Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act (Idea)

¶ … Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) of 2004 and the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 (NCLB) "require that students with disabilities have equal access to general education curricula and contexts," (Simon & Black, 2011, p.160). These two laws provide the fundamental backbone of inclusive education. However, educators need support in order to comply with these two federal regulations. The Differentiated Accountability Program (DAP) serves that function. As a federal program, DAP is "designed to support educators in meeting IDEA and NCLB requirements," regardless of state differentiation (Simon & Black, 2011, p. 160). DAP is, however, "designed to afford states flexibility in aligning improvement efforts with individual schools' specific needs according to each school's AYP status, requires schools in needs improvement status (SINI)," (Simon & Black, 2011, p. 160). Specific components of DAP may include professional development programs designed to help educators upgrade their skills related to teaching students with disabilities or designing more effective individualized education plans or global school improvement plans (SIPs). Likewise, DAP promotes curriculum and instructional needs so that schools and educators become more equipped to comply fully with the components of IDEA and NCLB.

In this research, Simon & Black (2011) used an experimental design to evaluate the School Improvement Plans (SIPs) from the seven largest districts in the state of Florida. The goal of the study was to "find evidence of schools participating in the DAP for meeting the needs of students with disabilities," (Simon & Black, 2011, p. 160). Samples only included elementary schools. The authors explain their sampling techniques and also provide ample background information about the state of Florida's approach to the DAP. In Florida, the DAP is "designed to focus efforts to reduce achievement gaps between students in accountability subgroups through more distinctive forms of intervention that consider individual schools' and/or districts' needs," (Simon & Black, 2011, p. 161). Instead of being localized or district-based, the interventions and standards are deemed "global and transformative," (Simon & Black, 2011, p. 161). Moreover, Florida's diverse population and "the state's history of accountability reform, diversity, and performance of its identified subgroups" made it a pilot site for DAP itself (Simon & Black, 2011, p. 161).

Schools in Florida are classified according to a set of parameters ranging from the past SINI status and the "grade" given to the school according to student performance outcomes. Tabulating variables results in five possible categories that indicate the type and severity of interventions indicated for that school. There are five SINI categories in Florida, and schools from only one of those categories were included in the current research: that is, SINI Correct I. The authors should have better explained the classification matrix, as it has a direct bearing on the sample population chosen for the research. Therefore, understanding why Simon & Black (2011) chose only SINI Correct I schools would shed light on the applicability of the research to other states and programs. According to the Ethics Extra! Newsletter (2008), schools classified as SINI Correct I are "schools with A's, B's, or C's, and ungraded schools, with at least 80% of AYP indicators met, in SINI 4 and higher," (p. 2). This places SINI Correct I schools somewhere in the middle in terms of severity of problems and the need for government intervention related to compliance with IDEA and NCLB. The classification system includes schools that merely need preventative measures, due to their already high performance outcomes. The schools that "show no signs of making progress" are classified as "intervene" and shutting those schools down might be recommended in those cases (Ethics Extra! Newsletter, 2008, p. 2).

Simon & Black (2011) found that in the state of Florida, there is a "great deal of variety" across the seven districts used in the sample (p. 160). The variety has more to do with the professional development programs on offer and the "continuous improvement strategies promoting inclusive practices," than it has to do with measurable performance outcomes (Simon & Black, 2011, p. 160). Further research on the relationship between variables of DAP, like professional development, and dependent variables like student outcomes, would be more insightful to administrators and policy makers. The Florida Department of Education's Bureau of School Improvement (2006) also lacks concrete data or evidence substantiating the effectiveness of any of the specific interventions used in DAP. However, the research is thorough. The authors do a good job of explaining the various issues at stake and provide valuable case studies and examples from their respective sample schools.