumstances and the desired state of

academic performance for groups of students. A review of the literature also found no

comprehensive studies that assessed the Memphis City Schools report cards and

determined how well that school system is closing the achievement gap between students

with and without disabilities. However, Memphis City Schools in 2003-04 for reading

found an achievement gap of 40% based on average performance of students with and

those without disabilities.

The second evaluation of the study was the Tennessee growth model pilot

program. The NCLB growth model pilot program meant to consolidate a long-term

purview of student achievement data into its present NCLB accountability system. The

Tennessee growth model pilot program was not designed to help high-school students be

successful in passing the required Gateway exams. Evidence supports that elementary-

92
school students have improved and are becoming proficient on standardized assessments,

but the decline in proficiency continues at both the middle- and high-school levels.

The study produced findings and conclusions based on a critical assessment of the

collected data, using a positivist epistemological perspective of causation. Electronic

records archived at the TNDOE Web site were reviewed for each of the 119 Memphis

City Schools selected for the study to determine percentages, by year, of students with

and without disabilities who either met or exceeded standards on the CRTs by grade level

and subject area: the Middle Grades Writing Assessment (MGWA), Tennessee High

School Graduation Tests (THSGTs) by subject area, and the Tennessee High School

Writing Assessment (THSWA). The CRT performance results in reading, language arts,

and mathematics for grades 1 through 8 were reviewed for the 19 middle schools, 3

junior high and 71 elementary schools included in the study. MGWA performance study

results were reviewed for the 19 middle schools and 3 junior high schools. Descriptive

statistics were compiled regarding total student enrollment and the number of students

enrolled in special education for each school.

The study was conducted in three phases: planning, data collection, and data

analysis. The planning phase consisted of choosing a research design and methodology,

identifying limitations of the methodology and strategies for minimizing study impact,

and addressing of any ethical issues. A field test was conducted in the planning phase to

determine if any modifications needed to be made to the planned research design. Phase

II consisted of data collection from annual report cards published by TNDOE. Phase III

consisted of data analysis using two measures of central tendency, mode and mean.

Microsoft Excel spreadsheets were used to chart the performance of each test by school,

93
grade level, test year, and subject area for the two groups of students. Microsoft Excel

formulas were used to calculate mean performance. Charts were also designed and used

to identify and assess modal performance and depict mean performance.

Summary of Findings and Conclusions

Research Question 1

Research Question 1 was, “For state tests in reading, language arts, math, and

writing, what is the mean achievement gap between students with disabilities and those

without disabilities in terms of meeting or exceeding standards by test year and grade

level?”

Peterson and Hess (2006) suggested that a few states (Massachusetts, Maine, and

South Carolina) have set high standards of proficiency; however, on the lower end of the

spectrum, states like North Carolina, Oklahoma, and Tennessee standards have fallen

well below the national mark. Massachusetts is not making the grade (not making AYP);

however, it has the highest standards in the country. By contrast, Tennessee has only 7%

failing schools, of which Memphis is responsible for 2.5%; and Tennessee has one of the

“lowest operational definitions of proficiency” (Peterson, 2007).

A review of the data indicates that MCS reduced its mean elementary and middle

grades in reading, language arts, and writing achievement gaps across all test years

included in the study. The standard deviation (spread around the means) was low for each

grade. However, the standard deviation for high-school test scores between students with

disabilities and students without disabilities for reading, language arts, and writing

achievement gap had an unusual discrepancy. The reason for the disparity was due to the

reading, language arts, and writing achievement gap in 2003-04 for the ninth grade being
94
extremely high. It was, however, based solely on one school reporting results of 20%

from students with disabilities versus students without disabilities who had a mean of

69.47%. Because of that one school, students without disabilities had a mean of 82% on

the reading/language arts/writing area: the finding that made the gap appear enormous.

The elementary grades math achievement gap diminished by 5% at the end of the

study; however, the gap for students in grades 3, 4, and 5 increased from the 1st year to

the 2nd year of the study. In addition, the math achievement gap vacillated from a high of

47.68% to a low of 34.82%. Unfortunately, the lowest average of 34.82% means that

every 1 out of 3 students with disabilities has not met the state math standards. From

2003-04 to 2005-06, the mean middle school had high gap percentages. The math

achievement gap for middle grades vacillated from a high of 50.04% (2004-05) to a low

of 40.15%, which showed that every 2 out of 4 students with disabilities have not met the

math standards. Overall, the middle school means elevated during each of the 3 years of

the study.

The high-school grades for the math achievement gap looked impressive, except

that 2005-06 showed grades 9 through 12 with a high 32.52% increase in the

achievement gap. However, TNDOE did not disaggregate the data in the final year of the

study as it did in the initial 2 years of the study. Therefore, the researcher noted that the

scores of students with disabilities were identified and compared against all students.

Also, the 1st year of the study for the math assessment scores for grades 10 and 11 were

extremely low in favor of MCS students who performed well on the math assessment, the

Gateway Algebra I test. One additional point to mention, however, is that many schools

did not report or had fewer than five students without disabilities who took the math

95
assessment. The total number of students tested for 2005-06 showed that more than one

half of the schools reported scores of students with disabilities.

Research Question 2

Research Question 2 was, “For state tests in reading, language arts, writing, and

math, what is the mode of performance for students with disabilities and those without

disabilities by test year and grade level?”

In the 3 years of the study, the elementary grades did not meet the state reading

standards. Moreover, the students with disabilities did not meet the state’s reading

standards during either year of the study. In addition, the elementary grades did not meet

the math standards, except for grade 5. The students with disabilities, however, never met

the state’s math standards for the 3 testing years studied.

With regard to the middle grades in reading, language arts, and writing standards,

only grade 8 did meet the standards in the latter 2 years of the study. Again, students with

disabilities never met the state’s standards for reading, language arts and writing.

Students with disabilities also did not meet the state’s math standards for middle grades.

The students without disabilities did meet the math standards for grades 6 and 7 during

the final year of the study. However, grade 8 students without disabilities came close to

meeting the state’s math standards.

At the high-school level, all grades did not meet the state’s reading, language arts,

and writing standards. Also, neither the students with disabilities nor the students without

disabilities results met the state’s math standards.

96
Hypothesis 1

Hypothesis 1 was, “There is a significant difference between students with and

without disabilities on state test performance in reading/language arts/writing

achievement for the 3 years 2003-04, 2004-05, and 2005-06.”

NCLB 8 years out does not recognize the good schools as such, whereas the

poorly performing ones are given a pass (Peterson, 2007). An analysis of the means for

students with and without disabilities indicates that in the area of reading, language arts,

and writing for the testing years of 2003-04 through 2005-06, the average mean was

33.83. This means that over one third of Memphis City Schools students with disabilities

who were tested did not met the reading standards as compared to students without

disabilities. Further, the average implies that the students with disabilities needs are not

met under the principles of NCLB.

The middle grades, or grades 6 through 8, appear to need the most assistance in

meeting the standards. In each of the testing years (2003-04 through 2005-06), the

Memphis City middle-school grades averaged 40.63 and did not meet the reading

standards. This result means that nearly one half of the students with disabilities who

were tested did not meet the reading standards.

At the high-school level, namely grades 9 through 12, the researcher could not

fairly state a compiled average due to the final testing year not having the data configured

by subgroup as stated under the accountability section of NCLB. However, the researcher

chose to compile the data of 2003-04 through 2004-05, which does show that students

without and with disabilities accrued a major difference of 30.90%.

97
 Therefore, Hypothesis 1 is supported. There is a significant difference between

students without and with disabilities in reading, language arts, and writing achievement

for the years of 2003-04 through 2005-06.

Hypothesis 2

Hypothesis 2 was, “There is a significant difference between students with and

without disabilities on state test performance in math for the 3 years 2002-03, 2004-05,

and 2005-06.”

An analysis of the means for students with and without disabilities indicates that

in the area of math for the testing years of 2003-04 through 2005-06, there was an

average of 39.18. This average suggests that for nearly every 2 out of 5 Memphis City

high-school students with disabilities who tested did not met the math standards as

compared to the students without disabilities who tested. Further, the average implies that

the needs of students with disabilities are not being met under the principles of NCLB.

The middle school, or grades 6 through 8, showed a mean of 44.98 for the 3

testing years of the study. This average indicates that nearly 1 of 2 Memphis City Schools

students with disabilities did not meet the state math standards. At the high-school level,

grades 9 through 12, the researcher could not at all fairly state a compiled average due to

the final testing year not having not the data configured by subgroups as so stated under

the accountability section of NCLB.

Therefore, Hypothesis 2 is supported. There is a significant difference between

students without and with disabilities in math achievement during the years 2003-04

through 2005-06.

98
Hypothesis 3

Hypothesis 3 was, “There is a significant difference between students with and

without disabilities on state test performance in reading/language arts/writing

achievement for the year 2005-06 due to the creation of Tennessee’s NCLB growth

model pilot program.”

Tennessee’s NCLB growth model pilot program was designed to aid

schools/districts in meeting AYP. In general, a school/district can earn AYP status if it

has a 95% participation rate, annual measurable objectives in reading/language arts for all

students, and/or shows improvement in meeting the objectives of the state.

According to TNDOE, under flexibility granted through the growth model pilot

program, Tennessee will incorporate individual student projection data into AYP

calculations in a manner that supports the Bright Lines of NCLB and follows the intent of

the safe harbor exception clause. The Bright Lines of NCLB state “that states must assess

students regularly, disaggregating data, hiring highly qualified teachers and informing

parents of their options in a timely manner” (TNDOE, 2006).

As for safe harbor, TNDOE (2006) states that safe harbor is generally given

when a school has had a reduction in percentage below proficiency. By incorporating the

individual student projection data into AYP, Tennessee will encourage schools to put

individual students who have yet to reach proficiency on accelerated paths to meet state

achievement standards. It will also encourage schools to identify and provide appropriate

interventions to those students at risk of falling below proficiency. USDOE approved

Tennessee for this change for elementary and middle-school AYP determinations based

on state testing for the 2005-06 school year.

99
 In the final testing year, 2005-06, the Memphis City elementary- and middle-

school reading data did not signify whether the state had applied the growth model pilot

program. The mean for both the elementary- and middle-school reading achievement gap

for 2005-06 was 30.51%. That percentage is still high and reflects that 1 of 3 students

with disabilities who tested on the reading assessment did not meet the standards.

Further, the 30.51% deficit speaks to the position that if TNDOE implemented in the

growth model pilot program in 2005-06 to each of the Memphis City elementary- and

middle-school students with disabilities as documented, how high would the actual mean

achievement gap for reading have become for those students?

Therefore, Hypothesis 3 is inconclusive because the TNDOE failure to

disaggregate the data for reading, language arts, and writing for the year 2005-06 due to

its creation of the NCLB growth model pilot program. In addition, TNDOE did not

provide clarity with regards to proficiency nor it did not address the expectation date of

proficiency (Granger, 2006).

Hypothesis 4

Hypothesis 4 was, “There is a significant difference between students with and

without disabilities on state test performance in math for the year 2005-06 due to the

creation of Tennessee’s NCLB growth model pilot program.”

Tennessee’s NCLB growth model pilot program was designed to aid

schools/districts in meeting AYP. In general, a school/district can earn AYP status if it

has a 95% participation rate, annual measurable objectives in reading/language arts for all

students, and/or shows improvement in meeting the objectives.

100
 According to TNDOE, under flexibility granted through the growth model pilot

program, Tennessee will incorporate individual student projection data into AYP

calculations in a manner that supports the Bright Lines of NCLB and follows the intent of

the safe harbor exception clause. The Bright Lines of NCLB state “that states must assess

students regularly, disaggregating data, hiring highly qualified teachers and informing

parents of their options in a timely manner” (TNDOE, 2006).

As for safe harbor, TNDOE (2006) states that safe harbor is generally given when

a school has had a reduction in percentage below proficiency. By incorporating the

individual student projection data into AYP, Tennessee will encourage schools to put

individual students who have yet to reach proficiency on accelerated paths toward

meeting state achievement standards. It will also encourage schools to identify and

provide appropriate interventions to students who are at risk of falling below proficiency.

USDOE approved Tennessee for this change for elementary- and middle-school AYP

determinations, based on the testing for the 2005-06 school year.

In the final testing year, 2005-06, the Memphis City elementary- and middle-

school math achievement data did not signify whether the state actually applied the

growth model pilot program. The mean for both elementary- and middle-school math

achievement gap for 2005-06 was 40.03%. The percentage is high and reflects that every

2 of 5 students with disabilities who tested on the math assessment did not meet the

standards. Further the 40.03% deficit speaks to the position that if TNDOE implemented

in the growth model pilot program in 2005-06 to each of the Memphis City elementary-

and middle-school students with disabilities as documented, how high would the actual

mean achievement gap for math have been for those students?

101
 Therefore, Hypothesis 4 is inconclusive because the TNDOE failure to

disaggregate the data for math for the year 2005-06 due to its creation of the NCLB

growth model pilot program. Granger (2006) stated that TNDOE’s projected calculations

of proficiency were fuzzy and not easy to understand; also that TNDOE growth model

would not necessarily evaluate the high schools.

In conclusion, the Memphis City Schools Division of Exceptional Children has

not developed or implemented in the correct programs to elevate its students with

disabilities to proficiency status on the state assessments for reading and math. The

findings have shown the district to have a serious gap between students with disabilities

and students without disabilities in reading, language arts, writing, and math.

Specifically, reading, language arts, and writing showed some progress, but math

showed regression. It appears that programming needs to be geared towards the

improvement of their students with disabilities state test scores in reading and math.

Because co-teaching is now paramount to special education, it still remains a national

problem due to scheduling unfamiliarity of the curriculum, and the general education

teacher being unable to effectively communicate with the special educator (Friend, 2007).

Two intelligent individuals should be able to come together and devise strategies to all

help students. Program monitoring must be used in the math classrooms more effectively.

Recommendations

In this study, the Memphis City School District was found to have a serious gap

between students with disabilities and students without disabilities in reading, language

arts, writing, and math. Although the achievement gap narrowed each year in

reading/language arts/writing, the gap widened in the area of math. In addition, the
102
imperfections of NCLB needs refocusing and retooling, to better understand that some

schools receiving the designation of passing and have not performed better than schools

with the label of failing. The juxtaposition is that schools receiving the label of failing

was given the designation only because it did not make yearly gains (not making AYP;

Peterson, 2007). Therefore, the following recommendations need to be seriously

considered by the Memphis City Schools Division of Exceptional Children in its efforts

to help MCS in its AYP to attain 100% by 2014, or in only 5 short years.

Recommendations for Future Research

1. A need results from a state of want versus the reality of what is actually
present. According to Gall, Gall and Borg (2007), a statement of need
“reflects a judgment about the present merit of the curriculum” (p. 575).
NCLB requires that a school meet AYP by earning some growth over the
previous year mark. It appears from the data that some Memphis City Schools
students did not make gains or not very many gains due to their special needs
population. This finding leads to a new question: should a school’s failure to
repeatedly earn AYP due to one particular subgroup, in this case, students
with disabilities, be censured and labeled as an inadequate learning institution
year after year? Or, should the question be directed to the Division of
Exceptional Children and let it create and to implement unprecedented ideas
to ensure that no special needs child is left behind?

The data indicate that of the 119 schools reviewed, all of them did not make
AYP during each year of the study. The special needs population was the
subgroup that did not make enough annual gains for the school to miss
receiving sanctions. It seems that a vast amount of money and creativity went
into helping students without disabilities improve without giving the same
consideration to the special needs population in the district. It also appears
that further research is needed to examine test data of students with disabilities
more closely and determine how to better help this subgroup of students
receive a regular education diploma.

Therefore, it appears that maybe a student’s IEP needs to be specifically

factored into the testing equation. Doing so would probably require more
intensive training for regular educators, so they could implement effective
accommodations and modifications as classroom strategies. The idea is to
have the performance of students with disabilities on the state assessment test
be used as one half of the proficiency mark, and the progression of their IEP

103
 goals and objectives should be considered as the other half of the proficiency
mark. This collaboration would generate an overwhelming number of
proficient test takers and minimize the number of schools being sanctioned for
not having made significant AYP gains consistently. This program could
become a national model.

Moreover, this combination testing would give credence to the IEP. To the
researcher, in many ways, the IEP, as it pertains to state testing at the high-
school level, holds no merit, other than allowing for the testing
accommodations/modifications. IEP goals and objectives are virtually
irrelevant if a student with disabilities is taking the state assessment test. The
new testing paradigm could finally remove the stigma that one size fits all.
Currently, it does not.

2. Under the NCLB accountability standards, progress monitoring has been

highlighted more aptly. Because TNDOE did not extrapolate the study data of
test scores for reading and math on which schools benefited from its growth
model program, then the future department of Quality Improvement could
very well take on the task of using a curriculum progress monitoring system
within a standards-based system.

Because curriculum-based assessments are designed to help with daily

instruction and state assessments are developed to assess students over a large
scale across the state, the newly created Department of Quality Improvement
needs to focus on conducting a longitudinal study at the secondary level, to
improve math test scores of students with disabilities. This effort could be
enhanced through the response-to-intervention assessment approach of special
education referral and identification (Elliott, 2008).

3. This study should be replicated in the successive years of 2006-07, 2007-08,

and 2008-09. It would aid the district in clearly understanding whether its
Division of Exceptional Children has made the necessary modifications within
itself to help the special needs students perform better on the state’s
assessments in reading, language arts, writing, and math. In addition, a
comparison of the present research data against the future data could help the
school district paint a clear picture of its status towards reaching the goal of
100% proficiency on the state’s exit exams. The research design should be a
model of mixed methods: quantitative and qualitative.

Recommendations for Practice

1. Across the Memphis City School District, special educators are co-
teaching in areas of reading, language arts, writing, and math, but not with
the necessary experience to do so successfully. With testing having
become a staple in education, it would seem appropriate for the Division

104
 of Exceptional Children to better prepare its teachers to not only to be in
the regular education classroom, but also to feel equal in that classroom.
Therefore, the researcher does not believe that equality comes with the
years of service, but rather with the proper training on how to be effective
in supporting and leading the classroom. This change cannot happen by
chance, but rather it can happen through creating and implementing a
diligent and purposeful plan of action. The recommendation, then, is for
the Memphis City Schools Division of Exceptional Children to locate a
funding source for secondary special educators to attain endorsement in
either reading or mathematics.

2. The district could fund two graduate classes (6 hours), along with the
assistance of a high-school math or reading coach, to teach, or to reteach
the principles of Algebra I and Reading to special educators on a weekly
basis. Each session could last for 2 or 3 hours with a monthly stipend
awarded for participating.

3. It would also benefit each region of the district to collaborate with the
local universities to teach a 5-to-6 week class at the four regional offices
for 2 or 3 hours, twice a week, for credit. Doing so would be an
unorthodox method of teaching mathematics to special educators during
working hours, whereby each teacher could return to their school and
begin to apply this knowledge with their students.

4. It appears that the Division of Exceptional Children needs to create and

designate a Quality Improvement Department, with a director, within its
division, to clear up many of its quality assurance issues. In addition, a
Quality Improvement Department could also gather data for future
research. This would help the Division of Exceptional Children to gain
genuine insight into the concerns and issues of its teachers.

5. If a quality improvement department is developed, the staff should consist

of special educators, who may be interested in cross training for 1 year. In
addition to their regular salary, a stipend should be awarded to them in
December and May of each school year. The special educators selected
should have experience based on 10 or more years in the profession, with
good recordkeeping skills. These are usually teachers who are ready for an
administrative job or a change of pace.

6. The Division of Exceptional Children should begin to spotlight the

teachers who are trying to stay on task with special education duties and
teaching assignments. The Division should try to distribute some extrinsic
and intrinsic rewards to them. The Division must make time for its
teachers to get to know them personally, and to better understand how to
effectively use the limited resources to improve student learning. These

105
 suggestions will enhance the morale of the division and improve teachers’
output, which in turn would improve students’ input on the state’s
assessments.

7. Under the NCLB accountability standards, progress monitoring has been

given more attention in research. Because TNDOE did not extrapolate the
study data of test scores for reading and math on which schools benefited
from its growth model program, then the future department of Quality
Improvement could very well take on the task of using a curriculum
progress monitoring system within a standards-based system. This means
that curriculum-based assessments should be designed to help with daily
instruction, and include the state standards for math, to ensure an
understanding and preparation of the subject matter. The newly created
Department of Quality Improvement would need to focus on collecting
data at the secondary level, to improve math test scores of students with
disabilities. This effort could be enhanced through the response-to-
intervention assessment approach.

8. Upon entering Algebra I, the students with disabilities in the ninth grade
should be tested using a sample state math assessment, to determine if
additional instructional support is needed. If the students with disabilities
score below the state acceptable score for earning proficiency, the algebra
teachers should identify the students with disabilities in order to place
these students in additional support in two blocks of math. This would
allow the students with disabilities to receive individual instruction and
group instruction. That would be a total of 3 hours of intensive math
instruction per day.

9. In addition, even if schools are not on total block scheduling, schools on a

55-minute schedule could implement the 3-hour block, by carving out the
first three classes or the last three classes of the day. This 3-hour block
schedule should promote a high percentage of proficiency for the students
with disabilities. This option could also be used for regular education
students.

According to Costrell and Peyser (2003), the No Child Left Behind Act provides

adequate funding for its effective implementation. It is estimated that each student tested

cost a mere $20 (Costrell & Peyser), whereas the Memphis City average per-pupil cost is

$8,708 (TNDOE, 2006). Petrilli’s 2007 “Testing the Limits of NCLB” reported another

implementation issue: In 2005, less than 1% of eligible students participated in NCLB

106
school choice and less than 20% took advantage of the free tutoring. According to

Petrilli, due to the lack of parental involvement, a choice program set up in Washington,

DC, had failed to adequately implement its school voucher system. As a result, the school

voucher program had nearly one half of its school vouchers unused in its early years

(Petrilli).

Therefore, the recommendation is that MCS Division of Exceptional Children

should explain the tutorial program to the parents during school registration and should

seek to encourage the parents to register their child for the federal after-school program.

This action could ensure the child’s success in passing the state’s assessments in reading

and math. The results of this action should increase the proficiency rates of the special

needs students’ scores on the state assessments.

Implications

As a result of this study, the researcher hopes that these recommendations will be

implemented in the next school year. A change must come to the Memphis City Schools

Division of Exceptional Children if teaching and learning for students with disabilities is

to occur in a positive way. The expectations of the special needs population, especially at

the high-school level, must be about the implementation of some new and different

concepts to help bring about the necessary changes for improving the achievement gap. If

veteran teachers, who are sometimes burned out by the day-to-day bureaucracy of

teaching, could see where the district is aiding and supporting them in reaching new

heights with their special needs students, they would be inclined to take classes in

math/reading for an additional endorsement or just for the additional training.

107
 The results of this research study implies that there is an academic achievement

gap between students with disabilities and students with disabilities in the areas of

reading, writing, language arts, and math. It further suggests that the achievement gap is

wide between student with disabilities and students without disabilities in the area of

math. Perhaps due to fear and anxiety, the students with disabilities generally do not test

very well. Hall and Kennedy (2006) reported that the elementary level is doing better

than the middle- and high-school levels.

Obviously, the elementary years help a child to build a foundation in reading,

language arts, writing, and math where they are ushered from a less abstractedly thinking

mode to a more concrete thinking modality. Due to behavioral issues and cognitive issues

of a special needs child, they are further hampered in learning and stands to experience,

by and large, a greater chance of being retained or worse, socially promoted, prior to fully

understanding the foundational materials presented in their formative years. The absence

of the essential skill sets is therefore blatantly overlooked in the middle-school years, and

the child is then placed forward to the secondary level due to overage. With such

uncertainty of the required skills, the special needs student either misbehaves in class, or

sits quietly in class and never understands the materials presented until boredom builds to

the point where they then choose to quit school without earning a regular high-school

diploma.

For these reasons alone, the Memphis City Schools Division of Exceptional

Children must formulate a more concrete plan to bring their students in compliance with

the standards of reading and math before the required deadline of 2014. Teachers’

training is essential to the goal being accomplished. The Division of Exceptional

108
Children must retrain the program supervisors to become more active ensuring that their

assigned teachers’ needs are met in the classroom, so that instruction can be clear and

present at all times.

The MCS Division of Exceptional Children must not be willing to accept the

school principal’s word as final. In an effort to help the special needs students to make

significant gains on the state tests, there needs to be a more vocal and proactive approach

from the Division of Exceptional Children. With between 16,000–17,000 students

diagnosed with a legal disability, of whom the majority is Blacks, it is vital to the welfare

and growth of the City of Memphis that the students with disabilities pass the state exams

on the very first attempt. This action leads to the students with disabilities earning a

regular high-school diploma. These needs speak volumes regarding what the study has

already revealed about the district’s students with disabilities and student without

disabilities. It further suggests that if MCS Division of Exceptional Children continues in

the same direction that it is going, it will continue to get the same results.

109
 REFERENCES

Aarons, D. L. (2007, June 20). Governor pitches plan for schools. The Commercial
Appeal, pp. A1, A3.

Advocates for Children. (2005). Leaving school empty handed: A report on graduation
and dropout rates for students who receive special education services in New
York. New York: Author. Retrieved September 18, 2006, from
http://www.advocatesforchildren.org/pubs/2005/spedgradrates.pdf

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD). (2007). Growth

models changing how schools measure progress. Retrieved July 9, 2007, from
http://www.ascd@smartbrief.com/menuitem

Balaji, M. (2007). The professor and the pupil: The politics of W.E.B. Dubois and Paul
Robeson. New York: Nation Books.

Bottge, B. A., Rueda, E., Serlin, R. C., Hung, Y. H., & Kwon, J. M. (2007). Shrinking
achievement differences with anchored math problems: Challenges and
possibilities. The Journal of Special Education, 41(1), 31–49.

Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

Brownstein, R. (2007, July 11). Don’t leave this law behind. Los Angeles Times, p. A-15.

City of Memphis. (2006). Retrieved September 18, 2006, from

http://www.cityofmemphis.org/framework.aspx?pages557

Civil Rights Act. (1964). U.S. Statutes at Large 78:241.

Costrell, R., & Peyser, J. (2003). Exploring the costs of accountability. Education Next,
4(2), 22–28.

Daniels, V. I. (1998). Minority students in gifted and special education programs. The
Journal of Special Education, 32(1), 41–43.

Elliott, J. (2008). Response to intervention: What and why? School Administrator, 65(8),
10–16.

ESEA reauthorization: Options for improving NCLB’s measures of progress: Hearings

before the House Committee on Education and Labor, 110th Congress, 1 (2007).
Retrieved March 14, 2007, from
http://edworkforce.house.gov/hearings/joint031307.shtml

110
Foegen, A., Jiban, C., & Stanley, D. (2007). Progress monitoring measures in
mathematics: A review of literature. The Journal of Special Education, 41(2),
121-139.

Friend, M. (2007). The coteaching partnership. Educational Leadership, 64(5), 48–52.

Gall, M., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (1996). Educational research: An introduction (6th
ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Gall, M., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (2003). Educational research: An introduction (7th
ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Gall, M., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2007). Educational research: An introduction (8th
ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Gelpi, G., Fetter, D., & Sellers, J. (2007, January 8). Some educators still see problems
with act. The Augusta Chronicle, pp. 1A, 3A.

Graduation profiles. (2007, July 6). Education Week, 26(40), 40–42. Retrieved from
http://www.eduweek.org

Granger, C. (2006, April 17). Ed Trust statement on state proposals for the Growth-
Model Pilot Program. Retrieved April 21, 2009, from The Education Trust Web
site: http://www2.edtrust.org/EdTrust/Press+Room/statement4.17.06.htm

Hall, D., & Kennedy, S. (2006). Primary progress, secondary challenge: A state-by-state
look at student achievement patterns. Retrieved April 21, 2009, from The
Education Trust Web site: http://www2.edtrust.org/NR/rdonlyres/15B22876-
20C8-47B8-9AF4-FAB148A225AC/0/PPSCreport.pdf

Hawkins, V. (2007). Narrowing the gaps for special-needs students. Educational

Leadership, 64(5), 61–63.

Herzenhorn, D. M. (2003, May 21). City English scores show marked gain. The New
York Times, p. A1.

Hess, F. M., & Finn, C. E. (2007). No remedy left behind: Lessons from a half-decade of
NCLB. Blue Ridge Summit, PA: AEI Press.

Heubert, J. P., & Hauser, R. M. (1999). High stakes: Testing for tracking, promotion, and
graduation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Heward, W. L. (2000). An introduction to special education. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

111
Hu, W. (2007, July 6). Schools move toward following students’ yearly progress on tests.
The New York Times, pp. 1–2.

IDEA Partnerships Project. (2002). Discover IDEA [Computer disk]. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs.

Individuals with Disabilities Act of 1975, Pub. L. No. 142-92 (1975).

Individuals with Disabilities Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 105-117 (1997).

Individuals with Disabilities Improvement Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-446 (2004).

Johnson, B. (2003). Tailoring evaluations. Retrieved April 21, 2009, from University of
South Alabama Web site: http://www.southalabama.edu/coe/bset/Johnson/
6602lectures/rlf2.doc

Johnson, D. W., Dupuis, V. L., Musial, D., Hall, G. E., & Gollnick, D. M. (2002).
Foundations of American education. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Klein, J. A., Wiley, H. I., & Thurlow, M. L. (2006). Uneven transparency: NCLB tests
take precedence in public assessment reporting for students with disabilities
(Technical Report No. 43). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National
Center on Educational Outcomes.

Lautenschlager, P. (2004, May 12). Letter to Wisconsin Senator Fred Risser. Retrieved
April 21, 2009, from the Association of Educational Service Agencies Web site:
http://www.aesa.us/RisserLetter.pdf

Losen, D. L., & Orfield, G. (2002). Racial inequity in special education. Cambridge,
MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University and the Harvard Education
Press.

Malmgren, K. W., McLaughlin, M. J., & Nolet, V. (2005). Accounting for the
performance of students with disabilities on statewide assessments. The Journal
of Special Education, 39(2), 86–96.

McLaughlin, M. J., & Thurlow, M. (2003). Educational accountability and students with
disabilities: Issues and challenges. Educational Policy, 17(4), 431–451.

McMillen, M. M., Kaufman, P., & Klein, S. (1997). Dropout rates in the United States:
1995. Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics.

Medley, K. W. (1994, November). The sad story of how “separate but equal” was born.
Smithsonian, 24(11), 104–117.

112
Memphis City Schools. (2007). Retrieved September 18, 2007, from
http://www.mcsk12.net

National Conference of State Legislatures Task Force on No Child Left Behind. (2005).
Task Force on No Child Left Behind final report. Denver: Author.

National Education Association. (2001). No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)/ESEA.

Retrieved June 14, 2005, from http://www.nea.org/esea

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). Retrieved July 18, 2002, from
http://www.ws.gov/legislation/ESEA02

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. 70 ¶ 6301 et seq. (2002).

No Child Left Behind’s 5th anniversary keeping promises and achieving results (2007,
January). Retrieved September 17, 2007, from
http://www.ed.gov/print/nclb/overview/importance/nclb5anniversary.html

Patton, J. M. (1998). The disproportionate representation of Blacks in special education:

Looking behind the curtain for understanding and solutions. The Journal of
Special Education, 32(1), 25–31.

Peterson, P. E. (2003). No Child Left Behind?: The politics and practice of school
accountability. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Peterson, P. E. (2007). A lens that distorts. Education Next, 7(4), 46–51.

Peterson, P. E., & Hess, F. (2006, Summer). Keeping an eye on state standards.
Education Next, 6(3), 28–29.

Peterz, K. S. (1999, May 31). The overrepresentation of Black students in special

education classrooms. Retrieved June 15, 2005, from http://www.inmotion
magazine.com/peterz1.html

Petrilli, M. (2007). Testing the limits of NCLB. Education Next, 7(4), 52–56.

Piche, D. (2007). Basically a good model. Education Next, 7(4), 57–59.

Public Agenda. (2003). Rolling up their sleeves: Superintendents and principals talk
about what’s needed to fix public schools. Retrieved April 21, 2009, from
http://www.publicagenda.org/files/pdf/rolling_up_their_sleeves.pdf

RAND Corporation. (2004). Meeting literacy goals set by No Child Left Behind: A long
uphill road. Retrieved April 1, 2005, from http://www.rand.org/publications
/RB/RB9081

113
Rossi, R., Herting, J., Wolman, J., & Quinn, P. (1997). Profiles of students with
disabilities as identified in NELS:88. Washington, DC: National Center for
Education Statistics.

Russo, C. J., & Talbert -Johnson, C. (1997). The overrepresentation of Black children in
special education: The resegregation of educational programming. Education and
Urban Society, 29(2), 136–148.

Salvia, J., & Ysseldyke, J. (1998). Assessment (7th ed.) Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Silverman, D. (2000). Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Saint-Laurent, L. (2001). The Summary Individualized Objectives: An instrument to

facilitate inclusion. Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning
Disability, 17(4), 349–355.

Suber, J. E. (2007). Is the Richmond County (GA) Special Education Program shrinking
the proficiency gap? A study of disabled students standardized test performance.
Retrieved from ProQuest Digital Dissertations. (AAI 3254719)

Tennessee Department of Education. (2006). Proposal to the U.S. Department of

Education: NCLB Growth Pilot Program. Retrieved April 21, 2009, from
http://tennessee.gov/education/nclb/doc/NCLB%20GrowthModelProposal.pdf

Tennessee Department of Education. (2007). 2003-2006 State of Tennessee statewide

report cards. Retrieved December 18, 2007, from http://www.state.tn.us
/education/report cards

Thurlow, M. L., House, A. L., Scott, D. L., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (2000). Students with
disabilities in large-scale assessments. State participation and accommodations
policies. The Journal of Special Education, 34(3), 154–163.

Thurlow, M. L., & Wiley, H. I. (2006). A baseline perspective on disability subgroup

reporting. The Journal of Special Education, 39(4), 246–254.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2006). State & county quickfacts: Memphis (city), Tennessee.
Retrieved April 21, 2009, from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/47/
4748000.html

U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.a). Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

Retrieved April 25, 2005, from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg

114
U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.b). No Child Left Behind Act of 2001:
Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act legislation and
policies website. Retrieved April 25, 2005, from
http://www.ed.gov/offices/OSES/esea

U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.c). Title 1 No Child Left Behind ¶ 2.

U.S. Department of Education. (2002, September). No Child Left Behind: A desktop

reference. Retrieved April 25, 2005, from http://www.ed.gov/legislation
/ESEA/Guidance/pt1.html

U.S. Department of Education. (2003a, December 9). New No Child Left Behind
provision gives schools increased flexibility while ensuring all children count,
including those with disabilities. Retrieved April 25, 2005, from
http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2003//12/12092003.html

U.S. Department of Education. (2003b, November 4). Scientifically based evaluation

methods. Federal Register, 68(213), 62445–62447.

U.S. Department of Education. (2005, April 7). Raising achievement: A new path for No
Child Left Behind. Retrieved April 21, 2009, from http://www.ed.gov/policy/
elsec/guid/raising/new-path-long.html

Wagner, M., D’Amico, R., Marder, C., Newman, L. & Blackorby, J. (1992). What
happens next? Trends in post-school outcomes of youth with disabilities.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education
Programs.

Wallace, T., Espin, C. A., McMaster, K., Deno, S. L., & Foegen, A. (2007). CBM
progress monitoring within a standards-based system: Introduction to the special
series. The Journal of Special Education, 41(2), 66–67.

White House West Wing Connections. (2001, August 1). No Child Left Behind. Retrieved
December 1, 2004, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/new/reports/

Williams, J. (1977). The impact and implication of litigation. In G. Markel (Ed.),

Proceedings of the University of Michigan Institute on the Impact and
Implications of State and Federal Legislation Affecting Handicapped Individuals.
Ann Arbor: University of Michigan School of Education.

115