Advertisement

The Urban Review

, Volume 47, Issue 3, pp 365–392 | Cite as

The More Things Change, the More They Stay the Same: Comparing Special Education Students’ Experiences of Accountability Reform Across Two Decades

  • Barbara L. Pazey
  • Julian Vasquez Heilig
  • Heather A. Cole
  • Meagan Sumbera
Article
First Online:

Abstract

Over the last two decades, our nation has seen an array of reform initiatives that support lofty goals for student achievement. An underexplored issue in the literature is how this school reform set against the backdrop of high-stakes testing has impacted the students it is designed to assist. Now armed with years of student data, critics of accountability reform have argued that high stakes testing has done little to improve the educational outcomes of persistently low achieving students—urban poor, minority and students with disabilities. The statistics show a bleak picture. But, the numbers only tell half the story. This qualitative case study uses narrative analysis to detail the stories of 12 special education students in an urban Texas high school who experienced first hand the effects and fallout of accountability reform. The authors had the unique opportunity to interview two sets of students, one in 1995 when high stakes testing was first introduced and one in 2012 after two decades of implementation. Chronicling the voices of special education students at the same school over a 15 year period reveals that schooling experiences of these students have neither fundamentally changed nor improved despite numerous reform efforts. The paper provides a critical context for accountability reform juxtaposed with the students’ personal experiences of testing and accountability reform. The paper concludes with a brief discussion of the importance of including student voice, particularly marginalized student voice, in ongoing reform efforts.

Keywords

Special education Urban education Accountability reform High-stakes testing High school Student voice Comparative qualitative analysis 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Artiles, A. J. (2011). Toward an interdisciplinary understanding of educational equity and difference: The case of the racialization of ability. Educational Researcher, 40(9), 431–445. doi: 10.3102/0013189X11429391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Astuto, T. A., Clark, D. L., Read, A. M., McGree, K., & Fernandez, L. P. (1993). Challenges to dominant assumptions controlling educational reform. (Final Report). Andover, MA: Regional Laboratory for Educational Improvement of the Northeast Islands.Google Scholar
  3. Bartlett, L., Frederick, M., Gulbrandsen, T., & Murillo, E. (2002). The marketization of education: Public schools for private ends. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 33, 5–29. doi: 10.1525/aeq.2002.33.1.5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beaudoin, N. (2008). The magic is in the students: Elevating student voice and creating a democratic school pay off in student satisfaction and academic performance. Principal Leadership, 8(6), 28–33.Google Scholar
  5. Bejoian, L. M., & Reid, D. K. (2007). A disability studies perspective on the Bush agenda: The no child left behind act of 2001. Equity & Excellence, 38(3), 220–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Benjamin, R. (2008). The case for comparative institutional assessment of higher-order thinking skills. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 40(6), 50–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bennett de Marrais, K. B., & LeCompte, M. D. (1995). The way schools work: A sociological analysis of education (2nd ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.Google Scholar
  8. Bickel, W. E., & Bickel, D. D. (1986). Effective schools, classrooms, and instruction: Implications for special education. Exceptional Children, 52, 489–500.Google Scholar
  9. Bishop, K. D., Foster, W., & Jubala, K. A. (1993). The social construction of disability in education: Organizational considerations. In C. Capper (Ed.), Educational administration in a pluralistic society (pp. 173–202). New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  10. Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  11. Booher-Jennings, J. (2005). Below the bubble: “Educational triage” and the Texas accountability system. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 231–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brantlinger, E. A. (2005). Who benefits from special education? Remediating (fixing) other people’s children. LEA. Retrieved December 3, 2011, from Ebook Library.Google Scholar
  13. Brayboy, B. M. J., Castagno, A. E., & Maughan, E. (2007). Equality and all? Examining race in education scholarship. Review of Research in Education, 31, 159–194. doi: 10.3102/0091732X07300045.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brooks, A. P. (1994, September 15). Motivation, hard work produce ‘education miracles.’ Austin American-Statesman, p. A10.Google Scholar
  15. Carnoy, M., Loeb, S., & Smith, T. L. (2001). Do higher state test scores in Texas make for better high school outcomes? Research Report Series, RR-047, Consortium for Policy Research in Education (November).Google Scholar
  16. Cherryholmes, C. H. (1988). Power and criticism: Poststructuralist investigations in education. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  17. Clandinin, D. J., & Rosick, J. (2007). Mapping a landscape of narrative inquiry: Borderland spaces and tensions. In D. J. Clandinin (Ed.), Handbook of narrative inquiry: Mapping a methodology (pp. 35–75). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Coles, G. (1987). The learning mystique: A critical look at “learning disabilities”. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
  19. Collins, K. M., & Valente, J. (2010). [Dis]abling the race to the top. Teachers college record, Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentId=16020.
  20. Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1990). Stories of experience and narrative inquiry. Educational Researcher, 19(5), 2–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (2000). Narrative inquiry. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  22. Cook-Sather, A. (2002). Authorizing students’ perspectives: Toward trust, dialogue, and change in education. Educational Researcher, 31(4), 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cook-Sather, A. (2006). Sound, presence, and power: “Student voice” in educational research and reform. Curriculum Inquiry, 36(4), 359–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Creswell, J. W. (1997). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  25. Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). Race, inequality, and educational accountability: The irony of ‘No Child Left Behind’. Race, Ethnicity, and Education, 10(3), 245–260. doi: 10.1080/13613320701503207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dilger, C. (2008). First school closures take place under Texas public school accountability system. Interim News: House Research Organization Texas House of Representatives, 80(6), 1–10. Retrieved from http://www.hro.house.state.tx.us/interim/int80-6.pdf.
  27. Elmore, R. F., Abelmann, C. H., & Fuhrmann, S. H. (1996). The new accountability in state education reform: From process to performance. In H. F. Ladd (Ed.), Holding schools accountable: Performance-based reform in education (pp. 65–98). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  28. Fitch, F. (2003). Inclusion, exclusion, and ideology: Special education students’ changing sense of self. The Urban Review, 35(3), 233–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Franklin, M. E. (1992). Culturally sensitive instructional practices for African-American learners with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 59, 115–122.Google Scholar
  30. Frattura, E. M., & Topinka, C. (2006). Theoretical underpinnings of separate educational programs: The social justice challenge continues. Education and Urban Society, 38(3), 327–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Fuhrman, S. H., & Elmore, R. F. (Eds.). (2004). Redesigning accountability systems for education. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  32. Gersten, R., & Woodward, J. (1994). The language-minority student and special education: Issues, trends, and paradoxes. Exceptional Children, 60, 310–322.Google Scholar
  33. Giroux, H. (1981). Ideology, culture, and the process of schooling. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Glesne, C. (2006). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  35. Goodman, J. F., & Eren, N. S. (2013). Student agency: Success, failure, and lessons learned. Ethics and Education, 8(2), 123–139. doi: 10.1080/17449642.2013.843360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hamilton, M., Heilig, V., & Pazey, B. L. (2014). A nostrum of school reform?: Turning around reconstituted urban Texas high schools. Urban Education, 49(2), 182–214. doi: 10.1177/0042085913475636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hamilton, L. S., Stecher, B. M., Marsh, J. A., McCombs, J. S., Robyn, A., Russell, J. L., et al. (2007). Standards-based accountability under No Child Left Behind: Experiences of teachers and administrators in three states. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.Google Scholar
  38. Harry, B., & Klingner, J. K. (2006). Why are so many minority students in special education?. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  39. Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  40. H.R. 6–103rd Congress: Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994. (1994). In www.GovTrack.us. Retrieved July 18, 2013, from http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/103/hr6.
  41. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 2004, Pub L. No. 108-446 (2004).Google Scholar
  42. Janesick, V. J. (2004). “Stretching” exercises for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  43. Karen, D. (2005). No child left behind? Sociology ignored! Sociology of Education, 78, 165–182. doi: 10.1177/003804070507800204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kelly, J. K., Luke, A., & Green, J. (2008). What counts as knowledge in educational settings: Disciplinary knowledge, assessment, and curriculum. Review of Research in Education, 32, vii-x. doi: 10.3102/0091732X07311063.
  45. Kimmelman, P. L. (2006). Implementing NCLB: Creating a knowledge framework to support school improvement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.Google Scholar
  46. Kirshner, B., & Pozzoboni, K. M. (2011). Student interpretations of a school closure: Implications for student voice in equity-based school reform. Teachers College Record, 113(8), 1633–1667.Google Scholar
  47. Kortering, L. J., & Braziel, P. M. (1999). Staying in school: The perspective of ninth grade students. Remedial and Special Education, 20(2), 106–113. doi: 10.1177/074193259902000208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kowal, J. M. & Hassel, E. A. (2005). School restructuring under no child left behind: What works when? Turnarounds with new leaders and staff. Retrieved from http://www.centerforcsri.org/pubs/restructuring/KnowledgeIssues4Turnaround.pdf.
  49. Kretovics, J., & Nussel, E. J. (1994). Transforming urban education. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  50. Kunc, N. (1992). The need to belong: Rediscovering Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. In R. A. Villa, J. S. Thousand, W. Stainback, & S. Stainback (Eds.), Restructuring for caring and effective education: An administrative guide to creating heterogeneous schools (pp. 25–39). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.Google Scholar
  51. Lave, J. (1985). Introduction: Situationally specific practice. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 16, 171–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2013). The constructivist credo. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press Inc.Google Scholar
  53. Lindstrom, J. H. (2011). High stakes testing and accommodations. In J. M. Kauffman & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Handbook of special education (pp. 321–333). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  54. Linehan, P. (2002). Expecting success: An analysis of education policies in Texas. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED468011.pdf.
  55. Linn, R. L. (2000). Assessment and accountability. Educational Researcher, 29(2), 4–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Losen, D. J., & Orfield, G. (Eds.). (2002). Racial inequity in special education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Manna, P. (2004). Leaving no child behind. In C. T. Cross (Ed.), Political education: National policy comes of age. NY: Teacher College Press.Google Scholar
  58. McCarthy, C. (1993). Beyond the poverty of theory in race relations: Nonsyncrony and social difference in education. In L. Weis & M. Fine (Eds.), Beyond silenced voices: Class, race, and gender in United States schools (pp. 325–346). New York: State University of New York.Google Scholar
  59. McCombs, B. L. (2003). A framework for the redesign of K-12 education in the context of current educational reform. Theory into Practice, 42(2), 93–101. doi: 10.1207/s15430421tip4202_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. McDermott, R. P. (1989). Discussant’s comments: Making dropouts. In H. T. Trueba, G. L. Spindler (Eds.), What do anthropologists have to say about dropouts? The first centennial conference on children at risk (pp. 16–26). New York: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  61. McDermott, R., Goldman, S., & Varenne, H. (2006). The cultural work of learning disabilities. Educational Researcher, 35(6), 12–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. McDermott, R., & Varenne, H. (1995). Culture as disability. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 26, 324–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. McLaughlin, B. (1992). Myths and misconceptions about second language learning: What every teacher needs to learn. Santa Cruz, CA: National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning.Google Scholar
  64. McLaughlin, M., Malmgren, K., & Nolet, V. (2006). Accountability for students with disabilities who receive special education: Characteristics of the subgroup of students with disabilities. A summary of quantitative findings from the Educational Policy Reform Research Institute (EPRRI). Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED509859.pdf.
  65. McLaughlin, M. J., & Thurlow, M. (2003). Educational accountability and students with disabilities: Issues and challenges. Educational Policy, 17(4), 431–451. doi: 10.1177/0895904803254962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. McNeil, L. (2004). Creating new inequalities: Contradictions of reform. In D. J. Flinders & S. J. Thornton (Eds.), The Curriculum Studies Reader (2nd ed., pp. 275–284). New York: Routledge Falmer.Google Scholar
  67. McNiff, J. (2007). My story is my living educational theory. In D. J. Clandinin (Ed.), Handbook of narrative inquiry: Mapping a methodology (pp. 308–329). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Mead, S. (2007, Winter). Easy way out: “Restructured” usually means little has changed. Education Next, 7(1), 52–56. Retrieved from http://educationnext.org/easy-way-out/.
  69. Mehan, H. (1992). Understanding inequality in schools: The contribution of interpretive studies. Sociology of Education, 65(1), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Mehan, H., Hertweck, A., & Meihls, J. L. (1986). Handicapping the handicapped: Decision making in students’ educational careers. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  71. Meier, D., & Wood, G. (Eds.). (2004). Many children left behind: How the No Child Left Behind Act is damaging our children and our schools. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  72. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  73. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  74. Mitra, D. L. (2003). Student voice in school reform: Reframing student teacher relationships. McGill Journal of Education, 38(2), 289–304.Google Scholar
  75. Mitra, D. L. (2009). Amplifying student voice. In M. Scherer (Ed.), Engaging the whole child: Reflections on best practices in learning, teaching, and leadership (pp. 242–252). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.Google Scholar
  76. Mitra, D. L., & Gross, S. J. (2009). Increasing student voice in high school reform: Building partnerships, improving outcomes. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 37(4), 522–543. doi: 10.1177/1741143209334577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Nagle, K. M., McLaughlin, M. J., Nolet, V. & Malmgren, K. (2007). Students with disabilities and accountability reform: Findings from the Texas case study. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED509867.pdf.
  78. New Tech Network (2012). New Tech Network. Retrieved from http://www.newtechnetwork.org/.
  79. Nichols, S. L., & Berliner, D. C. (2007). Collateral damage: How high-stakes testing corrupts America’s schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  80. Nichols, S. L., & Berliner, D. C. (2008). Testing the joy out of learning. Educational Leadership, 65(6), 14–18.Google Scholar
  81. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).Google Scholar
  82. O’Neill, P. T. (2004). No Child Left Behind compliance manual. Fairfield, CT: Brownstone.Google Scholar
  83. Orfield, G., & Kornhaber, M. L. (Eds.). (2001). Raising standards or raising barriers? Inequality and high stakes testing in public education. New York: Century Foundation Press.Google Scholar
  84. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  85. Payne, C. M. (2008). So much reform, so little change: The persistence of failure in urban schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  86. Pazey, B. L. (1996). Understanding students’ funds of knowledge: A study of high school special populations students (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest UMI Dissertations Publishing (9705933).Google Scholar
  87. Price, H. E. (2010). Does no child left behind really capture school quality? Evidence from an urban school district. Educational Policy, 24(5), 779–814. doi: 10.1177/089590810376564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Ramanathan, A. (2008). Paved with good intentions: The federal role in the oversight and enforcement of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Teachers College Record, 110(2), 278–321.Google Scholar
  89. Ravitch, D. (2010). The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and choice are undermining education. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  90. Reyes, P., & Valencia, R. (1993). Educational policy and the growing Latino student population: Problems and prospects. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 15(2), 258–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Riessman, C. K. (1993). Qualitative research methods series: Narrative analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  92. Rizvi, F. (1993). Race, gender and the cultural assumptions of schooling. In C. Marshall (Ed.), The new politics of race and gender: The 1992 yearbook of the politics of education association (pp. 203–217). Washington, DC: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  93. Rueda, R., Klingner, J., Sager, N., & Velasco, A. (2008). Reducing disproportionate representation in special education. In T. C. Jiménez & V. L. Graf (Eds.), Education for all: Critical issues in the education of children and youth with disabilities (pp. 131–166). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
  94. Sarason, S. B. (1990). The predictable failure of educational reform: Can we change course before it’s too late?. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  95. Shepard, L. (2008). A brief history of accountability testing: 1967–2007. In K. E. Ryan & L. A. Shepard (Eds.), The future of test-based educational accountability (pp. 25–46). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  96. Shields, C. M. (2003). ‘Giving voice’ to students: Using the internet for data collection. Qualitative Research, 3(3), 397–414. doi: 10.1177/1468794103033007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Skerrett, A., & Hargreaves, A. (2008). Student diversity and secondary school change in a context of increasingly diversified reform. American Educational Research Journal, 45(4), 913–945. doi: 10.3102/000283120832043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Skrtic, T. M. (1991). Behind special education: A critical analysis of professional culture and school organization. Denver: Love.Google Scholar
  99. Skrtic, T. M. (Ed.). (1995a). Disability and democracy: Reconstructing (special) education for postmodernity. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  100. Skrtic, T. M. (1995b). The functionalist view of special education and disability: Deconstructing the conventional knowledge tradition. In T. M. Skrtic (Ed.), Disability and democracy: Reconstructing (special) education for postmodernity (pp. 65–103). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  101. Skrtic, T. M. (2005). A political economy of learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 28(2), 149–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  103. Storz, M. G. (2008). Educational inequity from the perspectives of those who live it: Urban middle school students’ perspectives on the quality of their education. Urban Review, 40, 247–267. doi: 10.1007/s11256-008-0083-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Strike, K. A. (2004). Community, the missing element of school reform: Why schools should be more like congregations than banks. American Journal of Education, 110(3), 215–232. doi: 10.1086/383072.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Sunderman, G. L., & Kim, J. S. (2007). The expansion of federal power and the politics of implementing the No Child Left Behind Act. Teachers College Record, 109, 1057–1085.Google Scholar
  106. Superfine, B. M. (2005). The politics of accountability: The rise and fall of Goals 2000. American Journal of Education, 112(1), 10–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Supovitz, J. (2009). Can high stakes testing leverage educational improvement? Prospects from the last decade of testing and accountability reform. Journal of Educational Change, 10, 211–227. doi: 10.1007/s10833-009-9105-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Talbert-Johnson, C. (2004). Structural inequities and the achievement gap in urban schools. Education and Urban Society, 37(1), 22–36. doi: 10.1177/0013124504268454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Texas American Federation of Teachers (2008, October). Beyond TAKS (and NCLB): Putting Texas school accountability back on track. Retrieved April 4, 2012 from http://docs.texasaft.org/legislative/TestReformForumPaper100208.pdf.
  110. Texas Education Agency (1997). Expanding the scope of the Texas public school accountability system. Retrieved from https://www.google.com/search?q=expanding+the+scope+of+the+texas+accountability+system&oq=expanding+the+scope+o&aqs=chrome.0.59j57j0l2j60.3756j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8.
  111. The Forum for Education and Democracy (n.d.). Creating a national culture of learning: The forum for education and democracy’s recommendations for the reauthorization of ESEA. Retrieved from http://www.kidsconsortium.org/documents/fed_ese.pdf.
  112. Thiessen, D. (2006). Editorial: Student knowledge, engagement, and voice in educational reform. Curriculum Inquiry, 36(4), 345–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Thurlow, M. L. (2004). In S. H. Fuhrman & R. F. Elmore (Eds.), Redesigning accountability systems for education (pp. 115–137). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  114. Thurlow, M. L., Nelson, J. R., Teelucksingh, E., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (2000). Where’s Waldo? A third search for students with disabilities in state accountability reports (Technical Report No. 25). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.Google Scholar
  115. Thurlow, M. L., & Quenemoen, R. F. (2011). Standards-based reform and students with disabilities. In J. M. Kauffman & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Handbook of special education (pp. 134–146). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  116. Thurlow, M. L., Quenemoen, R. F., & Lazarus, S. S. (2012). Leadership for student performance in an era of accountability. In J. Crockett, B. Billingsley, & M. L. Boscardin (Eds.), Handbook of leadership in special education (pp. 3–16). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  117. U.S. Department of Education (1991). America 2000: An education strategy. Sourcebook. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED327985&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED327985.
  118. U.S. Department of Education (1994, March 29). Summary of the final version of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  119. U.S. Department of Education (2009). Race to the top: Executive summary. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/executive-summary.pdf.
  120. Vannest, K. J., Mahadevan, L., Mason, B. A., & Temple-Harvey, K. K. (2009). Educator and administrator perceptions of the impact of No Child Left Behind on special populations. Remedial and Special Education, 30(3), 148–159. doi: 10.1177/0741932508315378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Varenne, H., & McDermott, R. (1998). Successful failure: The school America builds. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  122. Vasquez Heilig, J. (2011a). As good as advertised? Tracking urban student progress through high school in an environment of accountability. American Secondary Education, 39(3), 17–41.Google Scholar
  123. Vasquez Heilig, J. (2011b). Understanding the interaction between high-stakes graduation tests and English learners. Teachers College Record, 113(12), 2633–2669.Google Scholar
  124. Vasquez Heilig, J., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). Accountability Texas-style: The progress and learning of urban minority students in a high-stakes testing context. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(2), 75–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Vasquez Heilig, J., & Nichols, S. (2013). A quandary for school leaders: Equity, high-stakes testing and accountability. In L. C. Tillman & J. J. Scheurich (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational leadership for diversity and equity (pp. 409–435). New York, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  126. Vasquez Heilig, J., Young, M., & Williams, A. (2012). At-risk student averse: Risk management and accountability. Journal of Educational Administration, 50(5), 562–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Vasudevan, L., & Campano, G. (2009). The social production of adolescent risk and the promise of adolescent literacies. Review of Research in Education, 33, 310–353. doi: 10.3102/0091732X08330003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Wasburn-Moses, L., & Frager, A. M. (2009). Point-counterpoint: Can special education and general education get along? Educational Forum, 3, 215–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Window on State Government (2000). Retrieved from http://www.window.state.tx.us/.
  130. Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Barbara L. Pazey
    • 1
  • Julian Vasquez Heilig
    • 2
  • Heather A. Cole
    • 3
  • Meagan Sumbera
    • 4
  1. 1.Departments of Special Education and Educational AdministrationThe University of Texas at AustinAustinUSA
  2. 2.Department of Education Leadership and Policy StudiesCalifornia State University, SacramentoSacramentoUSA
  3. 3.Department of Special EducationThe University of Texas at AustinAustinUSA
  4. 4.Department of Educational PsychologyTexas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options