Finite Resources, Increasing Demands: Rural Children Left Behind? Educators Speak Out on Issues Facing Rural Special Education

Rural Special Education Quarterly, Summer 2006 by Mitchem, Katherine, Kossar, Kalie, Ludlow, Barbara L

Abstract

Current legislative mandates for schools to bring all students to the proficient level on state content standards by 2014 have been both commended and criticized by stakeholders across the nation. Schools are expected to meet this challenge by employing only highly qualified teachers who are well versed in content and the use of evidence-based practices. They must document adequate yearly progress toward proficiency for all students, including those with disabilities. Most groups praise the accountability that accompanies these mandates; however, concerns have been voiced by some educators about their impact on rural schools as well as their implications for special education services. Various stakeholders in rural areas across the country were surveyed to examine the perceived impact of the NCLBA mandates for highly qualified teachers and adequate yearly progress. Qualitative research methods were used to analyze responses to open-ended questions asking participants to expand on special education issues related to qualifications of highly qualified teachers, documentation of adequate yearly progress and other general concerns. Some common themes emerged related to the unique circumstances of rural schools as well as the potential impact of NCLBA on rural special educators and special education programs.

The reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) in 2004 included provisions bringing this law into alignment with the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) of 2001, thereby ushering in an era of school reform for all students as well as a new perspective on equal educational opportunity for students with disabilities in the nation's schools. Two provisions of these laws, in particular, have occasioned considerable debate: the mandate that schools must ensure that students are taught by highly qualified teachers (HQT) with content expertise and the mandate that schools are accountable for promoting adequate yearly progress (AYP) for all students. Although no one can argue with the basic premise of these mandates, many have questioned the specific requirements for achieving them. The debate has been most vigorous in discussing the implications of the law for special education and also for rural schools, especially at the intersection of many concerns in rural special education.

Rural schools face unique challenges in implementing both HQT and AYP because of their small size, lower level of resources, and often remote locations. They face difficulties in recruiting and retaining qualified personnel in general (Schwartzbeck & Prince, 2003) and special educators in particular (Brownell, Rosenberg, Sindelar, & Smith, 2004). They experience higher attrition of teaching personnel (Ingersoll, 2001), especially special education teachers (Williams, Martin, & Hess, 2002). Consequently, their special education personnel are three times more likely to be uncertified or have minimal qualifications (Tyler, Cantou-Clarke, Easterling, & Klepper, 2003). Rural schools also encounter difficulties in meeting AYP targets (Jimerson, 2003). They typically have fewer options for school choice and supplemental services (Milloy et al., 2003) and more limited access to staff development opportunities (U. S. Government Accountability Office, 2004). Special education service delivery is complicated by lower available funding but higher implementation costs associated with providing specialized programs in more isolated rural areas (McLaughlin, Embler, Hernandez, & Caron, 2005). In addition, rural schools struggle to provide professional development for special educators due to smaller staff size overall and even fewer specialists in each area (Rude & Brewer, 2003).

To explore educator perceptions of the impact of the NCLBA mandate on rural special education, a national survey was conducted to solicit comments from educators, administrators, and teacher educations involved in both special and general education and living and/or working in rural communities across the country. The purpose of the study was to give voice to the concerns expressed by educators on the front line in rural schools and compare their perceptions with concerns expressed by commentators in the professional literature.

Method

This study involved a survey (conducted both on paper and online) disseminated to rural areas across the United States that asked respondents to share their perceptions of the impact of the NCLBA and its provisions on rural schools. Common concerns related to implementation of this Act were identified based on a review of the literature and the legislation and a questionnaire was designed to solicit input from teacher educators, teachers and administrators, parents, and policymakers. Approval from the West Virginia University Institutional Review Board for the Protection of Human Subjects was obtained prior to distribution of the survey form.

Data Collection

The 12-item form comprised two demographic items (role and region), three questions that asked participants to rate the extent to which rural schools would be affected by the mandates of NCLBA, three questions that required the participant to agree or disagree with statements about possible impacts, and five open-ended questions soliciting participant comments about specific provisions. Given the topic, inception of the project, and relevance to the audience, the survey was initially distributed as a paper copy at the annual conference of the American Council on