<%BANNER%>

Special Education Students in Selected Florida High Schools

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021891/00001

Material Information

Title: Special Education Students in Selected Florida High Schools Adequate Yearly Progress as Measured by the Policies Set Forth in the No Child Left Behind Act
Physical Description: 1 online resource (142 p.)
Language: english
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: a, ayp, education, ese, florida, idea, law, nclb, school, special
Educational Administration and Policy -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Educational Leadership thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The author conducted a policy analysis of the impact of the special education student population referred to as exceptional student education (ESE) in Florida's A+ Plan, and as students with disabilities (SWD) under the No Child Left Behind Act in selected Florida high schools regarding adequate yearly progress (AYP) as measured by the policies set forth in the No Child Left Behind Act. The major laws involved in this examination were the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and Florida's A+ Plan. Florida was chosen because of the quality and clarity of the education policy in the state?s A+ Plan. This policy mandated that students must pass the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) in order to graduate from high school. Scores and participation in this statewide test were the foundation of Florida's A+ Plan, and were used to measure adequate yearly progress at both the school and district levels. The state and Federal policies were examined to determine if special education students had an impact on adequate yearly progress under either No Child Left Behind or Florida's A+ Plan. Data were gathered from the official Florida Department of Education (FLDOE) web site. All of the highest and lowest scoring districts, as measured by Florida's A+ Plan were examined. Within these districts data from all the highest and lowest scoring high schools were gathered. A comparison was then made between the school grade under Florida's A+ Plan and if the school made adequate yearly progress under the No Child Left Behind Act. Data from schools that made adequate yearly progress were examined to determine if and how students with disabilities impacted the calculations under both No Child Left Behind and Florida's A+ Plan. Thirty-seven school districts and 109 high schools in Florida were examined in this study. Of the fifteen high schools that did make adequate yearly progress only two of them did so without dismissing the students with disabilities category due to small group size.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Wood, R. Craig.
Local: Co-adviser: Honeyman, David S.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0021891:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021891/00001

Material Information

Title: Special Education Students in Selected Florida High Schools Adequate Yearly Progress as Measured by the Policies Set Forth in the No Child Left Behind Act
Physical Description: 1 online resource (142 p.)
Language: english
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: a, ayp, education, ese, florida, idea, law, nclb, school, special
Educational Administration and Policy -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Educational Leadership thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The author conducted a policy analysis of the impact of the special education student population referred to as exceptional student education (ESE) in Florida's A+ Plan, and as students with disabilities (SWD) under the No Child Left Behind Act in selected Florida high schools regarding adequate yearly progress (AYP) as measured by the policies set forth in the No Child Left Behind Act. The major laws involved in this examination were the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and Florida's A+ Plan. Florida was chosen because of the quality and clarity of the education policy in the state?s A+ Plan. This policy mandated that students must pass the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) in order to graduate from high school. Scores and participation in this statewide test were the foundation of Florida's A+ Plan, and were used to measure adequate yearly progress at both the school and district levels. The state and Federal policies were examined to determine if special education students had an impact on adequate yearly progress under either No Child Left Behind or Florida's A+ Plan. Data were gathered from the official Florida Department of Education (FLDOE) web site. All of the highest and lowest scoring districts, as measured by Florida's A+ Plan were examined. Within these districts data from all the highest and lowest scoring high schools were gathered. A comparison was then made between the school grade under Florida's A+ Plan and if the school made adequate yearly progress under the No Child Left Behind Act. Data from schools that made adequate yearly progress were examined to determine if and how students with disabilities impacted the calculations under both No Child Left Behind and Florida's A+ Plan. Thirty-seven school districts and 109 high schools in Florida were examined in this study. Of the fifteen high schools that did make adequate yearly progress only two of them did so without dismissing the students with disabilities category due to small group size.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Wood, R. Craig.
Local: Co-adviser: Honeyman, David S.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0021891:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101111_AAAAAI INGEST_TIME 2010-11-11T07:10:11Z PACKAGE UFE0021891_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 47891 DFID F20101111_AAAFRE ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH stockdale_m_Page_073.pro GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
292f9728a5345f47957c2b53292ca8ba
SHA-1
8fca174eda83ac247df92d9447017b1e4bc47e7d
42709 F20101111_AAAFQP stockdale_m_Page_056.pro
a90938bfdabf8b475794e5492f5d62c9
44937230f96fec1f6650171f5807f739b25e62d7
50224 F20101111_AAAFRF stockdale_m_Page_074.pro
fd0192374526a917c2a5b7fecf068eb6
350b9b1fa64addd43c4700987b239522ed1424a2
47798 F20101111_AAAFQQ stockdale_m_Page_057.pro
6f569bab3ab17efc7286e779b1152316
ad167c77e10e6330e742054354515eb843504489
60920 F20101111_AAAFRG stockdale_m_Page_076.pro
3156fd3541b0415de427f33898f8973e
76894cd382f650ba2d2b43303c5d0bf21960d85d
45009 F20101111_AAAFQR stockdale_m_Page_058.pro
36176002bad0f9fc173153efe96c7614
90ad97db882edd30e8821715b63241bfde4ec308
58542 F20101111_AAAFRH stockdale_m_Page_077.pro
1859b2569e0e3cd706a2b0f8e5d8478a
0d38b7b4928cac1664e5d22f0b2a0bbed1492106
67916 F20101111_AAAFQS stockdale_m_Page_059.pro
7a2f7be99a8c87f62e29482605f11768
8251780d6c65e713ee9635b265dfe1ff600602b3
61113 F20101111_AAAFRI stockdale_m_Page_079.pro
aedce8927472db8a280dbf01a1644f3d
316f948b7549cb50f70d8b005c9196c8e18e0933
68848 F20101111_AAAFQT stockdale_m_Page_060.pro
001c833a2500a883c153603d5a86e7ba
7b5f9f6f743b4dbd5157209979e3872df9bc982d
56776 F20101111_AAAFRJ stockdale_m_Page_080.pro
968aef0e4a3f0410f453854b06dc6a53
fb6e4ca2a18f19d3d0995a7474e49f43f7b89a71
67347 F20101111_AAAFQU stockdale_m_Page_061.pro
a8494d878dce627f07abe611679a0011
7985838dfc67b9d8eb0a2f80c23a857ea69eb5d9
44402 F20101111_AAAFRK stockdale_m_Page_081.pro
e48be86e1898935eb8ad37057961968f
15ab4e30c25135a2f6b9e0454fab312e02785e3f
70586 F20101111_AAAFQV stockdale_m_Page_063.pro
58d05ac6543d37c38d26fe7c555555cd
499ed28bd8207be1e0a62a895f3c7ab612abde83
44799 F20101111_AAAFRL stockdale_m_Page_082.pro
9661de70b44e1cebc841edb7feaa006f
790a05b3e1bb21daba43f630527ca0698d1460fd
66223 F20101111_AAAFQW stockdale_m_Page_064.pro
37561bfdfb80f804f3624037729ad99b
556572aef4aecddfe224bd7df25b9fa247909f21
33817 F20101111_AAAFSA stockdale_m_Page_101.pro
119b97093c686cc6201a75714f706506
c0430cefc920f6b0011d0ddc10542462ad1a0b1a
54043 F20101111_AAAFRM stockdale_m_Page_084.pro
895d9ee168b009f4ea59ee6d0f7e0bb4
51699831a598b04d998626bd7996c336e3854993
45576 F20101111_AAAFQX stockdale_m_Page_065.pro
e13c74582445cd6574dfde02481ba5f0
251de1e726b6c8a6b99e36565ec3d4112941272d
20057 F20101111_AAAFSB stockdale_m_Page_102.pro
cc33ed77dfa0c3d9f4890df5763430c3
5da378819e996eed109ca163af617ad80860f9af
57119 F20101111_AAAFRN stockdale_m_Page_085.pro
4f104d40458cc901b31ea9c6c44ed228
1d7419cf73dfc32f684b7cf2aadb843f1af1d138
53703 F20101111_AAAFQY stockdale_m_Page_066.pro
c2c43b97532dfd5d24de1e0e25d5d1d6
3ee96ddb93607780a2036b156532fae3aa508302
14566 F20101111_AAAFSC stockdale_m_Page_103.pro
02aa8a3eb85968d76c68dc33a9a1b3f9
5a474e2a0700c72ac9ee3ae63988d6834613ce00
57137 F20101111_AAAFRO stockdale_m_Page_086.pro
00f14cd0b8d884a06895c380d8c460d6
ac9d8a627bb4c3b74fbc6097eb5ab2b57d19b7ef
64801 F20101111_AAAFQZ stockdale_m_Page_068.pro
dbfb082757b12e2080ab04b58714147d
2fc9e27c953e35cd5809e26156cb6846eca89c3a
44647 F20101111_AAAFSD stockdale_m_Page_104.pro
d929ac60dd7604d613946dcb0ddbb070
bc2479ecc774db7f1fdfcad8b47ccbb7d1d72e4e
49659 F20101111_AAAFRP stockdale_m_Page_087.pro
ae669b4b4d879eee290e218bf20b0b95
7eecfbf28f54d0cf53bc466308fe68d6d207d09d
30356 F20101111_AAAFSE stockdale_m_Page_105.pro
3adcfc4cc9e1b7a9a893868295e733a0
9560dcada33a455f26a2f2640d6b4e1e189d3ea2
44385 F20101111_AAAFSF stockdale_m_Page_106.pro
fddf3ea7f4b7b1bbf27eefc82f158829
780866cf408ebe406e7ac50ce1a7bce8b1733ca7
53458 F20101111_AAAFRQ stockdale_m_Page_088.pro
5bdcd7f17c86b2b397ea8d860bbaa2ae
1fde96439e1f7051daae02536132d9a548ad0d78
38894 F20101111_AAAFSG stockdale_m_Page_109.pro
1789a5532b0c32bbface1825e097a9d0
367ae00049167b66ee83bde371c8addd26c6241f
53919 F20101111_AAAFRR stockdale_m_Page_089.pro
8c6769c3df765a39a69ee46e30caabd4
e3a3ed1dae17fcf1c9204bcaecb160ef60e44c65
40628 F20101111_AAAFSH stockdale_m_Page_110.pro
b6b5b34870a6779b93a3a57a134a1af0
cdd24b10cdf9268690c4bfcd9a8233c35e3d138b
49352 F20101111_AAAFRS stockdale_m_Page_090.pro
3d1b1c50703ac63c3a31da8e19d76c8f
abdc6dbb736b5005c9b5d937986d04593492766c
22986 F20101111_AAAFSI stockdale_m_Page_111.pro
6ec69d9fb4ae11f5b5b46e64a5b88a10
bc7cf31b5c4d8b02a80d450ad5d91b238a382142
41222 F20101111_AAAFRT stockdale_m_Page_091.pro
f303670a624681414ad17bbf16048757
c08c63353d5c64b3d9de5d8d8d8d6114bc4c23b2
36471 F20101111_AAAFSJ stockdale_m_Page_112.pro
54b342bf5bc70111a46d5857cff5557f
21693e9f6ef989d51b3d89086716b02537c7afa2
45203 F20101111_AAAFRU stockdale_m_Page_093.pro
b3ce697728025582b5add3ea47694df0
a2d7ae1264b565a3971a3c02ecadc6b0a804dbc1
44657 F20101111_AAAFSK stockdale_m_Page_113.pro
905bdeafb9a7bd78a7a82dfb84ded76c
d36351fbeb827e2dec7aca769a4c171b30976b3b
52878 F20101111_AAAFRV stockdale_m_Page_095.pro
f0af36130435383e0719aaf909de4a3b
7ec49877f75e6be6e1cdaca5bdee344b2953b212
30934 F20101111_AAAFSL stockdale_m_Page_115.pro
2871dbb75d93a63ef17b5a9c931d3416
a6c8e5b58ef7be8ea7a4b6e6431576ecef765c54
42841 F20101111_AAAFRW stockdale_m_Page_097.pro
110c3d218ed78ba98cd0477ab6c84b3f
5c456cffd9e190213631a53d970d622d120c7f2e
49150 F20101111_AAAFSM stockdale_m_Page_116.pro
b5b087deaa3275473eaaebc777b00c42
8bd968ba4fb6d2359fbfe3a9a621019937e73d9a
17538 F20101111_AAAFRX stockdale_m_Page_098.pro
c61d63b9dd0656eda320235f2a10f378
de812194ac8645b9e093a879cd607bf2b68ca884
64456 F20101111_AAAFTA stockdale_m_Page_136.pro
89aeed253e71f4526daaf83c793ef883
da6b591402ca0e0cb0c4a438d9272e5f9fc96cc9
37580 F20101111_AAAFSN stockdale_m_Page_117.pro
2c8c60fd5faca74997a171d844b6be7a
306788f0a772b50902cd6c77f7773ad1de3353ea
32076 F20101111_AAAFRY stockdale_m_Page_099.pro
806993176be1afb418f87390b5103b02
08f41ae356e8a1718730e4e0ee4024402d903b76
67117 F20101111_AAAFTB stockdale_m_Page_137.pro
d28580eb3bcf2e01962b148f03552f55
a7bbae3361dc3460b234e79a9d09d81df8794b89
17272 F20101111_AAAFSO stockdale_m_Page_118.pro
90b75e96487bb81c22c365e795cb51a1
24efb81e014a252000a580feb6c6d13991601da2
11110 F20101111_AAAFRZ stockdale_m_Page_100.pro
9b56b9d48e8d926d8d69ef8ea8548592
fc32781877b98922b926abb2c83c3d0cc206216e
62044 F20101111_AAAFTC stockdale_m_Page_138.pro
55789ce803fb863954fb83a6dbb676f0
ece3106dd7a457ea0027b17196ac48a492513b23
35415 F20101111_AAAFSP stockdale_m_Page_119.pro
277a7b115e1f75dbf035f0a937d7c24a
4950b21e6c9ae7cd16c3b1a71cd947b51107c0c4
22718 F20101111_AAAFTD stockdale_m_Page_140.pro
6d69358413b4749361add96a2ec65adf
e408fccac5ebc26e99e245881d7663ca116aae78
26266 F20101111_AAAFSQ stockdale_m_Page_121.pro
e7a2baae6e2507e40790a9f40bfa39cd
be5df2254a9565c0f7005f1d6d459c7e97620556
36537 F20101111_AAAFTE stockdale_m_Page_142.pro
8f268acec8a6b38fdf8da71be3b0aedb
af054c295acd686fcaf2891f3756dd7b2ba01f87
561 F20101111_AAAFTF stockdale_m_Page_001.txt
66bd2cbd87885350ae6c5fe7b076a1bf
00adb2727bc9186c51d6146f09d710288a802539
19718 F20101111_AAAFSR stockdale_m_Page_123.pro
f3e06e9758101291273cab08095af6a9
2325b1177125f619cba43ca6cace7df48ea8f41f
107 F20101111_AAAFTG stockdale_m_Page_003.txt
7e59d8379f3dcb3152521de81119263e
8e8cd479e87bbaff6f40cdf452863a2285136018
874 F20101111_AAAFSS stockdale_m_Page_125.pro
eb9859288e7d752174680561f94ef4e2
74b70ea3744344cd07e246bd2edfffe59e7b4f1f
1734 F20101111_AAAFTH stockdale_m_Page_004.txt
ecd1742ed4ab85114b996badba4a0ff6
11ab10699e64f1a8dff2d91ecbe234c1b8c4cd65
32446 F20101111_AAAFST stockdale_m_Page_126.pro
ebeee79589048de9ab79b8825fefcf92
02354029f7c30a1f6de4e24f1435a5537fa9a7ff
3190 F20101111_AAAFTI stockdale_m_Page_005.txt
a172fd6d621204d4b0ddada3aca32462
1ae5c4c9af37b06c64c3ec2ed220aea1310dbd11
37488 F20101111_AAAFSU stockdale_m_Page_127.pro
35bea6d925c5a3c3909bb72151965c72
e5ea396fa76e41815c9216cbc219ca57bf672360
1518 F20101111_AAAFTJ stockdale_m_Page_006.txt
af7bb926e5a4ca56ed4ec6c8d4287732
03a647719a4f9a65f8e7906f04a12eec54c716a0
37405 F20101111_AAAFSV stockdale_m_Page_128.pro
98ade22e5528745ddb668c1923440052
e43c31cf6391f0873d0c0cf6f3f7d594858c2199
1369 F20101111_AAAFTK stockdale_m_Page_007.txt
456ffb6e26d533fd65dcf3f0857884b7
0321ef5fbf2a0cb79ccf4f759fa6403359066f2a
78978 F20101111_AAAFSW stockdale_m_Page_131.pro
ca904e2eb83263ce8867bb2101c193b8
d8e9a876d625fe64e94b39a58eeb102883e9db9b
1858 F20101111_AAAFTL stockdale_m_Page_008.txt
f33f4f129b472886ef2396695e337e6a
3e803c858e1fa9d73bd9d64e2b75c1d616cf2eb8
68145 F20101111_AAAFSX stockdale_m_Page_132.pro
84ba0b592746089d1887561ed1fc68f3
efae875931ab9b4c7340d162ed62f20b4b713307
1881 F20101111_AAAFUA stockdale_m_Page_032.txt
7781e0f85a4d182b3372dcf0d65c4888
14830bffe6fa36689ab1999ee40e084920f1d5b7
965 F20101111_AAAFTM stockdale_m_Page_009.txt
6d0764c16a7e2afdaf464d9fd90fef7b
d6fb70c6748c23120cb9176ccb08e23626eca2e8
70664 F20101111_AAAFSY stockdale_m_Page_134.pro
da56a163cf5f2fb7caaf144c9d0c941a
dd85a47440eb10aaa77f282abe0d42fcce708726
2111 F20101111_AAAFUB stockdale_m_Page_033.txt
0e110498e1db0a38336b42bb5e61c80e
47a52d20d4a9a7fd5b34b9acf58f983a21f118a4
1821 F20101111_AAAFTN stockdale_m_Page_011.txt
c50b77e5915885a178adb75d20d57d1a
c5249bb2428da266acc97e50b3d0d9677ec80369
76557 F20101111_AAAFSZ stockdale_m_Page_135.pro
b668f57c1221f8f3a4f15cfb4e209de8
3e5aab13a22eb3713d550232600f95c3a71b0d7f
2077 F20101111_AAAFUC stockdale_m_Page_034.txt
eaac4a88e2ef2a64e0ae15f60ff79f47
c63c151a67081c78d13eadbec664e27cef9b27dc
1903 F20101111_AAAFTO stockdale_m_Page_016.txt
56c92332fb68cb1b11e4cf31efa00424
e7e3e076bdfd91c83f05e9c8f19d080a6b783446
2515 F20101111_AAAFUD stockdale_m_Page_035.txt
a2cf869aef511cdfa7bc65603896c222
5173d6355245c9cf8e291d98a2e3ed768d97d95e
1850 F20101111_AAAFTP stockdale_m_Page_018.txt
b6242ebcc8378b2504bd6198be8207e3
fcba034e58ede6bb1e28c1bb50320a76797eeda4
2006 F20101111_AAAFUE stockdale_m_Page_036.txt
a13223c2224c50f4b1e60f13d1d5f793
a45a9535fdeb32927541f109dc756f8d6dc801bb
2088 F20101111_AAAFTQ stockdale_m_Page_019.txt
79fd3136d5280ff881ee9a7f4bd5b3e5
391784eb9866c5f2830f052736ac82c208fcf103
2482 F20101111_AAAFUF stockdale_m_Page_037.txt
5b1f99e75abc4dba04c2889c68794996
4bf072d08ae0f4a7d5b4e2b31d1f4e7bd0d4182a
2109 F20101111_AAAFTR stockdale_m_Page_020.txt
90acd3ffac440ff6fedf5e8d9352582f
deadff93b6987d0af3e14b497fdb5c518e011cec
24087 F20101111_AAAGAA stockdale_m_Page_074.QC.jpg
134ca3c58d4c1d5af8c27774a04acba8
ebfe8e057c26f792c20c0b081715526a84b6625e
2076 F20101111_AAAFUG stockdale_m_Page_038.txt
88689eadec87aca38a9a29dc9c3a971b
932f54a207553d1cf14072acd8b7e9f8b505d672
7173 F20101111_AAAGAB stockdale_m_Page_076thm.jpg
e336ba01a0dc4b5e9b2a624af515c540
c40a00ff81e06d01181c9209de8f4532b08ad4e8
2364 F20101111_AAAFUH stockdale_m_Page_039.txt
f5d50a256b7edec5c6aff331a11e11ee
42eac8be13da3384f3a91218eeccbb197850cefb
1742 F20101111_AAAFTS stockdale_m_Page_022.txt
fc16edf6a41a5d7ace0f6a0deb414be7
4ec0f072c793870fc7c058642413155f6c882ad1
26648 F20101111_AAAGAC stockdale_m_Page_062.QC.jpg
3a2c4a095423383dbdee049463ac033c
65a1e0f2be36eda19186809ec2bae5e204315d0b
2538 F20101111_AAAFUI stockdale_m_Page_040.txt
2d5d429c59a588b14204c8e734ddc647
00b7d29f2b39bca547ee3b14a8faa3b2633f1a17
2097 F20101111_AAAFTT stockdale_m_Page_023.txt
52242dc73f638843ef01b452c440cc65
ecf7a72110b771430eafb2b15dd22a21e9a7962d
20853 F20101111_AAAGAD stockdale_m_Page_065.QC.jpg
eec42a9039e53a05333430d4ba3a23cf
6b0bd637cfae9102d323196f3860f882398c3d23
2612 F20101111_AAAFUJ stockdale_m_Page_041.txt
47e61b354e358dfb17cc144c4a58cf70
cdf2c09df42a2265263032726b5ddb525c7dc368
1125 F20101111_AAAFTU stockdale_m_Page_024.txt
b14b2cfa742ba1bdaa9b2d405de64bdd
84f935a6de66301919bb91c4f6dac136876fe11e
6551 F20101111_AAAGAE stockdale_m_Page_073thm.jpg
ab5241bb3c079a18e20f201548d36aba
d9209d67d7d9511b84e4ecc45880e46563226564
2131 F20101111_AAAFUK stockdale_m_Page_042.txt
69ef70acc576fecc80ffab793befe2b1
4b4a7d3e4c4ffd85a1c92028a61cabf856951b3b
1941 F20101111_AAAFTV stockdale_m_Page_025.txt
1908867f8842a006f0d14d84f8e41f7f
6a6b6464f81fa14250dba3d143aa8083e2632ab6
6358 F20101111_AAAGAF stockdale_m_Page_028thm.jpg
a9f06eb0ea1739e2d886b9318ab252e1
b52cc44381dc48660606bd95428f14cd0fbaa58d
2495 F20101111_AAAFUL stockdale_m_Page_043.txt
530ee858ae56ab256e07f1411aa91644
dbe26bbd33a7273a59ad72ad2ae0b42b74d975b8
2299 F20101111_AAAFTW stockdale_m_Page_026.txt
47cbe3fc937cded3cba2028798a6901b
3d5c94f1f6d1a492ffd6a39f0d7f7b4dde6596f6
3376 F20101111_AAAGAG stockdale_m_Page_122.QC.jpg
90d4260569e2e72344a7bcb06d2810a0
be7107a347a9af357fbd4796eda3069ac1599aeb
2317 F20101111_AAAFUM stockdale_m_Page_044.txt
c656e581f53715d7a88aba134245110a
c69c563dcf977a774e2f5e08f73bd4b11dff2ae6
2104 F20101111_AAAFTX stockdale_m_Page_027.txt
e7cfb85c918ce73fb238d29372885cb9
9b45651bf1f337ed8007d21dc11d71b1fc330454
2762 F20101111_AAAFVA stockdale_m_Page_063.txt
f7aae446c3d6b4b6daf7dca62144e0e2
54367917dd35f357d7e251609b22bfd793a17872
6497 F20101111_AAAGAH stockdale_m_Page_032thm.jpg
8976f6ccfcbd22847b3649aea1aa279b
89d7554bb74dda9d8b1104d915bac85e46b05f70
2247 F20101111_AAAFUN stockdale_m_Page_045.txt
e8722f6862af8549a6f142bb6463ecd4
31451ef5eecb970cb756782033d967b0e407ef22
1988 F20101111_AAAFTY stockdale_m_Page_028.txt
55e0c6111048b2e7ee27bf9232a46970
256a83baacb5d90762b99cee059493689943a5ff
2569 F20101111_AAAFVB stockdale_m_Page_064.txt
3dd33a14f462ae0fa850b0772e05e510
38560f7d95232830ee805a9ad8219abcb42c75bf
6766 F20101111_AAAGAI stockdale_m_Page_017thm.jpg
3d1207e3cfd42224c92887a80f440108
17ddccbfb4442a0e6e42f5819547c69d6cbde7eb
2210 F20101111_AAAFUO stockdale_m_Page_046.txt
5bc5d7bdb482f41a6f8ecbee168c90ec
06f025e1eaa86b34455c05c9f1d3003743c7ddae
2386 F20101111_AAAFTZ stockdale_m_Page_030.txt
d00730a9dd3ebca6f549381347b9d17d
dcbf4007c9885df81064a358fee17857a8c7ce60
2217 F20101111_AAAFVC stockdale_m_Page_066.txt
23e86fd11473158633ea3b5cfa3f0ab9
159cd9f4b3ff09a697a8d035eb4254390804fd26
27457 F20101111_AAAGAJ stockdale_m_Page_054.QC.jpg
db0a6f2df5a848b0caaae66455eac10b
7f471b0cfa261a83f7d615939c4db8d6483b56c5
F20101111_AAAFUP stockdale_m_Page_047.txt
b3fd506d7c0ef4c251b24bd05bd5569b
2461b3ce920299f8ce7d8b9db9dbda574dc287f3
2492 F20101111_AAAFVD stockdale_m_Page_067.txt
3ca51d5bd00972cd563ee09ac275f0ad
b731302b0c773ee6eb6bf7e9a54de00e734cc876
21042 F20101111_AAAGAK stockdale_m_Page_011.QC.jpg
58e0b95a8602d02b732fe31e3213ec4a
41f0450ec906e9b3cb37a96d7b93e0bb9f6a76fd
2156 F20101111_AAAFUQ stockdale_m_Page_049.txt
ce8477eaf5ecf59c43ddaf9e193156a9
094aef6825fa803a6dc54371cd82c0f9c77a0c90
2679 F20101111_AAAFVE stockdale_m_Page_068.txt
5b3e3a36975c8577804cbe97a4a011c0
72d01b5285b506f00bb3b22982071b850bed9be7
12376 F20101111_AAAGAL stockdale_m_Page_120.QC.jpg
55e5e81b474d6b1c8b731d6281f2e721
99af79d8ebad74f9fb06ca3f2e0e6b5b38bc0141
2663 F20101111_AAAFUR stockdale_m_Page_050.txt
1e0ab252464fafba6e90c2e3bb77ba2f
5b54a98567d727f7a2d189e3b76c330726d79989
2372 F20101111_AAAFVF stockdale_m_Page_069.txt
0fced4cc5e26d309189c06a85728414f
b9a1ba90f180e4c7bcb415254306cd5e716ad86f
7144 F20101111_AAAGBA stockdale_m_Page_060thm.jpg
1d4956ead4fa9459c40c444b065e2dc3
0c4a6a3ea680e69dfe451a3f21fe0fba59581593
29888 F20101111_AAAGAM stockdale_m_Page_133.QC.jpg
6206361fb58881c9a1431555eee389ff
a5ff002dae5549fd82900892bf2bc0ac1ad9f5d7
2122 F20101111_AAAFUS stockdale_m_Page_051.txt
980ccc5b880d1eca31808704d3d99712
40c3dee08ea7557da858bc2084596f271318109b
1776 F20101111_AAAFVG stockdale_m_Page_070.txt
8aa2a7b0d40920a52abd6f43e3dd8a7c
a4056a2cbdb73611f961217e74f9b4f2ed389f68
11512 F20101111_AAAGBB stockdale_m_Page_103.QC.jpg
f1806b27a405d156478cd048310e329c
c3b1895c3856f7b3b0780263dc86a260953c1632
7544 F20101111_AAAGAN stockdale_m_Page_133thm.jpg
a475bf2574041e882a9e01f21dc33876
1d0984dc6444f69f44da42cff303b94bb2ebb531
1755 F20101111_AAAFVH stockdale_m_Page_071.txt
89d5419c9757e4375bb49cebb243e470
88ab8a654b7e70f04d71dea022f77954ce66c085
25578 F20101111_AAAGBC stockdale_m_Page_069.QC.jpg
798bea4f54cdb92ebd46b8e77a3ab4f7
91060bac3d9b86c5b4f35dd07b741b970b8e7f60
8627 F20101111_AAAGAO stockdale_m_Page_001.QC.jpg
0adb75862c88cccd4e0c589ae5cd0c8a
fbc170a8f89b9753a764be7c2a224dd8fb7767b7
F20101111_AAAFUT stockdale_m_Page_052.txt
e0802dbc738825647ab842bb25ee2f46
e126a91a81350ab0a8e6118f58f689cdd6418e6a
2027 F20101111_AAAFVI stockdale_m_Page_073.txt
c408a0df14d554895b90e044744b616b
d0c2baf223d64f64e0fe09a0693fbf0e968298b7
23838 F20101111_AAAGBD stockdale_m_Page_084.QC.jpg
76c479e7b6151cc69aa30b11ff9a0da0
2ac4cf886ab8d8a19872b55e47cd8d60f00c53da
6946 F20101111_AAAGAP stockdale_m_Page_069thm.jpg
645e92c719b8821db4daf64207e4ab63
8678ee02f00914fc24eb96ac4b1ed4813cc162fe
2271 F20101111_AAAFUU stockdale_m_Page_053.txt
bc17548ea810d21b2ebac26e023e77ff
be0b6673c89e6f92daf5a20ab7855ce187e43dba
2098 F20101111_AAAFVJ stockdale_m_Page_074.txt
32180344828c5b777ec535c7eaac3cac
e9d05d521a57633973532f7a299402d82e0d3dfb
6106 F20101111_AAAGBE stockdale_m_Page_015thm.jpg
85508923178a49d1ab6542b5787e00df
8add601796d70980624f05995fbd42552d0dbba1
5744 F20101111_AAAGAQ stockdale_m_Page_057thm.jpg
6505fa155a73c3912e25d4504cd5034b
e00a3bbba2f9ac272e4cf0c6c5d64353c5c354a1
2699 F20101111_AAAFUV stockdale_m_Page_055.txt
54b6aa0a33a83e8a78e83f664e5e9867
0a0862e90919988ffe3c725a3c9f3e469e8bbddb
2066 F20101111_AAAFVK stockdale_m_Page_075.txt
8c5d6aaa58e762ea52847c890860ca33
be4bc2c7a0e47a461e6ab0711b6bd90f9751f2a8
23222 F20101111_AAAGBF stockdale_m_Page_025.QC.jpg
26f2b6e4a8452e3911e0c56bf7e8297b
781e91bd370d9cf2a584fa2ea5636dffd8224c79
7329 F20101111_AAAGAR stockdale_m_Page_059thm.jpg
c631d459a26c11e3e367707eeee9f32d
caca07d7a99f7f18661d51c2412ce94201162d38
1691 F20101111_AAAFUW stockdale_m_Page_056.txt
2fe3bbc1b37dd026ffada80246037306
8b03e2e1601d381e538b66156e9a0004e967ae44
2367 F20101111_AAAFVL stockdale_m_Page_076.txt
5eca18164db48d44c875c3164ae06381
123e76bb2fb901d6a8a809c1020871e005c78e84
23942 F20101111_AAAGBG stockdale_m_Page_066.QC.jpg
179d52be7c52bd1cd35c4a2d36728a8c
8a61680b292bdd4fdc8be0c34bbaf726a5f77dd0
18560 F20101111_AAAGAS stockdale_m_Page_142.QC.jpg
b6eb90db88b666d7e9cdbb65d141b9e2
b88543011e8d02886755ec487da7db31734a3d9f
2731 F20101111_AAAFUX stockdale_m_Page_060.txt
d1004394d0ad985e0093b6b0a71d1806
5fc8de94fa9c48a130208b237b26e186d0c567b5
2152 F20101111_AAAFWA stockdale_m_Page_095.txt
450e7adf75b1df51186f9ba076708d71
69635f6d1c67267695c45026218af113e9022fa1
2528 F20101111_AAAFVM stockdale_m_Page_078.txt
afb2ca4d05b5a8c480eb65240bf5c977
fc53c9a661af818cc8bf589ad3b3b591a319802f
5150 F20101111_AAAGBH stockdale_m_Page_102thm.jpg
61ce4c2b9e2162465510290e2438d0f0
2d2e4fc290776196bd70c26a0f631cd875378043
7275 F20101111_AAAGAT stockdale_m_Page_043thm.jpg
a78e5906e3578d3b27215ed469d1fe9e
79c98e8148fbe5cadfa18596c90faf78410d6311
2774 F20101111_AAAFUY stockdale_m_Page_061.txt
01e5def4f290bc62c180a116e3c119da
a20c926c408ae67169ac004365b658d6f9313030
1991 F20101111_AAAFWB stockdale_m_Page_097.txt
a0c7a5fe1d260ec80582f1631801cddf
d1d9a8eb5242e1d25361bc9751f8ca9e4f474ac5
2425 F20101111_AAAFVN stockdale_m_Page_079.txt
2d6cbec4915bffe9d7d0c171fb9d7c6f
306e15fb709f0f5245691fb63185cb00a9c3617f
11493 F20101111_AAAGBI stockdale_m_Page_127.QC.jpg
b6d6e7b9e77ec6f4918662ddadbff655
5b8c469605f9697f516b251408c9106a09cd84ff
21142 F20101111_AAAGAU stockdale_m_Page_057.QC.jpg
704447314a69032678fd775af56864fb
d234a2f3fac65801965e85de0ee79d57f4de4c15
2411 F20101111_AAAFUZ stockdale_m_Page_062.txt
c6eda7ebd564b8629b952ad74eb9e3dd
526c77644656a9258542346f9d90919ca1739b77
987 F20101111_AAAFWC stockdale_m_Page_098.txt
de5d35fac5c731436d3054046da93643
ded5b5a2dbfa5d9716230a66bfc7ec0ccc5bea8b
2309 F20101111_AAAFVO stockdale_m_Page_080.txt
b73452d5c95e72c95c3ce4b04b894496
9c216dcf48abe8aa1b7b7d34877264f3e7ee2688
5805 F20101111_AAAGBJ stockdale_m_Page_065thm.jpg
6d92a787ded9c6f3c8a51e2ba98d4b37
a5f374804f6a6dc38f74769e11d2bb13b973a465
25401 F20101111_AAAGAV stockdale_m_Page_051.QC.jpg
e3722992b73f1706d76d34157dca0e63
b6eb6c67a477946943e40aac67590187e11981e2
1631 F20101111_AAAFWD stockdale_m_Page_099.txt
2077a1543faccb511a196273f2eb1bc2
6a852b5c6e116cfc50db98cbf48ee03a6f351c38
1765 F20101111_AAAFVP stockdale_m_Page_081.txt
6d18271cbd62bf7c16fe9ff0b5aa0a5b
667ca7eaa0768cd44c743b0c3e276368c67154ea
27434 F20101111_AAAGBK stockdale_m_Page_037.QC.jpg
9c8e5fdd24c24605e4a70042a08d748c
158b61a8024050ecfc184478f3898884a26bafad
7846 F20101111_AAAGAW stockdale_m_Page_136thm.jpg
8ce5dc3397b4cdcabbbdd8b981f89bd5
6052028da6b53558d3b24b72af93f8998977b011
560 F20101111_AAAFWE stockdale_m_Page_100.txt
e8a3b58ec87e8a2217461e8c3479bb86
fb74032e5fcd89801b2d077ea96e371e2339ad0d
1813 F20101111_AAAFVQ stockdale_m_Page_082.txt
02b791cca697b044f175404035dc71c5
862627dee3838a12d3329bf8f944efd30cabd350
22198 F20101111_AAAGBL stockdale_m_Page_087.QC.jpg
13a8e6a277d0ac8e5f7632181931d813
17f5b3f4b7450afe78590f51e8b3332415204b75
14492 F20101111_AAAGAX stockdale_m_Page_113.QC.jpg
e8cec16750b250afe897f461a58538ba
15eeeda72a1aa628c17300fcbc880b941d7914ae
2028 F20101111_AAAFWF stockdale_m_Page_101.txt
b1430fff48faa038590baacea8944a72
bc99577c1900d438300fdec3ea7a6debb6afb4b8
1799 F20101111_AAAFVR stockdale_m_Page_083.txt
e4c75ade05704b81c7cd412a4c675c2b
313dfc1dc4512020dd03f0453946677c7a143023
3738 F20101111_AAAGCA stockdale_m_Page_106thm.jpg
e70ab5e6f552919a255dc5158adbed08
63ad37709aa04e01d99af6ef7efd19a53b400c09
2470 F20101111_AAAGBM stockdale_m_Page_100thm.jpg
96ad0a43bac9416ab0fee71586e81278
a290e5f1bc3eb6d9d61d19e2718e2418d47ba3e2
24640 F20101111_AAAGAY stockdale_m_Page_029.QC.jpg
aacb0b19b6b86ad447af94d8ff35b407
adec4aec39be3df9fceb61030cd6d2ff4f53a322
1188 F20101111_AAAFWG stockdale_m_Page_102.txt
30aefa49e6d2a4b69e30cefaa9a8842a
1f953918f9818811e409b0a701718ca0c5c543cc
2176 F20101111_AAAFVS stockdale_m_Page_084.txt
2562967b4cd3db1d87e7f2e90fcbfaa2
5af3924879d6da8f44c4786c78313e17b5709588
5350 F20101111_AAAGCB stockdale_m_Page_142thm.jpg
ec48d2aa01eaf0771b0f3474f8c720c0
e8f69a772857e910cfc5132ecc9839900db99a62
26997 F20101111_AAAGBN stockdale_m_Page_061.QC.jpg
3ddc40a4f0a77a0b694885d3f6b6d567
716efe28748c8980f3c0f576e234e878710e0bc2
15223 F20101111_AAAGAZ stockdale_m_Page_117.QC.jpg
f16839cf54c1d30cbcae10835eca2a9c
fdaec91b0e16d5eee12853757bf658b85040f502
2536 F20101111_AAAFWH stockdale_m_Page_104.txt
7dd65201d2d8a3f6b413562586f0c2c8
402ce608520a2f66af3a1ef9bd027808faca368c
2248 F20101111_AAAFVT stockdale_m_Page_085.txt
69726319529213dd998039fc56ababfc
07f05781d89e1b16a4ac6e3c81f185a1f2fa578b
12245 F20101111_AAAGCC stockdale_m_Page_129.QC.jpg
dcb06ae646c407cb07c650782817c469
b3f5cf9795c56b37f373d7720d505483533b8b3f
18395 F20101111_AAAGBO stockdale_m_Page_101.QC.jpg
d66cf77c59e6b886227ba2d0be6b2d8d
75efb74b4c843d03d369eb9d048766e3e83ff0db
1800 F20101111_AAAFWI stockdale_m_Page_105.txt
d9953f2c9b65e339f287387a39ca4d25
364b6df4cc2978270690cf5554661315cff2fbb9
6453 F20101111_AAAGCD stockdale_m_Page_010thm.jpg
05dc54ead7abbcc5e98f549df42c53ef
c8b73bfebd13809f3706d63b6941437f62c229c7
1333 F20101111_AAAGBP stockdale_m_Page_002thm.jpg
31779ae5dfa17b15e90db663d3aecaeb
75a1dc03579b956956dcde2709e67a703185e455
3366 F20101111_AAAFWJ stockdale_m_Page_106.txt
4f2026b99d131b7695fad8e2a8e6171e
33d3f9a7da40144399715298a9f34ddc7b255a9d
2241 F20101111_AAAFVU stockdale_m_Page_086.txt
214ccc34e58b6e7dadc5f26e1f69d2ba
bc82493dd0fdf27253dbb16416a6106592a475bb
3766 F20101111_AAAGCE stockdale_m_Page_099thm.jpg
e6e2a01fbf90cff05d50522867e74261
f925132b4c7edc0acc88aae59f422e5d2da1c54a
6072 F20101111_AAAGBQ stockdale_m_Page_093thm.jpg
4d21d4ed298ed859aedbff785423e641
9b06edfb5f17dbfcce2918bf886e02c98087a474
1127 F20101111_AAAFWK stockdale_m_Page_107.txt
a72c7eeb5f8729c4b22108a98dfa8548
1b3540b94216c034daf09f20f8cc18b5380bad14
2116 F20101111_AAAFVV stockdale_m_Page_088.txt
8fd04149f0109e2ed21dbf85c56ef1eb
6c146e689dc2b4ba7d921efe957295f653a5f879
7509 F20101111_AAAGCF stockdale_m_Page_100.QC.jpg
8a9bac30133dd422e6a2af7d1aec43bf
d838bddc970f841839de6207a8a2b0fa5c981bca
6870 F20101111_AAAGBR stockdale_m_Page_026thm.jpg
032c2d48f42bf0cdddf131835db7124e
c7151e391faec0c34b244401841acbdb349b9f6c
2437 F20101111_AAAFWL stockdale_m_Page_108.txt
cb3bb5c8fc7572ee217bf1dc342cdc07
c643356fb7c72450dd13acc1f97693bf063e5180
1652 F20101111_AAAFVW stockdale_m_Page_091.txt
cd375b8fe6ea0c8feb465c3ac241b01d
186c5d22aa86b96f8a055193f508c515dbffae0f
7058 F20101111_AAAGCG stockdale_m_Page_020thm.jpg
7d2de46b923305f774fb3fe5a70878a6
a8c8e2f833bc77b80a053bb9c338005a8c4170a5
2233 F20101111_AAAGBS stockdale_m_Page_118thm.jpg
451da9458db1d3c1c59fe7c6095e7268
6c2378ba9477d621d6a6f94e39825c62d3895dcc
1467 F20101111_AAAFXA stockdale_m_Page_126.txt
28b0e0bae852a8973edf2e620a8b6e37
2743d55850193acf5a8c65c44dccbc171f6d81d9
1931 F20101111_AAAFWM stockdale_m_Page_110.txt
9d94f7d5012c66d570382ea8df349c23
5ff3a7a25d295b6164cf422a03f9f8c0daed9823
1915 F20101111_AAAFVX stockdale_m_Page_092.txt
d29bebd4ce0479183be744c0e311b948
0baebf08639bed49d9d6b0df6bdd81abcdb6dc9f
7038 F20101111_AAAGCH stockdale_m_Page_061thm.jpg
a5d5bd010bd7df327518ec30266ca83d
f0f1a6494908bf56a1e477363b6f4a23c3a75f43
20117 F20101111_AAAGBT stockdale_m_Page_091.QC.jpg
1416d34038ad26ed377cc4932b4e12ee
46bbcdf7afdf5432d5ccb0500b1613e29406af66
2126 F20101111_AAAFXB stockdale_m_Page_127.txt
354f5169c2fbdbf55e817583cd712f78
4f07467857b76bf71c9742f050a347317def7f5e
1010 F20101111_AAAFWN stockdale_m_Page_111.txt
3dbded31cd816a2aa4dab9bec50812e4
3a640525dae1692f553078359b1863e82180ce41
1833 F20101111_AAAFVY stockdale_m_Page_093.txt
5aca9f1b385eeab6541127b6adae97d9
3eb8ac451535d43071efe3c335d4a85c6b1e4740
7636 F20101111_AAAGCI stockdale_m_Page_041thm.jpg
abcf86ffdbc267d939cf535765090f98
2e7fa04ad75f011e2a81e1f8b2ff15a4200f903c
7727 F20101111_AAAGBU stockdale_m_Page_137thm.jpg
d0ef6aeb21cf3e74fc4769500848567f
8fe0a824bc9f8ce613ace4c80301394454c7543a
2085 F20101111_AAAFXC stockdale_m_Page_129.txt
49fc3c5fffe7584bab7545d92902f309
5cf547b5b2078ccc22303410a7510e7a9a65f968
1847 F20101111_AAAFWO stockdale_m_Page_112.txt
80ca59f07c4360047560dbcadff2e1ec
d6115ed05f66a259b231f453be24898cf9f40b2e
1358 F20101111_AAAFVZ stockdale_m_Page_094.txt
364bbfe726777a57509995dd5c9225d6
0fb553f203348fc3ecd932508d5d53a4c8872e6d
25390 F20101111_AAAGCJ stockdale_m_Page_027.QC.jpg
50ae7e67b808e7cc490dea4c5b7df433
c8417f64238f6e1e4e2d4b861fbada990028393d
7039 F20101111_AAAGBV stockdale_m_Page_045thm.jpg
6712971c94e291f2b051c1d6914689a3
d52b3baee8da6236312e23a0338c718561916129
2787 F20101111_AAAFXD stockdale_m_Page_130.txt
4eda5051b24ff65eaaccb44acf9b0b10
e2db6d7329eae4f790a8d347ce2c6304d8957fc3
2245 F20101111_AAAFWP stockdale_m_Page_113.txt
852a509fb015addd8761858868ea7b56
e0d0fcb59058031c1993c1a5ad882dcc231a38e7
7182 F20101111_AAAGCK stockdale_m_Page_050thm.jpg
81fb6b22c1427c75dbc261f51bd626c6
6d9380552a0669bf90bbd029801040141c10c643
29649 F20101111_AAAGBW stockdale_m_Page_067.QC.jpg
75f64219db66eeb45bfd2af1e8496935
c95c99fde082b4440fab167976bc3d7388988870
2746 F20101111_AAAFXE stockdale_m_Page_132.txt
2f3c006d59c88818be79287e794c989a
650b01f4b2a0387cc4d98a6a83ee001ee6ed4bf1
1963 F20101111_AAAFWQ stockdale_m_Page_114.txt
163d8595f5db16f7cdecfea51091248a
fc7a436dbaf10c134ac5bc7fa5f1b0f834a3ae54
13419 F20101111_AAAGDA stockdale_m_Page_097.QC.jpg
e1ef56cd2336a0e82bf67e2a356fb2e3
8ca9de275d7335e5f6687810b21a12de519958f3
20694 F20101111_AAAGCL stockdale_m_Page_058.QC.jpg
b0a25413ca973699f14937f915a93637
03b47482ca1d34b5d7979037069ac9938bdf04a3
7099 F20101111_AAAGBX stockdale_m_Page_141.QC.jpg
b5a6657e714f1fefe1b7e492ac827d66
503f553813acc07d3d90b8cde01ff525a183d94a
2562 F20101111_AAAFXF stockdale_m_Page_133.txt
4b5ae92b22e1a2a8279d06f908489fe1
38c9afa6a73e5fdde1cc63586431d0ece16e369a
1561 F20101111_AAAFWR stockdale_m_Page_115.txt
0424c61eac9c4c6eb2a8312b4ee3385e
5ae1fe65de032998a8b1a3c16333d015d0daf4c0
4336 F20101111_AAAGCM stockdale_m_Page_113thm.jpg
6de6363442ca7eebfaf2bf87d8c1cb00
48d0c7c6d95c612e00cf5e8098e0bc6c2c6bdda0
12782 F20101111_AAAGBY stockdale_m_Page_099.QC.jpg
5a9d7ec0989568a668f0cdd508ee8b4e
dad6760b60a6cae378ea0bc4ceea16448a296bf7
2845 F20101111_AAAFXG stockdale_m_Page_134.txt
5d0a9776d68a9b827a8ced80cb5250b1
28639083b50f5b96b981f1fcdd4d90c94b353701
F20101111_AAAFWS stockdale_m_Page_116.txt
2409e03135e71a8ab8aebc1f1b49ce06
940455b5764232edb60606650f5d30088f0afdf3
25427 F20101111_AAAGDB stockdale_m_Page_010.QC.jpg
584bad50df929045e7ee86c3b8d237e6
00a848bf09e6c1f51978513fab4cc86464d96ff3
7541 F20101111_AAAGCN stockdale_m_Page_055thm.jpg
a84e43b01ff14e635057543630fb705f
d1a73fee5db1f6748fc4e7d51304705db90c9950
3250 F20101111_AAAGBZ stockdale_m_Page_003.QC.jpg
59fb328d4bf263e9ce88ef042b99cb17
4058f758e462a5eb109cecd7601f60246014d99b
3100 F20101111_AAAFXH stockdale_m_Page_135.txt
a273404dc608922617ce1305e1496a59
cde433c90518fa953cda972f216156cd3716b45b
1825 F20101111_AAAFWT stockdale_m_Page_117.txt
4d638c5ebe7b68ddd6e142385a15482e
ed5c175b6a1162fc4dd55928be899b7525f2c00d
18509 F20101111_AAAGDC stockdale_m_Page_056.QC.jpg
8f78b44f68c046c9ebca710b1d82e815
cf050e316dff996776336f7f4c2e01ad837509b0
25712 F20101111_AAAGCO stockdale_m_Page_046.QC.jpg
ddd5e09076ec6b389d63b38de6b3eec9
8cbd87b1d09f760c3bc6e911b92d4972e8e9c25e
25271604 F20101111_AAAEUG stockdale_m_Page_054.tif
ab50b450bdee08cd70c1ca08e02a793d
2aa93df51f11a886fa7c64a6b33d081d2ba233f4
2592 F20101111_AAAFXI stockdale_m_Page_136.txt
80060009b6125fc6ee353bb48ebc612e
d8585788e5b494f239ccea99b3114a043653e30d
991 F20101111_AAAFWU stockdale_m_Page_118.txt
bdb741f4e718e17e4d5f4519454f1a65
a1e4777900f0197e5f24fb6e96f995ee59f8c325
3728 F20101111_AAAFAA stockdale_m_Page_104thm.jpg
96a6fdaeac66e5c57d799350810244df
270c204218cd1d102e24b8bcd3d310d5c4189c5d
26368 F20101111_AAAGDD stockdale_m_Page_040.QC.jpg
51e09782ccae2f0758e2834904bea06c
1e968aaa2e71dd0e27cfc89b3b5c0ba80122e4a1
21932 F20101111_AAAGCP stockdale_m_Page_082.QC.jpg
a88cace3cd97241695ec4181d70cabce
1bac669d6700073f03d393b18cd580976188f802
7003 F20101111_AAAEUH stockdale_m_Page_027thm.jpg
c6207ffc002feb4f464c7df1a3997671
5c2256959a5912df7d5a0b9bf7154c080e918019
1661 F20101111_AAAFXJ stockdale_m_Page_139.txt
909f69d77896102550a5f0c9aab9a0c0
d26c72acb1f245ad6240aa59238f604907b4c78e
65273 F20101111_AAAFAB stockdale_m_Page_040.pro
de99b7246f3d60a4497edd355e25eeb1
4e5a00c37e1c853573f3003e3202e1f2438614d0
17175 F20101111_AAAGDE stockdale_m_Page_119.QC.jpg
6763f3bcedde425e54bb15ad3969cce0
d0642de2e053e8061832a7e224f3844d89ec9485
4902 F20101111_AAAGCQ stockdale_m_Page_110thm.jpg
59055589c16bd4f36ffd80daf0f99d61
2f2d74e47d61cb7dcb3fb284f9dfee917279cb20
950178 F20101111_AAAEUI stockdale_m_Page_081.jp2
f5191ea2565c58d35728a0852ab3961d
566ae8f2d4cc94ffd4282de8c3864dee54a8be72
931 F20101111_AAAFXK stockdale_m_Page_140.txt
f9d5271e3a66f69e3dbf71a469938c01
c3e71a3afb1d461983c39586f1dd08ba74b5905f
1862 F20101111_AAAFWV stockdale_m_Page_119.txt
b4fc98371c4554c0c65e3784107fb677
854ca911f8f48475023376555fec88294a803ce5
29965 F20101111_AAAFAC stockdale_m_Page_132.QC.jpg
96ed68d622dfabecd3d6eafab690eb21
93a70abf48fe6b246477ae198c3bf6201772d837
6644 F20101111_AAAGDF stockdale_m_Page_053thm.jpg
d1a01aad3a2653bcae07b3fbb1856f83
9b5491ddcaf73183d628f0a5c47c4787388c0c32
24327 F20101111_AAAGCR stockdale_m_Page_036.QC.jpg
3a89e28ab9632db48f80c66a0f370eee
0c1dca0bdd9205ba173873d124c1d8f9b9991aa6
7135 F20101111_AAAEUJ stockdale_m_Page_030thm.jpg
deb3823d7874499f2659dfac72a14b11
f39b449c952cd6e6f1a0f15a3a64804079b03093
396 F20101111_AAAFXL stockdale_m_Page_141.txt
c32001a9da60cfed1bf6fee090a72363
951d3e9d625535895f08b44a072e1ddf25a8f904
1185 F20101111_AAAFWW stockdale_m_Page_120.txt
afc8f54eefa220c02f7037ef09640778
48e3660d6dd58aef31bcc9d99f89c55122a5438e
F20101111_AAAFAD stockdale_m_Page_039.tif
0ac547eaefcb97b51ee2e47d0a260b59
9df751db058630ea140711420befbedda7fd4c15
6692 F20101111_AAAGDG stockdale_m_Page_042thm.jpg
042cd9f9f91365b2644cf539c53b2fbd
7038dd79901469e923a1d9cace6c7f43e1170ab1
1317 F20101111_AAAGCS stockdale_m_Page_122thm.jpg
3a76bf3213d4df46f2a32ec2d4df4e41
fa06f4586e56b45fdd253a7924d5478e2ec5f91e
F20101111_AAAEUK stockdale_m_Page_006.tif
5a22d80aacbebdd2b6ce2d64fc288570
e607ecbfbaca583420af8e702a634d4072acfd82
1503 F20101111_AAAFXM stockdale_m_Page_142.txt
81e9c3ead11a01e5db628049616eef8b
fb782cf07be98c3c799effc037de0c7062f149c5
42 F20101111_AAAFWX stockdale_m_Page_122.txt
c7d82cac0f30a28affbb3dac19692b8f
1fa355fce0e4c04d30ba313741de6315f2ed8191
22850 F20101111_AAAFAE stockdale_m_Page_031.QC.jpg
390a1c7812f61e59ade8e7de78ee6f81
e5c66c1a32458c8b7ccff4ea16d4c6974b4d9ece
6553 F20101111_AAAFYA stockdale_m_Page_034thm.jpg
0ca4e181533e6b070639c037e380e2de
e3a75a228ba2a22685cb8e8091ffc513ed7bcca7
27606 F20101111_AAAGDH stockdale_m_Page_041.QC.jpg
b1ee4f9a3e4390c1e2fc85940c41c614
8fbe5d33fdddf25a8a48605c0bcaf16591dc9106
24966 F20101111_AAAGCT stockdale_m_Page_020.QC.jpg
895305a1ac8f50fcf79d4cc72f17a3f7
9f8568ba7e763b2677c8a734f7792fc6a109bf3b
2189 F20101111_AAAEUL stockdale_m_Page_031.txt
13ee9fc42adc14cb36d05539e273f94a
12bcbc39208af9996df67e255056eeacf1f7922b
2625 F20101111_AAAFXN stockdale_m_Page_001thm.jpg
946f53137088582d897390115ecffadf
c7deadabd8137f5da0382ac71d0d04df350a6657
F20101111_AAAFWY stockdale_m_Page_124.txt
6325132cc41777e54c6cc397e9de1e86
4115b7f2cc84adc5509ed7ae27999955a1e7c502
27546 F20101111_AAAFAF stockdale_m_Page_096.pro
daadd97401eeb9349f73e50798bd6171
ba0f195ad3ec45c3b02a50b7a5b033e16a8a2a8b
28156 F20101111_AAAFYB stockdale_m_Page_059.QC.jpg
72eb69cd1dfdb0f2e568b2a108d45691
bcf5d9ab6d5576a010a11a0a03ddd3298ecf4e09
18804 F20101111_AAAGDI stockdale_m_Page_110.QC.jpg
ce8918117462fbc5a3ad26dc331bffd2
f778049caf290cfe5da8a2cf140246d4d11f0bfa
5087 F20101111_AAAGCU stockdale_m_Page_139thm.jpg
a7283a0af75a5140b7c91530e174d001
ddcca28966bad58c324e335956c2eb6828710991
F20101111_AAAEUM stockdale_m_Page_014.txt
8e9aad13ed741ae7fde44f4298fc6d3d
0bbfea9c69c18b1a2b7c8c3166cbaa8039662f7c
3861 F20101111_AAAFXO stockdale_m_Page_111thm.jpg
e0f26d78da6ee7bf685bae90277bb360
4f44fc2b8b2a4566871b1b6567e3ae75d6340319
40 F20101111_AAAFWZ stockdale_m_Page_125.txt
7733665661f4cddcdb521f826e8be99b
77c5e59ad618aa24b7fed96cd8a60f1751cfb2df
1828 F20101111_AAAFAG stockdale_m_Page_058.txt
d3ec9ae1d961d1de66f020f253675b0b
84b0e15921e5638d2bb359ad60a8252b9b18e57b
911 F20101111_AAAEVA stockdale_m_Page_002.pro
d13ab549e7a599bbe26a80e56a45adc8
6ba330755c2e5e44df5180f47d78272431cabb48
5962 F20101111_AAAFYC stockdale_m_Page_092thm.jpg
659a2aabab99e2cce30d668e066dbd3b
6492d729763bc12ee641a5158573be2fb4aa65c1
11708 F20101111_AAAGDJ stockdale_m_Page_121.QC.jpg
6ee3759a878a4b8eb7568f816e2691d0
2fd71f0b195feef0e5c0895a2f11fabc6d868510
3678 F20101111_AAAGCV stockdale_m_Page_140thm.jpg
788b0c23f321f358b7034c9c11c8e2e2
d2600e54e47d36560ec8b4f8e15384b4344349b2
6828 F20101111_AAAFXP stockdale_m_Page_095thm.jpg
a318a1f09100558f0ac2fcea3c817d58
4ad44018babe80e112f5684bd8b3db0f08ced853
4616 F20101111_AAAFAH stockdale_m_Page_096thm.jpg
c72b5baa6dabb74a5bd5ea2217b0b93d
379bc561c14b11ad7137871368bc4756259a9b43
1859 F20101111_AAAEVB stockdale_m_Page_109.txt
e6c7a90e9c7ed58f8cd2d0558eccabb6
86689c1f994385d8a50bf8f9bbdec7dab33a89b7
3651 F20101111_AAAFYD stockdale_m_Page_127thm.jpg
8ee7e779078fdcfa193f3d19c369f6fd
e42176c112be21ec8568a6be6bccae23b3ab5bbf
25023 F20101111_AAAEUN stockdale_m_Page_042.QC.jpg
a55faf69e5bb297943c071c0d83767e8
95b0eaf67181f5816696c69d023e5d6d43432688
27763 F20101111_AAAGDK stockdale_m_Page_068.QC.jpg
a6728192376e48689a3416bfe0ebc511
8a20d13ae26f95991be0e29a548a47fbe4ac9fa4
7093 F20101111_AAAGCW stockdale_m_Page_086thm.jpg
ff8fc3540cba7c4fa48b2007b5a4810b
887dbab9ec4d396fb74d04365f0316cd58e101aa
20911 F20101111_AAAFXQ stockdale_m_Page_075.QC.jpg
b75e5c09055d0f0c0e14d30391d54eeb
1d6591b98f20b60135349c97325df551253cd4af
73851 F20101111_AAAFAI stockdale_m_Page_008.jpg
ad1b9e2956f776d75d83f5e741ae562d
6eb554b5d5561d5cb75c5e7140a2e0460baa1e42
81565 F20101111_AAAEVC stockdale_m_Page_020.jpg
9fe1f4cf224174ad9b4fa5e14a4acbdb
fe72f6500fb84dcec73cb71aa809d83e25976362
7462 F20101111_AAAFYE stockdale_m_Page_108.QC.jpg
91770383692d473b1e31fc6dbb65115d
e025b0b7d42efcb4a8b4f98f2ad6bd260e12327f
739164 F20101111_AAAEUO stockdale_m_Page_128.jp2
e4acc5377c1f87f8903bc0a378cc4469
5ce5392c6e17ebca16a3f4c6759e4b4d5305e650
3312 F20101111_AAAGEA stockdale_m_Page_125.QC.jpg
8d51fa1867b4f820cabab9bb5e270f7d
a2664494d35882c3bedf9c7c5c8bd7b2ed140120
2631 F20101111_AAAGDL stockdale_m_Page_124thm.jpg
60e4268ad14a8f605bb22f1bff381dc2
05090e6670595166c2fe7afca18186d1b621bec2
28964 F20101111_AAAGCX stockdale_m_Page_063.QC.jpg
faf90fc8912ff17c0288cddf0de18c2e
32d6b9003539b873b9e9ba09a3400df7eb710b94
5661 F20101111_AAAFXR stockdale_m_Page_012thm.jpg
76943e38fcafcd802ab1db30d0045de9
3a153276cf0c0a948aba8e70c4a0591bdbc59070
21521 F20101111_AAAFAJ stockdale_m_Page_093.QC.jpg
aa14729c218bf984f2e7a3a03e81cd83
8b0ecf81c9952d866bbb6ff4b751004e82854c2a
24315 F20101111_AAAEVD stockdale_m_Page_120.pro
62f30a36cac6d1f71df6121a9f1e64ad
6ae05073b4d2034c0ba5ff56c8ba04f924c71850
6726 F20101111_AAAFYF stockdale_m_Page_023thm.jpg
b6b47677581cb1557e885473a5910940
dffe3a981ee26e9003091a084f7f202fbb634117
8054 F20101111_AAAEUP stockdale_m_Page_134thm.jpg
e617c6f276f2ce4f7f8ab13be1158527
154adc316668e9757ac08de4c664c59c43f34df6
24223 F20101111_AAAGEB stockdale_m_Page_033.QC.jpg
c0429253e08518941a09f0f836e5ef59
bc2d8dc66bb5b7641381e2436ddebcecd3166095
29382 F20101111_AAAGDM stockdale_m_Page_130.QC.jpg
777857564b52562ab43b6220069806ea
03f041e0fc4a7327a9f9d0f10df5eb1bf47b7cda
24943 F20101111_AAAGCY stockdale_m_Page_021.QC.jpg
3964394237205e1749727dc8a9418055
deda109a25a57a5b81a9b8fb07dcf6d81885d17f
4543 F20101111_AAAFXS stockdale_m_Page_119thm.jpg
8e8e330255f6a5973ad09e7f972d228a
49ad2aed1769c7f91f40c4d39dac552ec3b55e09
132219 F20101111_AAAFAK stockdale_m_Page_131.jpg
6e303345a9cddc3b05492e5ee20e58e0
2c75c6d402b4f99bea1854aeddf49bcd48349305
6320 F20101111_AAAEVE stockdale_m_Page_033thm.jpg
291e25da40ec3c842de2ef78efc1221f
32dcb1ebfd893cca6288b6e239fe7776ea0a1195
3855 F20101111_AAAFYG stockdale_m_Page_115thm.jpg
b6b967d72b5086e5dc6ff74fbd74087b
145ac4435fd01c2c99c8e75bd5efabdd3ea88a77
14508 F20101111_AAAEUQ stockdale_m_Page_007.QC.jpg
bbc96919adf7e0b41073dfefc39aff9b
f6a7da5157077459fd86fd3f295fe9daf37b2c17
25885 F20101111_AAAGDN stockdale_m_Page_086.QC.jpg
2505c54980f1e2259de18c7ae4a454d2
caa65a5d01b5d27bf73b396eedd7fac534cb7c96
15733 F20101111_AAAGCZ stockdale_m_Page_096.QC.jpg
faa0304372d2603d78b6dbc3238ad5f4
3bf43addae97ac4056dea3660741aa522476b0b0
5935 F20101111_AAAFXT stockdale_m_Page_022thm.jpg
23677d38d9ab66a6634aa38402bac8db
5e09ff1d8da3b6a0e8f0250e097354d5fe88a9a2
F20101111_AAAFAL stockdale_m_Page_111.tif
9b423358d476aeb8ad138c55eb6062f2
d22157fa9ce998519dd5b8be01ce9756793e85cf
743421 F20101111_AAAEVF stockdale_m_Page_098.jp2
a7a2a43bb532dbb4ef4077abdccc03c6
a037142bbd646d8a34016684867d90765237f478
4720 F20101111_AAAFYH stockdale_m_Page_094thm.jpg
ba50fbcc88f24c3b6e623047f2ad15c6
85d514655e044c129574bb93fddffbb4d4165c68
25689 F20101111_AAAEUR stockdale_m_Page_049.QC.jpg
af2d7ac0f5e762970b72f7d3d91ee6a3
b15f99c4ec4f66e0bb174a6db9c2a13588fd8b5a
215878 F20101111_AAAGEC UFE0021891_00001.xml FULL
bd5c707ea8fd8b257d91be32cb306f50
1441f88b3bb0681f3a6f680e159c0fbfcf2a74fa
6158 F20101111_AAAGDO stockdale_m_Page_018thm.jpg
8266b7ff781ae226aebe5f599d3d9d91
2e1a5f247782bee3e623ff0b38ccb6014ac124fd
3717 F20101111_AAAFXU stockdale_m_Page_007thm.jpg
dd2c5de531b89db90be1bcf51a967aec
b3795d6b8e47c0cab55baaeb7574266d84be2919
2167 F20101111_AAAFBA stockdale_m_Page_072.txt
986865753dc98a4a884a0943ba3d0273
39757c0dab5a14f5d328a931a2933810e43edc49
989917 F20101111_AAAFAM stockdale_m_Page_008.jp2
442053fe322bfba32b48d05c2dedd393
de1374beb26fe64e66a85c3cc2c7f294849d9ec3
F20101111_AAAEVG stockdale_m_Page_068.tif
beb5c42ac335e764da5c5dcadafc4366
76794799045d850507a20797dddddbe3a2b19cb6
25713 F20101111_AAAFYI stockdale_m_Page_039.QC.jpg
cee3640ad01710cfa0ee8879cce67f18
15b72e821591718adaeb607566a27ce9a1bfe4b2
22081 F20101111_AAAEUS stockdale_m_Page_092.QC.jpg
bf354cfcabfa07b17cb6d3bc59be43eb
54e113806d510fac3c01a25c9d3bb9ee6d907f0c
1423 F20101111_AAAGED stockdale_m_Page_003thm.jpg
f9ddc2dcaf202ac6f1b78e4622dd2563
a5936de78e631f3889c8473bcb56095a1f0ccfce
22863 F20101111_AAAGDP stockdale_m_Page_070.QC.jpg
ce83104eed815202f0413f1aef87c5c0
331c6126510ef26a0c60236c7dd08872f3e23057
25680 F20101111_AAAFXV stockdale_m_Page_014.QC.jpg
9b9583760931f13b95429c19b3e3e1c2
dd0632ef48227f55bcfddba74888008f1e76a470
166654 F20101111_AAAFBB UFE0021891_00001.mets
a635e7534f8f1e3a56f75fbf93db71ed
46ee853442cfb91f4f0e4ccb1e23b0fead0afb4c
30324 F20101111_AAAFAN stockdale_m_Page_108.pro
62255ea620e596ccdaad5b61800c50bb
18a204aa25d36f72c366372b29a89801a05da77e
48420 F20101111_AAAEVH stockdale_m_Page_092.pro
bfb93215bdccc6833760cceb851b8656
b2c1fb15364d68c2ce660b2cccf335420221d027
5520 F20101111_AAAFYJ stockdale_m_Page_005thm.jpg
1f002a391fada51d0dbb846898a2a873
64f82369124417ae544f930a009fe8654e886a5b
F20101111_AAAEUT stockdale_m_Page_087.txt
9838cbecca61a836e3cc4546127f897a
6f09b43d531d4c0bb1817139ad25f196f5ff38f9
22443 F20101111_AAAGEE stockdale_m_Page_004.QC.jpg
e08efbe70cb7baa19486623e87c6ff53
0eac360888b2eb4f684a6f673761603fe7454b74
16086 F20101111_AAAGDQ stockdale_m_Page_071.QC.jpg
4534368e8fe734f00a197f1a6694264d
a30f13c8d3eec0ebdba3cc9333840b576af95250
6147 F20101111_AAAFAO stockdale_m_Page_025thm.jpg
db9a2249c7d665a89b0b5b01fd647055
231487c8de08b5c0dd86091f2742b259093b5932
F20101111_AAAEVI stockdale_m_Page_035.tif
bb2b296148cfc1c3403e74aab4b8a751
412d08ac68a4d665c47cd781f97c3dd01bd9598a
22164 F20101111_AAAFYK stockdale_m_Page_090.QC.jpg
8289ddc0623c06e85a19efc8229f0360
ca4553d73a626522e0deebf36c224f790beb1a7c
6210 F20101111_AAAGEF stockdale_m_Page_004thm.jpg
bb6c6137c138d1aff16cfb29c04c2515
273439ee285f78194da1eace98c153bbe16c624f
6290 F20101111_AAAGDR stockdale_m_Page_070thm.jpg
3385aa4cd53539875167596ef615e53e
711b174cac7a8141bd748482ee4e8c916cef9816
4147 F20101111_AAAFXW stockdale_m_Page_107thm.jpg
2480e25b5723b4697ee1ba3b3ed60b5c
5685f8b764fcb53cbb7a5b09c8a75edbc80fbf23
934513 F20101111_AAAFAP stockdale_m_Page_118.jp2
375c3f2f9203847afd59540e71b73613
03d9538902f6b86de4fb021a61dd5ffb53918ea7
67873 F20101111_AAAEVJ stockdale_m_Page_130.pro
bcd6e4d66e736fc3893ca19e0118d4fd
2fd757d320b1501430826ef8cfbc998041a3084b
3798 F20101111_AAAFYL stockdale_m_Page_105thm.jpg
3d890e281f247cb7ac17e22207d8dc72
1d5882953199d9f87ada52a40bc6228ec477659b
33713 F20101111_AAAEUU stockdale_m_Page_094.pro
c04b49fe90e5c5567d87eb37cee5f08c
e36bd85524b83332d0bc02938117f5b34538193c
21390 F20101111_AAAGEG stockdale_m_Page_005.QC.jpg
5ff96cd1f24ad00054a2355ec6dc0d7e
23a588f19b037f4a167e827bbc001eda23ec8bc9
2640 F20101111_AAAGDS stockdale_m_Page_108thm.jpg
3a2436f16e4548dd03855ef242124cdf
42c422df2e52310d677af0843f1c0d6390c546ca
27403 F20101111_AAAFZA stockdale_m_Page_060.QC.jpg
af6aa5c552e3246bb748f559edc9fb5f
0abb25f6fe233e90e8a2fbb2b53988fd9e65663f
24504 F20101111_AAAFYM stockdale_m_Page_019.QC.jpg
4b685510802a5a766188bd72161924d9
fddaf1165e3a33c0189efe210613a9f2515f0c4e
30517 F20101111_AAAFBE stockdale_m_Page_001.jpg
3343dcdb787da2516508f4cf59cd6b42
33822894b23e2a15620a980ce845cd801099c950
1987 F20101111_AAAFAQ stockdale_m_Page_090.txt
f749cfcddee8a135bd6a49418e05c11c
dc286f80dc515ab26235be746f2aa0819938e92b
6174 F20101111_AAAEVK stockdale_m_Page_082thm.jpg
077e52c8313fa15c86dd68dfb34a339c
fb9d2e72f41e412f80a56378c0a2d9000d7611ee
13154 F20101111_AAAEUV stockdale_m_Page_024.QC.jpg
79a11c9871897ae37a77fee16dc6f72f
9f37cb9568eee9d9174158c73d338ffb6fdce8c8
7440 F20101111_AAAFXX stockdale_m_Page_079thm.jpg
e91c38fe320bec1788ecf2b79ad715cd
af54d59b0019eb6325fd179b37db959ffaed6ea7
5725 F20101111_AAAGEH stockdale_m_Page_011thm.jpg
11c994a68bace6ea861d9ae904c9a83e
317c9ea63320d8c032bc908e820d0e025629e68e
6594 F20101111_AAAGDT stockdale_m_Page_029thm.jpg
6d32b5fc1313e0ee0a4735f6381f462b
ffd02b238f591c7e31af52e9293f292e187efc83
5121 F20101111_AAAFZB stockdale_m_Page_101thm.jpg
44eabf0a0b2c21d1d896c9ac28ee0f1a
d7556f724725fdc2dedb75fd1a7a1405bfbd4e10
12704 F20101111_AAAFYN stockdale_m_Page_115.QC.jpg
ee030de3b2eeb39ff6a5dcb56fbcdc7d
5ba5ad2f4438ba987ab6c1eb250155f5ae55698d
10129 F20101111_AAAFBF stockdale_m_Page_002.jpg
19437d428356544ed2d1d21ec9b55a3e
2666b6dab144d71376647e7917c0aac6863c91d2
3156 F20101111_AAAFAR stockdale_m_Page_131.txt
08f2c0a5823d58af45aa3b4ee6553cbe
25cecdaf25978e620faee9292f45e9ade1272ee2
94140 F20101111_AAAEVL stockdale_m_Page_041.jpg
30dca8d2d0c9388deb1cd0ec213eb972
8eea98b7c18b2bae81bfefb48d7f5cc24b10a6e7
824792 F20101111_AAAEUW stockdale_m_Page_142.jp2
a7810976b199d7a3fed39c88ee7cb9dd
eed040e6b595d8f680aec599d2956341d0fb0069
6879 F20101111_AAAFXY stockdale_m_Page_047thm.jpg
a11eb2a4d0d7f0635770c9658ad6a9cd
fe233577bfd7463d034485bac15413f04c833bb2
20795 F20101111_AAAGEI stockdale_m_Page_012.QC.jpg
738d9ace6079349b36980140dbddab81
d9c5be1a6cc9980c77a955e07f985994c722e90d
8111 F20101111_AAAGDU stockdale_m_Page_124.QC.jpg
0681cc901386324eae33390727f34b6c
6f46e00494cf92e97056ce997c4e325b0206ac7a
7081 F20101111_AAAFZC stockdale_m_Page_062thm.jpg
81dec32a345ae2f16ece31493c6cce9a
5dfa1c4dc5011be0a3a2859e874613ffce8267e7
7141 F20101111_AAAFYO stockdale_m_Page_040thm.jpg
1ef8be863dbb0accbb2e933feee629bc
9c3f2f710342a5307d7f13a32b59966749c0c720
10511 F20101111_AAAFBG stockdale_m_Page_003.jpg
11b25987e1fb0819585da70e2760fe68
31384fbc6200ad149df428098f0124e961ab9062
40695 F20101111_AAAEWA stockdale_m_Page_114.pro
418b519a25845425251a8c58fe2600eb
2d22ced5fd44b777f190797e5ecca781ef372510
F20101111_AAAFAS stockdale_m_Page_005.tif
872a15f1df23cbe3df9d32385c1ddc2b
c6227ddc03abe368758c6c979a941446ed7a9b2b
2083 F20101111_AAAEVM stockdale_m_Page_021.txt
b98d11c30d800379867a5ac8d14be7e1
1c8b0379f4986b48615c4d5a06552d6d5bd9354c
1017583 F20101111_AAAEUX stockdale_m_Page_018.jp2
85f5a4116f34ff3d6db935014591627d
d53c6ff9e29f424a7b9b12e24f13c0e8daaf9b44
6775 F20101111_AAAFXZ stockdale_m_Page_052thm.jpg
afdfab09b6f95ced3f6ed755685b2681
aff005634b191abc0f5b50e25de6a3397b2ac61e
25022 F20101111_AAAGEJ stockdale_m_Page_013.QC.jpg
0b40e94891e3b8b108fabaae64289453
c5d3dda47c826c628efbbf718e8c121067808166
12549 F20101111_AAAGDV stockdale_m_Page_116.QC.jpg
b44efe9f3a303de43ad993821306116d
50d474de5ec77796fdc182c55cec175f5637eb48
25169 F20101111_AAAFZD stockdale_m_Page_045.QC.jpg
a5f0c7215e997161a550457d28b897c0
2e44287c75d61e054887ed24f79e9faf2fda16b3
24021 F20101111_AAAFYP stockdale_m_Page_089.QC.jpg
8c8dd9ec6f301a6195904008a383b417
1205510be808427a646ff0f0b0a2f6238a8dbe7a
70076 F20101111_AAAFBH stockdale_m_Page_004.jpg
45bfbee29b54c8a0a10b201419c242fd
152929e3282a88c8ce015065a1fb97a71e0b0df7
F20101111_AAAEWB stockdale_m_Page_079.tif
4d7a8fdb1d1a73d2c564466dea234d2d
e5ee3b72f65c3fd8ffa21913707199a739fd8082
50112 F20101111_AAAFAT stockdale_m_Page_028.pro
f9823ae2abdb241bf3e4b340c8c1589c
3c02580d0a640738098af2a972a0b9ec87548817
52335 F20101111_AAAEVN stockdale_m_Page_023.pro
dda9ed72f2cdd0b036fe767254684afc
dfa0630dd44630fcd310aa6967cc470593db4087
120678 F20101111_AAAEUY stockdale_m_Page_134.jpg
7f1b2e4d0f7d3882c76a529be3a334a4
2dbfb108f1b438c3bef41d3935cb7bd9752e2e86
6878 F20101111_AAAGEK stockdale_m_Page_013thm.jpg
ae4969f661b12ec9a67fc123c672df0e
2bb8030b2651b4b153ce923caeac1e9a33d5ecf2
13614 F20101111_AAAGDW stockdale_m_Page_009.QC.jpg
d2e61c2204fc5cf80574984ebf7e1632
cf36bda2d9b1ba546d60d0abf59031bef8255742
26364 F20101111_AAAFZE stockdale_m_Page_076.QC.jpg
daaaea9a028d0189e596bee24c909ce8
8da4481fdfd967821b84b37465ab7c56d45bfa89
2313 F20101111_AAAFYQ stockdale_m_Page_098thm.jpg
f5337c0053a6aecea67b4ce229c1a0c6
93493b2f4868b655e7b8deecd1db597d2af4d380
80235 F20101111_AAAFBI stockdale_m_Page_005.jpg
6fca231901bf017fe1df864ed1d058e0
ab9e77d45e46bb64526daaea5d1b3ea782703831
1051971 F20101111_AAAEWC stockdale_m_Page_013.jp2
84601c03df4c6a4710ece57f1e91762c
6951fde68d8e36f2e5c41f26c6bdf079088bf93d
F20101111_AAAFAU stockdale_m_Page_117.tif
81304100de38d2b8f5d27dfd9c1e407d
6e00f252e66b4d268e2ec34153f3f2076a689ed6
2711 F20101111_AAAEVO stockdale_m_Page_137.txt
ad5df4fafb01e31c9499eeca1aed182c
b2dd79d68afd92c527cd9ddf1536a2eb54a1d8e3
F20101111_AAAEUZ stockdale_m_Page_001.tif
26b90befece89d95469676af24946436
f994f25fb27b3a14e7bf3fda5f86ee1369ad2048
6899 F20101111_AAAGFA stockdale_m_Page_046thm.jpg
a600906fe7e9c454c24708ac0926b1df
d7464872358678592a47f9bdc84e6b211530e86f
22000 F20101111_AAAGEL stockdale_m_Page_016.QC.jpg
59750cfe84dbc842c938df5f9d5e46c3
6b5599479766522f8dc27a17c65a1375ee04cccf
25447 F20101111_AAAGDX stockdale_m_Page_085.QC.jpg
dc7f07f525838222f82ca463cf237492
a0d6e42560aac95f81a7582be2726c5d5d1ecfdc
6696 F20101111_AAAFZF stockdale_m_Page_080thm.jpg
d8d5e0cdf470724982813e9b96b3f0be
8e1e49d64f12cbbb850f49a8f4ad1bc4b790da10
27159 F20101111_AAAFYR stockdale_m_Page_078.QC.jpg
169e70c6836f56eb217de0bf4a0ac2ea
3445bc75ecaf0b8c58d51dc9a76a716a0158cc52
43860 F20101111_AAAFBJ stockdale_m_Page_006.jpg
bd194a548916b643ece2c44cae068198
bcacb53e6030c5b9bfcbd62cc3df1f241890b336
1051969 F20101111_AAAEWD stockdale_m_Page_061.jp2
cd168f83142902267d12e297732888c7
c1627be02ebfd3d1955248dca3db1b177eabdff8
721534 F20101111_AAAFAV stockdale_m_Page_094.jp2
68d0b73d33b2c959d76e9f079c5b69e4
cf9d2a4353e73f548896c3e71235e4f0035771ec
F20101111_AAAEVP stockdale_m_Page_139.tif
82a917034d2fb9aa9f2f26bf55c4a86a
f4b0b3177cf90bc82e7feabcf1277ca6e517726a
24555 F20101111_AAAGFB stockdale_m_Page_048.QC.jpg
7acb7a47ca88e2e9a530aeae18ae5c2d
d40bbbdd1a029c2c22f1f216850b3e883535128f
6143 F20101111_AAAGEM stockdale_m_Page_016thm.jpg
6af1571b56f608c749ea59f5afa6d69c
a994c94d9b1aa65364f7432a77edef24c7929555
14143 F20101111_AAAGDY stockdale_m_Page_107.QC.jpg
d6bf7e89b03a9069c57a5cafe8c1763c
c115fb9b551f2b9a04888a059745ac73a21be49e
23712 F20101111_AAAFZG stockdale_m_Page_028.QC.jpg
b831bcc00688b767e9a296da9ca2557d
88c99218129b4a4e8f7682dda69fd5c77c5b4d9e
6729 F20101111_AAAFYS stockdale_m_Page_074thm.jpg
2535e8bc614148daf03b5da08e02661a
8e827336b0d17725b1246a8f65cb9c622601b6c9
14071 F20101111_AAAEWE stockdale_m_Page_107.pro
36a032f4b4a771b49970d9fd4face5b7
7c47eacee33991a32d92e9e3263b7243a0854bbd
753 F20101111_AAAFAW stockdale_m_Page_103.txt
1e56d2a1a142e153388bf8ac80362b1e
d8c3cd80cfbe4df4c2c1688feb0202826a1b09bd
73208 F20101111_AAAEVQ stockdale_m_Page_070.jpg
aee1de9be342c00ab4a499e3e879d8ce
9f2abaf4accf06cd407bde2a512d95e05b352a25
49512 F20101111_AAAFBK stockdale_m_Page_007.jpg
75056ebd8b7a4a314d46109fdfc83ad4
79d94d47c5a4b774d5db219efabb33d494713c23
6798 F20101111_AAAGFC stockdale_m_Page_051thm.jpg
5f0e7e9741f06eb3118894a2e7d737e0
7b62437f34b83c3e915fb13361d31e0ebaacbbef
22859 F20101111_AAAGEN stockdale_m_Page_018.QC.jpg
99e8cb0ab26981e13ffb8b9c48c9348a
cd503751ddf4f73d9cf48c3e3627e148421a5bb7
3726 F20101111_AAAGDZ stockdale_m_Page_112thm.jpg
0175541d2ec6757eaa8212ebd7405cdf
269297c48b0774c21744ae62bf076a07c3ad3e2e
25804 F20101111_AAAFZH stockdale_m_Page_088.QC.jpg
e6909a7c517d5b1b893cd8885f2173c2
cd63f6b5475e630186564c0fd4138b291512588a
5475 F20101111_AAAFYT stockdale_m_Page_083thm.jpg
83d917c1f2110389577e8fff81554248
d50b9e954d2b744ae845312896cf709ba28ce847
F20101111_AAAEWF stockdale_m_Page_015.txt
49ab895bbecedf09b012174f22d835d2
61c5be9aabab7aad5c22c040e699d16ab06fe556
67340 F20101111_AAAFAX stockdale_m_Page_011.jpg
207f85a64f803e79bf21c3b0bbfc7860
2ab5c073ff4674418e57323b351b88c89407d232
926 F20101111_AAAEVR stockdale_m_Page_122.pro
777c6bb3d080717efc1e2bcfb8464bdf
f79cdaa463166e40a7dfee08dfcedfe5303ba7be
79635 F20101111_AAAFCA stockdale_m_Page_027.jpg
3e664183289e1ce4825184d56991ca5b
2e08c3ae5b7d164f394843731c58639c04112d47
43626 F20101111_AAAFBL stockdale_m_Page_009.jpg
f3e5b0104b7065fdf6a53fa959d06be4
3c38901164019103d39c6eda7b33178e882166ae
20781 F20101111_AAAGEO stockdale_m_Page_022.QC.jpg
8e82475e9192aacea4b6763cccc2c574
423af2e0b4a78f19def9c5802021d61cb5e38c18
3304 F20101111_AAAFZI stockdale_m_Page_002.QC.jpg
8eac85e8ee4077d35701586c21aad876
78d08681a600006111067241a40b4c3d195b56a3
7103 F20101111_AAAFYU stockdale_m_Page_078thm.jpg
4a6c7642d7c69f6ef431918e9a2f37f2
4699c333897a1b7b4f76d16a1e8719b177c192ab
1836 F20101111_AAAEWG stockdale_m_Page_065.txt
43a6e267782bf66fc3982376fd933ba0
12599b725da9d99a02e456e1839c7694bd1ea0ed
1051982 F20101111_AAAFAY stockdale_m_Page_105.jp2
94969f007e1c11d6d320b6c6cd386b30
c2a2de90c0d34f50dd26ae3952239c651e9182c5
6808 F20101111_AAAEVS stockdale_m_Page_048thm.jpg
83038bfae9ff7de3e69362fe59cfb94b
be35b65c63236dbb4bbd532ad23cf34cfdb8f19b
84208 F20101111_AAAFBM stockdale_m_Page_010.jpg
2170c548b7b919c0b3f7bbda2cfd6c4b
db85e837d024b4a44297d1be2321f84e44248fe4
7183 F20101111_AAAGFD stockdale_m_Page_054thm.jpg
0f395958473ecbf1353295d95b6639b1
3f2e1c90f61b524948115237c5cfb999a18dd6cf
3823 F20101111_AAAGEP stockdale_m_Page_024thm.jpg
1ea494bb292a49e114ca1154721f141c
a343bcd5253e9a2301e0a92d5230c54235334016
6137 F20101111_AAAFZJ stockdale_m_Page_008thm.jpg
a82a0f129df30c84258c2d29740e4de9
7be7b158a5b42d7f4691994959fa52a5551ae4ec
4056 F20101111_AAAFYV stockdale_m_Page_097thm.jpg
c92354b4a0a481daf434a1d44ae91b47
6127e1d9e22d1ef8d99631163627f232df943b0d
60887 F20101111_AAAEWH stockdale_m_Page_062.pro
f3ac358a245b0e45d79428e817be52be
1698144a41445f4c1879b9c6e1628390579a81cb
6769 F20101111_AAAFAZ stockdale_m_Page_019thm.jpg
5aa7b4682fa5a836f6a012eade3193a6
36b2a6c0e75a16e9d13f64fba340a372f5ab0802
F20101111_AAAEVT stockdale_m_Page_049.tif
166b6d0979f59fdbfb3e62cb12806129
47e415119080f610ba6a79fed412d8751ec84143
76331 F20101111_AAAFCB stockdale_m_Page_028.jpg
05e1cfb3e6c5cfcbe015a5a944166382
62b914a8115082d86e18dce7e4f120d257368730
64906 F20101111_AAAFBN stockdale_m_Page_012.jpg
1e968814c7c2bfe095b30710ef0b09e9
a7df20d1b99a6d71edeef2d08a430621d4ac3048
4947 F20101111_AAAGFE stockdale_m_Page_056thm.jpg
a56349984fba1bfe0ed6ccdf106a644f
de6105cbee9489f4225211146e348e978571871c
25601 F20101111_AAAGEQ stockdale_m_Page_026.QC.jpg
ac3fbeff661b0639127ec3cd60a91ef7
8c1c67e982c15b07c0e8774da8498c0bd1908c4a
23786 F20101111_AAAFZK stockdale_m_Page_017.QC.jpg
5d9e9669396a488be4bee19752c7046a
1dbd127b27076a04a9ac842f5b160cd2f850a327
24948 F20101111_AAAFYW stockdale_m_Page_047.QC.jpg
4f49768af13a48d3a019f1d71b5d3653
77cd7130f55afaa07459a1f8ca9dbd58883cf7a5
64891 F20101111_AAAEWI stockdale_m_Page_022.jpg
e56a81221dabc5dd04ba23dce3754892
9ce4c287910e29be8db2790e73357ed7512cedab
1085 F20101111_AAAEVU stockdale_m_Page_096.txt
68aa9d77206b0188d73a390a302c874f
a19ef67e2b18ce86b2af40c1ff7c0c9252ad1ea1
78263 F20101111_AAAFCC stockdale_m_Page_029.jpg
60ed110ac8fb5c4e2611a448eeaf4e8a
13deae0639d912498f82222e6f2d78d1ddfa51bf
82142 F20101111_AAAFBO stockdale_m_Page_013.jpg
bf925fae39ec1166d454e5d7f31db5aa
d59dae63b22a4cce76cd5588130de4379426c591
27815 F20101111_AAAGFF stockdale_m_Page_064.QC.jpg
1b38b492f85ff5a2c8a9286d1ca603c8
f55fc11a380dc6e8fa71477049ebd19347cda63d
25931 F20101111_AAAGER stockdale_m_Page_030.QC.jpg
6fce9dd300f252f882cda5ed4edb9a99
4c5df1f830519e36bc8a06d3e75cd6b854f35925
1318 F20101111_AAAFZL stockdale_m_Page_125thm.jpg
15a412a4b1d8b73132486796087c4b66
d9494f8700ebee34d07f89261a00649e2e536371
10471 F20101111_AAAEWJ stockdale_m_Page_125.jpg
2f75d9d9b2666c672a4a45bb781a7ac3
305eec3f63d423bbf03b631ed73fbc7941e303d7
88047 F20101111_AAAFCD stockdale_m_Page_030.jpg
79575c3685572ee7f43db55a61176d7a
0699a99d445585d5cbe150ceebeadce09300636c
80934 F20101111_AAAFBP stockdale_m_Page_014.jpg
db170be128d46544ecaca33ca7275e63
f735b03dca5961523b7f4ace1bcf9ca36201d537
6406 F20101111_AAAGFG stockdale_m_Page_066thm.jpg
214569bc4a4c3d50d502ce19733c28ea
d9d2bdd8052e3a1f6cfe6c93a9377aaefa7c141f
F20101111_AAAGES stockdale_m_Page_031thm.jpg
58aace58cd8fdf7128b1e912db6be397
ec5e244cc07821a05e10d68b1ad5efcf3d8927de
24821 F20101111_AAAFZM stockdale_m_Page_052.QC.jpg
ec4ee2c5c4f0d4fdbb21703e3750aae2
028750df1d44c98a6f6da2ad4269a99dfb2e5717
7483 F20101111_AAAFYX stockdale_m_Page_037thm.jpg
3c7a4c52718b969ce132a45060bbdbd6
f58a63ceab0a4af46ff607e97956760fbc71edaf
F20101111_AAAEWK stockdale_m_Page_081.tif
fabfb5d70a9e3e94c83e0a64385370de
b551f7073933fda25541bd0acb1e59012babb564
1051943 F20101111_AAAEVV stockdale_m_Page_063.jp2
891588030f239a6b1a461aa5dbe3887d
62fae1d488bc090952102721fdeb5d6764a7a112
74931 F20101111_AAAFCE stockdale_m_Page_032.jpg
2f9ea040db9dc13efb082be6d0b13160
e75c6216768b82d75319257da4f506f6c6004a90
73054 F20101111_AAAFBQ stockdale_m_Page_015.jpg
27554ee53b0ec65edae981d9398c2fca
2e5991f38ac74fb736b22a295933a1b26042dc38
7936 F20101111_AAAGFH stockdale_m_Page_067thm.jpg
292576811a20a9eac6419757e6f1f826
19ac3ea71e6d0685882fc20c1732aaba4ec13f02
24556 F20101111_AAAGET stockdale_m_Page_034.QC.jpg
6a66076a3fae0f0420ffc426b71d60d0
3a6e25e148590cc7ed2138600a859e523a98dad9
5820 F20101111_AAAFZN stockdale_m_Page_091thm.jpg
e3db37399bc434ff567233e360b26b24
37238bb297cc1dc97502493905c058f1e173b203
25231 F20101111_AAAFYY stockdale_m_Page_080.QC.jpg
970cc4d6043a11845827c3f92db10094
405ebc22d72cbe5b27ed6375e689ca6ae5d9e4cf
1023204 F20101111_AAAEWL stockdale_m_Page_025.jp2
abaccca2d28645d64213e213ba7e3008
e6d7e6f4babb1f61312c68a894be7be5ad0c7a16
6356 F20101111_AAAEVW stockdale_m_Page_089thm.jpg
0235074490848fd3d30db08a426c11a8
a90292777af87b16f4a615e8bc07d4778a6eb2c1
77707 F20101111_AAAFCF stockdale_m_Page_033.jpg
cb3ec0951f38e3332a1e6b7455084c1a
de36bbd10736c28a3cdc13563cdd91d22a3375fe
70518 F20101111_AAAFBR stockdale_m_Page_016.jpg
4858fe528931cbaa055357c7ab561920
bdd871da10e0dece68d1a9793c54edc78765f854
7432 F20101111_AAAGFI stockdale_m_Page_068thm.jpg
7334e938f8bd222622d8d76427cd8e78
ff32cf633bd466faace676d11ed55372d5d31fba
28516 F20101111_AAAGEU stockdale_m_Page_035.QC.jpg
cff73b7912c787b6c6821a5866577d04
73b916bd07b52a96947fa966b9d45a7c370ef0d6
4355 F20101111_AAAFZO stockdale_m_Page_117thm.jpg
0c0e2843b11e4fc14a9e7613f7c2393e
bba4f97a658264c6416e7addf7e0e66e0eb86cda
8063 F20101111_AAAFYZ stockdale_m_Page_135thm.jpg
dceb67c05b2338617e0257025b2be9ae
d659dfca184a7234786b4deb259bb231694d6c41
1087 F20101111_AAAEWM stockdale_m_Page_123.txt
da3302cdcb608c2b9b04b81bbea36363
fc34c05f40a1216dbd480bf830ee3c23abe76e10
8979 F20101111_AAAEVX stockdale_m_Page_141.pro
0c3ca5d7724e0286052af145a890a52c
a122f3a7e1919553074de22d8a05e4b7e02f2572
81209 F20101111_AAAFCG stockdale_m_Page_034.jpg
69113c66ad842a3adfa0fbd94f934b37
e178ff2e2f38c840796cbb9642272a0695d9c2b3
40218 F20101111_AAAEXA stockdale_m_Page_139.pro
8470323f91ce1ab6bb17ab9c8a5cd0c0
77464882224413a8d540fb57c7672c9d0f9c11a0
76606 F20101111_AAAFBS stockdale_m_Page_017.jpg
57b702faa339cc81e99c237882f633b9
f8fb95dfab15744209d0461e3c2f2db2a92c19d2
7106 F20101111_AAAGFJ stockdale_m_Page_072thm.jpg
f06c0c99b1cedf9c0493ec426b37ba97
0ffb290dc1350cc90252f067f5aec552717a6b0f
7377 F20101111_AAAGEV stockdale_m_Page_035thm.jpg
045f7b26a93fc00039c725d58c7c2f9e
c1ca8251260ebf97ca731a61b0640c723851b17e
5802 F20101111_AAAFZP stockdale_m_Page_058thm.jpg
5b77b8f80f27623109dd42f27e2d5620
2f196220624cea945a7cfd0b5ee055e3cb6759e5
F20101111_AAAEWN stockdale_m_Page_075.tif
52d48095e1a65ae862af1a160eac1ca9
b8eb0b3cb25bdcc84d0dbb5092bca2f2f1dad453
1051986 F20101111_AAAEVY stockdale_m_Page_026.jp2
1cfdc6ce8d049b200dfea682f9114bed
c1b4a5dfd37c532bfd9e91d17c371e74e4b39b0d
93926 F20101111_AAAFCH stockdale_m_Page_035.jpg
167f31ea872e329f6e99687572f1a4b7
16a63584a0bf8b8f6d76a442aa29db63d8d86828
44606 F20101111_AAAEXB stockdale_m_Page_129.jpg
c584fe70c6ce6e9ab9eef99d11275d90
d52900823e9ad39e25442f6c6fc8297c33ff5f10
73451 F20101111_AAAFBT stockdale_m_Page_018.jpg
e0865b6ac844f76f82868b24819e0839
8ac3d6d26c2fb93b9488ed2c6f4091acae006d51
24740 F20101111_AAAGFK stockdale_m_Page_077.QC.jpg
6258174c663e80c08d2ea41569af44e1
603c1f76e23d6c20e107679c8a66b6283bdcf3a4
6638 F20101111_AAAGEW stockdale_m_Page_036thm.jpg
2573b04480099ab2868c03e5f2290b92
267fcda20657d25f9577cd8e692b2a9e4620db5c
7443 F20101111_AAAFZQ stockdale_m_Page_064thm.jpg
f6286009fa27957ddc1d8e1d7973f957
c58f6446fe1b95f1d4aa702a43551cd1d846c4b5
91742 F20101111_AAAEWO stockdale_m_Page_054.jpg
effcca9729185354ae485760902c1656
2c3716039093ec67b2c65f84e012b81c86541b84
18607 F20101111_AAAEVZ stockdale_m_Page_114.QC.jpg
5741661e817bd85946e70cd95984bc49
5833652c83c63a67b18f3432b273ed96a431a85f
77746 F20101111_AAAFCI stockdale_m_Page_036.jpg
a84f0126d53be57f8211351c6612589f
abf7979ac1dab2fdc2dfbc3a85f48becbb1fbf67
6078 F20101111_AAAEXC stockdale_m_Page_098.QC.jpg
d7368b9a6a3dabb50d1feb0328f7a4e3
8e312d72b3754555bf701ec240e68681d81ea6aa
77490 F20101111_AAAFBU stockdale_m_Page_019.jpg
d31bc8f0f8f13319410d4efe800fc043
57be40add764bbe4b5a286980b7322d55bb66918
4985 F20101111_AAAGGA stockdale_m_Page_114thm.jpg
3d71eabfdc01ec22558d560ff7f60f9b
65130c2f2cdf856d694e4eeb28994c288241fbfd
7100 F20101111_AAAGFL stockdale_m_Page_077thm.jpg
13ee7191ec00cce608abb57a008d7adc
321a348ae448ee88d42ddae63e8b05728a2f091e
6648 F20101111_AAAGEX stockdale_m_Page_038thm.jpg
113b89f25c98104a66bbed0da633b6df
a7d1e9ee5e98c08984f7282bfec05ba591ef0b60
12770 F20101111_AAAFZR stockdale_m_Page_111.QC.jpg
7f89d0ab82d22e865dfdefc309100c78
fac9caa74f4f3b6efe978b7409e2bc0a8fa72bea
535185 F20101111_AAAEWP stockdale_m_Page_140.jp2
3edfabb8fa6487ddc0c68209fbcbe5c6
65a08b86afdaa03cffd75ca1a66cf5eb0e14bec4
92471 F20101111_AAAFCJ stockdale_m_Page_037.jpg
1d0350744233a99a20278786e28bec89
42a0cbc74054f91395af9e95e90fcc26e825f87b
92008 F20101111_AAAEXD stockdale_m_Page_079.jpg
923e6a4de8e320516daf49cdeeb01d00
c0018d297f8aaa71e10f05abc6ed0135cb603202
78250 F20101111_AAAFBV stockdale_m_Page_021.jpg
dda7cddafdb6b98d6e35907dbe915b4f
f985767d23072c6df94db2c343f7a814e95ead9f
3568 F20101111_AAAGGB stockdale_m_Page_116thm.jpg
42b5b9465965a5f7eb53f950ff1364cd
cfd4ef2afb4b14eb97ef30b72b75db692b5b8af6
27044 F20101111_AAAGFM stockdale_m_Page_079.QC.jpg
e97c754d92d253796f3884a6c5037d5a
0ac85b8754b858234a71204cb05552723163c938
6633 F20101111_AAAGEY stockdale_m_Page_039thm.jpg
9b365d89a85c8de51468b21d3cac7d16
e53cc1abc91ea7737d4989fa8b4741e5200c4a7b
11552 F20101111_AAAFZS stockdale_m_Page_128.QC.jpg
d146550b00f8c17e00ed0b09c8ff5394
4e2f50d055e40b806c93037443d8d64ad69aad22
26735 F20101111_AAAEWQ stockdale_m_Page_072.QC.jpg
752992f269f1f16e5e79efa4a9b4253f
9844bfa9ff5082f5ee538c1438435203de673bc0
78268 F20101111_AAAFCK stockdale_m_Page_038.jpg
a148ffe75c45478584bee80e995aff7b
c20ee45451d1ba6c9896d5edeca65a5d38bf0073
25374 F20101111_AAAEXE stockdale_m_Page_053.QC.jpg
6d650cf0dbd230cb548313c3ac4ce4ca
e4724dc0ccaca2b1fb392d3b1117c944f3054461
81078 F20101111_AAAFBW stockdale_m_Page_023.jpg
a8dca79a03ba26764d62ca847e1332a8
b6b0beb47443ec5e2ba53ca65d69c157175cbfdb
3572 F20101111_AAAGGC stockdale_m_Page_120thm.jpg
3e10679cbea13ff8c9239c1969cafd3d
cd447efebc45de4c269b6a3062b6ff23b9bc2ae6
22064 F20101111_AAAGFN stockdale_m_Page_081.QC.jpg
425b2e616d3a60face1f7147692c159c
36dff34ab6c45b1ab5864548ac69aa49778d93e2
23819 F20101111_AAAGEZ stockdale_m_Page_044.QC.jpg
ab53e0c55a13fac267af08e428faef5a
94286d5d2358db93928a9f4531b8a148b4da602b
7265 F20101111_AAAFZT stockdale_m_Page_138thm.jpg
a12628730bdb223607eca2352962dbf4
16a73511a3f2dac89db0bd30e9115200066d81a9
77916 F20101111_AAAEWR stockdale_m_Page_031.jpg
b815155eca8f9d474a5e85d7b4f1649d
a8021e6e9ea4aca4526fd288e1728f89c54a2d70
71741 F20101111_AAAFDA stockdale_m_Page_057.jpg
2f4bf8064a0f426b61b6ffdfa863a71d
6156409985aa3631dac25ad116fb398cad7f549b
85254 F20101111_AAAFCL stockdale_m_Page_039.jpg
f458d66c141252bd27a19e29cc8ab682
fd2e702ca71f26dad44f773511afe6c439f77f22
3265 F20101111_AAAEXF stockdale_m_Page_006thm.jpg
bf2a0fd16fb0fdeb3f904ce00800db96
22224e5720d8464bb81b0cff7190ba02042b372b
42881 F20101111_AAAFBX stockdale_m_Page_024.jpg
eb6e7f15cba6d4b725098e1480845067
f8497871f67f49f1d2a26f078b738192064f8f8c
3317 F20101111_AAAGGD stockdale_m_Page_121thm.jpg
c2e52bf8f46f3a3e31ed2ee3438657f8
4f5f6f54af59061bd5ef0194cf597e9bd5b291b6
5946 F20101111_AAAGFO stockdale_m_Page_081thm.jpg
faba85c618ff7a03a9da632eb7f3039b
79b542d45587235a7f2f68b3932bbea9e736d2d9
6862 F20101111_AAAFZU stockdale_m_Page_021thm.jpg
e4a6da88080f6da3a37ce1a6adbe5d14
1f8da8fd5bae61c0cdfcdaad4932d3c45ea4fdf2
2075 F20101111_AAAEWS stockdale_m_Page_128.txt
68ab10099835c36fe4abb3f3feb5efda
cbbf1dd6128c072124c4bcf7dcd2db1e550d0353
68231 F20101111_AAAFDB stockdale_m_Page_058.jpg
d31e958549ebb8869277cb38602b0fb5
194997865f9e07071854ed7cd918d013002c9075
91290 F20101111_AAAFCM stockdale_m_Page_040.jpg
5b2711792f90896340e7d43b4ce17735
3694c720f1e9aa02078fbd4afd0a7a2dbba3e0e1
91926 F20101111_AAAEXG stockdale_m_Page_064.jpg
c6b2800dd4b9938bb31ada54de1ae829
764bc0f20a1668b2c833972bdfe8eaad73630847
73068 F20101111_AAAFBY stockdale_m_Page_025.jpg
bbe2afcefc886513c4435675797aab51
2c00648f21faa970516e8bfadd404536b1d9afec
20635 F20101111_AAAGFP stockdale_m_Page_083.QC.jpg
d5e60f2d864f527fcb1c5f89bc2239da
1ab77977ce9f01e1b333dfcf53efae86a2084e9e
5898 F20101111_AAAFZV stockdale_m_Page_075thm.jpg
62f99f572bda239f294bca0eba19cace
4adb1bdbe4d7132747afe59e7cda0fec0242392a
2604 F20101111_AAAEWT stockdale_m_Page_123thm.jpg
943dac7665caa671fa30ca02413d2ef1
ea0d892e0644de877fde0054ced83e0ee8606a09
81644 F20101111_AAAFCN stockdale_m_Page_042.jpg
8e79ef45d0e2819bded961554e4df811
145e1fac47915c79d617810cbb6d72e641332a86
14214 F20101111_AAAEXH stockdale_m_Page_109.QC.jpg
84aeb5244f774f1a5c917aec87853430
f93b79b1976aa37482c32ccfc6224215cf566c48
84581 F20101111_AAAFBZ stockdale_m_Page_026.jpg
d43fb1a4b7db5266b5c3406454936795
51df74d77ae2f5f0e0dd9d4d390204d2d81124c6
3313 F20101111_AAAGGE stockdale_m_Page_126thm.jpg
3d0a75704885fc29a0bc3f1920c8a410
b03eed01d8db86ad144d8d422cd90c2aae3a70b3
6504 F20101111_AAAGFQ stockdale_m_Page_084thm.jpg
26c3bd4495acd70a039334e27c6c5560
1a3b923759b32fb515e46620d882de6b1a03e306
6683 F20101111_AAAFZW stockdale_m_Page_044thm.jpg
303c4ee3f92525971632395489ca981b
2f9a72dfc634f0c3f7267c04a81b7eb68670ebba
12548 F20101111_AAAEWU stockdale_m_Page_105.QC.jpg
5b8528ff0cdcdd6218691454b8a5ec84
08a6c47b332510b9401576d7494c91a5f36d7eb3
99523 F20101111_AAAFDC stockdale_m_Page_059.jpg
618266c2cf9e76afe68f08fc8b8af2fe
3b8d7f3b387dee0adef5dc7fc07062c87f562052
90510 F20101111_AAAFCO stockdale_m_Page_043.jpg
1827ee71a8ba389b6aaeca6a32bc1f73
214f77f00808e7ad47d544b5b7b07ae791535fb8
908955 F20101111_AAAEXI stockdale_m_Page_075.jp2
17513705d8ba741d7c6b40ad8c5a7d5a
22ccd89b43f2a768a036870b9c287aff79acc847
3659 F20101111_AAAGGF stockdale_m_Page_128thm.jpg
806380c5ed8c0a9349df135e5249774f
37e3205113a065d1a9587750fb7949d534d41541
6092 F20101111_AAAGFR stockdale_m_Page_087thm.jpg
1de9432116a646faf24f9b05f9c86884
ea96cf6e326fd30b9bd9e85dde8c1a1b02fccab9
21956 F20101111_AAAFZX stockdale_m_Page_008.QC.jpg
8d8c8a414c25de79f686c64acbc8223b
24de042d9337e7fa01bd2146d7f0c01b3904f9e7
4828 F20101111_AAAEWV stockdale_m_Page_071thm.jpg
538b916f362aa0060602e11ceda61627
41a760152c53bfe3b7283763752168b482232b30
93883 F20101111_AAAFDD stockdale_m_Page_060.jpg
787473456eb89966823d24a9ab058ba3
f7b1b5ca2dc616f472c49f560759698401bcbf00
79534 F20101111_AAAFCP stockdale_m_Page_044.jpg
298dedb6c38ba56cbbf7ec1f2171aa4d
7f0ba837e70ba3e3abe2e5e4cbd61787a142ef07
64555 F20101111_AAAEXJ stockdale_m_Page_035.pro
f703d5b605460baed831cbed1e1afba3
a963b18815af4fa7e8946fb160840c7e31eda2ab
3800 F20101111_AAAGGG stockdale_m_Page_129thm.jpg
c27aaac1c2686a08e8473ade7c8b3753
243c0daaba17553d5eb6aefbd7c8c21b8771245d
6275 F20101111_AAAGFS stockdale_m_Page_090thm.jpg
49199ba81f2bf2eb05913eef5ef5f1af
1a587a41356332a4fd3067677b1a78ab00ce5b22
88493 F20101111_AAAFDE stockdale_m_Page_062.jpg
b6db26c01fc1902e996f26cdc087ca44
978832fee9329810a516bcc686391dba2cc47ecb
84193 F20101111_AAAFCQ stockdale_m_Page_045.jpg
b7b88a66763fc5e105368fbf39f24478
21a67ddbd8ba462bd6ee1484a8263ae807c635cd
F20101111_AAAEXK stockdale_m_Page_122.tif
397af30b62ee43a8f3b7f4303ed2c8a1
8f7dbd878c53d08b829a3cbd2ec14501ce36bf70
7449 F20101111_AAAGGH stockdale_m_Page_130thm.jpg
b610aa9f037c5231c64efdca3133e4e4
eb90f8d33438591427e834dd085d352c6532248f
16530 F20101111_AAAGFT stockdale_m_Page_094.QC.jpg
11d3dca9e516e18cca459ab94ef59448
01a72afd69df7ac4fb48b102caf22fda1739f397
11314 F20101111_AAAFZY stockdale_m_Page_006.QC.jpg
49448734139312f1a095a762897b7615
bc7fb06dabf131f1d7196316750b1331c0b6e66e
44293 F20101111_AAAEWW stockdale_m_Page_112.jpg
10188602c0fb7267fdf1999d2d0f3cd7
098326cb1a6f573a2f3512c9c3d4c55465ed026c
99203 F20101111_AAAFDF stockdale_m_Page_063.jpg
47b5deba0d6eb208a5c74484cb10416f
f6056cfcce0ebb570385d4d73da8ce90516b2fea
84334 F20101111_AAAFCR stockdale_m_Page_046.jpg
86a7451743d0b69ec81199ce1666ddbf
1d5ccfa9ce15ca9566c4cc48a6a3d242ab2a333b
55851 F20101111_AAAEXL stockdale_m_Page_046.pro
93f711c30ec4936aaa801eec271a915c
713ec4c2c244513635ce948818e52954bd6d4575
8392 F20101111_AAAGGI stockdale_m_Page_131thm.jpg
a67e0174400dc270d0d158889f01816c
437856dd59b180d056db5f0c498d44cdfbbe47b0
19121 F20101111_AAAGFU stockdale_m_Page_102.QC.jpg
74bc5338e8de216579e5101ebe160a66
36d9f3bb1e1a533e6b84c8af00e4c57758081e70
10380 F20101111_AAAFZZ stockdale_m_Page_126.QC.jpg
2cf7c5ef7daca7a2f131e1f620750077
28bcf6a5db6a6202c50bbc81af886b7729121b7a
28169 F20101111_AAAEWX stockdale_m_Page_050.QC.jpg
0bf3d116383e6037f17724f1a4f2bdad
cf480996ca33db6472d4915536cbcabb2d243ad5
68019 F20101111_AAAFDG stockdale_m_Page_065.jpg
6a2ff072b2be0e5aee4a426d0f6fea8b
e16eef4433bf8e036113e931f22f6569de2aeb69
1497 F20101111_AAAEYA stockdale_m_Page_121.txt
b65440204149a182ed5486ae237e2abe
0385f964c775e36807769eeab0003418429423e0
78984 F20101111_AAAFCS stockdale_m_Page_047.jpg
f0ec3f095b3d3b2c94b4420ee383a11a
16154c244a676a5d9d0735a8773d9e1ef34c02b3
F20101111_AAAEXM stockdale_m_Page_050.tif
ff8a3e477915b6ce276edd87dfc9f4aa
ba8d7dfceeb9f1b9e4be29e4e9ffaaefb414443a
7859 F20101111_AAAGGJ stockdale_m_Page_132thm.jpg
ca9735a17ef2298fac052e59206b2542
9365788d676191b7ded6feb92e30790b4252404b
3411 F20101111_AAAGFV stockdale_m_Page_103thm.jpg
0e76c54eed1fb8179f9eedba2d2b8362
4b472c7a336c87535a82af3ac17e2d70c5169251
2081 F20101111_AAAEWY stockdale_m_Page_029.txt
da0c7affdbf72480555fdf2e98c88d0f
69b76111f98632242f0d108aaa1a33e486ef5a83
81176 F20101111_AAAFDH stockdale_m_Page_066.jpg
47663bd9b34a713230b439ce12e49be7
dcd38479c13e84a5d1bf962a1d3f7993aef85704
32299 F20101111_AAAEYB stockdale_m_Page_134.QC.jpg
62ffecddf8eeb5b04cb44dbdddf322eb
2887257f1642b17793c3b845d5d63b2f1ba834ee
79781 F20101111_AAAFCT stockdale_m_Page_048.jpg
50c3a29f07c30b95ba4079c53449e2d2
440c26868b7b71adc5f77c134b2ba96aec24beec
F20101111_AAAEXN stockdale_m_Page_060.jp2
6cc1bc82901dd59db204e14d72e130c5
326d431564516724263ad301599e22f7088d8c3f
33662 F20101111_AAAGGK stockdale_m_Page_135.QC.jpg
ebbd568871318a5d2cfb3ab66d572684
0da2021dce185536584373797c18834b9e74c437
11730 F20101111_AAAGFW stockdale_m_Page_104.QC.jpg
e9a6b114380d760495c4782c0873eeb7
904aab8dcb13c3b141e0d0c94faea5cb487dc35c
F20101111_AAAEWZ stockdale_m_Page_083.tif
2e3fa1c71b38c45429ac53113fe87093
3350062b2e1a3b42231de86dbdbec8a0b97f8dc8
95896 F20101111_AAAFDI stockdale_m_Page_067.jpg
c81c4fa8cb362b0641d177150712f875
c9cb40c430ee8e7c04905f4c0bef815dd4cac7ef
69450 F20101111_AAAEYC stockdale_m_Page_110.jpg
01820a3eb89218baf0e7ff2e79a384e2
f0702b93795a6a4443b88b3b3d22ef8ad6152565
82265 F20101111_AAAFCU stockdale_m_Page_049.jpg
533039bdd5136f907063de68232e9b8f
d1ae324c4f5e685f9e69d47cf89cd2eb93d7fa20
40636 F20101111_AAAEXO stockdale_m_Page_083.pro
80115ef751a84fe8dedf89ab948d5d36
0bf4bf17eb102a3c08a075c3e7f86a9e0689a16a
31517 F20101111_AAAGGL stockdale_m_Page_136.QC.jpg
854d28a6d8105ee32605690dba0d4227
066878eb10d3da49103be62662291429ef86f472
12521 F20101111_AAAGFX stockdale_m_Page_106.QC.jpg
0b6177ff7cfdc5267d3603f831d218b2
42718c442723890e4655467a2df710afe9a931b9
92944 F20101111_AAAFDJ stockdale_m_Page_068.jpg
7094108484429cb744ae332014962ae3
ea7d8d1f1b7444ecba4625b36e05e5b078b63117
1030723 F20101111_AAAEYD stockdale_m_Page_104.jp2
78788992871e972ce95bd6b6771c6e32
28a03173cbac7998991bbcf494b2bfdc49f9354e
98007 F20101111_AAAFCV stockdale_m_Page_050.jpg
4459000e7de2e39a5e18df034b40b1f8
e599e91986077636021b2e9d3162896bc2fcba3b
63839 F20101111_AAAEXP stockdale_m_Page_054.pro
2f03673c8997c2efa385ee307e68cd7c
249ed08b5770b6be1c72f18d120c5daddcd4f86c
30481 F20101111_AAAGGM stockdale_m_Page_137.QC.jpg
6eede392a389195ed0b206322dbedf43
93cd1b76b83f7fedb47ce2bd30d5a080b15280da
4247 F20101111_AAAGFY stockdale_m_Page_109thm.jpg
762a35a0d809a0cf23fc2223cb046788
5298d420dfeb0a8f0ab6d161b81ba66df8a81f53
84989 F20101111_AAAFDK stockdale_m_Page_069.jpg
59339972683ddf10ec1ae17127ff7f95
b28c0497e3489ce588817f1de8e03427cb17ec0a
2460 F20101111_AAAEYE stockdale_m_Page_010.txt
adaeb0370ffd5a5eedc933a9c941f76e
c6cbf18f1d6e619e2ed814ed95cffc8715bb64a2
81472 F20101111_AAAFCW stockdale_m_Page_051.jpg
aa7a3d1a36cfb7062dcd0da668a96997
1c1d96dc8bbdac77d4e197fad3297a4caf20610d
1051923 F20101111_AAAEXQ stockdale_m_Page_072.jp2
21105cd21c68ac54bd2f367bb75a3c5c
f4e7de95ae4c5f308ba44acffe4a0425a436c981
28659 F20101111_AAAGGN stockdale_m_Page_138.QC.jpg
a98c263420af6afba4a5c75f22438b69
9fa28e03034400dbc0348fb8e9333fb6d630c3ec
12229 F20101111_AAAGFZ stockdale_m_Page_112.QC.jpg
ebcef5c37614d37087d9b6406b3efbee
f6b57a729246e575ba780fc4e127fc46519fb14e
49949 F20101111_AAAFDL stockdale_m_Page_071.jpg
10477800bee38ec6e4296461bd9fd22a
99371e29f508fa129a4d76cc21e5da704ae5127b
54015 F20101111_AAAEYF stockdale_m_Page_051.pro
c0f84e6c227d9ceb134b1c4c463f63a3
08f7515930a055f19829bb2d5ba1b3b85f278e41
84020 F20101111_AAAFCX stockdale_m_Page_053.jpg
d1657e1a66e8f854a89524cd8e7087b5
cafd946dcf2705866841d680439b3d828bdffcfa
6616 F20101111_AAAEXR stockdale_m_Page_014thm.jpg
3563a75733e1e0fde01a86c4190b3305
092f71bd2e0e33174103bbfdfb04ce4322b1ae36
71839 F20101111_AAAFEA stockdale_m_Page_087.jpg
f63aa4a5f8e547ada3c72f7e88482f2e
ae02bae42890fd7628bb39be073b12ee945226c0
20082 F20101111_AAAGGO stockdale_m_Page_139.QC.jpg
fbf90947b48e9aac79837c98522a8ada
c8bf600ec07ebc44b430ef76d88258ec95d68f07
84041 F20101111_AAAFDM stockdale_m_Page_072.jpg
43f9f5b292ee964cb9ff356c15d5c10e
adb0a2ddd852cb8c1915743716b5a28dd76c02bd
63235 F20101111_AAAEYG stockdale_m_Page_133.pro
15c8babaec69a6f1ca91ad9243cd4df7
b604d2ae854fc75b2f462a0632b7830363baec91
98516 F20101111_AAAFCY stockdale_m_Page_055.jpg
f19f9a972cc4c4d4e46b548f438b9563
36dffcfcc09f323405dda5a5bcdf09647f1d3377
F20101111_AAAEXS stockdale_m_Page_003.tif
9566ec7b61b3be793466e95cd741d53b
4cb42edb5cb8cf25f2845a8c7b536f0b700dd489
81503 F20101111_AAAFEB stockdale_m_Page_088.jpg
5d82500acb00c4351c28c00cac4e9031
6677d3f0029e2ff97cfc306e94879da8e3ced321
14045 F20101111_AAAGGP stockdale_m_Page_140.QC.jpg
960177dc92699b9b174817222f63bdc8
dd755b89f334c0b474871ad6572f1bc60cedf0fe
77806 F20101111_AAAFDN stockdale_m_Page_073.jpg
9edad0bfa4d7364cd5e239970e0436ad
9fa67afb8dc6b6d80b1be01bb35c09fb3523e940
33999 F20101111_AAAEYH stockdale_m_Page_131.QC.jpg
0a1a4a5e679ed5039b9ca5c14fa20ed8
899a4e4ed19b8b8a4fc2fc72e903d48cfa4fb948
63461 F20101111_AAAFCZ stockdale_m_Page_056.jpg
65a004c71b75387368cf776e3c18b661
4c8fce7667934c6525a6b6b455c104f1782f8845
24955 F20101111_AAAEXT stockdale_m_Page_123.jpg
1fe4226fb5e542ed159328efa7ad1e07
3a6a66ba389b49fd173c802d2c001bcac858a59c
78961 F20101111_AAAFEC stockdale_m_Page_089.jpg
d6a0281f98bd12e564e8b488c84c6952
26471f02ec11672b6b84c9cbc58b0c931e1ab1fe
2231 F20101111_AAAGGQ stockdale_m_Page_141thm.jpg
4c89a42aef95455c711cfdd1543380cf
639149d43d68a0b6394bb93d8c927ceeca2049ab
78465 F20101111_AAAFDO stockdale_m_Page_074.jpg
fc53a076c0cc9e0053bca871feb063ee
d567562897d66af744ba87dbc943d0b00cd8e71f
F20101111_AAAEYI stockdale_m_Page_036.tif
e3dce144bfffd987095ce40e8249ab07
5b61fb9aead19820ed558481137da4b0b3f87602
24930 F20101111_AAAEXU stockdale_m_Page_073.QC.jpg
f19480932ea0917cbbcbab1a53f89fb3
58aa08357588a1c4b127bc0e649ef66d2f8171ee
67190 F20101111_AAAFDP stockdale_m_Page_075.jpg
3bb36bf66d4718b03c28d8bc25a213ee
0ee5c760e74d7a3798961d00ac7d721dc0ca5a17
24281 F20101111_AAAEYJ stockdale_m_Page_038.QC.jpg
0d50a763784a879ba6dfbd0f305be200
fd3e8bb234405266f41baa619acc7b91c641d6d6
57829 F20101111_AAAEXV stockdale_m_Page_044.pro
a89cd452c68524f30105d953a3471d4e
15752ee5b057ff02f1a841cf32d41c477b4aaa2b
73285 F20101111_AAAFED stockdale_m_Page_090.jpg
6e84dd02b297b3e1e7bbae0b670594a9
799ada3f4e866d60426f02d73a55ad0ad46f7b12
88455 F20101111_AAAFDQ stockdale_m_Page_076.jpg
c7e0f998d637e3c675669d30f3243fbf
d08749ac9af3bce3ad65581066c97fe920adccc3
F20101111_AAAEYK stockdale_m_Page_047.tif
9aea7f79c68a1689d85985b7ab35f2ee
7015e3b43fe7c0ad9c130e974a5e754861f4099c
29269 F20101111_AAAEXW stockdale_m_Page_055.QC.jpg
522e6a3b13fef059024e754a4cd3811d
6b1ed64403e5ab0030d92a4d36e2eaf4e682d8c9
64678 F20101111_AAAFEE stockdale_m_Page_091.jpg
f19bcf7dd3249e31d26704359f08f3ad
ac71bcc2fa5dbe4a73c91342619db45abe3918aa
84032 F20101111_AAAFDR stockdale_m_Page_077.jpg
2b0f6723db38e40bcb0cf9be94ee1f5a
ca77393b8508f9f8e76a2409416d2c27315c4ecc
F20101111_AAAEYL stockdale_m_Page_064.tif
4d4d2506e41cf280db2e4d5f270e8d59
1de77412d199f2d1cb2a9af3160450a13b9523e1
71027 F20101111_AAAFEF stockdale_m_Page_092.jpg
6d627bd3ba3c5dcc38933d212b8a783a
d0a552fb6862bb8d607c223d85e7f27b463533e8
10228 F20101111_AAAEZA stockdale_m_Page_001.pro
15048a65cfb019a04fdc4e48c2a0aecf
56d400e894fe6e766fbf0457cdcede64f494c361
93216 F20101111_AAAFDS stockdale_m_Page_078.jpg
d2868e373c2569c2afdecfb28a3a3b93
16224c3ee13f5a7ed4532144d5f621e7b5aae0af
6784 F20101111_AAAEYM stockdale_m_Page_088thm.jpg
b6ed9797bd1783eec35407f2ab07be88
6ec795a2c75febee6d7a9182fb4fa1200ae094a6
1051966 F20101111_AAAEXX stockdale_m_Page_086.jp2
1c1744f1dabdbbfc1c40fea55a86eec1
529225978cd1e7e62c47f799a3b51ea07ad3dae2
70359 F20101111_AAAFEG stockdale_m_Page_093.jpg
6fb9e62a763a32c8d723fcb1e7aa3d2e
a9c146b4254ea431ba108a596a685ce9c5f36478
64323 F20101111_AAAEZB stockdale_m_Page_078.pro
1688cc1e3f4c1c73dec5461a8c1986f8
988ca1397e153582bde8baf03d5f9bf7d68a4775
82308 F20101111_AAAFDT stockdale_m_Page_080.jpg
81e7ae2b19751570d5f8965b0eb82f4b
e40dadbe3872bc7766d109282306d8f9f1599087
112562 F20101111_AAAEYN stockdale_m_Page_136.jpg
12fd870aa1022efb4f408e8d6dcfe813
61f7790c0ef10b89bd79e538e174200b65eb468f
2524 F20101111_AAAEXY stockdale_m_Page_138.txt
39db317929a4a0510fd3d7a43c323083
1dd4a949b83ca58f9deab8c56b2088b8f00088b2
54569 F20101111_AAAFEH stockdale_m_Page_094.jpg
e210118936b7438194e47413243c458f
488b30683b490bc7e1a9cf45880c195151f1d416
25675 F20101111_AAAEZC stockdale_m_Page_095.QC.jpg
8b263b4f6ad87a0a07f3d06356eda3bc
335811f4e3a58ec50198dba4c404a08dbcc9e969
70324 F20101111_AAAFDU stockdale_m_Page_081.jpg
d12cd193d19bdcd141d7d2b693010a39
ea2e066f6d53300ec2a4549e46176ff7031cb01a
23626 F20101111_AAAEYO stockdale_m_Page_032.QC.jpg
b9ccdb4a2019d932ae02e0f3c2501ebf
c44ac3af4c83a0e475bb741111fb8fab53447698
20606 F20101111_AAAEXZ stockdale_m_Page_124.pro
b2bb44d0a4684ad1bc0e65f52d8b99df
acf1e55543857481d097f3e8a2f564e56d5b6925
92545 F20101111_AAAFEI stockdale_m_Page_095.jpg
3bf83786c531b6259c4f31ec39b4c484
ab183c31a78e1bcc34328371d774456b04023736
2319 F20101111_AAAEZD stockdale_m_Page_013.txt
e53c034a98f8e4f698297f7591f2acd5
1b9736232ac815ddd129f29567cc7880b1f30599
71585 F20101111_AAAFDV stockdale_m_Page_082.jpg
274d2a4ac336db1cce70802bb5310782
c4bb348fd5ab8cd100c18d3b88fb982cd3370ee9
1746 F20101111_AAAEYP stockdale_m_Page_012.txt
f517fe6be1d6720f015abad23c29cb63
ee4a5de4ea7eebadcf2b2a6ef74d06b84d0d4a7b
56427 F20101111_AAAFEJ stockdale_m_Page_096.jpg
c0ce6f9472b145f95c1bc563cb9b4b45
2c15eb6f9aa37f1269a15819832b49d8680134f1
43740 F20101111_AAAEZE stockdale_m_Page_075.pro
2f0ba2a3795f737c3484a83694e64a1c
afb3b089442e3037a7b7a2b48962f55ed36ddd37
66718 F20101111_AAAFDW stockdale_m_Page_083.jpg
e14271228953d32d872af8a2d2f2a102
4c99d33203c010dde4b6f109844fa5f6ead9522b
2151 F20101111_AAAEYQ stockdale_m_Page_048.txt
3e2908fdb1012ab9155b8ebba476664f
7dbd0ff072a3f66e1db9edc40c31d35eadca8fdb
43564 F20101111_AAAFEK stockdale_m_Page_097.jpg
41fb06f955553dccc57ec11fc8fd33a2
a6713d55e4aa09b597f8cff3a64e845eb8223c6e
2475 F20101111_AAAEZF stockdale_m_Page_054.txt
2d24fa3f691afcca5e9074965075de86
fcab11fd270199a61bb62710e4eb694f21b763bc
79218 F20101111_AAAFDX stockdale_m_Page_084.jpg
248bb5bca9142a279a848c32f053259c
198edebf533a2512cbe883c38b7dc12e5f5b0386
21516402 F20101111_AAAEYR stockdale_m.pdf
50dfecd3472f6ac389fb793256b0a3f6
ef1ed6c564854c49830cac808d61d1b5153c27f5
43963 F20101111_AAAFFA stockdale_m_Page_115.jpg
2cd1caf897bded8fe517dbf3b821d20e
762b07af4965f47b7c7f9a89906bc685292e5655
20655 F20101111_AAAFEL stockdale_m_Page_098.jpg
8d725418e5b22ac2f5f93613e1ed80b6
8cbfd843a14f87e4c40c2f6a28e9c442f44233c5
F20101111_AAAEZG stockdale_m_Page_095.tif
372aa7c6f9d6920ae414aae8e7aeb8df
5f64153d3ebeca5b98096349682f3ccec3128f6d
82474 F20101111_AAAFDY stockdale_m_Page_085.jpg
9d2184b1cd0ed53d1d52f69e17f56219
d6922f003fc24795a4fca5e96dcc09a20668ac11
61589 F20101111_AAAEYS stockdale_m_Page_119.jpg
9943cb3d43cb6fc934b026f56393f882
da08614446b51dbc45faafc872fd2e4eb41de871
44676 F20101111_AAAFFB stockdale_m_Page_116.jpg
3642ee7f9e9ddacdde284228bcd5a86c
3bc89dd447e56983af165c864f2671eca0691ba0
47294 F20101111_AAAFEM stockdale_m_Page_099.jpg
9c4772c81e6903c7639fd038b5299b93
3d280864cc4a00c00f01fbf521467572f6003151
7893 F20101111_AAAEZH stockdale_m_Page_123.QC.jpg
1b515a6390437eaabf0f69d929b37a76
d1a2be6166c515f66aed9dadee2d133405fd5541
84120 F20101111_AAAFDZ stockdale_m_Page_086.jpg
68aa0ee03cbf17bf0e856468a3210b48
08236818a386a97ad74beffbf9d7cfb3ca78712d
42871 F20101111_AAAEYT stockdale_m_Page_012.pro
2b5ba37e7d5e7b40b75ddc3a884125f8
32cc087c90cd089e37c845ca4f3fd373d31e65f0
49210 F20101111_AAAFFC stockdale_m_Page_117.jpg
89516436ceee890258c79f9b8d9e2150
9660dfdbc2b5a852ddf36a0236acc3bf45569703
26610 F20101111_AAAFEN stockdale_m_Page_100.jpg
95391d570963a48ef5ba001c6d0e0b6a
4f2338ce605cc57f3ec87de1d28170ea29f6e5a0
F20101111_AAAEZI stockdale_m_Page_080.tif
1aa9c92171b3db1c071b4af6882c5026
4d1510c1c9ce59e2be86cd7146165a0b3ae4c6c0
1051892 F20101111_AAAEYU stockdale_m_Page_110.jp2
d028e15e249ecb38ae2826f8adf75615
2acb03cfc170664c5b870458d7482d9c4849bfbf
21648 F20101111_AAAFFD stockdale_m_Page_118.jpg
9911714b1671b23e30246a8202b4f923
eaa966adad4a2576e4c4311a76f30640c026a549
60451 F20101111_AAAFEO stockdale_m_Page_101.jpg
89b533cab6fcba0c285436a72ad003da
f75b67a848b3d7377b62cd7a11a70cf95f358696
2345 F20101111_AAAEZJ stockdale_m_Page_077.txt
a9947be49460d7db1fa10a95a419b5ff
fa10711966a4ac169a471fd188c075d2f649ba11
F20101111_AAAEYV stockdale_m_Page_136.tif
bc53a5a17b46fa0cd7d930815b3217ad
5ffbf7041827d3b805b240483d5a4ba29e1dbb49
62664 F20101111_AAAFEP stockdale_m_Page_102.jpg
567c8eb10a6a14eab028e4db48a712fd
f34f1192cbfa5345d22760eb7187db2772fc5d07
1982 F20101111_AAAEYW stockdale_m_Page_017.txt
4674c499f100b21c13d76d176e433efd
d40e31e109a9b7cf4cd74cc7d9fb53d49d3438b2
44302 F20101111_AAAFFE stockdale_m_Page_120.jpg
c0b52c368ccf18196b1548fec71ee17a
b8daf695879725f9a618b751ffbb2376eb60a986
39459 F20101111_AAAFEQ stockdale_m_Page_103.jpg
2cc9a8fb1fb8294774cc0545405ed14d
9c40e073ec022c1e5ff1b700c98c83d8df11f91b
24440 F20101111_AAAEZK stockdale_m_Page_023.QC.jpg
a859f3e157b5a56c5970bd1c61abee43
827b844e2889175fa5088b3de16b7ad58a8d5d55
6898 F20101111_AAAEYX stockdale_m_Page_049thm.jpg
d441bbe6331bad4508938ff4da47d8ff
3a326f5b3bc694eac41584f6f934e73915d90a9f
42387 F20101111_AAAFFF stockdale_m_Page_121.jpg
1725202298feaf197f848457bb7cff12
927203e4c08ef8b77b0eddf9af38335a10d4d51e
38436 F20101111_AAAFER stockdale_m_Page_104.jpg
8b3ee0352a15ca5eb13f00eb32814df8
9381c6a152c574c62ccc41215b2ae2fe6f66d26c
97 F20101111_AAAEZL stockdale_m_Page_002.txt
116ee9ab58785d68aa19d00638a18275
75e26a8538458dfbe4ca572a42888cd86daecd4f
10560 F20101111_AAAFFG stockdale_m_Page_122.jpg
5789508cce3f91d29ddecd550a60f92d
7176ada829e34120f64c1b5f9dbbdfab2e818b48
44536 F20101111_AAAFES stockdale_m_Page_105.jpg
dda9966986d357d129729606bcf81a42
0d557ab952ff3d3045ee61f7e07dbd1df470f48a
4062 F20101111_AAAEZM stockdale_m_Page_009thm.jpg
2ca4fa02d2f335b42f6320980d7de045
c3ef007d2348d7c32e299f24cd0c48e7073e7016
939520 F20101111_AAAEYY stockdale_m_Page_058.jp2
99836e6a82a97e3a5a3ada6d8a30a5b6
7e704ac6e2c7189f97f9f8cc22d88fdaaff5d90f
F20101111_AAAFFH stockdale_m_Page_124.jpg
3acb64ca60ff2fb66e8820014179efc4
635ad0a54ddcf901775366ac4eb81e04b5402448
44438 F20101111_AAAFET stockdale_m_Page_106.jpg
6e2ff736b36d2a787eccd515240296b1
ab8714daa082ef19d8cb423627a52d99613dfdc3
2135 F20101111_AAAEZN stockdale_m_Page_089.txt
d439572cae0eb2df383d40edbd5d24e4
fd092bc0350e8d7444fc55697d365573f9da3b7d
1036061 F20101111_AAAEYZ stockdale_m_Page_073.jp2
d1c5dc7a4a21e27594d546cbc7fa3051
74f26fa0c3f11dc886be88b122bb2e1f58f16855
36656 F20101111_AAAFFI stockdale_m_Page_126.jpg
dfbb182e4e03dcc5558d82e3c1154a22
30a4f328cffbd3641c6463490d8ff1b133ac7c45
49294 F20101111_AAAFEU stockdale_m_Page_107.jpg
23454bb9b9cc09bf7640c2425b8950c8
67fc9b01e31ff2155ed88536ca374bfb15bc68a7
6233 F20101111_AAAEZO stockdale_m_Page_118.QC.jpg
f38510c16a3eb7799945bf46acb2fdfb
2ae30c2ec9971b5400fe2a4d63396a355e2fcf7a
41734 F20101111_AAAFFJ stockdale_m_Page_127.jpg
4b541f94c17b3aaeed6800f6c40308ea
be7b96e5ac057c94d1324c25cf2a79e9f7f68b97
F20101111_AAAFEV stockdale_m_Page_108.jpg
ee44abc2460ca7c2d470eb4e7ee7e39b
a8cf498d14eb424edb9842223010a1b21f41b50b
26560 F20101111_AAAEZP stockdale_m_Page_043.QC.jpg
095593087f0c4f1911fc8b30ec6bff3b
5107653ed532f80d61ceb74ba5847d1a5acb46d0
41694 F20101111_AAAFFK stockdale_m_Page_128.jpg
3f8b0d32ab31a74715227ff5d39e741a
d74bc6ae992cb102a3dd437e3710ff6d528bf5cf
47989 F20101111_AAAFEW stockdale_m_Page_109.jpg
398c3b09c09a7dc1fd2b38f280dc8349
c6302ffec151829d769393bc6de6b38ab44745f7
79846 F20101111_AAAEZQ stockdale_m_Page_052.jpg
5e0fbeab56623f853f292ed5ca0ec440
cc0bb82e60b18f7be9131a0781b20f067568ccdb
1051978 F20101111_AAAFGA stockdale_m_Page_006.jp2
0ba41fcab69578bfb1e112472f80b3d7
e090075fe30122cf74193ab5af28cd65b451b2b5
112832 F20101111_AAAFFL stockdale_m_Page_130.jpg
5010900e3fbb0b8ca43943b7a2e0fbf2
2ef183062045a9023ca0f2f7f806b34cac06b269
45283 F20101111_AAAFEX stockdale_m_Page_111.jpg
f2945eb2a7edf8651cb8dda4afd908f9
f2c0f070282b31b7ee74da22b61636401dbbfea1
6741 F20101111_AAAEZR stockdale_m_Page_085thm.jpg
37a550024a37db2c62fcc809db2aa27c
a4c23e9e5ef7d4566418cdcb8ad5522325959f84
F20101111_AAAFGB stockdale_m_Page_007.jp2
dbccd44b2e6d669669cfd18743fd30dd
2ecd24a05b27c4c468b83c1bf0c4dbbe2c789356
109984 F20101111_AAAFFM stockdale_m_Page_132.jpg
ff0500dd5ecc8df733f99a804fe6bb18
dfe81f2df24e676b18f5f34747be0b47126d04a4
51008 F20101111_AAAFEY stockdale_m_Page_113.jpg
48291b98c621fede42c7879d7bbc068b
87ab0d95a262375a76fb2f0dc6d7a75eb7237dee
2769 F20101111_AAAEZS stockdale_m_Page_059.txt
cb861f41e0a8f1eb9fb3927ac927a69b
f296dc7f3d73f05bfad38fa7bd50f064ab0dd7f7
556112 F20101111_AAAFGC stockdale_m_Page_009.jp2
1a0c6afea8830e643f32b887ba5dc604
169f18ef9a905a98e1a432ff46022738ee0c11bd
108622 F20101111_AAAFFN stockdale_m_Page_133.jpg
bbc6159b604fdaaedd6be0c6fd0f73a8
dbbb21133dda9cd8ca51b1ba7b6129355d2e4fee
69145 F20101111_AAAFEZ stockdale_m_Page_114.jpg
0ea61fdfce7b07629801e1ffd6dfdd57
a832829ab3628d5f1c5e214d987c8b23ce05653e
101862 F20101111_AAAEZT stockdale_m_Page_061.jpg
b23fdb8da981141a5f129d26d74ac681
d84d1df2aa33f4cb3761f10812fa18cdf59a1723
1051898 F20101111_AAAFGD stockdale_m_Page_010.jp2
cd7c5ab8abdd40317790000501db5205
5ad0f8c90be0c484f06ebc47d9c039e5047af7ec
127556 F20101111_AAAFFO stockdale_m_Page_135.jpg
7403c41e2517e64156673fb851a18b50
1ae25b097369d97ec9f661be393080ba0336518d
22487 F20101111_AAAEZU stockdale_m_Page_015.QC.jpg
a7c281fabb18633a882b1d0cb29e57c0
682888b6bebb87a83a47fb8d2d669e203e5148ef
961651 F20101111_AAAFGE stockdale_m_Page_011.jp2
537554a54db2d5a2fb79c114871a34fd
f42d89488a1b84faa87a99680bbe232c3bc972d5
114100 F20101111_AAAFFP stockdale_m_Page_137.jpg
93dd93b44ac8f02703d3fae12ab59e0c
61e9594e5735a158a5774d50e7e3dccdcc3abc02
7926 F20101111_AAAEZV stockdale_m_Page_063thm.jpg
e5050b2b8fa27a58844d0ef72908aee3
c272caa48ae24544b74960ecb4b4ae3b5cbb8532
104066 F20101111_AAAFFQ stockdale_m_Page_138.jpg
645543fd631f48fbd9d0dd1eb7bdf149
28c438def46a4f1aef9234e9cf236975312ee13b
39434 F20101111_AAAEZW stockdale_m_Page_129.pro
20a1a7a9629cb9793055d81c135b78e9
f0fcd07a34066647ff54608be8eefebe1c0068f4
890590 F20101111_AAAFGF stockdale_m_Page_012.jp2
666b66c84330d3548108ad1398132db1
a19f9ed1f86b40d9832d9681f96c6f252761ee91
70649 F20101111_AAAFFR stockdale_m_Page_139.jpg
e9e80a0eb492466b6a783a01e64a5be4
6415eb5c1a86db0be7bab8ea6a0ead57b2e09147
63926 F20101111_AAAEZX stockdale_m_Page_067.pro
10d15640ebba04275a9af02192d752d0
aa09098a0b1a1e1b75d935058caf36a00e3c75a6
1051974 F20101111_AAAFGG stockdale_m_Page_014.jp2
590df0749943f8ceb76ed8ed1bb6b9b7
e0a1fb81cfd2fda8258f1a6c680232cf5a15a45d
44358 F20101111_AAAFFS stockdale_m_Page_140.jpg
d5fd24d16b779f5a1f84aed8420397d1
40eecc3aeac86a44c5975fa837432b9f844eb682
2004 F20101111_AAAEZY stockdale_m_Page_057.txt
d744c7b4730e9bb1f69bdf2a1a9a4a02
dccbf65e1b56106ef5995056c641714d86be9715
22877 F20101111_AAAFFT stockdale_m_Page_141.jpg
591400f203eec2b8f88a14efb6262a04
9e3aa0f4239c48c6440d240cb3aaf399ae2609f4
1004915 F20101111_AAAFGH stockdale_m_Page_015.jp2
6d56581fa6c4d790491d2ba812bd7026
f3c350b004d7924847650a5a7afdb4dd4a6b6f30
60573 F20101111_AAAFFU stockdale_m_Page_142.jpg
73b24dc80ad50f96db6c12f10afcc748
97b3303a4531f1eebebc0d808fed30a30db635dc
1051984 F20101111_AAAEZZ stockdale_m_Page_028.jp2
38fb2bf0fe2319e342c95eb09b12e345
ae7ea4684697bc02f2c331824a4f6fc1977baedf
1007072 F20101111_AAAFGI stockdale_m_Page_016.jp2
700b4f79223bfa41487a25380d6a849e
98aead32c09d8a1a7b8921010f9cdfc2ca9efce2
306485 F20101111_AAAFFV stockdale_m_Page_001.jp2
184fb8e23383b095a5d9c82511ac67ad
317cb2e6d26862d4ac67b16b9e3a1c3164c2afff
F20101111_AAAFGJ stockdale_m_Page_017.jp2
e61cf7d1d515dcb4baf5a68fdb18eff2
8a0b9c7f5b32fa988831d4f6702f8e6b84738454
28009 F20101111_AAAFFW stockdale_m_Page_002.jp2
7c0b76a24fbe502e00421bd7ddc5c4c4
fe762487db31e45d2bb31f0a40ef43317266cb11
1051953 F20101111_AAAFGK stockdale_m_Page_019.jp2
7f395fc99a4f080d0ba2d6159262e63f
063aa9ee8a4ae29ad572c256f1a28db3cc737736
33286 F20101111_AAAFFX stockdale_m_Page_003.jp2
90dab7040d22428586a28d86888547cb
64a5b70dd45fc1ffa3886538c29582b1b1c982ca
1051963 F20101111_AAAFHA stockdale_m_Page_038.jp2
6905f807b123e8bfb86ab69f9dddb862
83dff5268d0dc6fa9cd3657271943289d63a41ed
1051977 F20101111_AAAFGL stockdale_m_Page_020.jp2
06928f6855b36093b6294c508bc173a0
682beb44995840ee25c122f5762323dc50c63534
968804 F20101111_AAAFFY stockdale_m_Page_004.jp2
2046b8d4645b6f35a18b014768b41aa5
244de2b10c79f5f567a5abf16af084a849b9cbb4
1051915 F20101111_AAAFHB stockdale_m_Page_039.jp2
5b4a7cfc3361694112dbf67650957e99
6ed3f8c970a54633ad0476ed666d8a4ed59629ac
1051960 F20101111_AAAFGM stockdale_m_Page_021.jp2
62fbdacfcb806c80a6e95ad4b8324e0d
fe5fc0e284d836d8b283dc6a51a49513da0fc543
F20101111_AAAFFZ stockdale_m_Page_005.jp2
9bf019baff28dfdba847a577ae018c2b
3f0cecb7617395a4ce1d13fe310c1007e9334581
1051973 F20101111_AAAFHC stockdale_m_Page_040.jp2
d66f8c5a46bd13aa8b944fe66a8fd308
2a537266c65b61ffa413c3c9872df26f0a7540e7
907255 F20101111_AAAFGN stockdale_m_Page_022.jp2
9eb7342136dec26e866b20bbe191bd57
1ccb904fde26f27552daca1e3107a3ea3bafc4ae
1051957 F20101111_AAAFHD stockdale_m_Page_041.jp2
4454256d8687bd2547cb847d43c0db98
ec125141a72accaedd5eabc4cd09b0fd157c3b2d
1051929 F20101111_AAAFGO stockdale_m_Page_023.jp2
9abbec808da33e5c895ee12c01dfa437
a2fc94f14e96d2d428afedb20df8fe2c9fcb5365
F20101111_AAAFHE stockdale_m_Page_042.jp2
948c3e9ad60a3569ffd721e88a5df794
a042d2bdec11ef10ca6ff8f163c0951178986eb0
568046 F20101111_AAAFGP stockdale_m_Page_024.jp2
fc63894c8f98d6f2744f9b4a76c402c5
f95d3d1d6d43c30b02efddb542c622c6ec2e13ee
1051950 F20101111_AAAFHF stockdale_m_Page_043.jp2
dc54b0f306edca8b2252d5b53d534180
92c6c13c65c21875769cfa877a322553dd64fb8a
1051921 F20101111_AAAFGQ stockdale_m_Page_027.jp2
70ea1b7669767b74e3262f96f350f0e6
a7508b4f1f38cef2ffa6c530b59cfa0f061e52e3
1051962 F20101111_AAAFGR stockdale_m_Page_029.jp2
3127af9316308e15c5cd7be5b461e781
af57dbbc47c47a08d25bc74ecb5e877b57b40d76
1051842 F20101111_AAAFHG stockdale_m_Page_044.jp2
5c7baad00ae5537295892dae04ea257f
c8c4a46a1a40026b7b8d2997192ff5fb232ed408
F20101111_AAAFGS stockdale_m_Page_030.jp2
4dc7d1d2a0e895075943403e746edace
cc8a437e077035fbea46ac45a827f21c2aaf5fba
F20101111_AAAFHH stockdale_m_Page_045.jp2
9879110b201cd6ea3b12a58b10862cc2
f412584ed92eb1e59e812cc890f4d6fc874190d1
F20101111_AAAFGT stockdale_m_Page_031.jp2
07f10344a25b8c6e2f33ded46d9c3208
92804b86439cf906ed568997662d654b2798f1d6
F20101111_AAAFHI stockdale_m_Page_046.jp2
f8e0ab3c217fff56405847ceb42bb832
d7dc77f071c4963f0d9e01f92769f47b496896d9
1038349 F20101111_AAAFGU stockdale_m_Page_032.jp2
5dd0955384bde3c45e6cc47224982b08
25f4aa83fb690cecaa78a53ee0512d2286260fce
1051975 F20101111_AAAFHJ stockdale_m_Page_047.jp2
a0286ff7e41a244d142780163194a50f
763dd490b0b3045f7fef954feac44434fbda6a07
F20101111_AAAFGV stockdale_m_Page_033.jp2
46d388e56637481f692469975235ca28
9700323849a5e4f3ea2b8b1c0ed362aca443f473
1051907 F20101111_AAAFHK stockdale_m_Page_048.jp2
baf860c6a02edf8d648ae95ed7b45e3e
4583e9b1ea67246158f643410cf3e25ffb0998a0
1051930 F20101111_AAAFGW stockdale_m_Page_034.jp2
696e599a2caf2ad96dca9db7b3fece39
0d02539dcd4ab382fa2ae361c714f845f83d7c1d
1051979 F20101111_AAAFIA stockdale_m_Page_068.jp2
f9d1ff1b52be38d366f40eca35496f6a
65178d1f280db37a2538a7520cd854a9f7e8fa1d
F20101111_AAAFHL stockdale_m_Page_049.jp2
50cf2d26d8caf113ff02d4a2d9774983
cdccda4e0866de536dd0d8a239eb422609a11344
1051965 F20101111_AAAFGX stockdale_m_Page_035.jp2
ac72834dfb9b37ce8815ab0c931249a7
d5fdf653022b48d90341388b8079ba2f1595c3da
F20101111_AAAFIB stockdale_m_Page_069.jp2
c4e8d616e088bab6a3518449a61b0a29
5e1528253c28ba731f07897be5e2104e8a1e466c
1051951 F20101111_AAAFHM stockdale_m_Page_050.jp2
9cee22df98e178fc88b823a04d2c0b4b
1531cd77434d0dd6db3559d856c988182bc3fd7d
1051976 F20101111_AAAFGY stockdale_m_Page_036.jp2
acc5947d35801c36fae57f956b39a23f
fc09936d890b434177d3e7935d6c2192b82f314c
938657 F20101111_AAAFIC stockdale_m_Page_070.jp2
16f565762550b4e5abc12929e24e67f7
e905cee5b6b6a88589d67fc5b9bb4d90a8950c09
1051912 F20101111_AAAFHN stockdale_m_Page_051.jp2
e819ce5622f44cc4b28a20f261d09eb3
c110c858dc98edde9fdbeec614e50f4d6906e256
1051968 F20101111_AAAFGZ stockdale_m_Page_037.jp2
8d1643f9abc5bd5ea634799d93ca07c2
037830b0cfdd849a5a99f6a4407e6232fd633ecb
642720 F20101111_AAAFID stockdale_m_Page_071.jp2
d8a9ad87dadacb6267a05398b4d73d85
1d11c403411fc3f1964ca090d0deed878acd4491
F20101111_AAAFHO stockdale_m_Page_052.jp2
4daea6adfb390673e411c658cb6f87d2
b4df3ef7e20088d65b4de7940291f5af881b6586
1051883 F20101111_AAAFIE stockdale_m_Page_074.jp2
5db8a3efdaf65a383c78df604e04a443
1c9070d2c69d30cabab5df6a126fb3cceeb2e7fd
1051832 F20101111_AAAFHP stockdale_m_Page_053.jp2
41146bfdd8c68931da1fd19fdfaa31b3
c6df88af25ca2232495b0eb9ad3d923b6d95538f
1051954 F20101111_AAAFIF stockdale_m_Page_076.jp2
32993ecf543da3d97bf61eefc774085b
d6cace466fba7246a537dc267ba5c821cccb45f8
F20101111_AAAFHQ stockdale_m_Page_054.jp2
8dfe8c5536ed42cf6eb21c4d1f213b33
a421d51acc78654af1b5022f0668a0e822819ad7
F20101111_AAAFIG stockdale_m_Page_077.jp2
927fc6b219867ca8d75d4ce8a5ba0903
42feb7fa4d1410937aaa5353f7bf0d633ff287f3
1051946 F20101111_AAAFHR stockdale_m_Page_055.jp2
80389357e28359573a342a78e88c2617
ed1ceb8279e0fcb720d73cff6a42bc7015dfd793
894747 F20101111_AAAFHS stockdale_m_Page_056.jp2
f8d769865f296f6ee34065be7805497a
cbd6c58b408e19ea3dac6388cf6861ee316a4be0
1051956 F20101111_AAAFIH stockdale_m_Page_078.jp2
b58609e991137c50405a8714a8c84855
402286f622ce9b9583f9c97cfeb787302815dd1c
980142 F20101111_AAAFHT stockdale_m_Page_057.jp2
28e0ccf989d525b9c2163ee03923b63c
824b98e382441fa905f2acfd4812bcb07a970c72
1051863 F20101111_AAAFII stockdale_m_Page_079.jp2
7ba530a5631d17a222b55b8302fffff3
0e58c17af68b094ac0cb98cfa1630557bdf7549b
F20101111_AAAFHU stockdale_m_Page_059.jp2
61e15818eb4d2a46f7e8995fb4c06d44
bef4731f2d5a7019718dfc2958608a882af0d263
F20101111_AAAFIJ stockdale_m_Page_080.jp2
ff31e35a29bc747de77450af3a170536
530e1b97e2c194483177bfe3c8689567915eebb3
F20101111_AAAFHV stockdale_m_Page_062.jp2
a0792c734066c7e8bc6b347a0d3c2c75
6a84bbdce946ca2b9c0bf6c01f13909c9db8442c
974039 F20101111_AAAFIK stockdale_m_Page_082.jp2
ca2716c85d5c5266b56212a8554daf60
f33d8ce87f08d169ea9b44ef659c540a8d63f329
F20101111_AAAFHW stockdale_m_Page_064.jp2
593a7f1172f57c2f13a37d0be94522fa
350077bade15c1e7a5a3ca1aa869a8388d30631c
897001 F20101111_AAAFIL stockdale_m_Page_083.jp2
a838126b330c116d14739518f06270d0
8deb426f511c9b965b141062f7da234df3079819
948637 F20101111_AAAFHX stockdale_m_Page_065.jp2
ccf725ca2863dba712fa48e1705412b7
70a81be04a0523d862da93b737449d4c52c5c95e
1051936 F20101111_AAAFJA stockdale_m_Page_101.jp2
4f25f91ae65a5e13f90ba046c0dc2bcd
2b1e7b1a13a96c694e7290aa7db658a0efd62272
F20101111_AAAFIM stockdale_m_Page_084.jp2
28baf943f5f67564966cc3a83f488715
0d6556beb304c6cd411328bb836b90cda89d2f20
F20101111_AAAFHY stockdale_m_Page_066.jp2
9066de1b5a60562a1ad4f504e14ae26d
c1f59b5691e68385e89c6a1ba993ea09e6a4259e
1051967 F20101111_AAAFJB stockdale_m_Page_102.jp2
1918224645af44d729eca595deaff630
7872cc43c30cae5b83a24f49d1437d0e46640d67
F20101111_AAAFIN stockdale_m_Page_085.jp2
df5a5dc0c429e2436374712c080cc6bf
6c4cda003a814bdc1d620b8bca18df513b10a92b
F20101111_AAAFHZ stockdale_m_Page_067.jp2
b805ec481cdd9b71d272fe46c6815004
17faba4412c66888b12b47f63f8a8f4d3cc029fc
1029940 F20101111_AAAFJC stockdale_m_Page_103.jp2
d73cdf47e7ce682e22f543600c5862af
05beb69c9767593a82f339f9a19b4195c93caa0c
1031201 F20101111_AAAFIO stockdale_m_Page_087.jp2
8818ba3d0a0730cfed679489544db3c9
2499a0d37688e0e5fc2e5c2e504de7da2c14b2f4
F20101111_AAAFJD stockdale_m_Page_106.jp2
9945d7c7626d07612d01bc5f396c478b
e293955a4421c8ac47ddbb733a3acb4248c76b34
F20101111_AAAFIP stockdale_m_Page_088.jp2
a266017870f236b556fde5863d8f0a54
b2e9016269a8fbe89b212a78bfc978171f920973
1051944 F20101111_AAAFJE stockdale_m_Page_107.jp2
c44f58c5d6661a3191efed4fc7e3cfb3
624cd7ced6b280ff4cf09d0f3dd1befef809ba93
1051924 F20101111_AAAFIQ stockdale_m_Page_089.jp2
641a393ff3c4dc5fdbb063e2bd873e30
9e95af25fa1262667e3b3694859643b2bdf6f870
827289 F20101111_AAAFJF stockdale_m_Page_108.jp2
539da4556a83c591e41a22b5e38353c4
e04d237e70e3457a33d051e56f4d42597525960d
1048516 F20101111_AAAFIR stockdale_m_Page_090.jp2
5a4c194bd6e377dc4e0bc1633210eab6
94bf1d46404e6358774237afb967cec85a04d1c6
F20101111_AAAFJG stockdale_m_Page_109.jp2
57ba0c9f8ca3e66d9993972d8e4c8ae3
ba82567c36fd30232350570b52fec6468beb9010
882780 F20101111_AAAFIS stockdale_m_Page_091.jp2
c0a62305b3d7720508f6205cb6148f8b
586632b0b73167dad1d88ae58df7f82aaa83b242
F20101111_AAAFJH stockdale_m_Page_111.jp2
4afa02fd8ec22591882305c8186ead25
1252723ea6cd3b24c29d4b8e0e96983180fb80aa
996524 F20101111_AAAFIT stockdale_m_Page_092.jp2
6f8e58cd837b2829249d42383f53f05e
666a38d042c603909ab74533c923092956c63f69
972931 F20101111_AAAFIU stockdale_m_Page_093.jp2
04e5c01334b742797b8adc04d85f6c2e
d1d0207dc6e6bbc03fe93156ae460a84b9a1838a
1051916 F20101111_AAAFJI stockdale_m_Page_112.jp2
c58c04489b335c198e8925580a8cc233
2cb0c20d81e06d1e242422fa6e8412c3c0e98124
1051985 F20101111_AAAFIV stockdale_m_Page_095.jp2
b20efb74e0e055a2dfd38be60c341d5e
a2106a916c76d59307ff92ddfeaca9871af1b029
F20101111_AAAFJJ stockdale_m_Page_113.jp2
1b229c8c936cbb41d81a39cf3227db5b
738e79342a5dc923e91ac133a856158ef9c21b2f
F20101111_AAAFIW stockdale_m_Page_096.jp2
5ec783c19a843dbc3d6b17bc8a296d1d
d7bb2db11fe364d50afff9c63aa56fa40ae87d10
F20101111_AAAFJK stockdale_m_Page_114.jp2
036d778dd7559b864e3956948f73d207
73a8af55c06252447246f163553537ef5c541ff5
F20101111_AAAFIX stockdale_m_Page_097.jp2
206ef11b95e564a9a97b5ce79128e08a
17980a782920d1d045a3ad0ac964b741c02b60f3
F20101111_AAAFKA stockdale_m_Page_132.jp2
456a04830b9686455703aca5d844069e
57c45b55fbbbb9111a8fddf9b38110479c840614
F20101111_AAAFJL stockdale_m_Page_115.jp2
0fac8de9e2cb30433cced8c78f59cbfa
2686b5bd406ea42ef77077c266c9dd873468d4d6
1008567 F20101111_AAAFIY stockdale_m_Page_099.jp2
f80c4fec9a9eb27ccedd71ea2758e103
c08fda97011c2bf5d348f9e3feb4cac9a843f811
1051958 F20101111_AAAFKB stockdale_m_Page_133.jp2
553ec8a6570171058fffae0f141b3037
479843ee6d28bb6e2a325f571637e8edc7573f4f
1051942 F20101111_AAAFJM stockdale_m_Page_116.jp2
f0299a2a6b34da8e647d48d766914b7f
582bfc532c8d6c42b43c097f6723e90e299e62ae
766052 F20101111_AAAFIZ stockdale_m_Page_100.jp2
2ed5476e4eb1d8bca04988291118e21a
101f662b93f2557b01b4d6a8dce39a9fd0b82a2f
1051970 F20101111_AAAFKC stockdale_m_Page_134.jp2
5d6b448a6bd2c652c9c757b3ac08e440
350a201e7c2280f0c1d769250ecc42ab300b60ee
1051847 F20101111_AAAFJN stockdale_m_Page_117.jp2
167e539cdb396269b1d4cf214ce96c3d
2e87e82f976a5862202ca18d668a01c80b5b4f8d
1051931 F20101111_AAAFKD stockdale_m_Page_135.jp2
c5dc033865892d3253bad327b91654e6
9ca23955c9fa3b8271e48257c56c8d53dec57eef
1051852 F20101111_AAAFJO stockdale_m_Page_119.jp2
fef825708dcfc9b72dca61fb93a6b590
b8135bded742667af1a891b77e16c80233f937eb
F20101111_AAAFKE stockdale_m_Page_136.jp2
c92bad6409231eb48b4ac35e96aeb039
9527bcd7cc05cc04cd4402fc9bbcf92136df851a
1051784 F20101111_AAAFJP stockdale_m_Page_120.jp2
d7f221c60ed6dbf7c3d0715e30324518
5373feb3866005526e72a3ba88f43020c249d99e
1051932 F20101111_AAAFKF stockdale_m_Page_137.jp2
58f3ddb6f08789723fb099c7cdf53c15
4e35bacdbe620c4c9b2f7014a000497dba2218da
1051777 F20101111_AAAFJQ stockdale_m_Page_121.jp2
2f2c1e3301bcd1eb1b1763d96daccf39
729d7377e51ce1cd3e5756f70cf1a6e0471733cc
F20101111_AAAFKG stockdale_m_Page_138.jp2
095e883c49b144357a890afd1ec2f5ec
e116478da2379d9e938aad1e33a786df7806fb68
31109 F20101111_AAAFJR stockdale_m_Page_122.jp2
abffaf402334f07954c0cdf2e995ee2f
55fcecc0e87c45fe89d09fdfc86ca5eea020aac6
956194 F20101111_AAAFKH stockdale_m_Page_139.jp2
c47fbd541da5d369ec5bea28eaf3120f
0d3ea23f79432d607bf1710bd6b9fd2aedea688e
430278 F20101111_AAAFJS stockdale_m_Page_123.jp2
75d1da6d212d4f4ac3cf2e30c6bba709
fb19376dcb21866d510b07615665fb05916b22f9
211522 F20101111_AAAFKI stockdale_m_Page_141.jp2
24d251e8542e4ef961d1ab2804739909
9f1b9a60b87750f1b857e7098c9e4f6fc92bff6b
446519 F20101111_AAAFJT stockdale_m_Page_124.jp2
857db11e89621e2621de33accc26e467
d81381d2654f49a97c2c2e1208cd578f06751c31
30602 F20101111_AAAFJU stockdale_m_Page_125.jp2
89ef40d455e6bb9fddff1c5955506ff7
57b01bfe21a5a585a56c3a54000977cf4cf0cf10
F20101111_AAAFKJ stockdale_m_Page_002.tif
222387733b5c40d2b726b9cf8e4fb99d
50aacf1dfb4804053cb6a82e91a0a9d0a394c55a
651977 F20101111_AAAFJV stockdale_m_Page_126.jp2
9a9743094234b9c44226dd09df20f070
83fa26b179c979c197641a34260b4608faa18c9d
F20101111_AAAFKK stockdale_m_Page_004.tif
d679d7cc52f0d05f19708aaa28838ee2
dcdd9ded3c6851c96871f2d81188b5fdb3a91901
723192 F20101111_AAAFJW stockdale_m_Page_127.jp2
2047fb1fd75c913f4dea0c513a69b8d7
6765d32723413975ecbbeabcd55685f4e97eebc6
F20101111_AAAFLA stockdale_m_Page_022.tif
1170eec86d09e29039b6f7802d5954ac
b55e351d9b0844c7a8129e698a9fe454bdbf935d
F20101111_AAAFKL stockdale_m_Page_007.tif
13bfac8a49944cc2ad39d31c45862950
aeda3c692590331cce3ebae4eb8608e6407e8a4e
777403 F20101111_AAAFJX stockdale_m_Page_129.jp2
9c4e6e0a6c4e72db3a0337200f7e4383
45b889536225449a0263407c1c5570a0c5514be3
F20101111_AAAFLB stockdale_m_Page_023.tif
08dfc6f49104a3163c42546ce1220f99
8baf7522eca12dca333e12029ccef2a8b8a8c114
F20101111_AAAFKM stockdale_m_Page_008.tif
bb286cf6f69f8eb30981b4a1a779ab5e
fa698868c2454bf155cfd0461ccb79830f03a118
F20101111_AAAFJY stockdale_m_Page_130.jp2
ca9429ef540fddf40385720193c6b695
5b57efbe46534c2e6dbb2ccd181a3b6fe2a2fb1f
F20101111_AAAFLC stockdale_m_Page_024.tif
f60f2a1d6c810dea09c34555ffab53bc
a9f19e061262e9d73a0322dff2fd8e311ae49dcb
F20101111_AAAFKN stockdale_m_Page_009.tif
082c1c41c5a27014b728cbab2790bc8f
f03a97dc0bdd1b63c1bda35b57f5c57581bd0d16
F20101111_AAAFJZ stockdale_m_Page_131.jp2
5434cf974cada8d20173a738425de2a5
964432b053a5f43c1839a4740c041c866786df17
F20101111_AAAFLD stockdale_m_Page_025.tif
eea9d43b2655856a5b4ba144b3f61191
1e88fef28e487a46df306662a95e5fcd87c15b3f
F20101111_AAAFKO stockdale_m_Page_010.tif
bf682ca2d64d557ebbe9d4f62265f0d1
f4fef39e3e297c6d55126a6f97f4d287617f1e39
F20101111_AAAFLE stockdale_m_Page_026.tif
4a335f2403744af4dc9a83c775215395
8da7b9537468705b3467f29def940445170222b4
F20101111_AAAFKP stockdale_m_Page_011.tif
50fbeb19a4df1d0f15ac141fd2061118
4176f8aaf4cde0f6481b0322da36a8953c2c0dca
F20101111_AAAFKQ stockdale_m_Page_012.tif
b7f36fae19803576dc5f6242fa77df1a
579807fdbd349fd83af8ff3b119ee013fa9499c3
F20101111_AAAFLF stockdale_m_Page_027.tif
832b9105df8a3e35a4c3f94ea15241ba
daf28e0e267c7b20fbc9409d217eecfecf0152ee
F20101111_AAAFKR stockdale_m_Page_013.tif
d703857e552db7bee49f289bf32add6b
9b9bca91c61a4fadee58538207c28dd745d81b8a
F20101111_AAAFLG stockdale_m_Page_028.tif
f437b4c2b956cb177103337779fd0128
295e98579dca468568d110006302d23539ec5c5f
F20101111_AAAFKS stockdale_m_Page_014.tif
9336573ca3864db6b40a022b4d68699c
e7c2b00bd0510866ff543d9a79627a50cddbd1dc
F20101111_AAAFLH stockdale_m_Page_029.tif
5000829df1ea3128fdc9d85a13c59dcc
0e2b1445c0f561be4d56a82d35f55bdcd4ed39b9
F20101111_AAAFKT stockdale_m_Page_015.tif
6080a5484bfff96e40f0c31e719b7ee1
07da60ebe3a9ecd83665d67de990fce573a797b8
F20101111_AAAFLI stockdale_m_Page_030.tif
9997f8c9eedc9757f6f4fe14a1083ec3
4abaccd36082dff0bd8db558965a5ee9ed65f50a
F20101111_AAAFKU stockdale_m_Page_016.tif
5bdef23e2ed780e8dc3c7697a578d67a
491c845c894e700add083b9f659c644b0a0286db
F20101111_AAAFLJ stockdale_m_Page_031.tif
77d83e55e498e1ab67c609a57d572b98
46e4d6678067e6fd809a02098b42b18a95a49656
F20101111_AAAFKV stockdale_m_Page_017.tif
6f4069765827b77b5ca763733d625f30
122185028cc5935673eacc32830414df2d9a3182
F20101111_AAAFKW stockdale_m_Page_018.tif
55c448c0eaec84fe4e7d514fdf6f192f
08e567a6486e4befafb3e18c1d769697f9281309
F20101111_AAAFLK stockdale_m_Page_032.tif
d65ebf2ee2852fb418d690f1cf0d03e1
22c99dfb4ada9d53b809c8f4727aa4f821d5ba1c
F20101111_AAAFKX stockdale_m_Page_019.tif
861dd2d96abdbab06dd37dc3adf7febc
4c69694983c3e139a24975580d22d2a1d81058ab
F20101111_AAAFMA stockdale_m_Page_055.tif
43ca649566f9abd38066704c8c788730
84600dcedf7bc54bdc48d644279db758c169fb9f
F20101111_AAAFLL stockdale_m_Page_033.tif
a3fd68e2597c433a8f27bfc9a54ffc84
5974ebf14914b83cb5bc40cd3bc5cdb951af6f0c
F20101111_AAAFKY stockdale_m_Page_020.tif
ea050c11681756cd0731ddeeb411675e
00a11e5927935ba237ac1b1fa6695eada15d1584
F20101111_AAAFMB stockdale_m_Page_056.tif
20025c0a03664bc34ecf77b3785dabac
fed6f68c3d0617db209ebcf498614c4445ceec4e
F20101111_AAAFLM stockdale_m_Page_034.tif
d164b6886fba89da6a18b585315ffce6
57194739aae267f294f9594fee4f22a21acc5801
F20101111_AAAFKZ stockdale_m_Page_021.tif
4dc7b28f1ca7328c687603e5bba9f680
91af9457c5dd44aaca9e76649083c11c54610dfe
F20101111_AAAFMC stockdale_m_Page_057.tif
a7ce2b5272115e446e957ed352755080
b02754d94229056ad376c86a81f1e2a1cc5f25ad
F20101111_AAAFLN stockdale_m_Page_037.tif
eb04c777e3cbaa00c1096c28aa1c6870
f06ee52005080db7c5418f05de2fad5be5a9564d
F20101111_AAAFMD stockdale_m_Page_058.tif
b3435455ff520471fe7bff5d1c210484
9f10b907bb9719789ce3e513c849df7af424a305
F20101111_AAAFLO stockdale_m_Page_038.tif
8125ffefa7aa57effede32cef47b462e
1d11d67003e3b5e972634178b96c02aff428c4de
F20101111_AAAFME stockdale_m_Page_059.tif
4be38e3a8645f57d91d7a9a7b0709c61
5932c0647719d10a5d1f85356c0dfb7990806d12
F20101111_AAAFLP stockdale_m_Page_040.tif
0fbc49e237e9cc7e0903598b3eee5db1
0f4067d5dae3eadad28fc992066dfb17e57428ea
F20101111_AAAFMF stockdale_m_Page_060.tif
9f2157053af9e625c87145dc8839683c
429c55f7b94f869ce3bd8e3675236d9ab68b2cdd
F20101111_AAAFLQ stockdale_m_Page_041.tif
c180cb84a4460d8c62cec23f3a6ee09d
1cce3d7a28ee1e435c2663949499e6ff95fccf13
F20101111_AAAFMG stockdale_m_Page_061.tif
cb461e67e6c09612ae1eca71a663d5fd
2360933c4c3aad612fe57b09e9fa372386ed61c7
F20101111_AAAFLR stockdale_m_Page_042.tif
01a020e2b5f7a00e5fe430d31e6ce3e5
71951358b777a9071d6fcd58c2d85de9dfc68ff2
F20101111_AAAFMH stockdale_m_Page_062.tif
3deb9a586bff5b5a04f91a92e469061e
97b283110cb135f7d0f328868779330b879ee00b
F20101111_AAAFLS stockdale_m_Page_043.tif
f23df57f671e2117866a01d4e5252c28
558cabeb4b370caf4f78e63108f7406c264d11f6
F20101111_AAAFMI stockdale_m_Page_063.tif
15e10241db03069c7c952da0ccfa09f3
ffaee06efaf8485d560f5c17675ad358bb1c9a6e
F20101111_AAAFLT stockdale_m_Page_044.tif
9856894725344853ebe3e22b2e10b09d
173dd2bdf1ff473e2d5f85d104930b03255d8663
F20101111_AAAFMJ stockdale_m_Page_065.tif
80f7ce2d477abbf781e4b3ad1e746a2c
e4d7f20c2839072670142d8c2a7a0f350472bc55
F20101111_AAAFLU stockdale_m_Page_045.tif
21c94f3197f05a7ab3faae607758e28c
3358ad24b4aab6a8bffd4421c0b717ccfc2551b0
F20101111_AAAFMK stockdale_m_Page_066.tif
5368757f27e5b9bf093e52869c817246
1b12a4f5ddc941576bf09c67d71aaa4ab33d0b7c
F20101111_AAAFLV stockdale_m_Page_046.tif
f16a776ae5a1e8f70744a68996231388
274ed5600252407643f9e9162731a88287c7c58f
F20101111_AAAFLW stockdale_m_Page_048.tif
016aa94e904609d4f619fd59d58be439
5b281ad29f5fbba1c544b79943c7e2001d5b4cac
F20101111_AAAFNA stockdale_m_Page_088.tif
4dd715cc8a545141fd01bbf434eb7bac
77407d0c4a99b1e2722d30687c9d3209fd8fad8a
F20101111_AAAFML stockdale_m_Page_067.tif
ac293f27dcd49a510b0f63c5167c0ef2
009f070e3986c34b94455147e95b7c603e6332c2
F20101111_AAAFLX stockdale_m_Page_051.tif
8e1e0543cff77abbea4f2fe297424e3b
87a6f3b1f5428247a6d4da4f962ebe6e92afcd13
F20101111_AAAFNB stockdale_m_Page_089.tif
609db7d823556456cb8912e4ba7be45d
0537c4cc6091fbd20967a3d15522e2c1ea744fa1
F20101111_AAAFMM stockdale_m_Page_069.tif
439772f8c0110b765d057369f1f7eb06
43de3282896000fa6ef231a6b407b4b119d21b71
F20101111_AAAFLY stockdale_m_Page_052.tif
bc190c0809bf89d19d7da9f9645644b7
e90d12d0c393521e98c783a9a27b5e02d0e8c76a
F20101111_AAAFNC stockdale_m_Page_090.tif
d47103e823df2d2496b200ad1829fc56
5636b11d55892af2c9b79400568c60c9f788aeb6
F20101111_AAAFMN stockdale_m_Page_070.tif
5ebf3838852394c02049814d2099327e
86eaa01e1512efcec078522b4ab02121948a1931
F20101111_AAAFLZ stockdale_m_Page_053.tif
14ce3a88a2eadf257d1adbbec0d2b42a
ce09a874c6804733bd817808094063ab6739e07c
F20101111_AAAFND stockdale_m_Page_091.tif
0c126e8bd33423171d7855ee4c455e71
f2303f917d085c17d0a6412dca0d76c6133c74df
F20101111_AAAFMO stockdale_m_Page_071.tif
2dee358966482ac9bd9fec10c6afc6c2
99cb0c9b5c41f8c0ac814a097f34a5a9c59cc244
F20101111_AAAFNE stockdale_m_Page_092.tif
9daea0e93834f6d1c511ddb358759e83
aec13dd4d8dadb48bbc7ae8b2fde43225d326c89
F20101111_AAAFMP stockdale_m_Page_072.tif
46660393af7bee7f19b1bf2709201d36
1987e36442d7ee511a59b8d879274bb5a3123b80
F20101111_AAAFNF stockdale_m_Page_093.tif
462a29e3ad1d3c4b36832d992df35dac
92cbdacc9314c61bd07c484c5d874bcff0a24cf0
F20101111_AAAFMQ stockdale_m_Page_073.tif
d520f531057b0b96518794dc8112bccc
99ba3d1e58c36d08802ac14e9608ae39b3e682af
F20101111_AAAFNG stockdale_m_Page_094.tif
e24313b4a92e0947afca3efb79f896b5
262923cda9fc8b0f94399b43619b79cdb2fa6977
F20101111_AAAFMR stockdale_m_Page_074.tif
7e4ca5e5ae05fba16b5e26464078f97a
73d2e5674b4261b93b16c878e723e43d022639b2
F20101111_AAAFNH stockdale_m_Page_096.tif
69bcc4f8342308e5853b4a0f41224294
3efd16ad014986be7a92f141402259ff755432d3
F20101111_AAAFMS stockdale_m_Page_076.tif
d4248350da2ae23c36bcabb6fa673dff
ae0d397f0297b043bd25c1643cb0f54670ba2202
F20101111_AAAFNI stockdale_m_Page_097.tif
103f1c64f6af7f93aad59b5991ef8265
9d9b30555f85e7a5be9f818e6262c4b3f4bb5071
F20101111_AAAFMT stockdale_m_Page_077.tif
b8e670158f3662b6362a104881ec244a
75a4f7ed5a641473461768057ce311a8153e1866
F20101111_AAAFNJ stockdale_m_Page_098.tif
db4797414e9db6244edd316f5aeee831
520688d2c69d27e0cb72d930b2422e3a4c583d38
F20101111_AAAFMU stockdale_m_Page_078.tif
b0ab4423e67171ec59704ede2657f3bb
7de6f9f26096a405cded559c794939e36c119532
F20101111_AAAFNK stockdale_m_Page_099.tif
a0d40486fe556fcd87bf22cceeedc3cb
b377d6261be7fc7292c39d04622481105ad95281
F20101111_AAAFMV stockdale_m_Page_082.tif
acb27f32a1108cdd17bbc8fa93a5a0cb
84d84fd2ae4d522df3dcd38fb016c98636188974
F20101111_AAAFNL stockdale_m_Page_100.tif
abb292a5cdb09825b31d7bf572c5ab3a
c619e698784b5f8445e851cda0e467a218822338
F20101111_AAAFMW stockdale_m_Page_084.tif
fb514586ed8f4c0ff8e223615c7c911e
b9b868b4592bc7d6677247785a24ae63c1e7512b
F20101111_AAAFMX stockdale_m_Page_085.tif
521ec386d9f86d3c8b7a278c15a1cb1a
cfc607bf239207165d0e41bb626b2a251a35fe9f
F20101111_AAAFOA stockdale_m_Page_116.tif
1419533963e85cf004c3ce1e8e0edd0c
19e9314ec3ed82c6457b6215083f7ede46953455
F20101111_AAAFNM stockdale_m_Page_101.tif
5e6881cd9f9a525eed35e032f9a23604
cdfa063445d532ef3da1e13f3eb9a5fc46edcd5d
F20101111_AAAFMY stockdale_m_Page_086.tif
a805f4d290e2704fe92596aa0be2573b
c257099d4cdb74882d86c407041c78993088fa0b
F20101111_AAAFOB stockdale_m_Page_118.tif
772485013d3ab17ef34f6a43ed79053a
1eeb2044b0a490b72778ea3889eece27d01e4d9f
F20101111_AAAFNN stockdale_m_Page_102.tif
497ca9784e56f3c032ee0d1b60f63ede
213ea635d973c37312ca737fd154177bc62df72e
F20101111_AAAFMZ stockdale_m_Page_087.tif
1bfffee453d67c9b44b48a28c1e74ef5
c93cbdcf3735d91cdaae9f6775094cb7bba130d7
F20101111_AAAFOC stockdale_m_Page_119.tif
38db7761ba9cf8cb664e78fc07af2485
d3eba5ff76f5366379b5ba7cf0f94392b033681c
F20101111_AAAFNO stockdale_m_Page_103.tif
1a4c2ac534e79c01a343da215fe7901f
32269cc22bdbfbb31e12d83c9ba8c1fec1a87f8a
F20101111_AAAFOD stockdale_m_Page_120.tif
24449d1078c09cffa4a2f8ef613558f4
7e5c9b78d38bd226d60a71c5773c625225475f6e
F20101111_AAAFNP stockdale_m_Page_104.tif
67d8a55ea2a3f868126e0647368a6f31
4f1406a545ead0e79d699991c458403d72f971db
F20101111_AAAFOE stockdale_m_Page_121.tif
dcf068a06977043f106b81e884a5b2d9
b0867fa5410d4727c34d19ffbf62337a5b361a9b
F20101111_AAAFNQ stockdale_m_Page_105.tif
729b1cd41ecba21e24348006605628b1
d141e47273f6c5df86084a60f0086305cda3eec2
25265604 F20101111_AAAFOF stockdale_m_Page_123.tif
e53a3beb9a8fc0fe006bf1dba7c672e0
73fa611835a1d2abac0f972e75509e5740cbb3cc
F20101111_AAAFNR stockdale_m_Page_106.tif
c38d3e5ab983b6af8c8d065d8f679ce4
8e2bd6febc8384c8f892dc44b0b842f6c703823d
F20101111_AAAFOG stockdale_m_Page_124.tif
0168cf5890796804f7f4ceaea7d0b07c
312b4ec47067948397d1ad42c31f7d23c3ac2fd1
F20101111_AAAFNS stockdale_m_Page_107.tif
943c8b90a2ddb11a4487a9b079c8b01a
a8ff3e82bf4e3334ecf3d6153681d5e2a874299f
F20101111_AAAFOH stockdale_m_Page_125.tif
3fbfab9758f893e43110f388eb550901
70988d57a8c6089db2136564209ba2f267fb7c5d
F20101111_AAAFNT stockdale_m_Page_108.tif
d072ba75cca001a50acb7479eef875f6
5a3d220b0236e0b23d530e9b587d8c4b961b29d3
F20101111_AAAFOI stockdale_m_Page_126.tif
46cb02d962bf50ae8626ea99ddb5e996
088ad1bb71f8dd293f382172e301dd6f2377dff2
F20101111_AAAFNU stockdale_m_Page_109.tif
6fe3d448f7d3ca25271f242c5d76edca
df05eded3866b811b372ab65652a9cc22465d304
F20101111_AAAFOJ stockdale_m_Page_127.tif
3fc6200f046d060642f147cd640e7c5d
d31f75df773061a523c49835f4c8f4e4f4bcfee4
F20101111_AAAFNV stockdale_m_Page_110.tif
53259694080350e72689e063e5d88eea
87cd35aa210492d40a53d4765651ea57c14c1843
F20101111_AAAFOK stockdale_m_Page_128.tif
b82f60454992adafd5b2a1b1ddf75725
a6b1ec77818ded59e90c01d1bcaa86e1adda4443
F20101111_AAAFNW stockdale_m_Page_112.tif
1881bc43e9839db4cdbcaf7db0dcb587
72a0564a531102be9868941cf7dcb0eaa5915cec
F20101111_AAAFOL stockdale_m_Page_129.tif
99d8c816d07815add107ab5b9192db5a
c87bb505deb2eaca688edb7de9bf9d9b7fd48279
F20101111_AAAFNX stockdale_m_Page_113.tif
06c69a99dd88190a5ad7e522ec5372d4
3a94aab3d119a16b002ded945751ec32d3c46682
36536 F20101111_AAAFPA stockdale_m_Page_006.pro
e55486173028ec7412025600f3a79581
375895d3a632451221e4c13fd564dbbc02d67b19
F20101111_AAAFOM stockdale_m_Page_130.tif
5365bb6c4d35f1431c1b7ab39616cb5c
72069de722a9cd7b0740d4c21af3d6527695cc78
F20101111_AAAFNY stockdale_m_Page_114.tif
040c5ed5941b9e2712d7129772806f8e
c3e6e933ce71aa37e1a872844024f1cb83041a84
34031 F20101111_AAAFPB stockdale_m_Page_007.pro
886b33e91bbb27f96bdd2e8a42452532
dcbaaca9303d6709e65368cf6773f61063b6714e
F20101111_AAAFNZ stockdale_m_Page_115.tif
cef6f00027c4c441528db0348525c5d8
ac2644e4980c501ff4aa366a583b7b71920d00ff
41864 F20101111_AAAFPC stockdale_m_Page_008.pro
a305273e78722135d3c1c98b9686a74b
6f354fe6b3da66252fee9916e6881914cc7f9adb
F20101111_AAAFON stockdale_m_Page_131.tif
8428007fcc7c899dedc9269f0554911e
78afc91b46b517a894a8567a23b3ea84e0f5b7f3
24054 F20101111_AAAFPD stockdale_m_Page_009.pro
dc4d42f29ab806711bca88ef7bf8784e
3f94baebd9c327b32b6a4ecb1b71fa62027142bc
F20101111_AAAFOO stockdale_m_Page_132.tif
b72283378581d234bcdf45a12bb1abc3
9d9eacf36c868dd1b173239670880a4c9d78aca2
60159 F20101111_AAAFPE stockdale_m_Page_010.pro
12c04f54416e5bc02d14cb958c44f31f
9859f96f1621eed5babd30ce4b47dfc7e4cfad18
F20101111_AAAFOP stockdale_m_Page_133.tif
ebfd4e1dad3d954cb28de609a2cc9baa
b2f07cb663aaeb6baa193ed187a043b5a9313bfb
45954 F20101111_AAAFPF stockdale_m_Page_011.pro
1b10194363690379af3ee70570ef680e
ab6ce41def2f4192c6384363e8f0b9da3cf3cbb1
F20101111_AAAFOQ stockdale_m_Page_134.tif
a575b50fc9aa919a96edbc07edeb12b6
3ea002a252cfaeed568b05f93b6e91a15ba60a0a
57701 F20101111_AAAFPG stockdale_m_Page_013.pro
dc21196b312fa7dd8057c5ab881633be
ebaee5d7894ebcf16793e942bec6da2d9497ef4e
F20101111_AAAFOR stockdale_m_Page_135.tif
1e9fa6d7006bdec8eab61ee672946019
5eac2d600993af0e42b29f0e65fbbb2e190cf673
56652 F20101111_AAAFPH stockdale_m_Page_014.pro
376d0532bc1bc9844b75af8303b320d3
ef52763f9a9cd7befdc655890c7a61123785b322
F20101111_AAAFOS stockdale_m_Page_137.tif
b8a9fe61813c676fec988acb8fc91ef2
5dd62d949f881cdfd823833a294e5e3dec2f5f45
47642 F20101111_AAAFPI stockdale_m_Page_015.pro
7838792e2bdc697a5a89b15f60cfd195
4384adb294f8561976255a9bb6e80d31fc0f9936
F20101111_AAAFOT stockdale_m_Page_138.tif
9cca458f828b4894180af549e5a864b0
641af04da0a3d59aa734a837f89e3ad547c7e420
48064 F20101111_AAAFPJ stockdale_m_Page_016.pro
e5732ce19e5650a60a7cf1696774c141
4af038dac9f3ea8638e74d6dfba871d7f1cd6a71
F20101111_AAAFOU stockdale_m_Page_140.tif
e52f2740a2ddbdc5d9182f353b6298e4
f025eac5812d6fde820c7f8a16ba4879474b7bb6
49102 F20101111_AAAFPK stockdale_m_Page_017.pro
153ec10cb2edbb2cdeb680d5dafc065c
888a88904fe05daf6a5c8ed6521be232c843e611
F20101111_AAAFOV stockdale_m_Page_141.tif
754775f7334db7991f4d9e0f91b77963
deab8cf0637c26701909225429531a91f88fc78c
45819 F20101111_AAAFPL stockdale_m_Page_018.pro
0a50b992dc2a8c76429a9f2e1353a7fd
cee7277adac0110ff61e8ba97632caa775a904b8
F20101111_AAAFOW stockdale_m_Page_142.tif
2ce5daaf7d8e37e41a69f0e7606f6779
7e902d01750329249f3e446005601c651581214a
50674 F20101111_AAAFQA stockdale_m_Page_036.pro
8274e18f473aa7cb86ed8cffdf3a8c51
2f5332b73082275c0bbdfc7e9afbb47e64c00b0d
52734 F20101111_AAAFPM stockdale_m_Page_019.pro
381f7c41f9039b0d7a870f259e19b3f2
117f0bf2646fcfadc829c0afd4e8cc5abf87ec5d
1212 F20101111_AAAFOX stockdale_m_Page_003.pro
48f3cd3f39a7556bc65653528e4eca0f
d83972f437eb53ba71c6224fc812de23619783fc
63458 F20101111_AAAFQB stockdale_m_Page_037.pro
d619781550c8af82ab6c0500676ef514
998f269ff8efbbff7100f64e4d7e0391e2925875
53379 F20101111_AAAFPN stockdale_m_Page_020.pro
d38704f5807bb2333da1780b485755d4
a36512122c1838039cb5b2ee44689f24ab6c1977
42609 F20101111_AAAFOY stockdale_m_Page_004.pro
da47d876c5711edaefba6aa1bf9bdd29
54189ef7cc457dc6651a7df03e89f0c36eca0760
72297 F20101111_AAAFOZ stockdale_m_Page_005.pro
ba422646c1a12ceeb28df55185778d67
bc3ffb23341ca496b13b64a9caecf3e1e294dc71
51468 F20101111_AAAFQC stockdale_m_Page_038.pro
bdc07f815d23739dfeebf178e6e40f74
bb3e1d0d127287c534458dbb5a9fa1b35b9f13f9
51519 F20101111_AAAFPO stockdale_m_Page_021.pro
66b7ba955f9260d9a7dee8e0ff2eeeb6
763e2ef616169307909e936b01aca63ead332a5a
60569 F20101111_AAAFQD stockdale_m_Page_039.pro
27af3cdac2d373695f4b00254087b645
b5b7118bc645bdbd4dd92fc8e0f941bef1d6f04b
42662 F20101111_AAAFPP stockdale_m_Page_022.pro
050ef589fc9f5d922de3eb01d8ae6f47
54d3b4074c2f535c1c556a58c586b65053b74bff
67208 F20101111_AAAFQE stockdale_m_Page_041.pro
2977f5559f474f040241e2c05d5aeee4
9a88d01545a0245bf37b1b35fce2506284a60ae5
27481 F20101111_AAAFPQ stockdale_m_Page_024.pro
1b3df5e4fe7526531164934160c82625
67062e9e939154ee8ea4d9a2b927fb5d2c0cb057
53485 F20101111_AAAFQF stockdale_m_Page_042.pro
c29446d0c92ea2b561fc1adc708aaac6
40ffae7e4d9ce2307d559dae6365460512433840
46011 F20101111_AAAFPR stockdale_m_Page_025.pro
328ab619c628b44e7804329ade598cb7
434466cac92cafcdd76168d329e27a0b10d3d897
62769 F20101111_AAAFQG stockdale_m_Page_043.pro
65c5460e30c08f63da708f24dc3ed80e
fb511496ca63e33923c9dc87cffdeca6172f7878
56939 F20101111_AAAFPS stockdale_m_Page_026.pro
cd11e55cdb195dbb1997a31c21a762fa
8f648d9e970106b8a531179956ca797054c6b975
57552 F20101111_AAAFQH stockdale_m_Page_045.pro
74f02848f8e96ec7eedad9ace12c4024
8b03099a889133ee62d61f65a006e2e09f8aa33c
53493 F20101111_AAAFPT stockdale_m_Page_027.pro
f05c182cbc8ecafcf0bbac34bb0135cf
63c800d8b009c15bcb63d7191f3846959816a759
52853 F20101111_AAAFQI stockdale_m_Page_047.pro
1f561efd2ccb853586e9f7b94fc3053c
67327cfc598e93630f003beae1aaf2da077c1f1d
52306 F20101111_AAAFPU stockdale_m_Page_029.pro
6c8625e715abbca9d36a15370777fb62
6892c1a452f21e4c5f803b631de30f152441b621
54598 F20101111_AAAFQJ stockdale_m_Page_048.pro
d71249c47449070a3a8fda8f32924ef3
18f50d2499669671fe590b44e16542fe33c17411
60207 F20101111_AAAFPV stockdale_m_Page_030.pro
8469aac93fb929daff4e67b3b6f7d536
5f04d828a7ffc3b0d0644af1908c2a6267caaaac
54103 F20101111_AAAFQK stockdale_m_Page_049.pro
fb8d5f5e196e1634b3cd78867007f7da
290923e8c652c3b75bce793a9e06c925b93f9725
51210 F20101111_AAAFPW stockdale_m_Page_031.pro
4381f0d97197ab693c0a9df9d006c2d7
3524b184007ee8e522358e1b759d52ca333824a8
66867 F20101111_AAAFQL stockdale_m_Page_050.pro
4b86faaa50397a5f963391e451562116
5cc9f041e0eb13357422ab0388a466e00385ced3
47317 F20101111_AAAFPX stockdale_m_Page_032.pro
fa3a5db77c9b315eacfa7d4c711b2fc3
1eb7d231c4b4288f148ca5b2eb3b38f10d19e166
58164 F20101111_AAAFRA stockdale_m_Page_069.pro
7725e773cd46e20b86a720b74ea2cf05
a519b4e549d647957efc7207b435050290bfdbd5
53159 F20101111_AAAFQM stockdale_m_Page_052.pro
fa8f38e3c91004b2fe20bb19c09424ad
3646f41a81459ee80ee40b1490a44912688e3359
53269 F20101111_AAAFPY stockdale_m_Page_033.pro
bbc0d9c07c0f82bc3ed3f54c0e5c6454
e9048f2e161e6a5cf94a53cb5d2983b7ca57f92d
41930 F20101111_AAAFRB stockdale_m_Page_070.pro
7528af64bae8c9a1cbd1647f28c8984d
69dfa8c0f74921543637d13d228ad628f463f27d
57001 F20101111_AAAFQN stockdale_m_Page_053.pro
a611f692630e6580217f773f24098d88
8fc0dfc7a3f4c52cd7976fd79f172f09aaa61e24
52490 F20101111_AAAFPZ stockdale_m_Page_034.pro
9d0133d010db1e017658fe944a6f008f
a153fc2c86cccb192111a5cded67106f791184cd
32049 F20101111_AAAFRC stockdale_m_Page_071.pro
fa9d4f92a9bd87a3ca53fbd2a593f169
292212a96f6f6c2775cd563567c8e3e06691ebc9
68507 F20101111_AAAFQO stockdale_m_Page_055.pro
8d281890c8465fe24be7b1da9b46abaf
e12de06697992961de9a8e2b7801d9bd12d594b1
53407 F20101111_AAAFRD stockdale_m_Page_072.pro
5978d0bcdde9129b9081d44124687df0
430defe366b44526b04a182841518433aeb52844







SPECIAL EDUCATION STUDENTS IN SELECTED FLORIDA HIGH SCHOOLS:
ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS AS MEASURED BY THE POLICIES SET FORTH IN
THE NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT




















BY

MARK W. STOCKDALE


DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2008





































O 2008 Mark W. Stockdale


































To my Mother,
Carolyn Dey Lobkowicz









ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thanking everyone responsible for helping me complete the daunting tasks I have been

confronted with during my quest to finish this dissertation is near impossible. I apologize to

anyone I may have inadvertently left out. My committee members have been invaluable. I thank

them all for their willingness to serve on my committee and the time they have given up to meet

with me. My chair and mentor Dr. Craig Wood has been amazing in his dedication, guiding me

through the difficulties involved in finding a topic and learning how to research and cite the law.

I appreciate Dr. David Honeyman's guidance in the area of policy research. Dr. Mary Brownell

and Dr. Jeanne Repetto not only aided me through the doctoral process but served to inspire me

toward such a lofty goal years ago when I started my studies in education as an undergraduate. I

thank them both for so many years of support and encouragement; I will never forget my roots in

special education.

In addition to my committee I would like to thank the countless professors who have aided

me along the way. Of all the academic support I have had, I am probably most thankful to

Angela Rowe who has helped me and answered never-ending questions for years, in many ways

she truly was my academic adviser.

My Mother, Carolyn Lobkowicz, has believed in me and encouraged me to press ever

onward throughout this process and I am eternally grateful for all her support. Finally I want to

thank all my friends who have helped me throughout this endeavor. I will now finally have time

to start repaying the endless favors they have done for me.












TABLE OF CONTENTS


page

ACKNOWLEDGE MENT S ................. ...............4.......... ......


LIST OF TABLES ................. ...............7............ ....


AB S TRAC T ......_ ................. ............_........8


CHAPTER


1 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY............... ...............10.


Introducti on ................. ...............10.................
Need for the Study ................. ...............12.......... ....
History of Special Education ................. ...............13................
Florida's A Plan2.............. ...............15....
No Child Left Behind ............... ... .......... ...........1
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ........_................. .........._. ....... 1
Research Question .............. ...............21....
M ethod of Study .............. ...............22....
Limitations of the Study .............. ...............23....

2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................. ...............25...............


Parameters of Literature Review ....._._. ................ ............_........2
No Child Left Behind ............... ... .......... ...........2
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ........_................. .. ....._... ..._ ..... 3
Florida' s A+ Plan. ...._ .. ...._..._._ ......_.._.. ......._..._... ......._.._ ...._..._...........43
The Interaction of IDEA and NCLB Policies............................ ...................4
Punitive Policy Measures Mandated by the No Child Left Behind Act and the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act .............. ...............47....
The Public Policy of Parental School Choice............... ...............49.
Public Policy and Subgroup AYP Under NCLB ................. ....___ .............. .....5


3 RESEARCH DESIGN ............__........... ...............57...


Introducti on .................. ...............57....... ......
Florida' s Grading System ................. ...............58....... .....
Adequate Yearly Progress .............. ...............60....
Data Collection .............. ...............62....
Sum m ary ................. ...............65....... ......


4 OB SE RVAT IONS ................. ...............66................


Introducti on ................... ...... ....... ...............66.......
School Grades and ESE Criteria............... ...............69













School Grades and Percent of Criteria Met ................. ...............71........... ..

Miti gating Factors ................. ...............74........... ....
School D ata............... ...............77..

Summary .................. ...............80.................
Anecdotal Observations ................. ...............82.................


5 CONCLUSIONS .............. ...............83....


Purpose .............. ...............83....
Controversy ................. ...............83.................
Florida............... ...............84
Three Policies .............. ...............87....

Final Analysis .............. ...............90....
Plausible Ramifications .............. ...............93....


APPENDIX


A SAMPLE REPORTS .............. ...............95....


B DISTRICT DATA ................ ...............122................


C SCHOOL DATA ................ ...............125................


WORKS CITED .............. ...............130....


BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................. ...............142......... ......










LIST OF TABLES


Table page

4-1 State percentages of students at or above grade level ........._.._ ...... ._ ........._......68

4-2 District grades and number of ESE cells met .............. ...............69....

4-3 Number of ESE cells met by all schools in study ................. ...............69...........

4-4 Number of ESE cells met by A schools in study ................. ...............70...........

4-5 Number of ESE cells met by B schools in study .............. ...............70....

4-6 Number of ESE cells met by C schools in study .............. ...............70....

4-7 Number of ESE cells met by D schools in study ................. ...............70...........

4-8 School Grades and ESE criteria............... ...............71

4-9 Percent of criteria met by A schools and number of ESE cells met ........._..... ..............72

4-10 Percent of criteria met by B schools and number of ESE cells met .............. .................73

4-11 Percent of criteria met by C schools and number of ESE cells met .............. .................73

4-12 Percent of criteria met by D schools and number of ESE cells met ................. ...............74

4-13 Grade and % criteria met .............. ...............75....









Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

SPECIAL EDUCATION STUDENTS IN SELECTED FLORIDA HIGH SCHOOLS:
ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS AS MEASURED BY THE POLICIES SET FORTH IN
THE NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT

By

Mark W. Stockdale

May 2008

Chair: R. Craig Wood
Major: Educational Leadership

The author conducted a policy analysis of the impact of the special education student

population [referred to as exceptional student education (ESE) in Florida' s A+ Plan, and as

students with disabilities (SWD) under the No Child Left Behind Act] in selected Florida high

schools regarding adequate yearly progress (AYP) as measured by the policies set forth in the No

Child Left BehindAct. The maj or laws involved in this examination were the No Child Left

Behind Act (NCLB), the hIdividuals nI ithr Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and Florida' s A+

Plan. Florida was chosen because of the quality and clarity of the education policy in the state' s

A+ Plan. This policy mandated that students must pass the Florida Comprehensive Assessment

Test (FCAT) in order to graduate from high school. Scores and participation in this statewide test

were the foundation of Florida' s A+ Plan, and were used to measure adequate yearly progress at

both the school and district levels.

The state and Federal policies were examined to determine if special education students

had an impact on adequate yearly progress under either No Child Left Behind or Florida' s A+

Plan.









Data were gathered from the official Florida Department of Education (FLDOE) web site.

All of the highest and lowest scoring districts, as measured by Florida's A+ Plan2 were examined.

Within these districts data from all the highest and lowest scoring high schools were gathered. A

comparison was then made between the school grade under Florida' s A+ Plan2 and if the school

made adequate yearly progress under the No Child Left BehindAct. Data from schools that made

adequate yearly progress were examined to determine if and how students with disabilities

impacted the calculations under both No Child Left Behind and Florida' s A + Plan2.

Thirty-seven school districts and 109 high schools in Florida were examined in this study.

Of the fifteen high schools that did make adequate yearly progress only two of them did so

without dismissing the students with disabilities category due to small group size.










CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to discover the impact of the special education student

population on the policies set forth by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB).2 The No Child Left

Behind Act was signed into law in 2002 by President Bush.3 It was the most encompassing of

Federal laws governing education. The successfulness of schools and districts under NCLB4 was

measured through the ability to make adequate yearly progress (AYP).S This dissertation

examined the impact of the special education student population on AYP.6

In making a determination of the impact of special education students on education policy

two Federal laws must be considered, the NCLB,7 and the individuals nI ithr Disabilities

Education Act (IDEA). s No Child Left Behind9 was the most encompassing educational law.

Signed into law in 2002, it addressed issues including: funding, achievement, highly qualified

teachers, punitive measures, mandatory student remediation, school restructuring, and school

SSpecial education is a generic term for students qualifying for more individualized education. Under IDEA these
students are referred to as individuals with disabilities [20 U.S.C. # 1400 (c)(1)]. In NCLB they are referenced as
students with disabilities, SWD [20 U.S.C. # 6311 (b)(2)(C)(v)(II)(cc)] In Florida it is referred to exceptional
student education ESE [FLA. Stat. ch. 1003.01 (3)(a)]. All these terms are used interchangeably in this paper.

2 20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)

" IU.S. Department of education," [online] No Child Left Behind, available from
.
S20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)

5 20 U.S.C. # 6311(b)(2) (2002)

6AYP is defined in NCLB and referenced to the NCLB definition in IDEA 2004. Florida's A+ Plan references
making AYP as defined by NCLB: however, the state uses a school grading system to determine progress. These
issues are addressed latter in this paper. When AYP is used without a legal citation it is being used generically to
refer to student and school progress without limiting it to the definition of only one law.

S20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)

S20 U.S.C. ## 1400 et seq. (CI r 1g

9 20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)










choice for students in low performing schools. 10 The hIdividuals 11 ithr Disabilities Education

Actll dealt exclusively with students with disabilities. This law was reauthorized in 2004. One of

the maj or obj ectives of the reauthorization of IDEA l2 was to align it with NCLB. 13 The

hIdividuals 1 1 ithr Disabilities Education Actl4 mirTOred much of the language found in NCLB. 1

This included issues such as: funding, student remediation, accountability, achievement, and

disaggregated data collection. 16

This study was conducted in the state of Florida because it had a model state plan for

increasing student achievement. The Florida statute governing achieving adequate yearly

progress was the A+ Plan. 1 Governor Bush signed the A+ Plan'" into law in 2000. The basic

principals of the A+ Plan were: set state goals; measure annual learning; grade schools and

monitor progress; eliminate social promotion; reward schools; assist failing schools and give

parents more choices; raise educator standards; rate college of education performance; raise

admission standards to education programs; reward quality educators; hold educators







'o "U.S. Department of Education," [online] A Guide to Education and No Child Left Behind, available from
.
" 20 U.S.C. ## 1400 et seq. (21 *4)

1220 U.S.C. ## 1400 et seq. (21 *4)

1320 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)

1420 U.S.C. ## 1400 et seq. (21 *4)

'520 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)

16 olDEA-Reauthorized Statute," [online] Alignment with the No Child Left Behind Act, available from
.
17 FLA. Stat. ch. 2006.74 (2006)

1s FLA. Stat. ch. 2006.74 (2006)










accountable; improve teacher training. 19 Many of these concepts are paralleled in the policies of

NCLB. 20

These three laws were the primary references for this policy study. Data were gathered

from the Florida Department of Education web site21 and analyzed in accordance with the

policies of the intersection of these laws. The gold standard ultimately being how the special

education student population impacted high schools making AYP22 under the auspices of

NCLB. 23

Need for the Study

As noted in the Tenth Amendment, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the

Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the

people."24 Education is not mentioned in the Constitution,25 therefore it is reserved to the states.

This raises the question, why should the states be concerned with a Federal policy regarding

education? The answer lies in funding. The reality is that even though Federal education dollars

are a very low percentage of a state's education budget26 it would be politically untenable to







19 FLA. Stat. ch. 2006.74 (2006)

20 20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et.seq. (2002)

21 nFlorida Department of Education," [online] available from .

22 20 U.S.C. # 6311 (b)(2) (2002)

23 20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)

24 U. S. Const. amend. X

25 U. S. Const.

26 Only about 8 percent of education funding comes from the federal level as cited in. "Education Statistics
Quarterly," [online] National Center for Education Statistics, available from
.










refuse the money.27 If a state legislature accepts Federal education dollars they must follow the

policies laid out by the Federal laws.

The result of virtually mandated Federal policies regarding education may have been a de-

facto violation of the Tenth Amendment;28 however, as of yet no state legislature has opted out

of following these policies. The fact that no state has opted out demonstrates the maj or impact

these laws had on the nation,29 Or more specifically the states.30 COnsidering that these laws had

punitive measures up to and including the state take over of a school,31 these policies needed to

be examined in detail. The basic premise of IDEA32 was that students with special needs required

individualized education, be it through an adapted or modified curriculum. Instruction for

students with disabilities should be available through a continuum of services.33

History of Special Education

Advocates for special education have had a long and arduous battle to become protected

under Federal law. 34 Recognition of the need to provide services for people of any age, and in

particular students who have disabilities, has been slow to develop.35 The Perkins School for the



27 This is based on the political reality that no constituent wants their taxes raised and a loss of revenue would
necessitate an increase. A public policy maker who raises taxes tends lose favor with the general population.

28 Kathryn McDermott, and Laura Jensen. "Dubious Sovereignty: Federal Conditions of Aid and the No Child Left
Behind Act," Peabody Journal of Education 2, no. 80 (2005); U.S. Const. amend. X.

29 COuncil for Exceptional Children, "CECs Summary of Significant Issues," [online] The New IDEA, 2004,
available from .

30 Detailed ramifications were addressed in chapter two, in the punitive issues section.

31 20 U.S.C. # 6361(b)(8)(B) (2002)

32 20 U.S.C. ## 1400 et seq. (21 *4)

33 20 U.S.C. # 1400 (c)(5)(A) II II 14)

34 Stephen Thomas, and Charles Russo, Special Education Law: Issues &~ Implications for the '90s (Topeka:
National Organization on Legal Problems of Education, 1995).

35 20 U.S.C. # 1400 (c)(2)










Blind, founded by Samuel Howe in 1830, was one of the first institutions to try and assist the

differently-abled, rather than merely warehouse them.36 In 1864 Gallaudet University was

founded for the deaf.37 The Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) 38 eventually followed

these intuitions in 1922; however, it was not until the 1950s that advocacy groups started to

proliferate and push for legal protections for America' s disabled children.39

Brown v. Board ofEducation40 had a tremendous impact on the creation of law

governing students with disabilities education; however, its implications were not considered in

that respect for almost another twenty years.41 In 1972, The District Court of Columbia42 Opined

that based on the reasoning held in Brown v. the Board, 43 all children have a right to a free public

education.44 This was one of the first decisions to recognize the right of students with disabilities

to a public education, and was noted as the first law to directly address the issue of educating

handicapped children.45






36Daniel Hallahan, and James Kauffman, Exceptional Learners: 07trodriction to Special Education (Boston: Allyn
and Bacon, 1997).

37Ann Turnbull, H. Rutherford Turnbull III, Marilyn Shank, and Dorothy Leal, Exceptional Lives: Special
Education In Todav's Schools (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1995).

38CEC was founded as a professional organization, which now has many branches covering various types of
disabilities as well as parent and professional issues.

39 Daniel Hallahan, and James Kauffman, Exceptional Learners: 07trodriction to Special Education

"0 Brown v. Board of Edrication ofTopeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

41 Perry Zirkel, "Does Bown v. Board of Education Play a Prominent Role in Special Education Law?" Journal of
Law &~ Education 34, no. 2 (April 2005).

M2hills v. Board of Education of District ofColumbia, 348 F.Supp. 866 (D.C. 1972).

43Brown v. Board of Education ofTopeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

M4hills v. Board of Education of District ofColumbia, 348 F.Supp. 866 (D.C. 1972).

45Stephen Thomas, and Charles Russo, Special Education Law: Issues &~ Anplications for the '90s









Florida's A+ Plan

If Florida' s A+ Pla?246 were not the model for NCLB,47 it easily could have been based on

the similar aspects of the plan to NCLB. Governor Bush Announced his plans for education on

January, 5 1999 and three years later on January, 8 2002 President Bush signed NCLB48 into law.

If one reads the obj ectives of the two laws it is clear that Florida could have been the model for

the national plan. In Governor Bush's announcement of the A+ Pla?249 he stated, "We can see

that children learn a year's worth of knowledge in a year's worth of time, and work with

unbridled determination to ensure that no child in our education system is left behind." 5o When

President George W. Bush announced the No Child Left Behind Act he stated, "These reforms

express my deep belief in our public schools and their mission to build the mind and character of

every child, from every background, in every part of America."s The name No Child Left

BehindAct52 alone is indicative of the degree to which the national plan was modeled after the

A+ Plan.53

Florida has since incorporated the NCLB54 gOal of having 100 percent of students at

proficiency by the 2013-2014 school year into its plan. Florida had intermediate goals for Math


46 FLA. Stat. ch. 2006.74 (2006)

4720 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)

4820 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)

49 FLA. Stat. ch. 2006.74 (2006)

"0 Florida Department of Education, "The Bush-Brogan A+ Plan for Education," [online] available from
.
51 U.S. Department of Education, "Executive Summary," [online] ED.gov, available from
.
5220 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)

53FLA. Stat. ch. 2006.74 (2006)

5420 U.S.C. # 6301 (2002)









and Reading. 55 Florida' s goals included the obj ective of having all teachers and aides being

"highly qualified," as defined by NCLB56 by July 1, 2006. The goal of the state, districts, and

individual schools making AYP5 was included in the plan. Florida already had the Sunshine

State Standard~~ddsdddddd~~~~~ (SSS) in place as an appropriate guide for curriculum.58 The Florida

Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCA T)59 was given annually to measure student achievement.

The test was coded to distinguish district school and sub-group achievement levels.60 Scores

from year to year were used to determine state, district and school AYP.61 The State's A Pla7762

was used to determine individual school grades. This allowed the identification of low

performing schools, which were required to set aside 10 percent of funds for professional

development under NCLB. 63

The A+ Pla?764 identified schools that did not make AYP. The state made school grades

available on the Florida Department of Education web site.65 This allowed schools to be targeted





55 Florida Department of Education, "Fact Sheet: AHLB And Adequate Yearly Progress," Florida Department Of
Education, 2005, httpl w\ int\\fidoe.org/AHLB/FactSheet-AYP.pdf.

56 20 U.S.C. # 6319 (2002)

5720 U.S.C. # 6311 (2002)

58Florida Department of Education, "Sunshine State Standards." [Online] Available from
http1 un\\ t.firn.edu/doe/menu/sss.htm.
59 FLA. Stat. ANN. 1008.22 (3)(b) (LexisNexis 2004)

61) FLA. Stat. ANN. 1008.34 (5) (LexisNexis 2004)

61 FLA. Stat. ANN. 1008.22 (LexisNexis 2004)

62 FLA. Stat. ch. 2006.74 (2006)

63 20 U.S.C. # 6316 (c) (7) (A) (2002)

64 FLA. Stat. ch. 2006.74 (2006)

65 Florida Department of Education, "Measuring Adequate Yearly Progress," Florida Department OfEducation,
http://web.fidoe.org/AHLB/default.cfin/.









as needing assistance as required by NCLB.66 IfaTte17School failed to make AYP for two

consecutive years the district had to allow students to attend another school in the district that did

make AYP. The lowest performing students were given priority, and the district had to make

transportation available at no cost to parents of these students. After three consecutive years of

failure the school also had to offer supplemental instruction. After four years the district must

either replace certain staff, or implement a completely new curriculum. At five years the school

had to be completely restructured, this meant reopening as either a public charter school, or

replacing all or most of the schools staff. 68 Florida' s implementation and evaluation plan met the

requirements of NCLB.69

No Child Left Behind

President George Bush signed the No Child Left BehindAct (NCLB)70 into law on January

8, 2002.n1 The statement of purpose of NCLB read: "The purpose of this title [ 20 USCS g@ 630 1

et seq.] is 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 academic assessments. This purpose can be accomplished by..."

The purpose section went on to list twelve ways in which this could be accomplished. (1) Ensure

high quality assessments aligned with common expectations (2) Meet the needs of low achieving

students (3) Close achievement gaps between minority and non minority students as well as


66 20 U.S.C. # 6316 (2002)

67 20 U.S.C. ## 6301-6578 (2002)

68 20 U.S.C. # 6316 (2002)

69 20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)

"0 20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)

71 "IU.S. Department of Education," [online] No Child Left Behind, available from
.









between low SES students and their peers (4) Hold schools, districts, and states accountable and

provide alternatives for students in schools that fail to make AYP (5) Distribute resources

equitably with an emphasis on where there is the greatest need (6) Increase accountability

through rigorous state standards and assessments (7) Greater flexibility, but also greater

accountability for teachers and schools (8) Create accelerated programs that increase amount and

quality of instruction (9) Promote scientifically based instructional materials and methods (10)

Increase opportunities for staff development (1 1) Coordinate services within this section and

with other agencies (12) Ensure parents participation in their children's education. 72

The scope of NCLB73 was far reaching. It had caveats ranging from high stakes testing, to

requiring scientifically proven instructional methods and materials, to specific requirements

about teachers and paraprofessionals being "highly qualified."74 Many saw this law as an

unprecedented intrusion into the domain of the states.7

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

In 1975, the predecessor of The Individuals nI ithr Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) 200476

was passed into law. The Education for all H~andicapped Children Act (EHCA),7 was the first

Federal law to guarantee handicapped children an education. It established regulations and

requirements with regard to what services were provided and where these services were to take





72 20 U.S.C. # 6301 (2002)
73 20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)
74 20 U.S.C. # 6301 (2002)
75Council for Exceptional Children, "CECs Summary of Significant Issues,"

76 20 U.S.C. ## 1400 et seq. (GI r 14

7720 U.S.C ## 1400 et seq. (1975)










place. One of the issues Congress noted in this law was that, at the time, there were over a

million disabled students not receiving any public education at all.'

EHCA 79 was changed significantly in 1990 to become the individuals n ithr Disabilities

Education Act. so The most obvious change was the use of "person first" language in the name of

the law and throughout its text."' Issues addressed in previous case law such as Hoing v. Doe,

and Board ofEduc. ofHendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. y. Rowley, were clarified.8s2

IDEA 1990 was considered by the CEC and other child advocates to have addressed six

maj or points. (1) Zero rej ect, all children are entitled to a free and appropriate education (FAPE)

(2) Students are entitled to a non-discriminatory evaluation (3) The education should be

appropriate to both the student' s age and ability (4) The students education should occur in the

least restrictive environment (5) Procedural due process regulations were considerably expanded

and clarified (6) Parental and student participation in all decisions was greatly emphasized.83

In 1997, IDEA was reauthorized to become 20 U.S.C. g@ 1400-1487.84 This version

included exclusionary criteria in identification, such as a student could not be considered SLD if

the deficit were due to a lack of instruction in reading or math. IDEA '9785 stated that all



7820 U.S.C # 1400 (1975)

79 20 U.S.C ## 1400 et seq. (1975)

"" 20 U.S.C.S. ## 1400-1491 (1990)

st This change evidenced a shift in how the students covered by this law were to be thought of, and referred to: i.e.,
Johnny is a person with a specific learning disability (SLD), not an SLD child.

82John Norlin, From Rowlev to Buckhannon: 50 Court Decisions Special Educators Keed to Know (Horsham,
Pennsylvania: LRP, 2004).

83These are major elements only and by no means represent a detailed view of the reauthorization. 20 U.S.C. S. ##
1400-1491 (1990)

8420 U.S.C. ## 1400-1487 (1997)

8520 U.S.C. ## 1400-1487 (1997)










students must participate in any standardized testing or take an alternative assessment. A

number of changes and additions were made regarding the discipline of students with

disabilities.86 Transition services were to be considered and, where appropriate, provided to

students starting at age fourteen." It was clarified that parents or guardians were allowed to

examine all records.8

In 2004 IDEA8s9 underwent its most recent and in some aspects its most dramatic

reauthorization. This version of the law had many changes of significance; however, unlike the

prior reauthorizations this time the changes had more to do with legal issues than with children.

There were many changes in the latest reauthorization, but without question the most important

goal of this version of the law was to align it with NCLB. 90 Bringing the two most significant

Federal education laws into accord is appropriate policy, but only if the virtues they extol and the

application of them are in fact to the benefit of students, after all any education policy by

definition should be conceived and applied for the sole purpose of improving the potential of

America' s youth. According to Orlich it could be argued the policy legislators created by passing

NCLB91 was encroaching on the states ability to best serve students.92 This was pointedly

demonstrated by the inclusion of the following disclaimer in the law, which was so dramatic as


86 20 U.S.C. ## 1400-1487 (1997)

8720 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. 1400-1487 (1997) (Formerly age sixteen)

""20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. 1400-1487 (1997)

89 20 U.S.C. ## 1400 et seq. (GI r 1t

90 COuncil for Exceptional Children, "CECs Summary of Significant Issues,"

91 20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)

92 Donald Orlich, "No Child Left Behind: An Illogical Accountability Model," The Clearing House 78,
September/October 2004 [journal on-line]; available from ;
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.1p.hscl.ufl.ed/w/uptathm1eid0c~~6b790e70e3 97f5ebc28d34ee
4f4dl40d9e929bl14366436d2b9fb5fbl168293eeee6e32b&fmt=H.










to be included in its entirety: Prohibition Against Federal Ma'~ndates, Direction, or Control:

"Nothing in this title shall be construed to authorize an officer or employee of the Federal

Government to mandate, direct, or control a State, local education agency, or school's specific

instructional content, academic achievement standards and assessments, curriculum, or program

of instrucction."93 The inclusion of this statement was of great interest because its content is

implicit in the Tenth Amendment.94 Its inclusion was most likely an afterthought to assure that

the obvious increase of the Federal Government' s intrusion into education was not construed as a

violation of the Constitution.95 The increase in Federal involvement was not strictly a violation

because states could always opt not to receive Federal funding for education and be exempt from

these laws. To date, no state has done so, but the ever-increasing requirements and mandates that

must be met may give states more reason to consider opting out.

Given that the needs of special education students are so dramatic that it required over 200

pages of law96 to ensure that they receive a free and appropriate education, how they are

addressed under all education policies is of great importance. This study examined the

interaction between the special education population and the policies set forth by NCLB.97

Research Question

The purpose of this public policy study was to determine the impact of the special

education student population on schools ability to make AYP98 as measured by the policies set


93 20 U.S.C. # 617 (b) 0****4,.

94 U. S. Const. amend. X

95 Kathryn McDermott, and Laura Jensen, "Dubious Sovereigntv: Federal Conditions of Aid and the No Child Left
Behind Act," Peabody Journal of Education 2, no. 80 (2005); U.S. Const. amend. X

96 NOt counting all the rules and regulations.

97 20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)

98 20 U.S.C. # 6311(b)(2) (2002)









forth in NCLB.99 Specifieally the question was, how did the SWD subgroup effect the likelihood

of selected Florida high schools making AYP. 100 In the Eindings it became clear that the size of

the SWD subgroup figured prominently in AYP calculations. This study examined NCLB, 101

IDEA, 102 and Florida's A+ Plan2.103 These laws were important with regard to how they each

measured AYP. It became clear that there were disparities in the results of these measures. In

order to examine this issue the highest and lowest performing districts in Florida were

examined. 104 Within the aforementioned districts the highest and lowest performing high schools

were studied to see if the special education population impacted whether or not they made

AYP. 1os

Method of Study

This study was designed as an analysis of public policy. The maj ority of materials utilized

in this study were primary source, specifically; NCLB, 106 IDEA ,107 and Florida' s A+ Plan. os

Data in this study were gathered from the official Florida Department of Education (FLDOE)

web site. 109 All sixty-seven Florida school districts were reviewed. The highest and lowest



99 20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)

100 20 U.S.C. # 6311 (b)(2) (2002)

'0' 20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)

'02 20 U.S.C. ## 1400 et seq. (21 *4)

103 FLA. Stat. ch. 2006.74 (2006)

104 Appendix B.
105 Appendix C: 20 U.S.C. # 6311 (b)(2) (2002)

106 20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)

'07 20 U.S.C. ## 1400 et seq. (21 *4)

10s FLA. Stat. ch. 2006.74 (2006)
109 nFlorida Department of Education, [online] available from .










graded districts (A and C) were included in the study. Within the included districts the highest

and lowest graded high schools (ranging from A to F) were examined. The highest and lowest

graded districts and schools were included for greatest degree of separation of achievement

levels. Data were drawn from thirty-seven districts and 109 schools, for a total of 472 reports

(see appendix A for a sample of all reports relating to one district and a school within that district

as an example of the reports data were gathered from). All of the reports were printed from the

FLDOE web site; 110 however, each individual report had its own lengthy URL. The complete

citation for the sample reports is included in appendix A. In the body of this paper the FLDOE

searchable database web site"l was cited, with the understanding that all reports may be brought

up from that searchable database.

Limitations of the Study

This policy analysis examined two Federal laws, NCLB112 and IDEA. 113 The primary focus

was on the impact that special education students had on AYP as measured under the auspices of

NCLB. 114 This study was limited to the state of Florida. The primary state law examined was

Florida's A+ Plan2. "' All districts in the state were reviewed. The highest and lowest scoring

districts were selected for comparison. Within the highest and lowest scoring districts the highest

and lowest scoring high schools were examined to determine if the special education population



''0 "Florida Department of Education, [online] available from .

ni "Florida Department of Education," [online] Florida School Grades, available from
%2D2006&school~grade=&report=AYP&level= School>.

no 20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)

"3 20 U.S.C. ## 1400 et seq. (CI r 1g

"4 20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)

"5 FLA. Stat. ch. 2006.74 (2006)










impacted AYP,116 as measured by the policies set forth under NCLB. "' This was done based on

data gathered from the FLDOE web site.""l Schools that made AYP119 under the provisions of

NCLB120 were examined to see if the percentage/number of special education students impacted

the AYP 121 determination under NCLB. 122 An unexpected ancillary comparison of note was the

difference in making AYP under the state plan compared to the Federal standards. 123



























116 20 U.S.C. # 6311 (b)(2) (2002)

11- 20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)
11s "Florida Department of Education," [online] Florida School Grades, available from
%2D2006&school~grade=&report=AYP&level= School>.

119 20 U.S.C. # 6311 (b)(2) (2002)

'20 20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)

'21 20 U.S.C. # 6311 (b)(2) (2002)

122 20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)

123 Florida's A+ Plan allows schools to make "provisional AYP" an issue that will be addressed in a latter chapter.









CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

Parameters of Literature Review

This policy examination was based on primary source information as much as possible.

The maj or Federal laws examined were the No Child Left BehindActl (NCLB), and the

Individuals tI ithr Disabilities Education Act2 (IDEA). At the state level Florida' s A+ Plan3 was

reviewed. All three of these laws were examined with regard to there relevance to the research

question in the previous chapter, they were briefly reviewed in this chapter. The source of raw

data and the harvesting thereof was addressed in detail in chapter three.

No peer-reviewed literature of a directly comparative nature to this study was found.

Ultimately a review was done of available peer-reviewed literature tangentially related to aspects

of this policy analysis. Data, used in the study were the most recent available at the time of

writing (the 2005-2006 school year). The oldest law noted was authorized in 1999 and the most

recent in 2004, as a result the maj ority of the literature considered pertinent in this review was

published in the last four years.

The policy question that guided this review was: What was the impact of the special

education population on selected Florida high schools regarding adequate yearly progress as

measured by the policies set forth in the No Child Left BehindAct.4 Florida was the state chosen

to conduct the study in. The literature review was grouped along the following concepts: (1) An

overview of NCLBS (2) An overview of IDEA 20046 (3) An overview of Florida' s A + Plan7 (4)


i 20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)

2 20 U.S.C. ## 1400 et seq. (GI r 1t

3 FLA. Stat. ch. 2006.74 (2006)

4 20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)

S20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)










Detail the literature on the ramifications of the interaction of IDEA s and NCLB,9 as they relate to

public policy (5) An examination of the punitive measures of IDEA 1o and NCLB"1 as they relate

to public policy (6) An examination of the public policy literature regarding parents rights to

school-choice under the two laws (7) Public policy and subgroup AYP under NCLB.12

No Child Left Behind

The No ChildLeft BehindActl3 was seen by some as a dramatic shift in America' s

educational policies. 14 While there were some maj or changes, if its development were viewed

over the last forty years, NCLB1S was really the next step in a gradual progression of change. 16

The national emphasis on education shifted from micro to macro-management. 1 This shift could

also be viewed in terms of a change from equity, as viewed in an input model, to an accountable


6 20 U.S.C. ## 1400 et seq. (21 *4)

SFLA. Stat. ch. 2006.74 (2006)

S20 U.S.C. ## 1400 et seq. (21 *4)

9 20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)

'0 20 U.S.C. ## 1400 et seq. (21 *4)

11 20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)

12 NO peer-reviewed public policy literature of the A+ Plan relating to this study was found.

13 20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)

14 Carolyn Yunker, Katherine Nagle, and Kimber Malmgren, "Students with Disabilities and Accountability
Reform," Journal of Disability Policy Studies 17, Summmer 2006 journall on-line]; available from
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.1p.hscl.ufl.ed/w/uptr hmlrcd0c1~6b790e70e397f5ebc28d3476
5dac3af94 199776 137a7383c9ea5d7bae99223d0730058&fmt=H.

's 20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)

16 Lorraine McDonnell, "No Child Left Behind and the Federal Role in Education: Evolution or Revolution?,"
Peabody Journal ofEducation 80, 2005 journall on-line]; available from;
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.1p.hscl.ufl.ed/w/uptr hmlrcd0c1~6b790e70e397f5ebc28d34d4
3ce3 3921lc936bac3ec95d92632237e958b3 50953464 1b7&fmt=H.

17 David Bloomfield, and Bruce Cooper, "Making Sense of NCLB," T.H.E. Journal 30, May 2003 journall on-line];
available from
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.1p.hscl.ufl.ed/w/uptathm1eid0c~~6b790e70e397f5ebc28d34eb
dacdb87ed2eb68d689fccf95808255cb8594752 192de6e&fmt=H.









model as evidenced through the demand for educational excellence. IsIn order to understand

these shifts it is important to look at the history of the most encompassing Federal education law.

The predecessor of NCLBl9 was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson on April

11, 1965. Part of the provisions of the Elementary and' Secondarydd~~~~~ddddd~~~~ Education Act20 (ESEA)

addressed educational benefits directed toward disadvantaged children. This part of the law was

called Chapter One.21 Additional funds were allocated to certain schools based on the percentage

of students they had that qualified as low socio-economic-status (SES). Between 1965 and 1980

ESEA22 was reauthorized four times, each time more narrowly defining the intent that funds be

used to benefit low SES students.23

In 1983 the A Nation at Risk report24 Stated that America's public schools were being

eroded by mediocrity. Among other things the report showed that 40 percent of minority children

were functionally illiterate and only 30 percent of high school students could solve multi-step

math problems. This report heralded the beginning of more accountability. The commission

recommended; raising graduation requirements, adopting higher measurable standards, increased

time devoted to academics, and raising teacher standards.25




18 Lorraine McDonnell, "No Child Left Behind and the Federal Role in Education: Evolution or Revolution?,"

19 20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)

20 20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (1965)

21 This section is now called Title One. 20 U.S.C. ## 6301-6578 (1965)

22 20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (1965)

23 Lorraine McDonnell, "No Child Left Behind and the Federal Role in Education: Evolution or Revolution?,"

24 National Commission on Excellence in Education, "A Nation At Risk," [online] Archived Information, 1983,
available from .

25 Peter Wright, Pamela Wright, and Suzanne Heath, No Child Left Behind (Hartfield: Harbor House Law Press, Inc,
2004).










Many of the issues raised in A Nation at Risk were reflected in the Improving America 's

Schools Act26 Of 1994 (IASA). This re-authorization required challenging content, and raising

standards. The Improving America 's Schools Act27 required states to implement assessments

aligned with the new higher standards. Schools were to be held accountable for meeting these

standards.28 It was also at this time the term adequate yearly progress (AYP) first came into play

from the Federal level. The Improving America 's Schools Act29 set high standards for all

students. In exchange for aspiring to these high standards states were given flexibility in the

manner in which they were implemented. A natural result of states having leeway was that there

was considerable variability in the way state legislatures implemented the law. Even given

latitude, by 200 1 only seventeen states were on track to meet the requirements of IASA.30 This

led to the latest reauthorization of ESEA, NCLB. 31

The No Child Left BehindAct32 was signed into law by President George W. Bush on

January 8, 2002. In presenting his plans for NCLB33 President Bush said, "These reforms express

deep belief in our public schools and their mission to build the mind and character of every child,





26 20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (1994)

2720 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (1994)

28Margaret Goertz, "Implementing the No Child Left Behind Act: Challenges for the States," Peabody Journal of
Education 80, 2005 [journal on-line]; available from
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.1p.hscl.ufl.ed/w/uptr hmlrcd0c1~6b790e70e397f5ebc28d34d4
3ce3 3921lc936bac3ec95d92632237ebe7b04fb~bbabc79&ftH

29 20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (1994)

30Lorraine McDonnell, "No Child Left Behind and the Federal Role in Education: Evolution or Revolution?,"

31 20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)

3220 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)

3320 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)










from every background in every part of America."34 In his executive summary the President

went on to list four maj or areas of reform: (1) Increased accountability (2) More choices for

parents and students (3) Greater flexibility for states, school districts, and schools (4) Putting

reading first. 35 These were not new goals, they evolved with the series of re-authorizations of

ESEA .36

The statement of purpose of NCLB read: "The purpose of this title [ 20 USCS g@ 6301 et

seq.] is 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 academic assessments. This purpose can be accomplished

by..."37 The purpose section went on to list twelve ways in which this could be accomplished.38

This represents a brief overview of the history of NCLB39 and it' s present form after being

reauthorized in 2002.

There were peer reviewed articles that herald the No Child Left BehindAct40 as the savior

of public education;41 however, discounting political agenda press-releases42 the author of this




34U.S. Department of Education, "Executive Summary," [online] Ed.gov, 2004, available from
.
35U.S. Department of Education, "Executive Summary," [online] Ed.gov, 2004, available from
.
36 Lorraine McDonnell, "No Child Left Behind and the Federal Role in Education: Evolution or Revolution?,"

3720 U.S.C. # 6301 (2002)

38As noted in chapter one.

39 20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)

40 20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)

41 Ross Wiener, and Daria Hall, "Accountability Under No Child Left Behind," The Clearing House 78,
September/October 2004 [journal on-line]; available from
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.1p.hscl.ufl.ed/w/uptathm1eid0c~~6b790e70e3 97f5ebc28d34ee
4f4dl40d9e929bl14366436d2b9fb5f5 10457ba84202ac8&fmt=H.










study found the preponderance of legitimate literature seemed to address the difficulties in

implementing NCLB43 and/or achieving its goals.44 There was little debate that the altruistic

goals ofNCLB45 were laudable.46 The idea of all children achieving at grade level by 2014 was

admirable, but whether this goal could be achieved was controversial.47 COnsidering that only

seventeen states ever fully met the requirements of the Elementary and Secondarydd~~~~~ddddd~~~~ Education Act

of 199448 it would be an understatement to say that NCLB49 was a controversial law, even

legislators were having some misgivings as the reauthorization deadline approached.so

The primary concern of this public policy study was the impact of special education

students on making adequate yearly progress (AYP) under NCLB. 5 Federal guidelines on AYP

were written in broad strokes leaving the specifics to the states; however, according to the




42 U.S. Department of Education, "Executive Summary," [online] Ed.gov, 2004, available from
.

43 20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)

44 As is demonstrated throughout this section.

45 20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)

46 Carl Cohn, "NCLB Implementation Challenges: The Local Superintendent's View," Peabody Journal of
Education 80, 2005 journall on-line]; available from
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.1p.hscl.ufl.ed/w/uptr hmlrcd0c1~6b790e70e397f5ebc28d34d4
3ce3 3921lc936bac3ec95d92632237e8ffd64e3cce298d4&ftH

47 Emma Smith, "Raising Standards in American Schools: The Case of No Child Left Behind," Journal of Education
Policy 20, no. 4 (2005).

48 William Wanker, and Kathy Christy, State Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act," Peabody Journal
of Education 80, 2005 journall on-line]; available from
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.1p.hscl.ufl.ed/w/uptr hmlrcd0c1~6b790e70e397f5ebc28d34d4
3ce3 3921lc936bac3ec95d92632237e03c03774adb09c49&ftH

49 20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)

so Gerardo Gonzalez, "Influences of NCLB on K-12 Systemic Educational Reform," Tech Trends 50, March/April
2006 journall on-line]; available from
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.1p.hscl.ufl.ed/w/uptr hmlrcd0c1~6b790e70e397f5ebc28d3476
5dac3af94 19977f~df7930e6c327f2a823elff4c9743cc&fmt=

st 20 U.S.C. # 6311 (b)(2) (2002)










Secretary of Education the guidelines were inflexible.52 Adequate yearly progress applied to

states, districts and individual schools. No Child Left Behind outlined the basic tenants for

establishing AYP.53 Education secretary Rod Paige sent out an AYP guidance letter outlining ten

maj or guidelines for states to design individual AYP plans around:

(1) A single statewide accountability system applied to all public schools and
LEAs .

(2) All public school students are included in the State accountability system.

(3) A State's definition of AYP is based on expectations for growth in student
achievement that is continuous and substantial, such that all students are
proficient in reading math no later than 2013-2014.

(4) A State makes annual decisions about the achievement of all public schools
and LEAs.

(5) All public schools and LEAs are held accountable for the achievement of
individual subgroups.

(6) A State's definition of AYP is based primarily on the State's academic
assessments.

(7) A State's definition of AYP includes graduation rates for high schools and an
additional indicator selected by the State for middle and elementary schools
(for example attendance rates).

(8) AYP is based on separate reading/language arts and math achievement
obj ectives.

(9) A State's accountability system is statistically valid and reliable.

(10) In order for a school to make AYP, a State ensures that it assessed at least
95% of students in each subgroup enrolled.54





52 U. S. Department of Education, "Paige Joins President Bush for Signing of Historic No Child Left Behind Act of
2001," [online] Ed.gov, 2007, available from .
53 20 U.S.C. # 6311 (b)(2) (2002)

54 Rod Paige, "Key Policy Letters Signed by the Education Secretary or Deputy Secretary," [online] Ed.gov, 2003,
available from .









Some authors viewed NCLB55 as positive advancement of educational public policy.

Wiener and Hall noted that higher education is the key to success in America today. Their

statistics showed that 28 percent of students entering two or four year colleges will need

remedial courses in English, language arts, or mathematics. Seventy-five percent of students

requiring no remediation will earn at least a Bachelor of Arts degree or better, while only 45

percent needing remedial courses will achieve a bachelor of arts degree. The numbers dropped to

36 percent if one or more remedial classes are in reading. These authors insisted that "quality and

intensity" of high school education are the biggest predictors of college success, and that

"watered down" courses leave students ill equipped for success in American society. Wiener,

and Hall considered NCLBs AYP56 prOVision an excellent method of targeting students who need

assistance before their deficiencies become the harbinger of failure. They considered NCLB57

goals to be reasonable based on the fact that thousands of schools around the country were

meeting or exceeding the State goals. Finally they wrote that while AYP5 alone was not enough

to put schools on the right track, it served its purpose by publicly calling attention to schools that

were not meeting high standards of education. 59

President Bush' s administration had published a lot of material addressing NCLB.60 Not

surprisingly this information was all of a positive nature. The United States Department of





5520 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)
56 20 U.S.C. # 6311 (b)(2) (2002)

5720 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)
5820 U.S.C. # 6311 (b)(2) (2002)

59 Ross Wiener, and Daria Hall, "Accountability Under No Child Left Behind,"

60 20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)










Education (USDE) had a large searchable web site.61 A link on this site lead to a vast site

devoted exclusively to NCLB. 62 This site contained; press releases, fact sheets, information for

parents, teachers, and administrators. It was also open to anyone with an e-mail account to sign

up to receive newsletters such as the Achiever63 and No Child Left BehindExtra Credit. 64 These

newsletters used government statistics and antidotal stories to publicize the positive aspects of

NCLB65 and various success stories from the national level all the way down to specific schools.

This pulpit was used to show NCLB'" in its best light, and rebuke claims such as NCLB being an

unfunded mandate.67 The site was also used to justify controversial issues such as the

requirement that all teachers be "highly qualified" by July, 2006,68 HOting that the President' s

budget allocated nearly three billion dollars to the states to help meet the deadline.69 From this

perspective NCLB 7o was a proactive advancement of educational public policy. It is important to







61 U. S. Department of Education, "U. S. Department of Education," [online] Ed.gov, 2007, available from
.
62 U. S. Department of Education, "No Child Left Behind," [online] Ed.gov, 2007, available from
.

63 U. S. Department of Education, "The Achiver," [online] Ed.gov, 2007, available from
.
64 U. S. Department of Education, "Extra Credit," [online] Ed.gov, 2007, available from
.
65 20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)

66 20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)

67 Geoffrey Goodman, Keeping The Funding And Standards: The Choice Has To Be Both, private email message to
author, 25 April 2005.

68 20 U.S.C. # 6319 (2002)

69 Peter Kickbush, Spellings: Reward Teachers Who Get Results, private email message to author, 20 May 2005.

"0 20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)










keep in mind that these remarks and statistics were all carefully crafted by the administration that

created NCLB.n1

Aside from governmental publications and some non-peer reviewed literature, the maj ority

of articles tended to criticize NCLB72 to one degree or another. Linn began his article, "No

reasonable person is against accountability that enhances the quality of education."7 He also

noted that accountability must be shared on a large scale if it were to be effective, and warned

against arbitrary goals. Part of Linn' s study examined the trend of student improvement on

national test scores. At the current rate of improvement it would take 166 years for 100 percent

of twelfth grade students to be at proficiency. In other words it would take a gain of 1 1.8 percent

per year for all twelfth grade students to be proficient by the 2013-2014 deadline. Growth at this

rate would be unprecedented considering the current growth rate of seniors was only .05

percent. 74

Donlevy also considered the timeline for AYP.75 He raised the question of the practicality

of having 100 percent of students at proficiency by the end of the 2013-2014 school year. Donley

noted that many states, including Florida had hundreds of failing schools already. He predicted

that NCLB AYP76 Obj ectives would have to be modified in order to avert dramatic consequences

on a national scale. He suggested that the measure of AYP be based on multiple factors rather


71 20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)

7220 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)

73Robert Linn, "Accountability: Responsibility and Reasonable Expectations," Educational Researcher 32, October
2003: First paragraphljournal on-line]; available from
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.1p.hscl.ufl.ed/w/uptathm1eid0c~~6b790e70e3 97f5ebc28d34eb
dacdb87ed2eb68e6dde9eall1cee7830a61 1a05ecld6ba2&fmt=H.

74Robert Linn, "Accountability: Responsibility and Reasonable Expectations,"

7520 U.S.C. # 6311(b)(2) (2002)

76 20 U.S.C. # 6311 (b)(2) (2002)










than primarily on one state-wide test, and using that information to assist failing schools rather

than penalize them. In his article Donlevy compared NCLB7 to the Regents system of

assessment used in New York State's public education plan. It was proposed to raise the passing

score on the regents exam from 55 to 65 the next school year. It quickly became evident that this

change would cause large numbers of students to fail. In view of this the Board of Regents

extended the deadline for changing the passing score.' This same sort of reasonable expectation

should be applied to AYP under NCLB. 79

In his article, Newbold raised similar concerns regarding schools and states making AYP.

His paper recounted concerns raised by the school officials and legislators in Utah during a

meeting with officials from the USDE. One school administrator expressed concern that the

punitive measures (withholding funding) against failing schools would actually be the most

detrimental to the very students NCLBso is supposed to help. She asked, "Isn't there a way to use

the [sic] data in such a way that it doesn't disenfranchise students? 'No,' was the response."s

State officials estimated that it would take $182 million to implement the scientifically based

strategies needed to meet the AYP deadline, yet the state only received five million dollars in



7720 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)

78Jim Donlevy, "No Child Left Behind: Failing Schools and Future Directions," international Journal of
Instructional hdedia 30, 2003 journall on-line]; available from
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.1p.hscl.ufl.ed/w/uptathm1eid0c~~6b790e70e3 97f5ebc28d34eb
dacdb87ed2eb68f2 1953a80ca8930e94960033ef2c9631l&fmt=H.

79 Susan Albrecht, and Candace Joles "Accountability and Access to Opportunity: Mutually Exclusive Tenets Under
a High-Stakes Testing Mandate," F, .. I .. as;, School Failure 47, Winter 2003 journall on-line]; available from
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.1p.hscl.ufl.ed/w/uptathm1eid0c~~6b790e70e3 97f5ebc28d34eb
dacdb87ed2eb68ael12a0fd3c7dl1347e66269b8590 1d7dd&fmt=H.

so 20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)

st Barry Newbold, "The Faceless Mandates of NCLB," Kappa Delta Pi Record 41, Fall 2004: Reaching academic
Benchmarks sectionljoumnal on-line]; available from
http://vnweb .hwwilsonweb .com.1p. hscl.ufl.edu/hww/jumpstart~jhtml?recid=0bcOfa6b790e70e3 97f5ebc28d3 4ee
4f4dl40d9e929b2753034ce92f5c4e751lff729952dedb6&fmt=H.










Federal funding. Upon bringing this up, the USDE representatives and Federal legislators

responded by citing the flexibility states have in meeting NCLB82 Objectives. Newbold noted that

he saw no tangible suggestion on how to bridge the gap.83

Money was not merely an issue in terms of how much it cost to comply with NCLB.8s4

was also a concern in terms of how the money in question must be spent. Bloomfield and

Cooper looked at the need to make AYPs from the perspective of how money had to be spent to

be in compliance. The No Child Left Behind Act86 was the first Federal education law that

mandated private service provider involvement. This caveat applied to schools that failed to

make AYP. They must enlist private assistance ranging from tutoring to complete take over of

the school as a charter by a private individual or company. An unintended Einancial consequence

of this policy was that most states will have to contract with private companies in order to create

and grade the extensive state-wide testing mandated under NCLB. s

The National Education Association filed suit against the Secretary of Education claiming

that NCLBs was an unfunded mandate.89 States were free to refuse Federal education dollars and





8220 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)

83Barry Newbold, "The Faceless Mandates of NCLB,"

8420 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)

8520 U.S.C. # 6311 (b)(2) (2002)

86 20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)

87David Bloomfield, and Bruce Cooper, "NCLB: A New Role for the Federal government," T.H.E. Journal 30, May
2003 [journal on-line]; available from
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.1p.hscl.ufl.ed/w/uptr htlrcd0c~~61790e70e3 97f5ebc28d34ebd
acdb87ed2eb68d689fccf9580825596bf42ebcd 9aee~m=

""20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)

89 Pontiac, et al, v. Spellings (Filed in the U. S. District Court for the Eastern Court of Michigan on April 20, 2005);
The case was dismissed on November 23, 2005.










opt out of NCLB. Some states, have threatened to do this, but to date no state has.90 DeBray,

McDermott, and Wohlstetter wrote that the likelihood of states refusing funding is remote, and

that traditionally states do not refuse Federal funding.91

The question of funding is always an issue with Federal mandates. It has been argued that

NCLB92 was an unfunded mandate.93 The first question was, could one call NCLB94 a mandate?

It was not a mandate in the sense that states did have the right to opt out of NCLB,95 but in doing

so they would lose the Federal funding linked to it. McDermott and Jensen addressed this issue

in terms of "conditional funding." They noted that education was not the only area in which the

Federal government has used withholding Federal funds to apply pressure to the states to

comply. They cited the example of the fifty-five mile per hour speed limit, of the 1970s. The

government effectively created a national speed limit by threatening to withhold Federal

highway funds if states did not implement the speed limit. Like education this was an area that

had always been left to the states. It was constitutional because states did not have to comply if

they were willing to decline the funding. The same reasoning was applied to NCLB. 96 It was not


91) JOhn Munich, and Rocco Testani, "NEA Sues over NCLB," Education Next 5, Fall 2005 [journal on-line];
available from
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.1p.hscl.ufl.ed/w/uptr hmlrcd0c1~6b790e70e397f5ebc28d34d4
3ce33921c936ba4a7881ld20e3c3d6754d56c36fc73 1f38&fmt=H.

91 Elizabeth DeBray, Kathryn McDermott, and Priscilla Wohlstetter, "Introduction to the Special Issue on
Federalism Reconsidered: The Case of the No Child Left Behind Act, Peabody Journal of Education 80, 2005
[journal on-line]; available from
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.1p.hscl.ufl.ed/w/uptr hmlrcd0c1~6b790e70e397f5ebc28d34d4
3ce3 3921lc936bac3ec95d92632237eb8 103f37f27b85c5&fmt=H.

92 20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)

93 William Mathis, "The Cost of Implementing the Federal No Child Left Behind Act: Different Assumptions,
Different Answers," Peabody Journal of Education 80, 2005 [journal on-line]; available from
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.1p.hscl.ufl.ed/w/uptr hmlrcd0c1~6b790e70e397f5ebc28d34d4
3 ce3 392 1c93 6bac3 ec95d9263 223 7e6 172e3 146ce8 168b&fmt=H.

94 20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)

95 20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)










a mandate and was considered constitutional because states could opt out if they refused Federal

funds.97

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

The hIdividuals nI ithr Disabilities Education Act98 (IDEA) of 1997 was reauthorized by

congress on November 19, 2004, and signed into law by President George W. Bush on

December 3, 2004. The maj ority of the changes in IDEA99 2004 took effect on July 1, 2005. One

of the maj or focuses of this reauthorization was to align IDEA 1oo with NCLB. 101 To this end and

to better serve children with disabilities, other notable differences included new rules for;

evaluation time lines, identifying students with learning disabilities, defining "highly qualified,"

allowing for trials of multi-year Individualized Education Plans (IEP), changes in procedural

safeguards, additions in monitoring and enforcement, and many changes regarding research. 102

The provisions of the law took effect July 1, 2005 with the exception of the requirement

that teachers be "highly qualified"10 which was to take effect immediately. The Federal

government has responded to the states difficulties in meeting the highly qualified mandate. In a

fact sheet that addressed new flexibility, U. S. Secretary of Education Rod Paige announced

flexibility for meeting the highly qualified requirements for, rural teachers, science teachers, and


96 20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)

97 Kathryn McDermott, and Laura Jensen, "Dubious Sovereigntv: Federal Conditions of Aid and the No Child Left
Behind Act," Peabody Journal of Education 2, no. 80 (2005); U.S. Const. amend. X.

98 20 U.S.C. ## 1400-1487 (1997)

99 20 U.S.C. ## 1400 et seq. (21 *4)

'00 20 U.S.C. ## 1400 et seq. (21 *4)

'0' 20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)

102 Council for Exceptional Children, "CECs Summary of Significant Issues," [online] The New IDEA, 2004,
available from .

103 20 U.S.C. # 602 (10)(A) (2002)










multi-subj ect teacherS. 104 In a latter policy letter to chief state school officers Secretary Margaret

Spellings announced a one year extension of the deadline for all teachers in core subj ects being

highly qualified, moving the deadline to the end of the 2006-2007 school year. This extension

was available to states making a "good faith effort" toward compliance. 1os It is worthy of note

that a state or local education agency's failure to meet the highly qualified requirements could

not be construed as creating a right of action for a student or a class of studentS. 106

Another area of concern under IDEA 1ov was that of making adequate yearly progress

(AYP). Adequate yearly progress under IDEA 10s was defined by NCLB. 109 The No Child Left

BehindActl10 required the reporting of progress and participation of four maj or sub-groups

including SWD. 11 The Individuals nI ithr Disabilities Education Act112 further defined the

requirements for making AYP in terms of special education students participation in the required

state wide testing. 113




104 U. S. Department of Education, "New No Child Left Behind Flexibility: Highly Qualified Teachers," [online] No
Child Left B behind, available from .

105 U. S. Department of Education, "Key Policy Letters Signed by the Education Secretary or Deputy Secretary"
[online] Ed.gov, 2005, available from .

106 U. S. Department of Education, "Building the Legacy: IDEA 2004," [online] Ed. gov, available from
.
107 20 U.S.C. ## 1400 et seq. (21 r 4,1

los 20 U.S.C. # 612 (a)(15)(A)-(B) (2002)

109 20 U.S.C. # 6311(b)(2) (2002)

no 20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)

III Peter Wright, Pamela Wright, and Suzanne Heath, No Child Left Behind

112 20 U.S.C. ## 1400 et seq. (21 *4)

113 Sandra Bowen, and Harvey Rude, "Assessment and Students with Disabilities: Issues and Challenges with
Educational Reform," Rural Special Education Quarterly 3, Summer 2006 [journal on-line]; available from
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.1p.hscl.ufl.ed/w/uptr hmlrcd0c1~6b790e70e397f5ebc28d3476
5dac3 af94 1997748ddlal6fl3 315ca2688 123f95fD66fl&fmt=P.










The Individuals nI ithr Disabilities Education Act114 mirTOred NCLB "' in mandating full

participation in state-wide testing with the caveat that up to 1 percent of special education

students (those with the most significant cognitive difficulties) may be evaluated with an

alternative assessment test and still be included in AYP calculations.116 In a latter policy change

Secretary of Education Spellings announced that states could apply for a waiver to this rule,

allowing up to 2 percent of the SWD population to participate in alternative assessments and

count toward the rules for making AYP.ll

Prasse observed, "The line between general and special education is blurring."""s This was

evident in the area of testing and particularly so in terms of alternative assessment. Much of the

latitude in design of alternative assessment measures was being removed to make them more

accurately aligned with the state assessments. 119

An Individualized Education Plan (IEP)120 created by a team of individuals drove SWD

education. One of the requirements of the IEP was that it addressed participation in standardized



"4 20 U.S.C. ## 1400 et seq. (21 *4)

"5 20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)

116 Claudia Flowers, Diane Browder, and Lynn Ahlgrim-Delzell, "An Analysis of Three States Alignment Between
Language Arts and Mathematics Standards adn Altemnate Assessments," Exceptional Children 72, Winter 2006
journall on-line]; available from
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.1p.hscl.ufl.ed/w/uptr hmlrcd0c1~6b790e70e397f5ebc28d3476
5dac3 af94 199778 1a298acbbe40f9c27a50e00656 1f861l&fmt=H.

n- Peter Kickbush, New Policy Helps States Better assist Students with Disabilities, private email message to
author, 1 June 2005.

us David Prasse, "Legal Supports for Problem-Solving Systems," Remedial and Special Education 27,
Januarv/February 2006: 14[joumnal on-line]; available from
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.1p.hscl.ufl.ed/w/uptr hmlrcd0c1~6b790e70e397f5ebc28d3476
5dac3af94 199770590cab8e39 14bec77f50543b55b408b&fmt=P.

119 U. S. Department of Education, "Building the Legacy: IDEA 2004," [online] Ed. gov, available from
.

120 An Individualized Education Plan (IEP) is a document that outlines the goals and objectives for each students
education. It also delineates the services and modifications that will be provided to help accomplish the goals.










testing. All students must be assessed annually, a SWD could participate with or without

accommodations or may participate in an alternative assessment. 121 These decisions were to be

made by the IEP team. 122 The concept of a Federal limit was in juxtaposition to the concept of an

individualized plan. The 2 percent cap on how many students with disabilities could be counted

toward AYP presented a dilemma for states. 123 If the number of students taking alternative

assessments exceeded the cap it could preclude a school, district, or state from making AYP. 124

The funding of any public policy is worthy of note. The funding of special education was

complicated because it required recognizing that some students have greater needs than others.

State legislatures funded special programs in different ways ranging from, weighted formulas to

categorical grants. 125 The concept of funding students according to need was referred to as

Vertical Equity. 126

The law promised to fund 40 percent of the cost of IDEA by 201 1. In dollars this

represented up to; $12 billion plus for 2005, $14 billion plus for 2006, $16 billion plus for 2007,



'21 MarvAnn Bymnes, "Altemnate Assessment FAQs (and Answers)," Teaching Exceptional Children 36, July/August
2004 journall on-line]; available from
http://vnweb .hwwilsonweb .com.1p. hscl.ufl.edu/hww/jumpstart~jhtml?recid=0bcOfa6b790e70e3 97f5ebc28d3 4ee
4f4dl40d9e929b90f6a626a3de05a78d5 1e346fbel1e7a6&fmt=P.

122 Barbara Gartin, and Nikki Murdick, "IDEA 2004: The IEP," Remedial and Special Education 26,
November/December 2005 journall on-line]; available from
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.1p.hscl.ufl.ed/w/uptr hmlrcd0c1~6b790e70e397f5ebc28d34d4
3ce3 392 1c936badl 5ea25dcc7f4988a5a7c3763096d9fa&fmt=P.

123 Sandra Bowen, and Harvey Rude, "Assesment and Students with Disabilities: Issues and Challenges with
Educational Reform, "

'24 20 U.S.C. # 6311(b)(2) (2002)

'25 David C. Thompson, and R. Craig Wood, Adoney &~ Schools (Larchmont: Eye On Education, 2005).

126 This is as opposed to horizontal equity which assures everyone receives equal funding, instead of resources
according to level of need, as noted in: Gloria Rodriquez, "Vertical Equity in School Finance and the Potential for
Increasing School Responsiveness to Student and Staff Needs," Peabody Journal of Education 79, 2004 journall on-
line]; available from
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.1p.hscl.ufl.ed/w/uptathm1eid0c~~6b790e70e3 97f5ebc28d34ee
4f4dl 40d9e929b42ff69ffe5467dfe3 1 cff2fe029ca5b&fmt=P.










$19 billion plus for 2008, $21 billion plus for 2009, $23 billion plus for 2010, over $26 billion

for 2011, and such funds as necessary from 2012 onward to fund need at 40 percent.

Unfortunately these were the maximum amounts that congress may allocate, not guarantees. 127

The Council for Exceptional Children issued a press release in February of 2007 decrying

President Bush's 2008 budget proposal. They asserted that Bush had proposed cutting funding

for IDEA. 128 They argued, "As the number of students served under IDEA continues to grow, the

President' s newest budget proposal, in effect, under funds IDEA Furthermore, the gap between

the promised 40 percent funding of IDEA and current funding levels widens, undermining the

administration's pronouncements of support for children and youth with disabilities."129

In 2006 the Federal budget for IDEA l30 was $10.6 billion, 3.4 billon less than the $14

billion that was supposed to be allocated as an incremental increase toward the proposed 40

percent. The 2007 budget proposed only a $100 million dollar increase making the gap between

the laws proposed allocation and actual dollars appropriated even greater. 131 This funding short

fall lent credence to the argument that IDEA l32 was not being appropriately funded.







127 U. S. Department of Education, "Building the Legacy: IDEA 2004," [online] Ed.gov, 2007, Third paragraph
available from http://idea.ed.gov/explore/view/p/%2ro%2dnmiCopicalrif21%C

128 20 U.S.C. ## 1400 et seq. (21 *4)

129 COuncil for Exceptional Children, "CEC Denounces President's Budget Proposal," [online] Council for
Exceptional Children, 2007, available from
splar.cfm>.
'3 20 U.S.C. ## 1400 et seq. (21 *4)

131 U. S. Department of Education, "Office of Management and Budget," [online] U. S. Department of Education,
2007, available from .

1 20 U.S.C. ## 1400 et seq. (21 *4)










Florida's A+ Plan

Florida statute created districts contiguous with county boundaries creating a total of sixty-

seven geographically large districts. 133 These districts were comprised of 3,830 schools with

318,721 full time teachers, serving 2,673,563 students. 134 In the 1970s the Florida Commission

on Education Reform and Accountability was formed. 135 The commission made

recommendations with regard to creating a well educated workforce in the state. The commission

recommended assessments as a method of raising educational achievement. Theses

recommendations were adopted by the State Board of Education, and hence forth students in

grades; three, five, eight, and eleven were given state wide assessments. 136

During the early 1990s Florida developed the Sunshine State Standard~~~dddsdddddddddd (SSS). These

standards were comprised of goals and benchmarks specifically aligned to each course and grade

level in the state. 137 In 1998 a state constitutional amendment was passed to restr-ucture the states

educational system creating a kindergarten through bachelors degree (K-20) system. 138 In the

same year the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) was implement. This test was

aligned with the SSS and given to all students in grades third through tenth. The tenth grade



'33 Fla. Const. art. IX, 4(a)

134 Florida Department of Education, "Florida School District Data," [online] Your Florida Department of
Education, 2006, available from

135 FLA. Stat. ch. 2001.02 (2)(J) (2006)

136 Trey Martindale, Carolyn Pearson, L. K. Curda, and Janet Pilcher, "Effects of an Online Instructional Application
on Reading and Mathematics Standardized Test Scores," Journal ofResearch on Technology in Education 37,
Summer 2005 journall on-line]; available from
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.1p.hscl.ufl.ed/w/uptr hmlrcd0c1~6b790e70e397f5ebc28d34d4
3ce3 392 1c936ba8 145893073ddef4c593dldd4d3ec4736&fmt=H.

'37 FLA. Stat. ch. 2000.21 (7) (2007); Florida Department of Education, "Sunshine State Standards." [Online]
Available from http://www.fimn.edu/doe/menu/sss.htm.

13s FLA. Stat. ch. 1000.01 (2007); Florida Senate, "The Florida Constitution," [online] The Florida Senate, 2006,
available from
.










FCA T eventually became a requirement for graduation with a standard high school diploma. 139

All of this lead up to the creation of Florida' s A+ Plan.140

The Bush/Brogan A+ Plalil41 was signed into law on June 21, 1999. 142 The two legs of this

plan were increased funding and increased accountability. The A+ Plalil43 had eight sub-parts:

(1) Record increase in school funding (2) More comprehensive and rigorous student testing (3)

End social promotion (4) Raise teacher standards (5) Grade schools and issue school report cards

(6) Help failing schools (7) Expanded choice for parents with opportunity scholarships (8)

School safety. 144 Floridas NCLB compliance plan met Federal requirements. 145

The Interaction of IDEA and NCLB Policies

Three years after the creation of NCB, 146 IDEA 147 was reauthorized. The primary purpose

of the latest reauthorization of IDEA 148 was to align it with NCLB. 149 In NCLB, 1so IDEA 1 was


139 For special education students there was an option to waive the FCAT requirement to receive a standard diploma
by proving content knowledge. Florida also offered a special diploma option allowing students to graduate, but did
not qualify them for college admission. Florida Department of Education, "FCAT Myths vs. Facts," [online] Florida
Department of Education, available from .
14t' FLA. Stat. ch. 2006.74 (2006)

'41 FLA. Stat. ch. 2006.74 (2006)

'42 Two years prior to the signing of NCLB

143 FLA. Stat. ch. 2006.74 (2006)

14 Florida Department of Education, "Providing Our Children with a World-Class Education," [online]
MyFlorida.com, 2004, available from
hp w\ il t .myflorida.com/myflorida/education.1laws/accompworldclasseducaplan.htm.

'4 Florida Department of Education, "Florida NCLB Consolidated Application," [online] Consolidated State
Application Accountability Workbook, 2007, available from
.

146 20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et. seq. (2002)

1 20 U.S.C. ## 1400 et seq. (21 *4)

1 20 U.S.C. ## 1400 et seq. (21 *4)

149 Barbara Gartin, and Nikki Murdick, "IDEA 2004: The IEP,"
is<> 20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)










referenced no less than thirty-eight times, and in IDEA,152 NCLB153 was referenced repeatedly. 154

Much of the language in IDEA 155 mirrored that of NCLB, 156 and in many instances referred to

sections of NCLB. 5 Section 20 U.S.C. 6311 (b)(2) of NCLB established the criteria for states

defining adequate yearly progress (AYP). Section 612 (a)(15)(A)-(B) of IDEA required states to

correlate performance goals for students with disabilities with the states definition of AYP.

Section 20 U.S.C 7801 (23) ofNCLB defined highly qualified for public school teachers who

teach core subj ects. Section 602 (10)(A) of IDEA adopts the NCLB definition. In section 20

U.S.C. 6311 (b)(3)(ix)(I)-(II), NCLB required all students to participate in state-wide

assessments. Section 612 (a)(16)(A) of IDEA called for the participation of all students with

disabilities in statewide assessments including using accommodations or alternative

assessments. 5

Bringing the two laws into better alignment could be viewed as a proactive step toward a

positive outcome for America's public school students. Handler pointed out the positive aspect



'51 20 U.S.C. ## 1400 et seq. (21 *4)

152 20 U.S.C. ## 1400 et seq. (21 *4)

153 20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)

154 Beth Handler, "Two Acts, One Goal: Meeting the Shared Vision of No Child Left Behind and Individuals with
Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004," The Clearing House 80, September/October 2006 |journal on-
line]; available from
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.1p.hscl.ufl.ed/w/uptr hmlrcd0c1~6b790e70e397f5ebc28d3476
5dac3af941997730d80aflacO29785951ldbl970817e809&fmt=H.

'ss 20 U.S.C. ## 1400 et seq (-'I r 4)

156 20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)

's? Michell Yell, Antonis Katsiyannas, and James Shiner, "The No Child Left Behind Act, Adequate Yearly
Progress, and Students With Disabilities," Teaching Exceptional Children 38, March/April 2006 [journal on-line];
available from
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.1p.hscl.ufl.ed/w/uptr hmlrcd0c1~6b790e70e397f5ebc28d3476
5dac3af94 199770 17bc36153958clbe2eeb ld746238f73&fmt=H.

1 John Norlin, NCLB and IDEA '04: A Side-By-Side Analysis (Horsham: LRP, 2005).










of the collaboration of the two laws, "In contrast to previous versions of both laws, NCLB and

IDEA 2004 demonstrate a unification of educational procedures, responsibilities and

expectations for success of students with disabilities."159 Bowen, and Rude wrote, "The

partnership of NCLB and IDEIA [sic] provide the opportunity for successful academic

achievement for students with disabilities by implementing the systemic changes mandated by

NCLB through the individual lens of the IEP (Individualized Education Plan) as regulated by

IDEIA [ sic]." 160

The alignment of the two laws was not necessarily all positive. The nature of the two laws

could be viewed as in opposition to each other. Moores took a negative view of the nature of the

interaction of the two laws. He wrote that NCLBl161 was to have precedence over IDEA .162 He

also indicated that the goal of having 100 percent of students on grade level was unachievable.

He addressed the idea that the Federally mandated 99 percent participation in state assessments

was in opposition to the spirit of the individualized education plans mandated by IDEA .163 el

Katsiyannas, and Shiner made a similar argument, "Because NCLB emphasizes group data for

AYP determinations, its guiding principals may be perceived as misaligned with the focal point






159 Beth Handler, "Two Acts, One Goal: Meeting the shared Vision of No Child Left Behind and Individuals with
Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004," Fifth paragraph.
161) Sandra Bowen, and Harvey Rude, "Assessment and Students with disabilities: Issues and Challenges with
Educational Reform," First section.

161 20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq.

162 20 U.S.C. ## 1400 et seq. (21 *-0

163 Donald Moores, "The No Child Left Behind and the Individuals With Disabilities Education Acts: The Uneven
Impact of Partially Funded Federal Mandates on Education of Deaf and Hard of Hearing Children, 4merican
annals of the Deaf 150, 2005 [journal on-line]; available from
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.1p.hscl.ufl.ed/w/uptr hmlrcd0c1~6b790e70e397f5ebc28d34d4
3ce33921c936bacl15da6c927988d2c6b7bc28b98926067&fmt=H.










of IDEA deci sion-making--the individual student." 164 Clearly the alignment of the two laws was

controversial.

Punitive Policy Measures Mandated by the No Child Left Behind Act and the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act

Success under both the No Child Left Behind Actl65 (NCLB) and the hIdividuals n irlh

Disabilities Education Actl66 (IDEA) was measured by making adequate yearly progress.

Conversely this measure was also used to denote failure. In the positive parlance of education the

word failure was not used, in its place was the phrase, in need of improvement. Punitive

measures began with parents being allowed to move their children from schools in need of

improvement to schools making AYP. 167 The Einal punitive measure was the school being taken

over by the state or becoming a charter school. 168

The punitive measures were progressive. A school was deemed in need of improvement if

it had not met AYP requirements for two consecutive years. The first year of being deemed in

need of improvement; all students were offered public school choice, the school must develop a

two year improvement plan, and extend learning time. The second year they must add the

requirement of making supplemental educational services available. The third year the local

education agencyl169 (LEA) must take at least one of the following actions; replace school staff

responsible for failure, implement a new scientifically based curriculum, significantly decrease


164 Michell Yell, Antonis Katsiyannas, and James Shiner, "The No Child Left Behind Act, Adequate Yearly
Progress, and Students With Disabilities," NCL and IDEA 2004 section.
165 20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)

166 20 U.S.C. ## 1400 et seq. (0* 4)

167 20 U.S.C. # 6311 (b)(2) (2002)

168 Michell Yell, Antonis Katsiyannas, and James Shiner, "The No Child Left Behind Act, Adequate Yearly
Progress, and Students With Disabilities,".
169 The term local education agency refers to the district level administration.










management authority at the school level, extend the school day or year, appoint an outside

expert to advise the school on how to achieve AYP, or reorganize the school internally. After

four years of being in need of improvement the LEA must do one of the following; reopen the

school as a charter school, replace the principal and staff, have a private company takeover the

school, let the state takeover the school, or some other form of maj or restructuring of school

management. In year five the school must be under a new governance plan by the first day of

school that year. 170

The aforementioned punitive actions were substantial; however, they were not all

inclusive. The laws also provided for the withholding of Federal aid to schools that continue to

fail to make AYP. 17

The Individuals nI ithr Disabilities Education Actl72 al so used AYP as a measure of

progress. Section 612 (a)(15)(A)-(B) of IDEA references NCLB section 20 USC 6311 (b)(2)

directly quoting the definition of AYP from NCLB. Under IDEA 173 AYP determinations were

made on the state level. If a state failed to make AYP for two consecutive years the United States

Department of Education (USED) will advise the state on available sources for technical

assistance and/or direct the use of Part B fundsl74 in the areas of need. If the state failed to make

AYP for three or more consecutive years all of the above applied plus at least one of the

following; require a corrective action plan (if the problem can be solved in a year), require the



170 U. S. Department of Education, "Calculating Participation Rates," [online] Ed.gov, 2004, available from
.
'71 Elizabeth DeBray, Kathryn McDermott, and Priscilla Wohlstetter, "Introduction to the Special Issue on
Federalism Reconsidered: The Case of the No Child Left Behind Act, "

172 20 U.S.C. ## 1400 et seq. (21 *4)

173 20 U.S.C. ## 1400 et seq. (21 *4)

174 Part B of IDEA is the largest part, it deals with serving special education students age 3-21.









state to enter into a compliance agreement, withhold 20-50 percent of Federal part B funds, seek

to recover funds and/or withhold future payments. If at anytime the USED determined that a

state needs substantial intervention or there was a substantial failure to comply then the USED

will do one or more of the following; recover funds, withhold future part B funds, refer the

matter to the USED inspector general, or refer the matter for appropriate enforcement, up to and

including the Department of Justice. 7

The weight of these two laws put considerable strain on local schools. Administrators were

faced with the daunting reality of punitive measures ranging from: loss of some local control,

and Federal funding; to state takeover of their schools. "Out of frustration, superintendents

sometimes argue that they could do a much better j ob rescuing kids if they were left to their own

devices rather than the tender mercies of state and federal initiatives."176

The Public Policy of Parental School Choice

Parental school choice was one of the provisions of the No ChildLeft BehindAct. 1 If a

school failed to make adequate yearly progress for two years in a row parents must be given the

option of transferring their children to a school in the district that is making AYP. 17 This was a

new provision of the law but not a new concept. School choice dates back to the one-room

school houses of the nineteenth century. At that time communities had control over the

pedagogical content and style of their schools. Over time schools and districts have grown in size

creating a more centralized governance. 179


175 John Norlin, NCLB and IDEA '04: A Side-By-Side Analysis

176 C8TI COhn, "NCLB Implementation Challenges: The Local Superintendent's View," second paragraph.
177 20 U.S.C. # 6316 (b)(1)(E) (2002)

17s 20 U.S.C. # 6316 (b)(1)(E) (2002)

179 Kenneth Wong, and Herbert Walberg, "Introduction to the Special Issue on Contemporary School Choice
Research," Peadbody Journal of Education 81, 2006 [journal on-line]; available










School choice has experienced a mandated resurgence under NCLB. Iso Fowler framed the

debate over school choice excellently,

School choice is easily the most controversial education policy issue of our time. Its
supporters--who are mostly, but not entirely, political conservatives-usually advocate
school choice as a way to use competition to encourage public schools to improve. Its
opponents--who are mostly, but not entirely, political liberals--usually argue against it
because they fear that it will increase segregation by race and social class while
transforming the public school system into a dumping ground for the students who are the
most difficult to educate. s

The proponents of school choice based its advantages on the concept of market

accountability. This is an economic model being applied to the more abstract concept of school

quality. While educational success can not be measured in dollars Adams and Hill made a good

argument for market accountability.

A market model of school accountability differs from other accountability systems in that
the principal and accountable agents relate as 'customers' and 'providers,' exchanging
patronage for service in the expectation that choice will promote quality service, at least at
a level that satisfies customer expectations. In other words, in a market-based model,
choice is the mechanism that promotes accountability.18s2

Looking at school choice from a market accountability model it would appear that it was a

positive method of improving schools. Choice in combination with the punitive aspects of

NCLBl83 Should have created better schools and districts.18s4 Not all researchers have seen choice



http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.1p.hscl.ufl.ed/w/uptr hmlrcd0c1~6b790e70e397f5ebc28d3476
5dac3 af94 199779 1fcbaa6985293 12 19ab6a3 7f1 12ac4b&fmt=H.

1so 20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)

'st Frances Fowler, "The Great School Choice Debate," The Clearing House 76, September/October 2002: first
paragraph [journal on-line]; available from
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.1p.hscl.ufl.ed/w/uptr hmlrcd0c1~6b790e70e397f5ebc28d343 1
da5cf9cl16cObe836f5b32f82574cb6 17a8b962505a32e9&fmt=H.

1s: Jacob Adams, and Paul Hill, "Educational Accountability in a Regulated Market," Peabody Journal ofEducation
81, 2006: third paragraph [journal on-line]; available from
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.1p.hscl.ufl.ed/w/uptr hmlrcd0c1~6b790e70e397f5ebc28d3476
5dac3af94 199779 1fcbaa6985293 12c4f984805fe267bc&fmt=H.

183 20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)










policy in such a positive light. Of particular concern were the implications for special education

students under the provisions of school choice. For instance Howe and Welner were concerned

that school choice would make it easier for students with disabilities to be excluded from higher

performing school s. The Individuals nI ithr Disabilities Education Act'" promoted inclusion. In

the first section of IDEA it stated that SWD have a more effective education by, "having high

expectations for such children and ensuring their access to the general education curriculum in

the regular classroom, to the maximum extent possible..."18s6 Choice under NCLBls encouraged

competition by promoting one standard to measure the achievement of all students and

implementing punitive measures for schools that fail to make AYP.ls These purposes are at

odds. Howe and Welner contended that schools will find ways to keep from accepting SWD

from lower performing schools, leaving their fate to a legally if not de facto substandard

sc ool 189

Laws are passed with the intent of changing public policy. It is important to note that the

intent of policy change is not necessarily born out in the reality of its implementation. Petrilli had

a rather sardonic view of NCLB, 190 "While the laws rhetoric is John Wayne tough, its reality is

Tiny Tim timid...Competition via school choice is the other weapon in the 'tough love' arsenal,



184 See arguments presented in throughout this section.

1ss 20 U.S.C. ## 1400 et seq. (21 *4)

186 20 U.S.C. # 1400 (c)(5)(A) II II 14)

's? 20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)

'ss 20 U.S.C. # 6311(b)(2) (2002)

189 Kenneth Howe, and Kevin Welner, "School Choice and the Pressure to Perform: Deja Vu for Children with
Disabilities?," Remedial and Special Education 23, July/August 2002 [journal on-line]; available from
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.1p.hscl.ufl.ed/w/uptr hmlrcd0c1~6b790e70e397f5ebc28d343 1
da5 cf9cl16c~be86e 32a9bf3 ee744ded46fd7f1 c7a2cl194&fmt=H.

190 20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)










and until it's wielded at large scale, we are unlikely to see real results."19 Choice implies

options. If parents are not aware of the option, they do not have one. Howell found that only 0.3

percent of students in Massachusetts public schools who were eligible for school choice took

advantage of it. His study attributed this to parents not being informed of their option. 192

There is no doubt that all the policy changes in the world will not have the intended impact

if that policy is not followed. School choice is no different from any other policy if it were not

implemented as intended under the auspices of NCLBl193 its true impact on the quality of

education will not be known.

Public Policy and Subgroup AYP Under NCLB

The impact of the students with disabilities population on AYP as dictated by NCLBl94 was

not well examined in peer reviewed literature. Peer reviewed public policy articles that did

examine the SWD subgroup impact on AYPl95 made reference to the lack of literature on the

subj ect. Many articles noted the lack of research on the impact of subgroups in general on

AYP. 196 Other areas of concern included; standardization, subgroup size, narrowing of the

curriculum, and alternative assessments.



191 Michael Petrilli, "Misdirected Energy," Education Next 7, Winter 2007: Third paragraphljournal on-line];
available from
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.1p.hscl.ufl.ed/w/uptr hmlrcd0c1~6b790e70e397f5ebc28d3452
4897 178207968bb49fee422d~fad8d108a9dc 55fa404 flftH

192 William Howell, "Switching Schools? A Closer Look at Parents' Initial Interest in and Knowledge about the
Choice Provisions of No Child Left Behind, Peabody Journal of Education 81, 2006 [journal on-line]; available
from
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.1p.hscl.ufl.ed/w/uptr hmlrcd0c1~6b790e70e397f5ebc28d3476
5dac3 af94 199779 1fcbaa6985293 124d8866ad5faa3 d96&fmt=H.

193 20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)

194 20 U.S.C. # 6311(b)(2) (2002)

195 20 U.S.C. # 6311(b)(2) (2002)

196 20 U.S.C. # 6311(b)(2) (2002)










McLaughlin, Embler, and Hemnandez noted three aspects of NCLB97 public policy of

concern to SWD: universal content, and achievement standards; standardized assessments for all

students; high stakes accountability. They noted that AYP l98 was the most controversial policy

dictated by NCLB, 199 particularly for subgroup populations. According to their article the policy

behind NCLB200 held every student to the same standards regardless of circumstances. They

pointed out that SWD subgroup data were frequently not reported due to subgroup size. This

meant that the necessary changes needed to benefit SWD were not likely to be recognized and

implemented.201

Abedi pointed out that in many schools some of the subgroups were small enough that

AYP data was not reported.202 The required minimum size for a subgroup to be considered

statistically significant varied widely. McLaughlin, Embler, and Hemnandez reported that for

subgroups to be counted in AYP203 calculations the minimum subgroup size ranged from 5 to

200.204 The concern with this policy was that, if subgroups were frequently not included in



197 20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)

198 20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)

199 20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)

200 20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)

201 Margaret McLaughlin, Sandra Embler, and Glenda Hemnandez, "No child Left Behind and Students with
Disabilities in Rural and Small Schools," Rural Special Education Quarterly 24, Winter 2005 [joumal on-line];
available from
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.1p.hscl.ufl.ed/w/uptr hmlrcd0c1~6b790e70e397f5ebc28d34d4
3 ce3 392 1c936bafae3 1186a870d08d5 5d5 10cf24f~f707&fmt=P.

202 Jamal Abedi, "The No Child Left Behind Act and English Language Learners: Assessment and Accountability
Issues," Educational Researcher 33, January/February 2004 journall on-line]; available from
http://vnweb .hwwilsonweb .com.1p. hscl.ufl.edu/hww/jumpstart~jhtml?recid=0bcOfa6b790e70e3 97f5ebc28d3 4ee
4f4dl40d9e929b00d8 126029350d6334 19alecbec6f5b8&fmt=P.

203 20 U.S.C. # 6311(b)(2) (2002)

204 Margaret McLaughlin, Sandra Embler, and Glenda Hemnandez, "No child Left Behind and Students with
Disabilities in Rural and Small Schools,"










AYP205 calculation, then it is impossible to tell if NCLB2o' was truly leaving no child behind.

Hager and Slocum were of the view that policy should not just be about meeting legal mandates

but rather meeting the vision behind the policy.207

Rosenbusch viewed NCLB208 as a public policy whose premise was that Americas public

schools were failing. She felt that NCLB209 pOliCieS might actually be detrimental to schools with

large numbers of students falling into the subgroups of concern. The logic behind the argument

was that schools with a large number of low SES students will tend to narrow the focus of the

curriculum to primarily include only tested subj ects. This focus would deprive the very students

NCLB210 was supposed to help of a broader liberal arts education.211

No Child Left Behind represented an unprecedented change in public school policy.

Coladarci wrote, "...much about NCLB is troublesome not least of which is the delusional

expectation that all students reach proficiency by 2014."212 One of his other issues of concern

was subgroup AYP. He pointed out the double edged sword of subgroups not being counted due

2 20 U.S.C. # 6311(b)(2) (2002)

2)6 20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)

2 Karen Hager, and Timothy Slocum, "Using Altemnate Assessment to Improve Educational Outcomes," Rural
Special Education Quarterly 24, Winter 2005 journall on-line]; available from
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.1p.hscl.ufl.ed/w/uptr hmlrcd0c1~6b790e70e397f5ebc28d34d4
3 ce3 392 1c936bafae3 1186a870d08ded295 50b2da403bf&fmt=P.

2 20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)
2()9 20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)

21<> 20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)

211 Marcia Rosenbusch, "The No child Left Behind Act and Teaching and Leamning Languages in U. S. Schools," The
Modern Language Journal 89, Summer 2005 journall on-line]; available from
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.1p.hscl.ufl.ed/ /uptr1hmlrcd0c~~6b790e70e397f5ebc28d34d4
3 ce3 392 1c936bab73 2a74ef5 14ca7d3bb90 196a07ab Idc&fmt=P.

212 Theodore Coladarci, "Adequate Yearly Progress, Small Schools, and Students with Disabilities: The Importance
of Confidence Intervals When Making Judgments About AYP," Rural Special Education Quarterly 24, Winter
2005: 45[joumnal on-line]; available from
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.1p.hscl.ufl.ed/w/uptr hmlrcd0c1~6b790e70e397f5ebc28d34d4
3ce33921c936bafae31 186a870d08d2 14420b45e69a568&fmt=P.










to small size, and also the fact that if one subgroup failed to make AYP the entire school

failed. 213 Theoretically in a small school one student in a subgroup could be the cause of the

whole school failing to make AYP.214

Students with disabilities must participate in high-high stakes testing, but had more options

than the other subgroups. These students could: take the general assessment without

accommodations; take the general assessment with accommodations; take an alternative

assessment. Towles-Reves, Kampfer-Bohach, Garrett, Kearns, and Grisham-Brown

demonstrated concern that oftentimes the accommodations on a students IEP were not properly

followed during testing.215 Up to 1 percent of the SWD subgroup could make AYP by passing an

alternative assessment.216 Alternative assessments were to mirror the standards on regular

assessments. This limited the ability to assess functional skills which were often the IEP goals

for students with severe disabilities. An additional quandary regarding alternative assessments

was the lack of research on the effectiveness of large scale alternative assessments in addressing

achievement levels of students with severe disabilities.217




213 Theodore Coladarci, "Adequate Yearly Progress, Small Schools, and Students with Disabilities: The Importance
of Confidence Intervals When Making Judgments About AYP,"

214 Nancy Harriman, "Perceptions of Students and Educators on the Impact of No Child Left Behind: Some Will and
Some Won't," Rural Special Education Quarterly 24, Winter 2005 journall on-line]; available from
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.1p.hscl.ufl.ed/w/uptr hmlrcd0c1~6b790e70e397f5ebc28d34d4
3 ce3 3921lc936bafae3 1 186a870d08d2dda8d973 04fced l&fmt=P.

215 Elizabeth Towles-Reeves, Stephanie Kampfer-Bohach, Brent Garrett, Jacqueline Keamns, and Jennifer Grisham-
Brown, "Are We Leaving Our Children Behind?," Journal of Disability Policy Studies 17, Summer 2006 journall
on-line]; available from
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.1p.hscl.ufl.ed/w/uptr hmlrcd0c1~6b790e70e397f5ebc28d3476
5dac3 af94 199776 137a73 83 c9ea5d7 14e927b0bf863b3 d&fmt=P.
216 Karen Hager, and Timothy Slocum, "Using Altemnate Assessment to Improve Educational Outcomes,"

217 Diane Browder, and Karena Cooper-Duffy, "Evidence-Based Practices for Students with Severe Disabilities and
the Requirement for Accountability in "No Child Left Behind"," The Journal of Special Education 37, Fall 2003
journall on-line]; available from
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.1p.hscl.ufl.ed/w/uptathm1eid0c~~6b790e70e397f5ebc28d34eb
dacdb87ed2eb68a0402 17c85d023f995al6cOaad0caf58&fmt=P.










No Child Left Behind was viewed by some as a policy that micromanaged education through the

extensive reporting requirements.218 Platt, Casey, and Faessel noted that the reporting

requirements ofNCLB made alternative programming difficult, straining the resources and

options for students served in juvenile justice facilities."' Ultimately it is not the intent of policy

that matters but the reality of its translation into practice.22 It is important that educators

examine and report on the impact public policies have in practice and make recommendations for

any needed reforms.221
























218 Laura Chapman, Status of Elementary Art Education," Studies in Art Education 46, Winter 2005 [journal on-
line]; available from
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.1p.hscl.ufl.ed/w/uptr hmlrcd0c1~6b790e70e397f5ebc28d34d4
3ce33921c936baeab7c26bl17ddcb6a63e6d7eae07 1345f&fmt=P.

219 JOhn Platt, Richard Casey, and Richard Faessel, "The Need for a Paradigmatic Change in Juvenile Correctional
Education," F ..*.. us is School Failure 51, Fall 2006 |journal on-line]; available from
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.1p.hscl.ufl.ed/w/uptr hmlrcd0c1~6b790e70e397f5ebc28d3476
5dac3af94 19977064da2ce364287fD3363fb93287cfb73&fmtP

220 Nancy Ares, and Edward Buendia, "Opportunities Lost: Local Translations of Advocacy Policy Conversations,"
Teachers College Record 109, March 2007 |journal on-line]; available from
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.1p.hscl.ufl.ed/w/uptr hmlrcd0c1~6b790e70e397f5ebc28d3452
4897 178207968b74306dl 32681la7965764ea8546de85b3&fmt=P.

221 Laura Chapman, "Status of Elementary Art Education,"










CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH DESIGN

Introduction

The purpose of this public policy study was to discover the impact of the special

education student population on the policies set forth by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB).2

The successfulness of Florida schools and districts under NCLB3 was measured through the

ability to make adequate yearly progress (AYP).4 This study was conducted utilizing data

collected on the performance of students with disabilities (SWD) as a subgroup of the entire high

school population.

The study was done in the state of Florida because it had a model state plan for increasing

student achievement. 5 Florida' s law governing achieving adequate yearly progress was the A+

Plan.6 Govemnor Bush signed the A+ Plan2 into law in 2000. The basic principals of the A Plan2

were :

* Set state goals,
* Measure annual learning,
* Grade schools and monitor progress,
* Eliminate social promotion,
* Reward schools,
* Assist failing schools,


Special education is a generic term for students qualifying for more individualized education. Under IDEA these
students are referred to as individuals with disabilities [20 U.S.C. # 1400 (c)(1)]. In NCLB they are referenced as
students with disabilities, SWD [20 U.S.C. # 6311 (b)(2)(C)(v)(II)(cc)] In Florida it is referred to as exceptional
student education ESE [FLA. Stat. ch. 1003.01 (3)(a)]. All the above terms are used interchangeably in this paper.

2 20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)

3 20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)

4 20 U.S.C. # 6311(b)(2) (2002)

5 Paul Peterson, and Martin West, "Is Your Child's School Effective?," Education Next 6, Fall 2006 [journal on-
line]; available from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.1p.hscl.ufl.ed/w/eut/eut~igefltxjtl

6 FLA. Stat. ch. 2006.74 (2006).

SFLA. Stat. ch. 2006.74 (2006)










* Give parents more choices,
* Raise educator standards,
* Rate college of education performance,
* Raise admission standards to education programs,
* Reward quality educators,
* Hold educators accountable,
* Improve teacher training,

The grading of schools and districts referred to in Florida' s A+ Pla?29 were used to

determine if they had made adequate yearly progress. 10 Many of these concepts were parallel to

the policies of NCLB,"1 as the A Plann was Florida' s primary policy for NCLB l3

compliance. 1

In summary this public policy study utilized two different overall measures for collecting

data. The first policy was Florida's grading system for districts and schools. The second policy

was schools and districts making AYP under NCLB. 1 It is important to understand the nature of

these data before examining the collection methodology that was used in this study.

Florida's Grading System

The Florida legislature created school districts contiguous with county boundaries creating

a total of sixty-seven geographically large districts. 16 These districts were comprised of 3,830


SFLA. Stat. ch. 2006.74 (2006) This revised numerous sections of Florida law.

9 FLA. Stat. ch. 2006.74 (2006)

'0 Florida Department of Education, "2006 Guide to Calculating Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): Technical
Assistance Paper," [online] Florida Department of Education, 2006, available from
.
11 20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)

'2 FLA. Stat. ch. 2006.74 (2006)

'3 20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)

'4 Paul Peterson, and Martin West, "Is Your Child's School Effective?,"

1520 U.S.C. # 6311 (b)(2) (2002)

16 Fla. Const. art. IX, 4 (a)










schools with 3 18,721 full time teachers, serving 2,673,563 students," of which 521,257 were

students with disabilities. IsFlorida's schools were assigned grades from A to F. These grades

were determined by several factors including points awarded based on six performance criteria:

1. One point for each percent of students who meet high standards by scoring at
or above FCAT19 Achievement Level 3 in reading.

2. One point for each percent of students who meet high standards by scoring at
or above FCAT Achievement Level 3 in mathematics.

3. One point for each percent of students who meet high standards by scoring 3.5
or higher on the FCAT writing assessment. In the event that there are not at
least 30 eligible students tested in writing, the district average in writing is
sub stituted.

4. One point for each percent of students making learning gains in reading.

5. One point for each percent of students making learning gains in mathematics.

6. One point for each percent of the lowest performing students making learning
gains in reading. In the event that there are not at least 30 eligible students, the
school's reading learning gains are substituted.2

These points were totaled and turned into grades: 410 and above, was an A school; 380-

409 was a B school; 320-379 was a C school; 280-319 was a D school; anything less than 280

gave a school a grade of F. In addition to the point system two other factors were used in

calculating school grades. Schools had to test at least 90 percent21 Of students or the grade was

lowered. In order to be an A school at least 95 percent of students must have been tested. A


17 Florida Department of Education, "Florida School District Data, [online] Your Florida Department of Education,
2006, available from .

's Florida Department of Education, "ESE Rules Changes Webcast, [online] Bureau of Exceptional Education and
Student Services, 2007, available from .

19 The Florida Comprehensive Achievement Test (FCAT) is the statewide standardized test based on high standards
given in Florida. As mandated by: 20 U.S.C. # 6311 (b)(2)(A) (2002)
20 Florida Department of Education, "2006 Guide to Calculating School Grades: Technical Assistance Paper,"
[online] Florida Department of Education, 2006, available from
.

21 NCLB requires 95 percent of students be tested to achieve AYP, as noted in: 20 U.S.C. # 6311(b)(2)(I) (2002)










second rule was that schools earning a C or better must show that at least half of the lowest

performing students made annual learning gains (within the last two years), for a school to earn

an A, half of the lowest performing students must have made gains during the current year. 22

Adequate Yearly Progress

Public Policy enacted by the Florida state legislature created a system of using school

grades as the measure of success for schools and districts.23 This public policy study was

conducted in Florida; however, the ultimate test was not state measures, but rather how the

districts and schools performed based on the national standards set forth in NCLB.24 The national

standard under NCLB was AYP.25 The No Child Left Behind Act allowed individual states to

submit plans for how they would measure AYP. 26 Florida' s plan had four maj or components;

participation, reading proficiency, math proficiency, and other criteria.27

Participation: At least 95% of all students enrolled in a public school participate in the
state assessment program. Students must be tested using the FCAT or an appropriate
alternate assessment for limited English proficient students (LEP) and students with
disabilities (SWD). This requirement applies to all students and each subgroup for reading
and mathematics.2


22Florida Department of Education, "2006 Guide to Calculating School Grades: Technical Assistance Paper,"
[online] Florida Department of Education, 2006, available from
.
23 Florida Department of Education, "2006 Guide to Calculating School Grades: Technical Assistance Paper,"
[online] Florida Department of Education, 2006, available from
.
2420 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)

2520 U.S.C. # 6311(b)(2) (2002)

26 Florida's plan can be viewed at: hopll un \\ \ fidoe.org/NCLB/

27FLA. Stat. ch. 2006.74 (2006)

28These groups are mandated by NCLB to include: all major ethnic groups, economically disadvantaged, limited
English proficient, and students with disabilities. As mandated by: 20 U.S.C. # 6311(b)(2) (2002). This makes a total
of eight sub groups in Florida. This information was gathered from, FLA. Stat. ch. 1008.34 (2006) The direct quotes
are from a technical assistance paper, see: Florida Department of Education, "2006 Guide to Calculating Adequate
Yearly Progress (AYP): Technical Assistance Paper," [online] Florida Department of Education, 2006, available
from .










Reading Proficiency: The state has set annual obj ectives for reading proficiency based on
the ultimate goal to have 100% of all students proficient in reading by 2013-14. For 2005-
06, the state obj ective is to have at least 44% of all students and each subgroup reading at
or above grade level. For purposes of AYP determination, students scoring 3 and above are
considered proficient.29

Math Proficiency: The state has also set annual obj ectives for math proficiency based on
the ultimate goal to have 100% of all students proficient in math by 2013-14. For 2005-06,
the state obj ective is to have at least 50% of all students and each subgroup scoring at or
above grade level in math. For purposes of AYP determination, students scoring 3 and
above are considered proficient.30

Other Criteria: NCLB requires the state definition of AYP to include graduation rate and
at least one additional academic indicator as determined by the state. In Florida, the writing
assessment will be used as the additional indicator and school grades will be used as an
additional condition. Thus, in addition to the three criteria listed above, schools must meet
three other criteria:

Improve performance in Writing by 1%: All schools must demonstrate a 1%
improvement in the percentage of students meeting state standards in writing. For purposes
of AYP determination, students scoring 3 and above are meeting state standards. The
writing target is also met if the school has a writing performance rate of 90% or better. 31

Improve the graduation rate by 1%: High schools must demonstrate a 1% improvement
in its graduation rate. The target is also met if a school attains a rate of 85% or better in the
current year. 32

The school is not a D or an F: The A+ school Grades are calculated prior to AYP. If a
school receives a D or an F, that school does not make AYP.33

All of these guidelines for making AYP in the state of Florida were subj ect to two caveats

of exception; the first being "safe harbor," and the second being the "students with disabilities

mathematical adjustment." Safe harbor allowed schools that had met all other requirements



29 This information was gathered from, FLA. Stat. ch. 1008.34 (2006) The direct quotes are from a technical
assistance paper, see: Florida Department of Education, "2006 Guide to Calculating Adequate Yearly Progress
(AYP): Technical Assistance Paper," [online] Florida Department of Education, 2006, available from
.
3o Ibid.

31 Ibid.

32Ibid.

33Ibid.










except for proficiency in reading and/or math to make AYP if the sub groups) in question met

all other requirements and improved proficiency by at least 10 percent over the prior years

calculation.34 Of great importance to this study was the SWD mathematical adjustment. This

adjustment allowed for an increase in the percentage of students making AYP in the SWD

subgroup, if the only reason the school failed to make AYP was due to the math and/or reading

proficiency of the SWD subgroup. If the SWD subgroup made AYP with the additional 13

percent mathematical adjustment35 then the school was deemed to have made AYP.36

Data Collection

Data regarding grades and AYP were collected from the official Florida Department of

Education (FLDOE) website.37 This site was an open domain, with no identifiers for data on

individual students. The FLDOE site had searchable data bases for gathering information on

grades, AYP and many other types of educational data on districts and schools.38 No one report

contained all the information needed, thus reports had to be examined for each district and

subsequently for each school.39 In the process of conducting the secondary data analysis the first





34Florida Department of Education, "2006 Guide to Calculating Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): Technical
Assistance Paper," [online] Florida Department of Education, 2006, available from
.

35Florida Department of Education, "Florida School Grades and Adequate Yearly Progress," [online] Florida
Department of Education, 2006, available from
.
36 Florida Department of Education, "2006 Guide to Calculating Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): Technical
Assistance Paper," [online] Florida Department of Education, 2006, available from
.

37"Florida Department of Education," [online] available from .

38"Florida Department of Education," [online] Florida School Grades, available from
%2D2006&school~grade=&report=AYP&level= School>.

39 Appendix A containing representative reports.










step in gathering data was to compare the grades for all sixty-seven school districts.40 The

highest and lowest scoring districts were chosen for this public policy analysis. The highest and

lowest selected school districts were chosen for greatest degree of separation in achievement

levels. This set up a dichotomous measure of data. Data of central tendency (districts graded B)

were discarded as they produced no differential for comparison.41 The highest scoring districts

made a grade of A, the lowest scoring districts received a grade of C. There were twenty-four A

districts, and thirteen districts scoring a C, for a total of thirty-seven districts meeting the criteria

for this study.42 High schools were used in this study due to the high stakes measures governing

receiving a standard high school diploma.43 Ultimately much of the final measure of the

accountability movement driving education was based on graduation rates of high school

students.44

Each of the thirty-seven districts were examined to identify the highest and lowest graded

high schools. The examination continued with reviewing the district-school accountability report

for each district.45 The school reports consisted of three "pages," each page represented an


4o Florida Department of Education, "Florida School Grades," [online] 2005-2006 School Accountability Reports:
All Districts, 2006, available from

41 Brighton Webs Ltd, "Brighton Webs Ltd. Statistical and Data Services for Industry," [online] Brighton Webs Ltd,
2004, available from < b1lip un \\ .\brighton-webs.co.uk/Statistics/central~tenecs>

42Florida Department of Education, "Florida School Grades," [online] 2005-2006 School Accountability Reports:
All Districts, 2006, available from

43Florida Department of Education, "FCAT Myths vs. Facts," [online] Florida Department of Education, available
from .

44Lorraine McDonnell, "No Child Left Behind and the Federal Role in Education: Evolution or Revolution?,"
Peabody Journal ofEducation 80, 2005 [journal on-line]; available from:
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.1p.hscl.ufl.ed/w/uptr hmlrcd0c1~6b790e70e397f5ebc28d34d4
3ce3 3921lc936bac3ec95d92632237e958b3 509534641Ib7&fmt=H.

45See appendix A for sample district report. The main database searchable site can be found at: "Florida Department
of Education," [online] Florida School Grades, available from
%2D2006&school~grade=&report=AYP&level= School>.










individual report. The first report contained thirty-nine cells giving an overview of the schools

achievement. Thirty-six of the cells were dichotomous indicating if the school tested 95 percent

of the population, and subgroup populations, and if the target percentage of the aforementioned

were at grade level or not. The other three cells were; total writing proficiency met, total

graduation criteria met, and the school grade. The second page gave the actual percentages for

the same information. The third page gave the number of students in each cell.46

This examination yielded 109 schools ranging in grade from A to F.47 Within this data set

the schools were further examined to determine if they made AYP or not. 48 Reports from each

school were examined to determine what specific factors were involved in the achievement of

AYP.49 A general factor in making AYP in Florida included "provisional AYP."SO Factors

relevant to making AYP or not were considered in terms of the SWD subgroup. These factors

included; if the subgroup was to small to have to be considered in school AYP calculations, safe

harbor, and if the SWD mathematical adjustment was applied. This resulted in fifteen schools to






46 See appendix A for sample reports. The main database searchable site can be found at: "Florida Department of
Education," [online] Florida School Grades, available from
%2D2006&school~grade=&report=AYP&level= School>.

47All of the highest and lowest scoring schools were reviewed in each of the highest and lowest scoring districts.

48Schools that made "provisional AYP" under Florida's guidelines were counted as not having made AYP because
they did not make AYP under NCLB.

49 See appendix A for a sample school reports. The main database searchable site can be found at: "Florida
Department of Education," [online] Florida School Grades, available from
%2D2006&school~grade=&report=AYP&level= School>.

"0 FLA. Stat. ch. 1008.31 (1)(b) (2007); Provisional AYP did not count under NCLB. As noted in: American
Teacher, "Florida Reveals AYP Disconnect," 4merican Teacher 90, November 2005 [journal on-line]; available
from:
http://vnweb. hwwilsonweb. com.1p.hscl.ufl. edu/hww/results/re sults~fulltext~maincontentframe .j html~hwwilsonid=X
M325AKTNCOSRQA3DIOSFF4ADUNGMIV0.









examine with regard to how they made AYP and as to the impact of the SWD subgroup on a

school making AYP.S

Summary

Data from Florida school districts and high schools were evaluated in terms of making

AYP under the auspices of NCLB52 and with regard to school/district grades as determined under

the regulations set forth by Florida' s A+ Plan2.53 Both accountability policies were designed to

improve student performance. The considerable disparity in the ratings between the two methods

of evaluation was examined. Data showed that despite Florida' s A+ Pla?754 being the State' s

NCLB55 compliance plan, the two were not evaluating districts and schools in similar enough

manners to provide equivalent results.56 In addition it became evident that a SWD population

large enough to be counted" hindered the likelihood of a high school making AYP.58 Ultimately

all these data were evaluated with regard to the impact the SWD population had on making AYP

under NCLB 59 in Selected Florida high schools






51 These data were distilled from 472 reports comprising over 1100 pages of information.

5220 U.S.C. # 6311(b)(2) (2002)

53FLA. Stat. ch. 2006.74 (2006)

54FLA. Stat. ch. 2006.74 (2006)

5520 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)

56 Appendicies B and C.
57The subgroup had to be at least 30 students, and be 15 percent of the total school population or 100 students to be
included in AYP calculations: Florida Department of Education, "2006 Guide to Calculating Adequate Yearly
Progress (AYP): Technical Assistance Paper," [online] Florida Department of Education, 2006, available from
.
5820 U.S.C. # 6311 (b)(2) (2002)

59 20 U.S.C. # 6311(b)(2) (2002)










CHAPTER 4
OBSERVATIONS

Introduction

The data set for the study was public high schools in the state of Florida. The most recent

data available were used. All sixty-seven school districts in the state of Florida were examined.

High schools were the focus of the study due to the impact high-stakes testing had on receiving a

high school diploma.2 Examining the highest and lowest graded districts resulted in thirty-seven

districts to review, twenty-four graded A, and thirteen graded C.3 The thirty-seven districts

ranged in population from 1,225 to 271,470 students, with an average of 33,365 students. The

ESE population ranged from 12 to 33 percent, averaging 21 percent.4 The total percent of criteria

met for each district ranged from 67 to 92 percent. 5 Within the aforementioned districts the

highest and lowest scoring high schools yielded 109 schools to review, ranging in grades from A

to F.6 School populations ranged from sixty-seven to 2,693 with an average size of 933. The

percentage of ESE students at the school level ranged from 1 to 28 percent, averaging 13

percent.



i Data were sometimes referred to as 2005-2006 and sometimes as 2006, these referenced the same school year.

2 Michael Gunzenhauser, "Normalizing the Educated Subject: A Foucaultian Analysis of High-Stakes
Accountability," Educational Studies 39, June 2006 [journal on-line]; available from:
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.1p.hscl.ufl.ed/w/uptr hmlrcd0c1~6b790e70e397f5ebc28d3476
5dac3af94 1997740cd242bb5958ae9ed4a63bd5808fbl 1&fmt=H.

SAppendix B for district data.

SThe main database searchable site can be found at: "Florida Department of Education," [online] Florida School
Grades, available from
%2D2006&school~grade=&report=AYP&level= School>.

5 Appendix B district data.

6 Appendix C.

SThe main database searchable site can be found at: "Florida Department of Education," [online] Florida School
Grades, available from










State, district, and school reports were set up with three different "pages" on the official

Florida Department of Education (FLDOE) website. The first "page" consisted of thirty-eight9

dichotomous cells marked yes or no. Thirty-six of the cells were made up of rows and columns.

The rows were labeled; Total, White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, American Indian, Economically

Disadvantaged, Limited English Proficiency, and Students with Disabilities. The four columns

were headed; 95% Tested Reading, 95% Tested Math, Reading Proficiency Met, Math

Proficiency Met. The other two cells were; Total Writing Proficiency Met, and Total Graduation

Criterion Met. The report also indicated the percent of cells met, and if AYP were achieved. The

second "page" gave more detailed data, and listed the percentages, for participation and

proficiency in each category and subgroup. The third "page" of the report listed the actual

number of students participating or making proficiency in each category. 10

The state level page one report contained thirty-eight cells for reporting information. Of

these thirty were satisfactorily met, putting the states percentage of criteria met at 79 percent.

The state of Florida did test 95 percent of the Students With Disabilities (SWD) subgroup in both

reading and math; however, the SWD subgroup did not meet the proficiency requirements in

either reading or math. 11Only 30 percent of the SWD population scored at grade level in


%2D2006&school~grade=&report=AYP&level= School>.

SEach "page" is a different website. "Florida Department of Education," [online] Florida School Grades, available
from
%2D2006&school~grade=&report=AYP&level= School>.

9 Thirty-nine cells for the individual school reports.

'0 Appendix A for sample reports: The main database searchable site can be found at: "Florida Department of
Education," [online] Florida School Grades, available from
%2D2006&school~grade=&report=AYP&level= School>.

'' State report page one: "Florida Department of Education," [online] Florida School Grades, available from
http ://schoolgrades.fidoe. org/default. asp.










reading, the target was 44 percent. In math only 32 percent of the SWD subgroup were at grade

level, the target was 50 percent. The total state population did make the target percentages, with

57 percent on grade level in reading, and 61 percent on grade level in math. 12 The state as a

whole did not make AYP under NCLB.13 These data were summarized in table 4-1.

Table 4-1 State percentages of students at or above grade level
Actual Goal
Total reading 57% 44%
Total math 61% 50%
SWD reading 30% 44%
SWD math 32% 50%

The district page one report was organized in the same manner as the state report. It also

contained thirty-eight cells. Four of the cells concerned the SWD sub group; percent tested in

reading, percent tested in math, percent at grade level in reading, and percent at grade level in

math. None of the thirty-seven districts studied made AYP as defined by NCLB. 14 Twenty-four

districts were graded A: 1 twenty-one met the criteria for two of the ESE cells; three met the

criteria for three of the ESE cells. Thirteen districts made a grade of C: 16 One met the criteria for

all of the ESE cells; ten met the criteria for two cells; one achieved in one cell; one met the

criteria for none of the cells. 1 These data were summarized in table 4-2.



12 State report page two: "Florida Department of Education," [online] Florida School Grades, available from
http://schoolgrades. fidoe.org/default. asp?action=reportAYP2&thisdistrict=00&thisschoolYear-2005-
2006&schoolNumbers= &districts=46& schoolYear-2005 %2D2006&school~grade= &report= AYP&level= State.

13 State report page one: "Florida Department of Education," [online] Florida School Grades, available from
http ://schoolgrades.fidoe. org/default. asp.

14 NOne of the sixty-seven districts in Florida made AYP. See the sample district report in appendix A. Appendix B
shows data on the districts that qualified for the study.

's Alachua, Bay, Brevard, Broward, Calhoun, Charlotte, Citrus, Clay, Gilchrist, Hillsborough, Leon, Marion, Martin,
Monroe, Nassau, Okaloosa, Palm Beach, Santa Rosa, Sarasota, Seminole, St. Johns, Sumter, Wakulla, Walton.

16 Baker, Bradford, Columbia, DeSoto, Franklin, Gadsden, Hamilton, Hendry, Jefferson, Madison, Putnam,
Suwannee, Taylor.

17 See appendix B for district data. See appendix A for sample district report. The main database searchable site can
be found at: "Florida Department of Education," [online] Florida School Grades, available from










Table 4-2 District grades and number of ESE cells met
Grade 4 Cells 3 Cells 2 Cells 1 Cell 0 Cells
A 0 3 21 0 0
C 1 0 10 1 1

The individual school reports were designed in the same manner as the state and district

reports. Page one of each school report had thirty-nine cells, I including the aforementioned four

ESE cells. One hundred and nine high schools were reviewed in this public policy study: forty-

two made a grade of A; twenty-two made a grade of B; twenty made a grade of C; twenty-four

made a grade of D; one school was graded F. Thirty-five of the schools discounted AYP for the

SWD subgroup as not applicable;19 CleVen met the criteria for none of the ESE cells; six met the

criteria for one cell; forty-six met the criteria for two cells; nine met the criteria for three cells;

two met the criteria for all four ESE cells.20 These data were summarized in table 4-3.

Table 4-3 Number of ESE cells met by all schools in study
# Cells met NA 4 3 2 1 0
# Schools 35 2 9 46 6 11

School Grades and ESE Criteria

Forty-two schools made a grade of A: eighteen had ESE cells listed as not applicable due

to the subgroup size; two made the criteria for all cells; eight made the criteria for three cells;






%2D2006&school~grade=&report=AYP&level= School>.

's The school report added a cell for school grade not included in the state and district page one reports. State and
district grades were gathered from other reports. See appendix A.

19 If 8 Subgroup was small enough not to be counted in AYP calculations under Federal guidelines it was designated
as NA in the cell. For a subgroup to be counted in AYP calculations, the subgroup must have at least thirty students,
and account for at least 15 percent of the school population in tested grades or be 100 students or more. As noted in:
Florida Department of Education, "2006 Guide to Calculating Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): Technical
Assistance Paper," [online] Florida Department of Education, 2006, available from
.

20 Appendix C school data.










eleven made the criteria for two cells; two made the criteria for one cell; one made none of the

ESE cell criteria. These data were summarized in table 4-4.

Table 4-4 Number of ESE cells met by A schools in study
# Cells met NA 4 3 2 1 0
# Schools 18 2 8 11 2 0

Twenty-two schools made a grade of B: four had ESE cells listed as not applicable due to

the subgroup size; none made the criteria for all cells; none made the criteria for three cells;

eleven made the criteria for two cells; three made the criteria for one cell; four made none of the

criteria. These data were summarized in table 4-5.

Table 4-5 Number of ESE cells met by B schools in study
# Cells met NA 4 3 2 1 0
# Schools 4 0 0 11 3 4

Twenty schools made a grade of C: five had ESE cells listed as not applicable due to the

subgroup size; none made the criteria for all cells; none made the criteria for three cells; fourteen

made the criteria for two cells; none made the criteria for one cell; one made none of the criteria.

These data were summarized in table 4-6.

Table 4-6 Number of ESE cells met by C schools in study
# Cells met NA 4 3 2 1 0
# Schools 5 0 0 14 0 1

Twenty-four schools made a grade of D: eight had ESE cells listed as not applicable due to

the subgroup size; none made the criteria for all cells; one made the criteria for three cells; ten

made the criteria for two cells; one made the criteria for one cell; four made none of the criteria.

These data were summarized in table 4-7.

Table 4-7 Number of ESE cells met by D schools in study
# Cells met NA 4 3 2 1 0
# Schools 8 0 1 10 1 4

















































Forty-two schools were scored an A, thirteen of them made 100 percent of the criteria:

eleven of the thirteen made 100 percent of the criteria by dismissing the ESE population as not

applicable due to the size of the subgroup; two met the criteria for all four ESE cells. Twenty-one



21 Appendix C for school data. Appendix A for sample school reports. The main database searchable site can be
found at: "Florida Department of Education," [online] Florida School Grades, available from
%2D2006&school~grade=&report=AYP&level= School>.


The school that was graded an F did not meet the criteria for any of the ESE cells.21 Data


from this section were summarized in part in table 4-8.

Table 4-8 School Grades and ESE criteria


# Making
AYP
11
2
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0


Grade
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
C
C
C
C
C
C
D
D
D
D
D
D
F


# ESE cells met

NA
4
3
2
1
0
NA
4
3
2
1
0
NA
4
3
2
1
0
NA
4
3
2
1
0
0


# Of schools
18
2
8
11
2
1
4
0
0
11
3
4
5
0
0
14
0
1
8
0
1
10
1
4
1


School Grades and Percent of Criteria Met










A schools met 90 to 99 percent of the criteria: seven did so by using the not applicable

designation for the ESE subgroup; seven met the criteria for three out of the four ESE cells;

another seven made the criteria for two of the ESE cells. Seven A schools met between 80 and

89 percent of the criteria: one met the criteria for three out of four ESE cells; four met the criteria

for two cells; one met the criteria for one cell; one met the criteria for none of the ESE cells. One

A school fell in the 70 to 79 percent range, meeting the criteria for one ESE cell. These data were

summarized in table 4-9.

Table 4-9 Percent of criteria met by A schools and number of ESE cells met
# Cells met NA 4 3 2 1 0
100% of criteria 11 2 0 0 0 0
90-99% of criteria 7 0 7 7 0 0
80-89% of criteria 0 0 1 4 1 1
70-79% of criteria 0 0 0 0 1 0
60-69% of criteria 0 0 0 0 0 0
50-59% of criteria 0 0 0 0 0 0

Twenty-two schools made a grade of B: two met 100 percent of the criteria, both of these

did so while denoting the ESE subgroup as not applicable. Six schools graded B met 90 to 99

percent of the criteria: two did so while denoting the ESE subgroup as not applicable; the other

four met the criteria for two of the four ESE cells. Eleven of the B schools met 80 to 89 percent

of the criteria: six of these schools met the criteria for two of the ESE cells; two met the criteria

for one ESE cell; three failed to meet the criteria for any of the ESE cells. Three of the schools

earning a grade of B met 70 to 79 percent of the criteria: one met the requirements for two out of

four ESE cells; one met the requirements for one cell; one met the requirements for none of the

ESE cells. These data were summarized in table 4-10.

Twenty schools earned a grade of C, four met 90 to 99 percent of the criteria: three did so

while designating the ESE subgroup as not applicable; one met the criteria for two of the four

ESE cells. Ten of the C schools met 80 to 89 percent of the criteria: one did so while designating










the ESE subgroup as not applicable; the other nine met the criteria for two of the four ESE cells.

Four of the schools that earned a grade of C met 70 to 79 percent of the criteria: one did so while

designating the ESE subgroup as not applicable; the other three met the criteria for two out of

four ESE cells. Two of the C schools met 60 to 69 percent of the criteria: one of these did so

while meeting the criteria for two of the four ESE cells; the other met the criteria for none of the

ESE cells. These data were summarized in table 4-11.

Table 4-10 Percent of criteria met by B schools and number of ESE cells met
# Cells met NA 4 3 2 1 0
100% of criteria 2 0 0 0 0 0
90-99% of criteria 2 0 0 4 0 0
80-89% of criteria 0 0 0 6 2 3
70-79% of criteria 0 0 0 1 1 1
60-69% of criteria 0 0 0 0 0 0
50-59% of criteria 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table 4-11 Percent of criteria met by C schools and number of ESE cells met
# Cells met NA 4 3 2 1 0
100% of criteria 0 0 0 0 0 0
90-99% of criteria 3 0 0 1 0 0
80-89% of criteria 1 0 0 9 0 0
70-79% of criteria 1 0 0 3 0 0
60-69% of criteria 0 0 0 1 0 1
50-59% of criteria 0 0 0 0 0 0

Twenty-four schools earned a grade of D, three met 80 to 89 percent of the criteria: two did

so while designating the ESE subgroup as not applicable, the other one met the criteria for two

out of four ESE cells. Fifteen of the D schools met 70 to 79 percent of the criteria: five did so

while designating the ESE subgroup as not applicable; one met the criteria for three out of four

ESE cells; two met the criteria for two of the ESE cells; one met the criteria for one ESE cell;

three met the criteria for none of the ESE cells. Five of the D schools met 60 to 69 percent of the

criteria: one did so while designating the ESE subgroup as not applicable; the other four met the










criteria for two of the four ESE cells. One D school met 50-59 percent of the criteria and met the

requirements for none of the ESE cells. These data were summarized in table 4-12.

Table 4-12 Percent of criteria met by D schools and number of ESE cells met
# Cells met NA 4 3 2 1 0
100% of criteria 0 0 0 0 0 0
90-99% of criteria 0 0 0 0 0 0
80-89% of criteria 2 0 0 1 0 0
70-79% of criteria 5 0 1 2 1 3
60-69% of criteria 1 0 0 4 0 1
50-59% of criteria 0 0 0 0 0 1

The school that received a grade of F met 56 percent of the criteria and met the criteria for

none of the ESE cells.22 Data from this section were summarized in part in table 4-13.

Mitigating Factors

There were several mitigating factors involved in determining if a school made adequate

yearly progress or not. One of these was "safe harbor."23 Safe harbor applied to subgroups in

reading and math. The school in question must have met all of the other state indicators, in

Florida these included; writing, graduation rate, and school grade. The subgroup must have met

writing proficiency by increasing scores by 1 percent or more over the prior year, or the school

as a whole must have had 90 percent of students demonstrating writing proficiency. The

subgroup must also have met the graduation rate requirement by increasing the graduation rate

by 1 percent over the prior year, or the schools graduation rate must have been 85 percent or

better. The subgroup could still be considered to have made AYP if the groups number of non-







22See appendix C for school data. See appendix A for sample district report. The main database searchable site can
be found at: "Florida Department of Education," [online] Florida School Grades, available from
%2D2006&school~grade=&report=AYP&level= School>.

2320 U.S.C. # 6311(b)(2)(I) (2002)










proficient scores were reduced by at least 10 percent from the prior year. Safe harbor only

applied to subgroup AYP in reading and/or math.24

Table 4-13 Grade and % criteria met
% Criteria # NA for
Grade # Of schools
met ESE
A 100 13 11
A 90-99 21 7
A 80-89 7 0
A 70-79 1 0
B 100 2 2
B 90-99 6 2
B 80-89 11 0
B 70-79 3 0
C 90-99 20 3
C 80-89 10 1
C 70-79 4 1
C 60-69 2 0
D 80-89 3 2
D 70-79 15 5
D 60-69 5 1
D 50-59 1 0
F 56 1 0

Another provision that applied to all subgroups was the size of the subgroup. The criteria

for a subgroup making AYP only applied if there were at least thirty students in the subgroup. In

order for AYP to apply the number in the subgroup must also represent at least 15 percent of the

schools tested population. If the group was not 15 percent of the schools tested population or 100

students then AYP did not apply to that subgroup in that school.25

No ChildLeft Behind made one provision specifically relating to students with disabilities

and calculating adequate yearly progress. This caveat allowed for 1 percent of the most



24Florida Department of Education, "2006 Guide to Calculating Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): Technical
Assistance Paper," [online] Florida Department of Education, 2006, available from
.

25These are denoted as not applicable (NA) in the data. As noted in: Florida Department of Education, "2006 Guide
to Calculating Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): Technical Assistance Paper," [online] Florida Department of
Education, 2006, available from .










cognitively impaired students with disabilities to take an alternative assessment, as opposed to

the statewide assessment used to measure if students were meeting grade level requirements. The

1 percent was calculated on a district basis so as not to significantly penalize a particular school.

Up to 1 percent of SWD could be considered at grade level if they made an acceptable score on

the alternative assessment. These scores were included as proficient in AYP calculations.26

Florida had an additional exception with regard to the SWD subgroup making AYP. This

exception was referred to as the SWD mathematical adjustment. This adjustment applied if the

only reason a school did not make AYP was because the SWD subgroup did not make AYP. The

mathematical adjustment could be applied to the SWD subgroup in reading and/or math if the

schools failure to make AYP was due solely to one of these two cells. In the 2005-2006 school

year the SWD mathematical adjustment was 13 percent. If the SWD subgroup reached the target

proficiency level by adding 13 percent to the actual percent proficient in reading and/or math

then the subgroup was proficient and the school was deemed to have made AYP. The SWD

subgroup must have met the requirements for writing proficiency and graduation rates for the

mathematical adjustment to apply.27

The final issue in understanding these data was also a Florida policy. Florida had

something referred to as "provisional AYP."28 A school had to meet the criteria for all thirty-nine





26 NCLB did not limit how many students may take an alternative assessment as it was an IEP team decision, but if
more than 1 percent took and passed an alternative assessment they had to be counted as non-proficient. As noted in:
Florida Department of Education, "2006 Guide to Calculating Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): Technical
Assistance Paper," [online] Florida Department of Education, 2006, available from
.
27 Florida Department of Education, "2006 Guide to Calculating Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): Technical
Assistance Paper," [online] Florida Department of Education, 2006, available from
.
28FLA. Stat. ch. 1008.31 (1)(b) (2007)










cells to make AYP as outlined in NCLB.29 If the school failed to make AYP but was graded an A

or B school then the state deemed it to have made provisional AYP.30 Forty-nine schools of the

109 in this study made provisional AYP.31

School Data

Sixty-seven districts were reviewed; thirty-seven met the criteria for the study. One

hundred and nine high schools met the study criteria. Fifteen of the high schools made AYP

under NCLB,32 thirteen were graded A and two earned a B. Two of the fifteen made AYP under

NCLB33 without using the not applicable (NA) designation34 for the SWD subgroup. Both of

these schools were graded A.35

One of the two schools to make AYP36 while not discounting the SWD subgroup was Bell

High School located in the Gilchrist County School District. The Gilchrist County School

District had 1,722 students enrolled to be tested in reading, and 1,718 in math. Four hundred and

eighty and 479 were in the SWD subgroup for reading and math respectively.37 Students with


29 20 U.S.C. # 6311(b)(2) (2002)

30 Florida Department of Education, "2006 Guide to Calculating Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): Technical
Assistance Paper," [online] Florida Department of Education, 2006, available from
.
31 FLA. Stat. ch. 1008.31 (1)(b) (2007):;Provisional AYP did not count under NCLB (provisional AYP will be
addressed in the following chapter). As noted in: American Teacher, "Florida reveals AYP Disconnect," American
Teacher 90, November 2005 [journal on-line]; available from;
http://vnweb. hwwilsonweb. com.1p.hscl.ufl. edu/hww/results/re sultslflltext~maincontentframe .j html;hwwilsonid=X
M325AKTNCOSRQA3DIOSFF4ADUNGMIV0.

32 20 U.S.C. # 6311(b)(2) (2002)

33 20 U.S.C. # 6311(b)(2) (2002)

34 This means that the SWD subgroup did not need to be considered in AYP calculations.

35 Appendix C.
36 20 U.S.C. # 6311(b)(2) (2002)

37 District report page three: "Florida Department of Education," [online] Florida School Grades, available from
http://schoolgrades. fidoe. org/default. asp?action=reportAYP 3&thisdistrict=21l&this schoolYear-2005 -
2006&schoolNumbers=&districts=2 1&schoolYear-2005% /2D2006&school~grade=&reot Y~ee=itit










Disabilities constituted 28 percent of the Gilchrist County School District population. Ninety-

nine percent of the students in the SWD subgroup were tested. Thirty-four and thirty-seven

percent of ESE students scored at or above grade level in reading and math respectively. Sixty-

three and 70 percent of all tested students in the district scored at or above grade level in reading

and math respectively.38 The district did not make AYP, meeting only 90 percent of the criteria,

receiving a grade of A. The district tested 95 percent of SWD but the subgroup did not reach the

target proficiency rate in reading or math.39

Bell High School had 511 students to be tested in reading, and 509 to be tested in math.

One hundred and forty-one and 140 were enrolled in the SWD subgroups for reading and math

respectively. Twenty-eight percent of the Bell High School population was ESE.40 One hundred

percent of students were tested in the SWD subgroup. Twenty-eight percent of the SWD

subgroup were at grade level in reading and 29 percent were proficient in math.41 The school as a

whole had 55 and 65 percent of tested students scoring at or above grade level in reading and








38District report page two: "Florida Department of Education," [online] Florida School Grades, available from
http://schoolgrades. fidoe. org/default. asp?action=reportAYP2&thisdistrict=21l&this schoolYear-2005 -
2006&schoolNumbers=&districts=2 1&schoolYear-2005% /2D2006&school~grade=&rpr=Y lelDitc.

39 District report page one: "Florida Department of Education," [online] Florida School Grades, available from
http ://schoolgrades.fidoe. org/default. asp.

40 School report page three: "Florida Department of Education," [online] Florida School Grades, available from
http://schoolgrades. fidoe. org/default. asp?action=reportAYP 3&thisdistrict=21l&this schoolYear-2005 -
2006&schoolNumbers=2 10031l&districts=2 1&schoolYear-2005%2D2006&school~grade=&repot Y~ee=S
hool.

41 Theses scores fell short of the goals of 44 and 50 percent at grade level in reading and math respectively. They
met the AYP criteria through the safe harbor provision. See school report page two: "Florida Department of
Education," [online] Florida School Grades, available from
http://schoolgrades. fidoe. org/default. asp?action=reportAYP2&thisdistrict=21l&this schoolYear-2005 -
2006&schoolNumbers=2 10031l&districts=2 1&schoolYear-2005%2D2006&school~grade=&repotAPlvlS
hool.










math respectively. The school made AYP, meeting 100 percent of the criteria, receiving a grade

of A. 42

The other high school to make AYP43 while including the SWD subgroup in AYP

calculations was Niceville Senior High School in the Okaloosa County School District. The

Okaloosa County School District had 18,897 students enrolled to be tested in reading, and

18,891 in math. Three thousand one hundred and eighteen and 3,115 were in the SWD subgroup

for reading and math respectively. Students with disabilities represented 16 percent of the

Okaloosa County School District.44 Ninety-seven percent of the students in SWD subgroup were

tested. District-wide 44 and 49 percent of ESE students scored at or above grade level in reading

and math respectively. Seventy and 75 percent of all tested students in the district scored at or

above grade level in reading and math respectively.45 The district did not make AYP,46 meeting

only 92 percent of the criteria, receiving a grade of A. The district tested 95 percent of SWD

subgroup, but the subgroup did not reach the target proficiency rate in math.47

Niceville Senior High School had 1,185 students to be tested in reading, and 1,183 to be

tested in math. One hundred and twenty-five and 124 were enrolled in the SWD subgroups for



42 School report page one: "Florida Department of Education," [online] Florida School Grades, available from
http://schoolgrades.fidoe.org/default.asp~ato~eiyeeto~ho~eot AY itrcs2&schoolYear-20
05-2006&school~grade= &level= School&schoolumes 210031.

43 20 U.S.C. # 6311(b)(2) (2002)

44 District report page three: "Florida Department of Education," [online] Florida School Grades, available from
http://schoolgrades. fidoe. org/default. asp?action=reportAYP 3&thisdistrict=46&this schoolYear-2005 -
2006&schoolNumbers=&districts=46&schoolYea-05220&colgae&eot Y~ee=itit

45 District report page two: "Florida Department of Education," [online] Florida School Grades, available from
http://schoolgrades. fidoe.org/default. asp?action=reportAYP2&thisdistrict=46&thisschoolYear-2005-
2006&schoolNumbers=&districts=46&schoolYea-05220&colgae&eot Y~ee=itit

46 20 U.S.C. # 6311(b)(2) (2002)

47 District report page one: "Florida Department of Education," [online] Florida School Grades, available from
http ://schoolgrades.fidoe. org/default. asp.










reading and math respectively. Eleven percent of the Niceville Senior High School population

was ESE. 48 Ninety-eight percent of the SWD subgroup were tested in reading and 99 percent of

SWD subgroup were tested in math. Thirty-two percent of the SWD subgroup were at grade

level in reading,49 and 50 percent were at grade level in math. Ninety-nine and 62 percent of all

students tested scored at or above grade level in reading and math respectively.so The school

made AYP, meeting 100 percent of the criteria, receiving a grade of A. 5

Summary

School data were analyzed with regard to Florida school grades while taking into account

data relating to making adequate yearly progress under the auspices of the No Child left behind

Act. 52 These data were viewed in terms of the number of the ESE subgroup cells met, 53 and also

in terms of total percent of criteria met. 54 A key factor in studying these data was the not

applicable designation (NA), which was used if the subgroup in question did not meet the

minimum size requirement to be included in AYP5 calculations. Fifteen of the 109 Florida high



48School report page three: "Florida Department of Education," [online] Florida School Grades, available from
http://schoolgrades. fidoe. org/default. asp?action=reportAYP 3&thisdistrict=46&this schoolYear-2005 -
2006&schoolNumbers=460211l&districts=46&schoolYear -2005 %2D2006&scholgae&eotAPlvlS
hool.

49 This counted as meeting the 44 percent target after the SWD mathematical adjustment.

"0 School report page two: "Florida Department of Education," [online] Florida School Grades, available from
http://schoolgrades. fidoe.org/default. asp?action=reportAYP2&thisdistrict=46&thisschoolYear-2005-
2006&schoolNumbers=460211l&districts=46&schoolYear -2005 %2D2006&scholgae&eot Y~ee=S
hool.

51 School report page one: "Florida Department of Education," [online] Florida School Grades, available from
http://schoolgrades. fidoe.org/default. asp?action=verify SelectionSchool&report=AYP&districts=46& schoolYear-20
05-2006&school~grade=&level= School&school ubrs4011.

52Appendix C: 20 U.S.C. # 6311 (b)(2) (2002)
53Table 4-8

54Table 4-13

5520 U.S.C. # 6311 (b)(2) (2002)









schools in this study made adequate yearly progress representing only 14 percent of the schools

studied. Only two of the fifteen high schools made adequate yearly progress without dismissing

the students with disabilities population due to small group size. This meant that only 13 percent

of schools making AYP58 did so without dismissing the SWD subgroup; furthermore, only 2

percent of all high schools in the study made AYP59 without dismissing the SWD population.60

This indicated that a high school that had a large students with disabilities population would have

a decreased likelihood of achieving AYP.61

Public policy must use valid and reliable measures to determine if the obj ectives set forth

in the policy are being met. It stands to reason that two policies having the same obj ective should

have comparable results for evaluations conducted on the same sample population. This was not

the case with data in this study reviewed under the policies of Florida' s A+ Plan62 and NCLB.63

Thirty-nine percent of the high schools examined were graded A under the provisions of

Florida' s A+ Plan. 64 Only 14 percent of the same sample made AYP as measured by NCLB.65






56 20 U.S.C. # 6311(b)(2) (2002)

5720 U.S.C. # 6311(b)(2) (2002)

5820 U.S.C. # 6311(b)(2) (2002)
59 20 U.S.C. # 6311(b)(2) (2002)
61) Appendix C: The two schools that did make AYP without dismissing the SWD subgroup due to small size did so
through one using the SWD mathematical adjustment, and the other using safe harbor.
61 20 U.S.C. # 6311(b)(2) (2002)

62 FLA. Stat. ch. 2006.74 (2006)

63 20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)

64 FLA. Stat. ch. 2006.74 (2006)

65 20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)










This variation showed that the State school grade does not predict AYP66 under the Federal

po icy.6

Anecdotal Observations

There were a few additional observations concerning data gathered in this study. They

were not germane to this public policy study; however, they were worthy of note for possible

future research. Eleven of the districts graded C were located in the eastern panhandle of Florida.

Ten of them were contiguous. The two outliers were in south central Florida. The A school

districts showed no grouping, appearing to be scattered throughout the state. Socio-economic

status (SES) may have been a predictive factor in school grade. Districts that were graded an A

had between 18 and 80 percent low SES students with an average of 40 percent. Districts that

were graded C ranged from 43 to 74 percent low SES student population with an average of 59

percent. It is important to note that the Florida Education Finance Program68 (FEFP) had no

poverty index. This may have further impacted results through schools not being funded

equitably. Another factor in making AYP may have been district size. The number of students in

the districts studied ranged from, 1,225 to 271,470. Districts graded an A ranged in size from

2,274 to 271,470 students. Districts graded a C ranged in size from 1,225 to 12,274. It is possible

that many smaller districts were not receiving enough total funding to adequately educate

students.69






66 20 U.S.C. # 6311 (b)(2) (2002)

67 20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)

68 FLA. Stat. ch. 1011.60-1011.77 (2006)

69 These are merely casual observations for areas of possible future research. All data mentioned is contained in
appendices A and B.









CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS

Purpose

The goal of this public policy study was to determine the impact of the special education

student population on selected Florida high schools achieving AYP1 as measured by the policies

set forth in NCLB.2 The process of exploring this question included reviewing policies set forth

by IDEA 20043 and Florida' s A+ Plan2.4 All of Florida' s school districts were reviewed under the

A+ Plan'5 and the highest and lowest graded districts were included in the study. The same

process was applied to high schools within the aforementioned districts. School grades and

achievement of AYP6 were compared in terms of the impact of the SWD population as a whole.

Controversy

Some would argue that Florida' s public policy regarding making adequate yearly progress

(AYP)s did a better j ob of accurately portraying student achievement than the policies created by

the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB).9 Peterson and West claimed that Florida policy had a

much more accurate measure of student progress than the Federal measures. They wrote,

.. accountability works only if the yardstick used to measure performance is reasonably
accurate. Unfortunately, the yardstick required by the federal law is not. Our analysis of its


20 U.S.C. # 6311 (b)(2) (2002)
S20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)

S20 U.S.C. ## 1400 et seq. (CI r 1g

SFLA. Stat. ch. 2006.74 (2006)
SFLA. Stat. ch. 2006.74 (2006)
6 20 U.S.C. # 6311 (b)(2) (2002)

SAppendicies A and B.
"FLA. Stat. ch. 2006.74 (2006)

9 20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)










workings in Florida reveals it to be badly flawed and not as accurate as the measuring stick
employed by the state of Florida for similar purposes. 10

In reality data in this study indicated that Florida' s public polices relating to AYP11 were

far from being in alignment with those outlined in NCLB. 12 Twenty-four Florida school districts

earned a grade of A, yet none of them made AYP as defined by NCLB. 13 Forty-two high schools

that qualified for this study were graded A; however, only fifteen of these made AYP under the

requirements of NCLB. 14 Florida published school grades and rewarded schools based on those

grades.l

Florida

Districts and schools that received high grades were prominently displayed on websites,

newsletters, and often on signs in front of schools. 16 This policy may have been misleading to the

public. The Okaloosa County School District received a grade of A. The district website referred

to the district as the best in Florida, and had a link showing all the A and B graded schools. In

keeping with the image of being the "Best in Florida" the fact that the district did not make

AYP 1 was not mentioned. IsThe Gilchrist County School District was graded an A. The website



'o Paul Peterson, and Martin West, "Is Your Child's School Effective?," Education Next 6, Fall 2006: second
paragraph [journal on-line]; available from
http://vnweb. hwwilsonweb. com.1p.hscl.ufl. edu/hww/re sults/re sults_singlefulltext~jhtml.
11 FLA. Stat. ch. 1008.31 (1)(b) (2007)

12 20 U.S.C. # 6311(b)(2) (2002)

13 20 U.S.C. # 6311 (b)(2) (2002): Appendix B.

14 20 U.S.C. # 6311 (b)(2) (2002): Appendix C.

's See appendix A for sample district and school reports. The main database searchable site can be found at: "Florida
Department of Education," [online] Florida School Grades, available from
%2D2006&school~grade= &report= AYP&level= School>.

16 As witnessed by author.

17 20 U.S.C. # 6311(b)(2) (2002)










proudly proclaimed this on the home page. There was no mention of the fact that the district did

not make AYP under the rules set forth in NCLB. 19

In order to make AYP under the auspices of NCLB2 a school must have met 100 percent

of the criteria submitted in the state NCLB compliance plan. 21 Only fifteen of the 109 schools

studied met 100 percent of the criteria mandated by the state. Forty-nine schools in the study

made provisional AYP.22 Listing schools as having made provisional AYP23 further confused

determinations of the effectiveness of Florida schools. According to American Teacher, a memo

from the Florida Department of Education stated that there was no difference between having

made provisional AYP24 and having failed to make AYP25 altogether. This begs the question,

why have a label of provisional AYP26 aIt all? It could be argued that this piece of public policy

existed solely to boost the public perception of the quality of education in the state of Florida.27




1s Okaloosa County School District, "Okaloosa County School District," [online] Okaloosa County School District:
Best in Florida, 2006, available from
.
19 Gilchrist County School District, "Gilchrist County School District," [online] Gilchrist County School District,
2007, available from

20 20 U.S.C. # 6311(b)(2) (2002)

21 Florida Department of Education, "2006 Guide to Calculating Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): Technical
Assistance Paper," [online] Florida Department of Education, 2006, available from
.
22FLA. Stat. ch. 1008.31 (1)(b) (2007); Appendix C.

23FLA. Stat. ch. 1008.31 (1)(b) (2007)

24FLA. Stat. ch. 1008.31 (1)(b) (2007)

2520 U.S.C. # 6311(b)(2) (2002)

26 FLA. Stat. ch. 1008.31 (1)(b) (2007)

27American Teacher, "Florida reveals AYP disconnect," 4merican Teacher 90, November 2005 [journal on-line];
available from:
http://vnweb. hwwilsonweb. com.1p.hscl.ufl. edu/hww/results/re sultslflltext~maincontentframe .j html~hwwilsonid=X
M325AKTNCOSRQA3DIOSFF4ADUNGMIV0.









No ChildLeft Behind28 did not set intermediate goals for progress. The standard of

progression toward meeting the goal of having 100 percent of students at proficiency by 2013-

2014 school-year was left to the states to determine.29 Florida's intermediate goals were integral

to making AYP determinations for districts and schools. There was not a single school district in

the state that made AYP30 based on the intermediate goals of 44 percent proficient in reading and

50 percent proficient in math for the 2005-2006 school year.31 Florida's benchmarks for the

percent of students achieving at grade level were slated to increase every year starting with the

2004-2005 school year reaching 100 percent in the 2013-2014 school year.32 Given the lack of

acceptable performance at this writing it seemed unlikely that the situation would improve as

target percentages rose.

The failure to make adequate yearly progress33 did not go unnoticed. The United States

Department of Education (USED) made revisions to the NCLB34 pOlicies in an attempt to make it

easier for states to comply and achieve. One of the first changes in policy was to extend the

deadline for requiring teachers to be "highly qualified."3 The next change in policy pertained

specifically to students with disabilities. The USED created a policy allowing states to apply to


2820 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)
29 20 U.S.C. # 6311(b)(2)(H) (2002)

3020 U.S.C. # 6311(b)(2) (2002)

31 Appendix B: Florida Department of Education, "2006 Guide to Calculating School Grades: Technical Assistance
Paper," [online] Florida Department of Education, 2006, available from
.
32Christy Lassila, "Florida School Grades & Adequate Yearly Progress," [online] Florida Department of Education,
2006, available from .
3320 U.S.C. # 6311(b)(2) (2002)

3420 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)

35U. S. Department of Education, "Key Policy Letters Signed by the Education Secretary or Deputy Secretary,"
[online] Ed.gov, 2005, available from .










double the 1 percent cap on SWD being counted as proficient if they took and passed an

alternative assessment.36

Three Policies

The study examined three different public policies; NCLB,37 IDEA,38 and Florida's A+

plan.39 7le No ChildLeft BehindAct was the Federal public policy designed to improve

education in America, ultimately having every student in the country at grade level by the end of

the 2013-2014 school year. 40 The A+ plal41 was intended to be aligned with NCLB42 So that the

state would be in compliance with the most all encompassing Federal education law43 to date.

The individuals nI ithr Disabilities Act44 was reauthorized to bring it into better alignment with

NCLB. 45 The intended purpose of these policies was to raise student achievement through

accountability.46



36 Peter Kickbush, New Policy Helps States Better assist Students with Disabilities, private email message to author,
1 June 2005.

3720 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)

3820 U.S.C. ## 1400 et seq. (21 *4)

39 FLA. Stat. ch. 2006.74 (2006)

40 20 U.S.C. # 6311(b)(2)(F) (2002)

41FLA. Stat. ch. 2006.74 (2006)

4220 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)

4320 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)

4420 U.S.C. ## 1400 et seq. (21 *4)

45Sandra Bowen, and Harvey Rude, "Assessment and Students with Disabilities: Issues and Challenges with
Educational Reform," Rural Special Education Quarterly 3, Summer 2006 [journal on-line]; available from
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.1p.hscl.ufl.ed/w/uptr hmlrcd0c1~6b790e70e397f5ebc28d3476
5dac3 af94 1997748ddlal6fl3 315ca2688 123f95fD66fl&fmt=P.

46 JaCOb Adams, and Paul Hill, "Educational Accountability in a Regulated Market," Peabody Journal of Education
81, 2006 [journal on-line]; available from
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.1p.hscl.ufl.ed/w/uptr hmlrcd0c1~6b790e70e397f5ebc28d3476
5dac3af94 199779 1fcbaa6985293 12c4f984805fe267bc&fmt=H.










There is no argument that improving public education is an admirable goal; however, it

would appear that while the goal of all three public policies was the same, they were not working

in concert. The purpose of IDEA was to improve the educational opportunities and outcomes for

students with disabilities.47 The purpose ofNCLB was for all children to obtain a high-quality

education, and achieve proficiency on state academic standards.48 These sound similar enough,

yet there were some glaring differences. The Individuals nI ithr Disabilities Education Act

supported an individualized education plan for each special education student, tailored to meet

each students abilities and goals.49 The No ChildLeft BehindAct proposed holding all but the

smallest percentage of students to the highest standards. Other than to mention scientifically

proven teaching methods and one standardized assessment for all students in each state, NCLB

focused largely on accountability.'o Holding all students to one standard was in juxtaposition to

the spirit of the policies of IDEA." The reauthorization of IDEA 52 in 2004 changed much of the

language in this policy to mirror that of NCLB53 but the spirit of the two laws was still divergent.

Florida' s A+ plan54 was adapted to become Florida' s NCLB55 compliance plan. 56 The plan

was approved by the USED.5 Given these two facts it would seem that there should have been


47 20 U.S.C. # 1400 (211114)

48 20 U.S.C. # 6301 (2002)

49 20 U.S.C. # 1400 (d) II II 14;

so Michell Yell, Antonis Katsiyannas, and James Shiner, "The No Child Left Behind Act, Adequate Yearly Progress,
and Students With Disabilities," Teaching Exceptional Children 38, March/April 2006 [journal on-line]; available
from
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.1p.hscl.ufl.ed/w/uptr hmlrcd0c1~6b790e70e397f5ebc28d3476
5dac3af94 199770 17bc36153958clbe2eeb ld746238f73&fmt=H.

st 20 U.S.C. # 1400 (211114)

52 20 U.S.C. ## 1400 et seq. (21 *4)

53 20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)

54 FLA. Stat. ch. 2006.74 (2006)










no conflict between these two policies. As demonstrated by these data gathered in the study these

two policies were far from being in accord. 58Both of these policies addressed AYP, in fact the

A+ plall59 mentioned it specifically as related to NCLB. 60 The Florida public policy used a

"provisional AYP,"61 which was mentioned nowhere in NCLB,62 and did not count under

NCLB" policies.64 Florida's NCLB compliance plan was further flawed in general by the policy

of grading schools and districts. As demonstrated by data in this study, school and district grades

showed no causation with regard to making AYP as outlined by NCLB.65

It is inconceivable that three policies that theoretically had the same goal were not

following or measured by the same standards. The ramifications of these policy conflicts were

far reaching. There were three issues that these conflicts brought into sharp relief. The first was

financial, the second was public perception, and finally the most important was the welfare of

Americas public school students.


55 20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)

56 Florida Department of Education, "Consolidated State Application Accountability Workbook," [online]
Consolidated State Application Accountability Workbook, 2007, available from
.

57 U.S. Department of Education, "Paige Approves Florida State Accountability Plan Under No Child Left Behind,"
[online] No Child Left Behind, 2003, available from
.

58Appendix B and Appendix C.
59 FLA. Stat. ch. 2006.74 (2006)

61) 20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)

61 FLA. Stat. ch. 1008.31 (1)(b) (2007)

62 20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)

63 20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)

64 Florida Department of Education, "2006 Guide to Calculating Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): Technical
Assistance Paper," [online] Florida Department of Education, 2006, available from
.
65 20 U.S.C. # 6311 (b)(2) (2002)









Failure to make adequate yearly progress under NCLB66 COuld have a maj or impact on the

financial status of schools and districts. Starting with the second year of a school failing to make

AYP67 parents must be given the choice of moving their children to a school that did make

AYP.68 There were associated costs such as space available and teachers needed to maintain

appropriate class size;69 however, the maj or initial financial impact associated with failure to

make AYP70 was the transportation costs associated with transporting students to schools that

were making AYP.n1 In some cases transporting students to a school that made AYP would

involve a plane ride.72 These costs could escalate to the restructuring of schools and the

withholding of Federal funds.73

Final Analysis

The impact of the SWD population on Florida high schools was dramatic. Only 14 percent

of the 109 schools in the study made AYP as measured under NCLB74 pOlicy; furthermore, only

2 percent of high schools made AYP without dismissing the SWD subgroup from AYP




66 20 U.S.C. # 6311 (b)(2) (2002)

67 20 U.S.C. # 6311(b)(2) (2002)

68 20 U.S.C. # 6361(b)(8)(B) (2002)

69 FLA. Const. art. IX, 1 (amended 2002)

"0 20 U.S.C. # 6311(b)(2) (2002)

7120 U.S.C. # 6311(b)(2) (2002)

72 Theodore Coladarci, "Adequate Yearly Progress, Small Schools, and Students with Disabilities: The Importance
of Confidence Intervals When Making Judgments about AYP," Rural Special Education Quarterly 24, Winter 2005
[journal on-line]; available from
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.1p.hscl.ufl.ed/w/uptathm1eid0c~~6b790e70e3 97f5ebc28d34ee
4f4dl40d9e929b00d8 126029350d6334 19alecbec6f5b8&fmt=P.

"3IU.S. Department of Education," [online] A Guide to Education and No Child Left Behind, available from
.
7420 U.S.C. # 6311(b)(2) (2002)









calculations as mandated by the policies set forth under NCLB. The SWD sub group was

dismissed due to small group size in the AYP76 calculations by 32 percent of the schools in this

study. Data in this study represented the SWD population as being dismissed due to small group

size, by using the designation, NA.7

The analysis of data collected in the study clearly presented two conclusions. The first was

that while aspiring toward the same goal, Florida' s A+ Plan'"8 and NCLB79 did not have inter-

rater reliability with regard to measures of school achievement. The second issue was, that if a

Florida high school were to have a SWD of sufficient size as to be included in AYPso

calculations, then the school had a limited likelihood of achieving adequate yearly progress as

outlined in Federal law."

Forty-two schools were graded an A under Florida' s A+ Planz,82 yet only fifteen made

AYP under NCLB.8s3 Thirty-nine percent of schools achieved the highest level of achievement as

measured by the A+ Plan,8s4 while only 14 percent made adequate yearly progress under NCLB. s




7520 U.S.C. # 6311(b)(2) (2002)
76 20 U.S.C. # 6311(b)(2) (2002)

77Appendix C. This nomenclature was used both in the official reports (Appendix A) and in tables and appendices
created by the author.
78FLA. Stat. ch. 2006.74 (2006)

79 20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)

so 20 U.S.C. # 6311(b)(2) (2002)
st 20 U.S.C. # 6311(b)(2) (2002)

82 FLA. Stat. ch. 2006.74 (2006)

83 20 U.S.C. # 6311(b)(2) (2002)

84 FLA. Stat. ch. 2006.74 (2006)

8520 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)









A Florida high school was 2.8 times more likely to be graded an A school by the state86 than it

was to make AYP s7under Federal law. ssFlorida had a provisional AYP89 designation that was

given to an additional forty-nine schools90 but had no bearing on achieving AYP as defined by

Federal statute. 91 This represented serious discord between the reliability of the two methods of

evaluation. These policies should be reviewed further with the intent of bringing them into better

alignment. 92

Fifteen schools in the study made AYP.93 Two schools did so without dismissing the SWD

subgroup due to small size. Based on these data a Florida high school is 7.5 times less likely to

achieve AYP94 if the schools population of students with disabilities is large enough to be

included in NCLB95 calculations. The examination of these data call into question the validity of

NCLB96 calculations and raise considerable concern over the implications for students with

disabilities. Given the demonstrated impact that the SWD subgroup has on the likelihood of a





86 FLA. Stat. ch. 2006.74 (2006)

8720 U.S.C. # 6311(b)(2) (2002)

""20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)

89 FLA. Stat. ch. 1008.31 (1)(b) (2007)

90 Forty-five percent of the high schools studied.
91 20 U.S.C. # 6311(b)(2) (2002)

92 Paul Peterson, and Martin West, "Is Your Child's School Effective?," Education Next 6, Fall 2006: second
paragraph [journal on-line]; available from
http://vnweb. hwwilsonweb. com.1p.hscl.ufl. edu/hww/re sults/re sults_singlefulltext~jhtml.
93 20 U.S.C. # 6311(b)(2) (2002); Thirteen schools that made AYP were graded A, and two were graded B. It is yet
another disparity that a school could make AYP yet not have received a grade of A.
94 20 U.S.C. # 6311(b)(2) (2002)

95 20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)

96 20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)










high school making AYP97 it is possible that school administrators will attempt to refuse

accepting special education students into schools making AYP98 fTOm failing schools.99

Plausible Ramifications

This dissertation addressed the impact of the SWD subgroup population on the likelihood

of Florida high schools ability to achieve AYP 10o under the provisions of NCLB. 101 There were

additional concerns that should be noted regarding the impact these policies may have had on the

students in the SWD subgroup. Reading the policies regarding assessment in both IDEA102 and

NCLB 103 it would appear that the intention was to measure and ultimately improve the

achievement level of the SWD subgroup.

This study demonstrated through the analysis of collected data that if the SWD subgroup

was included in AYP calculations then the school was 7.5 times less likely to make AYP. It was

also noted that thirty-five of the 109 schools (32 percent) studied did not include the SWD

subgroup in the AYP calculation. Dismissing the SWD subgroup from calculations would appear

to be in juxtaposition to the intent of the policies.







97 20 U.S.C. # 6311(b)(2) (2002)

98 20 U.S.C. # 6311(b)(2) (2002)

99 Kenneth Howe, and Kevin Welner, "School Choice and the Pressure to Perform: Deja Vu for Children with
Disabilities?," Remedial and Special Education 23, July/August 2002 [journal on-line]; available from
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.1p.hscl.ufl.ed/w/uptr hmlrcd0c1~6b790e70e397f5ebc28d343 1
da5 cf9cl16c~be86e 32a9bf3 ee744ded46fd7f1 c7a2cl194&fmt=H.

'oo 20 U.S.C. # 6311(b)(2) (2002)

'0' 20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)

102 20 U.S.C. ## 1400 et seq. (0* 4)

103 20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)









The A+ Planl04 was approved by the Federal government as Floridas NCLB compliance

plan. 1os As noted earlier the SWD subgroup had to achieve the target percentage proficiency

level or the school failed to make AYP. The A+ Planl06 had several caveats regarding calculating

AYP: if the subgroup was to small it did not have to be included; if the subgroup made 10

percent improvement it was counted as proficient; if the SWD subgroup was the only reason the

school did not achieve then a mathematical adjustment of 13 percent was added to the percent

proficient. It is possible that the alternative measures used in the calculation of AYP under these

plans disenfranchised students with disabilities as there scores were not included in calculations

or reports. One could argue that through the methods of adjusting or dismissing data on students

with disabilities the policies masked the achievement level of the very students they were

designed to help.






















104 FLA. Stat. ch. 2006.74 (2006)

1os Florida Department of Education, "Florida NCLB Consolidated Application," [online] Consolidated State
Application Accountability Workbook, 2007, available from
.
106 20 U.S.C. ## 6301 et seq. (2002)









APPENDIX A
SAMPLE REPORTS

This appendix lists a sample of the Florida Department of Education (FLDOE) web sites
used to gather data for district and school information. Included is a list of sites for one district
and one school within that district. With the exception of the Florida state district grades these
individual reports can be generated from the FLDOE searchable web cite, which is cited
throughout out the study. Following the list of sample web sites, is a series of PDF files showing
what each sample site looks like in corresponding order.

Web Site Names and Addresses
FLDOE Searchable Data Base:
http://schoolgrades.fidoe.org/default.asp ato~anscolubr=10421&districts=01l&s
choolYear-2005%2D2006& school_grade=&report=AYP&level=School

Florida State District Grades:
http://www.fidoe. org/news/2006/2006_06_22/2006Di strictGrades.pdf

Grades for all Alachua County School District Schools:
http:.//schoolgrades .fidoe. org/default. asp?action=verify SelectionSchool&this Sort=type& schoolN
umbers=&all Schools=yes&districts=0 1& schoolYear=2005%2D2006& school_grade=&reotS
G&level= School

Alachua County School District Data:
http://www. fi rn. edu/doe/ei as/flmove/al achua. htm

Alachua County School District AYP Report Page One:
http://schoolgrades. fidoe. org/default. asp

Alachua County School District AYP Report Page Two:
http://schoolgrades.fidoe.org/default.asp atoleotY2&hsitit0&thisschoolYear=2
005-
2006&schoolNumbers=&districts=0 1&schoolYear-2005%2D2006&school_grade=&reotA
P&level=Di stri ct

Alachua County School District AYP Report Page Three:
http://schoolgrades.fidoe.org/default.asp atoleotY3&hsitit0&thisschoolYear=2
005-
2006&schoolNumbers=&districts=0 1&schoolYear-2005%2D2006&school_grade=&reotA
P&level=Di stri ct

F. W. Buchholz High School AYP Report Page One:
http:.//schoolgrades .fidoe. org/default. asp?action=verify SelectionSchool&report=AYP&di stricts=
0 1& schoolYear-200 5-2006& school_grade=&l evel= School& schoolNumb ers=0 1043 1










F. W. Buchholz High School AYP Report Page Two:
http://schoolgrades.fldoe.org/default.asp atoleotY2&hsitit0&thisschoolYear=2
005-2006&schoolNumbers=0 10431l&districts=0 1&schoolYear=2005%2D2006&school_grade
=& rep ort= AYP&l evel= S school

F. W. Buchholz High School AYP Report Page Three:
http://schoolgrades.fldoe.org/default.asp atoleotY3&hsitit0&thisschoolYear=2
005-
2006& schoolNumb ers=0 1043 1 &di stri cts=0 1 &schoolYear=200 5%2D2006& school_grade=&rep
ort= AYP&level= School

Florida State AYP Report Page One:
http://schoolgrades. fldoe. org/default. asp

Florida State AYP Report Page Two:
http:.//schoolgrades .fldoe. org/default. asp?action=reportAYP2&thisdi strict=00&thi sschoolYear=2
005-
2006& schoolNumbers=&di stricts=& schoolYear-2005%2D2006& school_grade=&report=AYP
&level=State

Florida State AYP Report Page Three:
http:.//schoolgrades .fldoe. org/default. asp?action=reportAYP3 &thisdi strict=00&thi sschoolYear=2
005-
2006& schoolNumbers=&di stricts=& schoolYear-2005%2D2006& school_grade=&report=AYP
&level=State























F o~rida Department of9 Education
Tuesday June 5, 2007 Enter Keywords wg


FleRIDA~ SCH-O#. MWWM


School Accountabllliy Reports Main
Search School Acccountability Reports 1999 to 2006


i,. : r Jes IAdecanate Yaarly Progre~ss(AYP) i School Report Card



I-lsed anatlrir IM1 the Ume oll relea rsearrrcree~re lumlltes A 2: arr== 15. or~i srnrool le~el rlports aue to .olumr. of


Select School Year' Select School Grade
CAll Years CAll Gradles
27005 2006 A~
O 20M-00.n On
U 2003-2004 UC
20X02-2003 OnD
20,lX01-2002 CF

O 1909-2000 OP
Oi sonssera
'AYP reports are available from 2002-2003 to present and Report Card is available form 2003 2004 to present School
grades are available for all years liaed.


Clear Selections


Page 1 of 2


Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test


09AKER
09AY
B? RADFORD
17 BREVA*RD
13 BROWARD
C CALHOUN
E: CHA\RLOTTE
CITrRUS
flCLAY
0CIOLLIER
OCcOLUMBIA
EDADE
3ODESOTO
ii DIXIE
n DIUVAL
O!ESCAMBIA
O FLAGLER
FRANKLIN


I G1LCHRIST




OHAPCEE
nHENDRY
nnERNANDO
;IHIGHLANDS
IdHiLLSDOROUGH

~INDIAN RIVR
DJACKSON
JE~cFFERSON
r~LAFAYETTE
LAKE
GLEE
OLEON
LEVY


O MADISON
i;MANATEE


SSEMINOLE
ISJMTER


MAhnRIONr 13JWYANNEE
r^MARTIN i TAYLOR
CMONROE C1UNION
rrNASSAU OvLUSIA
rOKAlLOOSA ~WAKULL
COKEECHOBEE /WALTON


ITORANGE
~-OSCEOLA
PALM BEACH
CPASCO
GPINELLAS
C~POLK
CPUTNAM
isT JOHNS
OST LUCIE
USANTAROSAI


W-IASHINGTON
C1FLORIDA SCHOOL FOR THE DEAF & BLIND
CC OZIERiOKEECHOBEE
CFAU
IFSU
C]FAMU
IIU
[1FLORIDA CONNECTIONSAPCADEMY
[7FLORIDA VIRTUAL ACADEMY


http Schrlll.~ C Igraec" 1&

Sample PDF Files





Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test Page 2 of 2



Additional Information:
Evaluation and Reporting Office
a School Grades Technical Assistance Paper 2005-06 (PDF)
Adequate: Yearly Progress (AYP) Technical Assistance Paper 2005-06 (PDF)





For questions & comments regarding education issues Com missioner~fldoe.org
For technical issues regarding this website: Emall Webmaster
Copyright Florida Department of Education @2003 | Privacy | Accessibility I DOE Home
Free Downloads: Acrohat Reader | Excel Viewer 97/2000 Word Viewer 97/2000 POwerPo1nt Viewer 97




























































hop iilhoolgradesi 113~clo rg deFaullll[ djp .acilnl=ma~inh c~lllhooll)umber fi.I-C1 &Jesoll lell<=... 6/5/2007





















Total Total
Points Points

Al a..rlua 411 403 A B
Bjafe 363 351 C L
Bi., 415 40' A B
Brj~j.1r1.rd3t 3'li C C
Blrewa3ril 442 139 A
B~rosdr,3 4;5 40
Carlin.un 416 I'v 4 A
Cnarlone 431 a;J A
11.1us 12 ?'i.3 4 a
ClaO 43 46 4
Colller 411' 403j t, B
Co~ml...ig j- 15
DI.>. -1103 386 I; Es
Llr'ic.0-a !I 315
Ell-le 393 ,rd0 15 c
De.al 38' 3B" B~ B
Escambia 392 369 B C
Flglr406 397 B B
Franklin 367 345 C C
Gadsden 327 314 C 0
Gilchnlst 452 425 A A
Grades 366 334 C C
Gulf 390 387 B B
1-1>71.11 i 320 332
1-rlarde 380 34, B c
Ilgri. 7.". .sai C
Hornarnljo dil-1 39i1 8 B
H..q nland .$St ibil t8 B
II.II:.burog 111 .i95 A B
hots .I~ 35 30 B C
11...1 i',-r4(. .11._ k
Jdl:1 EC~r 399r 383: e B
Jefferson 350 304 C D
Laaete391 366 B C
Lake 400 388 B B
Lee2 Job JO E
Ldejr. -ID JO A
LE, L.L.-cly 3rj' j83 B B
Isa1~ :n 328i 31_1 c D
Manatee 400 387 B B
Marion 412 377 A C
Martin 436 444 A A
Monroe 421 407 A B
Flascsu 417 412 A A
'j 3100saj st P51
Ok-ev~ilbc-* 390! 3'4 b,
or~vIg.7 hJ 1(1 B Es
Osceala 388 374 B C


2006 District Grades


Page 1




















Palm Beach 414 410 A A
Pasco 399 384 B B
Pinellas 404 406 B B
Polk 384 379 B C
Putnam 375 367 C C
St. Johns 442 431 A A
St.Lucie 382 378 B C
Santa Rosa 438 435 A A
Sarasota 434 411 A A

Su~mi.- 41 PIr A
Suwannee 377 357 C C
Tayo 372 364 C C
Union 398 403 B B
Volusia 401 403 B B
W11*culia al- 409 A B
Wairon JIl 38" A B
War.rgln 397 385 B B


2006 District Grades


Page 2





'


1FLrDRIDA. SCIOWTIL


OI~etric: ALCHUA

Reort Type:Schl Grasse
Mod fy Seledians Return to Llst ofl Schools I New Query Export to M5 Excel Fomat


School Accountabslrty Report
Ci ckon the column header to re-aort by that column


Aunnua-11 1 1' 1-1


L Ik *ORlljh
1UI ELCD1EhisR* I)) II i- II:1 Iii II1 I~l:il III:I Ji I -
CCrlirOr
CLRI*G d
SkPRlrO ... ..
Whl ~c;ru; .~~
LE~RNIIJ
lirmOL
rJ7 l;i ''' L
~*~F~Lt5 W
1 OP?1 DUY4L ... '
iLiMEhiPRY
SC~Oill

5*Ell.
illbl C~CSIEP I' "lj' II .. .I ..v 1IIIZIU~L 1,1
C~CYEhi~RI
~C~5~G~
;~cs
S~LINGL
~lj(
CLCMeiri41PI
SinOOL
cllODEN 04*
~I ELEMLNr~li~ rltr~;;li;, I'~~" ''~';I II i'
SCuOGL
lilc~;rv~tb~
ID~LNltO
1 011. 11 E~EYEkl~r I il.-cL~. I. ~~. i ?I.. ii d' i: li~ Illr Ir? Il.u

~, FIIILE I
gjjl ELIMINII** il-l., II: II -r i.l rr
Sl;n(iOL
U_ .. .

*~LlleMs
Irlll 1~SEitl CI:-~lll i III II _1 -111
ELCYLIIISV
jCnDOL
*IMslll
VYILIS
OjFI cl--n~~. ~~~
ELEYCIIII~I
51: n3i~L
I'
L)I~E rl~rEjr
DPI1 IIE~EHENrru~ I~r;i.~lj;,
I~
II I i II II I II II I II II




hllp Ir hl.~tll~rll~Li IldllC I:lr~ IjCl:llll~ diFI ldl Ilcln=verifySelectionSchoolthisSort=typ


f*T1WW


Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test


Page 1 of 3


Enter Keywords ~


Flo ida Deopartment of Education
Tuesday JUne 5. 2007


EL E AA




SCHOOL














































































u%1


uZ1


A L ME~ahE

F.ChOOL


APElianaM
LINClth
MIDDOLE
SCel0GL

FDPT CLARKE
MLOTI.E
lCHO L


AI )


~~- .


I I ii _J :' 'I


i


Sri H hl

eiEL M Hr


I I I II





i


I I I I I II


....


i


II


B1Sn2 MITll I I.EI

0912 I

0591 D



0 aa, Yb.E LLE



by .Sigrad 1le.gde:hep nnvriyeetorholti~r-yerc..6520


.. .I ~ l











.c~


LI~n:.lj;, I .I 11 .111-


111111


I .1


r .



r .


Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test


Page 2 of 3


II

as c


LAWTON M

ELEM lE ,,
5 HO LI




LIIE Y ..


,,,, a


I 1


CDPEP I.E
5 MG~OL INi


IRL

NEWHEhiRR
ELEMENTA~
LYVICR


031


THiljllC
li00H
5i*3ir~
HliVli
~aC~JrCr

YIL
~EIC4~FE
ELE~Ehlr~~l~
SC~JCL


I


iOM Ti l


IILL'IAMS
iALB8;rELEM














II II I I II 1.

I/" j.

"""-~

"".:"~"' ~-~


Evauaoo andReotngOfic
School GradesII~ Tehncl sssane aer20506(PF

Fo usSos&cm ensrgrin dctonise:Co msinrL~o r
For technical dsusrgrig hswbie Emi emse
Coyih lrd earm n fEuain@20 rvc cesiiiy|DERm
Fre Donod:Arba edr|Ece iwr9/00 odVee 9/00|PwrLitVee9













Imp alow.Isrnies 1Joe or defaul Grap Tec non=crdAiscnelPaetr hoolithe k( t=Pe.Lh 6//20


Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test





0 I HG SCL I r
02 1 H CC

0 LEAR NO;C~DL r.) .
CEnI


Page 3 of 3


II I
~r. II1:


i ;-






































































School Calendar

AII shools in Alachua Courity currently operate on the traditional school year calendar (pat)


2003-04 FTE Expense



CrntExpense per FTE 6,97
Daa ourc Probles o Florida School Distncts 2003 04 Fminanal Data

Return to top of page

Staff Information


Full-Time Staff by Gender Within
Racial/Ethnic Category
Fall 2005


L


Page 1 of 5


Alachua School District Data


D Enter Keywords ~





School
Superintendents


Tuesday, 3une ", 2007


Welcome

School District Data

School District Search by Search b t erh
Data Horne County/District State Map


UmnI r
ALRM ome
Site Index
IFAQs

ARM Offices

*rciusation
evaluation &
Repolrtin9
~Education
Intormaton a
Accountability
Assessment &
shool
Performance
EquitY & Acess

Prtfners

Commission for
Independent
Education
5ERVE
FACTS.org


Alachua County School District
County Seat: Gainesville, Florida

For additional information on education within the county, clic on the disncI name above to visit the distritefs local
web site or contact:
Dr. W. Daniel Boyd, Jr.
cyPermsc..nett mF Sc~heds
--.I .. I I.. .i.. r, .-.....
Gainesville. Florida 32601-5448
Phone 3521955 7860
SunCom: 825-7880
Fax 352/955-7-873
e mlall suptDrbat~edu

OtFfie of Superintendent is appointive.
District Information Staff Information Student Information

District Information


Number of Schools
for 2005-06 School Year by
Grade Levels Taught
Elementary Schools
Middle/Junior High Schools
Senior High Schools
Carnhination Schools
AdUll Schools
Total
Dain surce.. Master School Identficatin Fl as of 07/10/2006


RailEtncCtegory
WhtNon-Hispanic


Mae Feal


bnlp n 1r d w s 1m t l.h hm


6/5/2007


Florida Department of Education
Sit Index





















Asa!efcIsiande 3 2
AecnInd an/Alaskan Native1 4

T alFull-Time Staff 4 ,115
S ay2 demographic data October 10 14. 005, as of December 28, 2005

Average Teacher Salaries by Combined Salary Pay Lane
and Experience by Degree Level Fall 2005
Degree Level Number Average Salary Average Numrberof Years of Experince

Masters 923 539 11 .2

[<.1,.,. .s 1,3 *I 8



DEStaff Database Salary Dat Survey 3 data, February 6-10. 206 esr o ArI 2. 2006

Return to top of page

Student Information
Scroll down to view additional information.


2004-05 Graduation Rate 69.6% 2004-05 Dropout Rate 5.0%

Types of Diplomas and
Certificates of Completion, 2004-05


Hrsyni Hi~slni Hhpani Who r N u mliT

Feae 581 22 1 28 4 9 6
STANDARD
DIPLOMAS





COPEIO oal 6.1 1 0


SP.CIAL s~ s

CMLTOTotal 30 0 0






COPE ION-Sool Supnin 1 35



DOEnltb~ c Sldeni SDatabaeSrvey M a te, asofNoemer8 0






Number of Dropouts (Grades 9-12)
by Racial/Ethnic Category, 2004-05
Rcltt icCategory rpot
WhteNon-Hispanic24
BckNon-Hspanic27


Alachua School District Data Page 2 of 5


111[% i461lfi d us"e. 1ss ili'ilih mA 111
















Alachua School District Data Page 3 of 5





AanPcfcIslander 2
AmrcnIndiant Alaskan Native





Return to top of page

Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT), Spring 2006
Data as of May 23,2005
The FLoridaComprehensiveAssessm ellirlra.,rie.. L .e .*Wen I..r.... er ;.1.l I-.l.v...~;w.e.
tostudentsinFlondas'publiCschools, 'rCe*(s ., lissj'.sil ..at... =p.~'- i;:f. .r. e talr
e.~~~~~~ I ..-r ,a as 2mr-rnman~- r .3.34 ir rt~ -: I II n .; Al j sang assesses
r.. .--rs, ... .3.. .:is ar.,gr.v :...r. en 5..1 En* .5., Meaning



]i.I.*a .cri Ip.;.. ir., ,e.,,..I .r ,T .( .* 1. I'.5 I Ig : LLr.. I Irl., r.5 .9l [ jl *] i ,T. ci I .lii

http.//www.iRm~edu/doe/sas/sasshome.htm
RIt.DING GRADE3 GRADE< GRADE@ GRADES GRADE? GRADEBl GRDEI GRADE10O
Number Tested 2,070 2,000 19854 1,824 2,147 2,119 2,285 2.192
Total Score
(Average) 318 318 307 314 312 300 308 303
MATHEMATICs GRADES 3 GMDEI 4 DE~ 5 GDEI 6 RADE) 7 RADE & RADE 8 RADE 10
NumberT Tested 2,066 2.005 1,987 1.827 2.148 2.129 2,273 2.182
Total Score
(Average) 327 320 3291 315 306 313 305 327

2006 Florida Writing ~Assessment Program Results
Data as ~*lof Api 0 0
F:' Ir.. :. m i-, n .\'...,,-,~ als.=,rr.... =00.~- it .; j..6. Ii r....ales .*c :'l.r.l.. a e du topic. pan

Grade Level Wit~ing Mode Numnber Teestd Mean Score
Expositor 980 4 2
Grade 4 Narrative 1,037 3 9
Corrbined 1,987r 4 0
Expository 1,058 4 1
Grade 8 Persuasive 1,047 4 0
Combined 2,097 4 1
Expository 1.088 4 1
Grade 10 Persuasive 1,083 3 9
Combined 2.156 4 0


2005 School Grades
hum.ner of Sch~oos





Return to top of page


PK-12 Student Membership
Fall 2005






I I ~ ~ I I I dll l








l~ng wnn11r eduduees movealahuahtm6/5/2007





















106



















I Ii zone :1J




IOA 108 6r 1511 8 147 2~ 10

















I 1 I I



l jI i sa
i' ol i I ~ 1 ii 5

.. d Irl 5l08: 3 3 12 601 307 J ~l~~b 1 618 5 65 : 2


Alachua School District Data


Page 4 of 5


Return to top of page

Students Whose Primary Language
Is Other Than English, Fall 2005
Radarl/Ethncille Caegor NumberofStudents
Wh~ite. Non-Hispanic 55
Black, Non-Hispanic 34
Hispanic 218
AsianlPacific isrander 136
American Indtan/ Alaskan Neave




http://wwwY.fim.edu/doe/eias/flmove/alachuahm


6/5/2007





Alachua School District Data Page 5 of 5



Mulliracial 9
Female 195
Male 258
Total 453
DOE Student Database. Swnray 2 d~at Octobe 10-14 2005 as of November 30. 2005

Students Receiving
Reduced-Price or Free Lunch, Fall 2005
RaciaWEthnic Category Numb~er of Students
While. Non+1ispanic 3 621
Black. Non-Hispanic 8,394
Hispanic 730
AsiantPacific islander 217
Amencan Indian, Alaskan Native 20
Multiracial 627
Female 6.574
Male 6,93
Total 13,517
DoE Student Database Survey 2 daela October 10l-14 2005. asof March 14, 2006

Return totop of page


School District Seacearc h arh y iy Search School
DataHome County/District State Map Superintendents

Email: ask~eias~ifldoe.arg

Last updated on Monday, 16-Oct-2000 15:33:05 EDT




For questions & comments regarding education issues: Commassioneer~fidae~org
For teChnical isSues regarding this Wrebsite: Email Webmaster
Copyright Florida Department of Education @2005 | Privocy | Accerssbility | DOE Home
Free Downloadsl Acrobat Reader I Excei viewer 97/2000 I Word Viewer 97/2000 1 PowerPoint Viewer 97










































http ://www\.firn~edu/doeeias/flmove/aa lahaht 5y





1


|F-leRIDA~ SCHOOL


You selected:
District: ALACHUA
Years: 2005-2006r
School Grades:
Report Type: Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
Modify Selections | New Query


2005-2006 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Alachua District Level 0000
Report District Level Page 1
Ciick here to see a detailed report
Dd the District Make Adequate NO Percent of Criteria Met: 82%

Total Writing Proficiency Met: YESI de

Total Graduation Criterion Met; YES
95%Tete Radng 95% Tested Reading Math
O5DXestd~eslngMath Proficiency Met Proficiency Met
TOTAL YES YES YES YES
WHITE YES YES YES YES
BLACK *F ral a.



rMERICAN INDiA.N EI .I EErL
ECONOMICALLY DIsADvAnTAGED I *F -<: run-. ra.l
LIMIeD ENGLI~n PrOFICIE.NCY I! FI *IF; "1.* ( 1Ei


lWWHal


I E:. II E: r.*1* I rall


I


Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test


Page 1 of 1


ar / Flo da Department of Education
WednsdayJun 6, 007Enter Keywords Mi


STUDOENTS WITHDISAIBILTIES


Additional Information:
Evaluation and Reporting Offrce
e Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Technical Assistance Paper 2005-06 (PDF)



For questions & comments regarding education issues: Commissioner~pfidoe~org
For technical issues regarding this website: Emall Webmaster
Copyright Fllorida Department of Education @2003 | Privacy I Accessibility i DOE Home
Free Downloads: Acrobat Reader Excel Viewer 97/2000 Word Viewer 97/2000 | PowerPoint Viewuer 97


linpr untallll~lgrae- !1joeZ Iog dlaulll .In


6/6/2007




















Flr da Department of Bdulcation
Tuesday une S 2WI) Enter Keywods
lat


SE IZWWI


2005-2006 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Report Page 2 Alachua District Level 000~

..I. nr 1;It I:; e r~ a um ner of strdenta n ach group M r ir I rl ne- se"a n
TralI gala>.hn g egre h porte~ric mn raDr rr r a~m~ pIric irn eachgro use4 Lr detrmrr no P IPatt a ii.0 This geoY p nal ght ive Im.lr~lprm et rorl r
:r, IIP1ds glreerp Ied le determine M~ .r ala an
I larb I Par D
Fnj.iSr ul 1r vI

sis Irn n..m I r ~ isnigr M~r .lr Ham

I II ~ II II IIl-: IIlh IIr II IM I


II II II II II: I_ _.II. II II II I_ I E I | |



| | |II IIIOI I~n I I I-I I InI II 1 II III




http://schlgads da rgdefa aspncon eportYP2tidis rc 0&thischollar 0520 colubr 6/5 2007

Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test Page 2 of3













.r F r 4,a .,FC" :r :~r rl~~:







II 11 dr I C rrll C raprall llI tll ..r ~lralp i .h Pd' : .@ r lle lP j1.? ~1 I .fe 95ik rl-. li C r
die~~~v dryur ,& nlyllm c rrg rd.).. rp),,,l wr r





li f I~a ntlent an ? a~r~a no a l bi ian r,=| Recn F. l rfe li ..+ .5 ,.
P i n. cy>ar~arwa u e qares~ Yerly Progress aer [A P wnal .;t..|gar-Fie Paer.a ..==4 (DF


N:n r..s=1. rcatuea".-h. I .1 .r. R ....-,.Mr .Pasrealvdi~.uefa u s a q n br:<


Florida Comprehensive Assess~ment test


Page 1of 3


EbeRRIDA SC HOWQL


DfUtl ALRCHUA

Ma Ty Md~ mYen PrmiA~YP)
MMII waryn Seets | Rurn ro 5umntevnaRe ere | Ne* rpury





IF:lRIDA~ SCHOW)Q L I


ru~ila


ModIF( Selctb rk |~u Ret rn to 1 mary R~eprts I Hew Quryn

2005-2006 Adequate Yearly Progre~ss (A~YPI Report Page 3 Alachua District Level


gciirp~ Iaein jobrresps .5V sle ". o 1
aFSfl ra -o v Plrr I>0 Far .r0 ,.., at -
rh Hn) "( D i erospas f~ *r~ CI Irages* ~rr n Ip rpa.ol. rrrto ,IT rr9 l ur* rI n tT
,,II(:~ .*5 wrn.*rnmrn o y rlr w r Cr n p



I ~ i I I I I I II I


I I II I I II II I 1:III_ d `I Il II I~~~ 1 1.*


htp /choogrd floogdfuts:aio~eotY3ti*distict=01&inachol:' ear 2005200 scooI ui es! &d..I. i 65/00


Florida Comprehensive AssnlessntTet


Page 3 of 3


http://c hoolgradsidmog/eautspuci1FeortY2&hsdsrict01thsshollearp 205-06&cooZmbr=&L. //20


Florida Comprehensive Assessmnent Test


Page 1of 3


Enter~evisrd M


F orda Department of Education

























CI' ~ LED 1.71.-16 Isr~ IIIs: aill- l r~i I ir: I -r u~ris r. v.
IIIT C~ l .li -r aII 1rive kner ,rI ,a.v lage is eg tI11 1 :1 1 1
LIIa .Fr :I M o .s.r e)0 L F t 3 >] l .
Tra."cri i es w ae) r icP e e l @ r ua .-r I 1 aa e 7, ,r v 4 g r N .



km1R L F *P I.:,| 1.I~ III a.2 I.0 II I: e .,., n e) n e~ n 1 ~ t

g, 6r g r rl -id am. :ra:: ih 1,..5> I m ~~-:4 ale hr .*li i i p.I1 ,, IIC.,~ I 1. r mb-: n a, ll ce. JP rr :'1 .: ~ r -.r: i:, L.:~ al .2 'v .1



if Irt Ir ;'- prus"r.n usC .. '" il ii i! E rP~ I i I ..r' ? "1'Y : P qIjl re:i .J Sa rxi X &3=? : 1 :

Ir..l. *. Vr t9 a ~ 1..= in 3r .,ws.&acrh 1P jeas Llh :% ..lr Deal: RJ~ II llla.< :1 $. a 021 : agine I = lrr; .. 1 s :ri


Ersrl Te1.Iless IInd P mrsfs:I n: p L nel Irnlrrs~. a an:1.:'gr tr r 0I 1Frm- -. I Slen Mar tin P~ .Far bi l I rucl c Uer I e W** :-,










r.piics ..]gi..la role FM;.?". .3oj -- t:-
!II ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ?ae45Fr I rIlasI wa ?: I.I.l-.g I ] lr. Ie.,!II:j C~

hap-/lscouljiwdr~flduergidce ul.~sa8c 1t .iisholeFW=L0&cal sub. als=& i MS n R W dd


Florida Comprehens~ive Assessmaent Test


Page 2of 3


Page 3 of 3


FIre DOwnloads: Attabat Reader I Excel Viewer 97/1flol) word Viewer 97/2000 I PowerPoint VieerN 97

























































112


Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test


















lar~R OUF ourida IDepartmrent of Education
Tuesday lune 5, 2007 Enter Keywords B


FlSRIDA SCHOOL

You selected:
District: ALACHUA
Years: 2005-2006
School Grades:
Report Type: Adequate Yearly Progreas (AYP)
Modify Selections I Return to List of Schools New Query


2005-2006 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) ALachua F. W. BUCHHOLZ HIGH
Repot- School Level- Pagel1 SCHOOL- 0431
I.. ~..5 ..~ re i:. .. detailed report
IDl rheP 11 ol Make AdequatePrvsaa Pltorrl of Criterla Mel*o 85'.

Total Iar .nlg Plrol~clenc, Mel YES 50 oI aaco
relCloauallo Crgranlolrnn Met

i 1 s5-, T'.tedA~1 Resa 95 ..Task ;I Read~ng I Main
SMaiI !I PIrrficncy M. 51 Proficiencyl Met




HISPANIC rrI II ra..1 1
ASIAN r Ei r. I Ir-
AMIIERICANI INDIAIN Il .. I r- r)I rs.
ECON~OMICaLLY DISADVANTAGED ,65 I! EE I rl .E
L.IMTED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY ra raIII.: r ra
ST UDEnrTS ITH D1 ISAILITIES .F- rI rII ra.


Additional Information:
Evaluation and Reporting Office
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Technical Assistance Paper 2005-06 (PDF)



For questions & comments regarding education issues: Commissioner~~fldoe-org
For technical issues regarding this website: Email Webmaster
Copyright Florlda Department of Education @12003 | Privacy | Alccessibillty | DOE Home
Free Downloads: Acrobat Reader | Excel Viewer 97/2000 | Word Viewer 97/2000 | PowerPoint Viewer 97












Imp~ ficl,.-llr.lde. Ill1:.e myr del analt ,.C'p "': ro=verifySelectionSchool&report=AYPdiri. 6/5/2007


WIrlucs


~


Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test


Page 1 of 1
























(Weasu|


1lorida Comprehensive Assessment Test


Page I of 3


2005-2006 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Report Page 2 HacH FHOL LBUHHL.



..rb I-i I






IIl r : : I I. II~e II II~ml In IIh gr r I I I: I II I I /~l II I I I I I I

htt //cholgrde (1oe rg/efultsp~ct n~epotAY2&t di 0 h se ol~er=00$200& cooNu er +5/00

Floid Compr rrehen ve Ass-esmen LIII Test Pagem~n: ]Q 01387J1UH1 BnlI PIl nl r. j rmllIlIn~~r~r









Treer 5 .5 nwe va ne: ,re u r bn I van .m d

rir .O o ir klc Yir ~~ sq i e P P i- gip Ir : ... -c in r ,
-p-w i e asl ar r g idid :FL a r.1 LUr bi
ii s.*.r rplA1P hAL Gai hegm .rsrM i e euf r
d,4pCn: esay~ r;a -1rsr a rn ,v m ip :p im nl
FM l n. rpr .T .ri.. r. ..m nor,52. 0.7 .;) A mp r~ap .,\ | i < 1.4 .4, F. l. s-
Powrsnhand efrincyestaPad ar h dA I: *ll rl JTIa p O i11 MiN ,d i.4 ./1..5 a
.y*L~pear- I,- 141 d. F iilwee ga: e gs)earea ,7]u rw e ~~r ss 1 m ,t r k r
sw o e a ilialE~i It l .~ai P ssom: rea :1 .~aiit r 1 a

mim rog Fay ..i P P )








hnpi sc wlg ade~ndEvauton and Reprting ~s Offic
*lrd Adequatesiv Yearlyen Prgrs (AYP) Tehia Assac Ppr205 PF



htp1scolraefde-r/efutas"cin"eo AP&hidsn=0&hssho1er20-206&coo1 ubrs01. 65/2007I


R \?"ida Department ofl Education
Tuesday June 5,20D7 Ener Keywords SD


IFleRRIDA .SC'HO) L


Diaki ALUA


54odif Selerrsm I Ortum ro Surnrary Reports I Return to trst of Sc~hools I Nuew Qucry





























































~~BBIF YUr de Department of Eduacaton


I____~__ _~_____I


[IWWWI


Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test


Page 3 of3


For questian & cormemen regaring educathan essue: Commissarmnermide arg
.. ? c.Cus .1~ Et.?. 1 ~I =.1 p r I-.E.' .
Ir -l C.- a-r i *,.4 e| | ..s 1 .: In=r .3**** Ir. I .IEI
































]I1.1 khel rl ad".IL a *I ,IIll lr 1 .:1 d els. Il=F''~ L i' F lJ'lljllil .JiI II imlilk .h.-II.,ar 200'*!~~*\ s r.)I ab Ial~~i l.. 6/5/20J7


Floridal Cormprehensive Assessment Test


Page I f 3


Enler Keyword$ so


ys~p~t uaeuasteneryrogsress(AY
Modify Sdciccons I ReuNm to ummary Reportsl M eurn to Ust of 5SootS I flew Query


2005-2006 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Reporrt Page 3 SH LF41UHOZIG



rr e~ rir rar rerY perer telstl I l rd perfarmn(aP t fr~ each (rtup UIMAC lO drlarm AIP Izai u elal rast mamr c a ru
..3 :I:I?1ra~riP I~s ap raaal '



rr ~ fl.P snc
rir l -m tuI re~ ar '' runni: IgaI ]ir &- r Fk nrrLaP. A











httplischoolgradessfldoe.org v'ddefraulaspcto reolY3idsc=1 &thisschoolYear-2005-2006&schoolNumbers=0 10.. 6/52007


LF *RIDA SCHO L



































SUBrIlnde'r FIrsa AY pan schools with grade ~of D or F canQsseal edsigae smkn



il~wl. n Ivn.gr ;. ,4pyr.r\n..I *l i.i W~.~. *I|I r.. .Ainalier..urkui,.rl gss ICIICu I:F qu it: ii ns.. F.,1 r I:33
ene rr. -I1,12,. :ra.--sal :-ter ..3.. ,,w r .3 1. a sa.irr l s.....rs ,I-:rl.I s.45- ti 4.t. r cla.r. -r II I, r ..meg. :..) .ag .

r F- i Fn .lcl r. .]. Ir:~...sr-, rga l e da.]~ l 'I1 EII i Phl~ 1l 1rl~li~. IaI' 1'.

aReany.reer GP r Caoliln l ruggesIge~ 9 ry ;' rre,4rmis -rgralry, mu lr ,,,,-t~nn :"I.Pu .01~ r ~ I1 '; I'. .Fj a~
aler.r t.ar., D r ir j n ~ 1=. Gaun .* .are rC *. iR. 1-.ei s t? R jR 1 i.a re, l sp Iwa ar i t .l au I O-- Je i errrs,- r J.9 i Irre.-.rr:tl~ .rud !I a I

Ps,1.t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I .t .r gar u ve y~ are -~' Ir Flring INL- r~ in .a ee L.,w d113E a 3.t r a l nN
rate ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :-I ur..assrrPa.P mir..4 ,.a-h ,Scr.P ors rpii-r :ea ai. .I0 ni .i = .







Eu1u-o ana Re).n r fty n ri I re-Icrlve



SnAdequate Yeariv Progress (AYp) Tecrtical Assiustnce Paper 2005-06 (PDP)





For questions & comments regarding education Issues Comnmassoner~mpildoe-a
For technical issue, regaring this websete; E1mil Webmaste



http://schlrdsfdeogdfutapatonrptAP&bsitit0&htoollear 2005-006&schoolambers=010. 615/1007


Page 2 of 3


Page 3 of 3


1 orida Comprehe~nsive Assessment Tces


E ,, .ar. 74 4 1 E ,r pt r- m n ee n e a3ge .r r
L aw'-1E alrErorre ra er. rnLurI se r
el .rsle P. I.L.al qe ., ,. ir .", i s. -3 -. a a s r


Florida Comprehensive Asxsssment Test


CoPYright FI~tidp Department of Educatxo ("X)203 I Priv~v v |Accessiblelty DOE Home
Free Donlodsr Mroht Restly | Excel Viewer 97/20W | Word Viewer 97/2DM0 | Pmwerhoint Viewer 97

















































Anp herIgrde~lJ.arpes~~a]nvi ar-a~mort11P6.Llisidr"1=Idee~she.11a- 4.v:N-:1sariv- I 6/5200









116




















F o~r~da Department oft Education
Tuesday, July 3, 2007 *i "a** *1 GD~


IFKI Rll SCHOQWL M WW


You selectd:
District: State Level
Years: 2005-2006
School Grades:
Report Type: Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
Modify Selections INew Query

200[5-2006 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) State State Level 0000
Report State Level Page 1
Click here to see a detailed report
Did the State Make N ecn lCie i e:74
AdequateNO PretoCreraMt79
Yearly Progress?
Total Writing Proficiency YES 2005-2006 NA
Met: ShDGrade:
Total Graduation Criterion N
Met:

95%a Tested 95%r Tested Reading Mt
Reading Math ProficiencyMe Prf nc

TOAL YES YES YES YES
WHITE YES YES YES YES
BLACK( YES YES NO NO
HISPANIC YES YES YES YES
ASIAN YES YES YES YES
AMERICAN INDIAN YES YES YES YES

ECOOMCALYYES YES YES NO
DISADVANTAGED

ENLIH ANUAEYES YES NO NO
LEARNERS
STUDENTS WITHYEYENON
DISABILITIES


School Accountability Report


Page 1 of 2


School Accountabllity Report Main
2007 School AcCountability R~eport Guide Sheet and Example Report
School Grades Technical Assistance Paper 2006-07 (PDF)
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Technical Assistance Paper 2006-07 (PDF)
TC Previous Year~s A::..rjel*, .. .:, r e:~,::rs:.= ir.l documentss

DOE Home Page


help shoolgrades 11Joe c.rg defauh asp


7/3/2007





Page 2 of 2


For questions a. comments regarding education issues: Commissioner@0ldoe org
For technical issues regarding this website: Emall Webmaster
Copyright Florida Department of EdUcation @2005 1 Privacy I Accessibility ] DOE Home
Free Downloads: Acrobat Reader I Excel Viewer 2003 | Word Viewer 97/2000 1 PowerPoint Viewer 2003
Under Florida law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released
in response to a public-records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity.
Instead, contact this offle by phone or in writing.




























































Enp 'schoolgpri des il~~e Irt Jefalull :..p


7/3/2007


School Accountability Report




















Aoida Department of E5ducation
ruesdar. sulv 200


I


I __ X __ _I _


You slectd:
District: State Level
Years: 2005-2006
School Gradles:
Report Type: Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
Modify Selections I Return to Surunary Reports I New Query

2052006 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Report Page 2 IState State Level 0000
ru.Tattr .I ,-r,..Sc..c e.1..,ns~~ In !h; ir.13 I 6 e s ae w
Ila I Read. 184178419 2 520 AAeur eru
(krk1 here to see the number of Students Math* 16r462031 l.P.J ul tal Prgre
In each group
me sy:I a1: ree~I ima C~ ** n a :rmansl r: r~l es :ur une Iha warm r*m are lnl a and a a serwenn ~ ~or Eml .ena*rr sr eah













I I 1 1 1 1 I I | I I 1 1 I 1
SW h Muh u # sth 0 teda r Ap<
Un r a APpase i e re II DMF CM Ak d~ rack as a rg



PowerI ,, aw awa~ n isa arl .r -r Ms a o P

C100 trit roup wn
graatl raa ctn a
us..,s--4~~~~r~rr I lr, .. r *. r -. *.
Ada afr tin
Evalatio an Reorig ffc




r. I: I~ 00 7 hool Accun bIt Re. Gu de She d Example ReportIr l









hitp://shoolgradesa fildo morgefaurll.~aspactioirporAY2&tisisric 0&hssholer 05-06&coohmbr&i 7/3/2007




S~hol acontsiliy RponPy119f


EEWWWWI


School Accountability Report


Pag 1 of 3


IEner Keywrard oM


FbeRIDA scHo#L





1


|FL*RIDA~ SCHI(.OWL


You selected:
District: State Level
Years: 20015-2006
School Grades:
Report Type: Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
Modify Selections I Return to Surnrary Reports I New Q~uery

2005-2006 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Report Page 3 State District Level

rea d Read. 16178-19 ..: n l e l t
lec* tirue totl nurrber toretr ue ai 16 20 I s






*1~-1 *, hu-' ** _.i .: .. .. I -i










11ttp:// schoolgrades (Idoe orgtdefauts~cinrprAP&hsitit0&hslaul~er 205206schop r &d 7/3 2007


WHawal


School Accountability Report


Page 3 of 3


r: ~ ~ I 'I Ir -l? l r- i~ '( ~I L -


















rn~p .:1.: q~v3,j..11h ..r .f u 1 ?1,p 1....=1 peII? Ii.&rt y ?sir rlu Atla wl..*I- ., -0t lr _( l rut t .iN" snsr A a 732


School Arccountability Report


Page 1 of3


m~~a
[Enterr Ky ors on


~!,P-~l Forde Department of Educaion
Tuesday, luly 3, 20o?
































IfP' poiQ I Y:A "MPi g"i a 6 d4 'APbt v aeQ






rse..*.' a .
:;~~~~~~~-~ ,toa formaden--1i 1 I ~
II ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Eauto and Reorin OfficeIii I I I I '' ."'
dqaeYaryPors AY)TcnclAsitnePpr 050 PF




;Schout Grade Tehnca Assstnc Pae 2006-07~1- (PDF)~l.r
Adeuac Yerl Prgrs .AP Tehnca Asitac Papr 00-0 (D
To~~~~~~~~~~ Prviu Year $ coutbieyReot pea het ndDuet


htp./chogrds~~oeog/eill~apacio~eprAY3thsisrct0&tiscol at205206sholumes d //20
School~~~~. Accunabiit Repo Pae3o


I~rReturn to Evaluat on? a Reorr Serv SectonI;- r~
I-~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~D om PageI ~ I '' .-.' ~L-




inrsos t uh rcrsrqus ontsedeetoncrldtoti nt
,- r~i II.- ~ n 1ed. Co tc this orace by phon or. a writ ing. ~ '


















htp:/sholraesfloor/dfahas1aa=eprtYP&hiditrc OLhseolea-0520&coo1mes& i. 7/3/2007~lll? 3





I I .-- Iil lI_ 121


School Accountability Report


Pag~e 2 o3









APPENDIX B
DISTRICT DATA












% ESE
passing
FCAT
reading
35
34
44
43
34
44
38
38
41
34
33
39
40
31
29
35
35
25


% Total
passing
FCAT
reading
59
62
70
64
63
70
63
68
65
62
62
64
67
62
57
62
61
55


.Number
% CrtenaESE cells
met
not met


Grade # Students AYP % %
ESE SES


District


Broward
Calhoun
Okaloosa
Clay
Gilchrist
Santa Rosa
Wakulla
Brevard
Leon
Charlotte
Nassau
Sarasota
SSeminole
w Walton
Alachua
Bay
Citrus
Marion


271,470
2,274
30,983
34,152
2,893
25,187
4,914
75,160
32,316
17,868
10,860
41,884
67,473
6,892
29,108
27,610
15,835
42,026


no 16 41
no 26 52
no 20 28
no 22 25
no 33 50
no 19 32
no 23 35
no 24 30
no 23 37
no 22 40
no 17 34
no 27 29
no 19 31
no 17 48
no 32 46
no 20 46
no 22 42
no 21 53












% ESE
passing
FCAT
reading
37
38
29
30
31
37
27
36
28
26
24
25
25
19
19
24
17
27
12


% Total
passing
FCAT
reading
66
71
57
56
56
62
51
56
54
51
45
48
49
45
43
52
34
39
36


.Number
% CrtenaESE cells
met
not met


Grade # Students AYP % %
ESE SES


District


Martin
St. Johns
Sumter
Palm Beach
Hillsborough
Monroe
Baker
Taylor
Columbia
Bradford
Hendry
Franklin
Putnam
DeSoto
Madison
Suwannee
Gadsden
Hamilton
Jefferson


18,141
25,734
7,416
174,911
193,669
8,587
4,855
3,378
10,188
3,779
7,572
1,350
12,274
5,019
3,032
5,948
6,515
2,006
1,225


no 20 30
no 18 18
no 17 53
no 19 42
no 19 49
no 22 39
no 12 43
no 23 57
no 19 54
no 14 53
no 18 70
no 18 61
no 21 66
no 20 59
no 27 74
no 14 53
no 18 80
no 16 56
no 29 70









APPENDIX C
SCHOOL DATA












# ESE
District # To be % Criteria % % % ESE % Total
District School School grade AYP cells
grade tested met ESE SES passing passing
not met
Broward A Pompano 735 A yes 100 NA 2 29 NA 70
Broward A Atlantic 286 A yes 100 NA 4 39 NA 65
Broward A William 286 A yes 100 NA 4 19 NA 71
Broward A Cooper 1201 A yes 100 NA 9 8 27 57
Leon A Lawton 1027 A yes 100 NA 9 6 37 66
Okaloosa A OWC 67 A yes 100 NA 1 7 blank blank
Palm Beach A Alexander 695 A yes 100 NA 4 7 blank 71
Palm Beach A Suncoast 669 A yes 100 NA 2 14 blank 81
St. Johns A Nease 1003 A yes 100 NA 8 4 22 32
Seminole A Hagerty 509 A yes 100 NA 10 8 38 41
Walton A S. Walton 278 A yes 100 NA 11 18 blank 51
Brevard A Satellite 1025 B yes 100 NA 10 8 32 63
Brevard A Merritt 808 B yes 100 NA 13 12 25 51
Gilchrist A Bell 511 A yes 100 0 28 44 28 55
Okaloosa A Niceville 1185 A yes 100 0 11 9 32 39
Martin A Jensen 821 A P 97 NA 12 19 13 28
Palm Beach A Spanish 1046 A P 97 NA 7 9 20 36
St. Johns A Bartram 1320 A P 97 NA 8 3 19 43
Seminole A Crooms 320 A P 97 NA 9 34 blank 42
Palm Beach A W. Boca 1225 A P 95 NA 8 12 18 33
Broward A Nova 1063 A P 92 NA 6 31 28 52
Palm Beach A Boca 995 A P 90 NA 10 24 30 34
Brevard A Astronaut 760 B P 90 NA 12 21 6 41












# ESE
% Criteria % %
cells
met ESE SES
not met
90 NA 12 23
82 4 11 29
82 4 15 29
82 4 15 34
82 4 13 41
79 4 16 25
85 3 13 24
79 3 13 21
87 3 19 34
82 3 12 34
79 3 18 52
92 2 12 21
92 2 10 9
92 2 10 13
92 2 14 17
90 2 6 10
90 2 12 1
90 2 11 14
87 2 10 14
87 2 14 17
85 2 14 24
85 2 10 18
90 2 11 13
90 2 15 19
90 2 18 27
90 2 10 14
85 2 15 20
85 2 15 25


District
grade
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A


# To be
tested

788
1238
1293
859
944
1139
993
1309
1094
1235
726
1067
1580
1810
1142
2693
963
1196
1343
1326
1113
1678
1226
1213
794
1467
1007
934


% ESE
passing
25
15
23
10
12
21
20
28
22
12
blank
21
27
25
19
29
27
23
17
15
23
15
18
14
20
17
14
15


% Total
passing
52
26
44
30
27
23
27
33
46
25
26
52
31
35
34
59
55
37
49
28
58
30
51
46
48
28
24
31


District

Brevard
Seminole
Brevard
Marion
Marion
Martin
Okaloosa
Seminole
Charlotte
Marion
Marion
Bay
Palm Beach
Palm Beach
~3Sarasota
Broward
Leon
Palm Beach
Broward
Sarasota
Alachua
Seminole
Brevard
Brevard
Charlotte
Seminole
Martin
Nassau


School

Titusville
Howell
Palm Bay
Belleview
Vanguard
South
Choctawhatchee
Winter
Charlotte
Forest
Dunnellon
Crawford
Jupiter
Park
Venice
Cypress
Leon
Wellington
Western
Riverview
Buchholz
Brantley
Melbourne
Eau Gallie
Lemon
Oviedo
Martin
Femandina


School grade AYP












# ESE
% Criteria % %
cells
met ESE SES
not met
85 2 16 22
85 2 12 32
82 2 15 27
82 2 18 42
77 2 11 40
97 1 12 21
95 1 13 7
95 1 11 15
95 1 8 12
92 1 7 8
92 1 13 17
90 1 10 23
85 1 12 24
95 NA 8 45
90 NA 11 35
90 NA 12 22
87 NA 12 35
74 NA 19 63
87 NA 20 57
85 NA 14 51
77 NA 13 58
74 NA 8 50
74 NA 15 74
74 NA 13 57
74 NA 12 42
62 NA 10 60
69 4 16 57
74 4 25 52


District
grade
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
C
A
C
C
A
C
A
C
A
C
A


# To be
tested

1008
1247
1199
1151
1668
985
1123
1030
1490
1548
1005
1186
1437
417
852
588
741
265
90
74
599
283
608
575
694
1184
665
1059


% ESE
passing
20
24
14
15
21
22
25
23
27
30
27
41
32
blank
23
9
28
11
NA
blank
blank
NA
17
blank
19
18
blank
8


% Total
passing
29
27
40
40
26
44
53
60
54
58
43
49
27
31
35
31
32
19
21
24
24
15
13
19
24
23
27
38


District

Okaloosa
Seminole
Brevard
Charlotte
Seminole
Santa Rosa
Clay
Hillsborough
Hillsborough
Broward
Okaloosa
Hillsborough
Seminole
Walton
~3Citrus
Nassau
Baker
Sumter
Bay
Franklin
Hamilton
Broward
Gadsden
Palm Beach
Suwannee
Broward
Desoto
Alachua


School

Crestview
Lyman
Bayside
Port
Seminole
Pace
Fleming
Plantation
Sickles
Marjory
Walton
Gaither
Mary
Walton
Citrus
Nassau
Baker
Wildwood
Haney
Apalachicola
Hamilton
Smart
Gadsden
Tech
Suwannee
Blanche
Desoto
East Side


School grade AYP











# ESE
% Criteria % %
cells
met ESE SES
not met
72 4 20 40
72 4 17 40
56 4 14 56
56 4 26 65
74 3 17 65
90 2 13 18
87 2 16 26
87 2 18 42
85 2 24 46
85 2 16 38
85 2 15 36
85 2 18 61
85 2 19 63
85 2 17 33
82 2 11 25
77 2 27 39
77 2 17 48
74 2 18 39
67 2 19 30
82 2 18 26
77 2 16 45
77 2 19 50
77 2 16 27
74 2 19 57
72 2 18 92
67 2 9 41
67 2 19 62
64 2 14 49
62 2 17 54
74 1 16 45


District
grade
A
C
A
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
C
A
A
C
C
A
A
A
C
A
A
C
A
A
C
A
A
A


# To be
tested

1111
393
1440
189
993
942
1026
967
224
706
979
547
525
1175
1329
510
916
923
758
697
1066
837
853
417
698
1560
534
1122
847
649


% ESE
passing
16
17
16
blank
9
17
11
27
33
14
19
blank
13
12
13
14
13
21
20
23
14
blank
14
13
29
15
23
8
11
10


% Total
passing
40
18
27
18
30
46
36
37
41
42
39
23
22
25
38
27
17
16
27
32
36
22
22
28
14
25
24
19
13
20


District

Alachua
Taylor
Hillsborough
Jefferson
Hillsborough
Brevard
Clay
Santa Rosa
Calhoun
Citrus
Citrus
Hendry
Putnam
Sarasota
Clay
Bradford
Putnam
Sarasota
Monroe
Wakulla
Columbia
Marion
St. Johns
Madison
Palm Beach
Broward
Hendry
Palm Beach
Palm Beach
Leon


School

Gainesville
Taylor
East Bay
Jefferson
Middleton
Rockledge
Middleburg
Milton
Blountstown
Crystal
Lecanto
Labelle
Interlachen
N. Port
Orange
Bradford
Palatka
Booker
Key
Wakulla
Columbia
Marion
Augustine
Madison
Glades
Plantation

Leonard
Bornton
Amos


School grade AYP









WORKS CITED


Textual References

Adams, Jacob, and Paul Hill. "Educational Accountability in a Regulated Market." Peabody
Journal of Education 81: 217-235, 2006. Journal online. Available from http://vnweb.
hwwil sonweb .com.1p.hscl .ufl .edu/hww/j ump start.j html ?reci d=0b c 5 f7a67bl1790e70e3 97f5
ebc28d34765dac3af94 1997791fcbaa6985293 12c4f984805fe267bc&fmt=H.

Albrecht, Susan, and Candace Joles. "Accountability and Access to Opportunity: Mutually
Exclusive Tenets Under a High-Stakes Testing Mandate." Preventing School Failure 47:
86-91, Winter 2003. Journal online. Available from http://vnweb .hwwilsonweb .com.1p.
hscl.ufl .edu/hww/jumpstart.j html?recid=0bc05f7a67bl1790e70e3 97f5ebc28d34ebdacdb87e
d2eb68ael12a~fd3 c7dl3 47e66269b 8 5901d7dd&fmt=H.

American Teacher. "Florida Reveals AYP Disconnect." American Teacher 90, November 2005.
Journal online. Available from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.1p.hscl.ufl.euhw
results/resultsfulltext~maincontentframe.jhtml;hwwil sonid=XM3 25AKTNCO SRQA3DI
OSFF4ADUNGMIVO

Ares, Nancy, and Edward Buendia. "Opportunities Lost: Local Translations of Advocacy Policy
Conversations." Teachers College Record 109: 561-589, March 2007. Journal online.
Avail able from http://vnweb.hwwil sonweb.com.1p.hscl .ufl.edu/hww/j ump start.j html
?recid=0bc05f7a67bl1790e70e397f5ebc28d34524897 178207968b74306dl 32681a7965764
ea8546de85b3&fmt=P.

Bloomfield, David, and Bruce Cooper. "Making Sense ofNCLB." T.H.E. Journal 30: 6-32, May
2003. Journal online. Available from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.1p.hscl.ufl.euhw
jumpstart.j html?recid=0bc05f7a67bl1790e70e3 97f5ebc28d34ebdacdb87ed2eb68d689fccf9
5808255cb85947521 92de6e&fmt=H.

Bloomfield, David, and Bruce Cooper. "NCLB: A New Role for the Federal government."
T.H.E. Journal 30: 6-9, May 2003. Journal online. Available from http://vnweb.
hwwilsonweb.com.1p.hscl.ufl.edu/hww/jumpstatjtlrcd0c5 61790e70e397f5e
bc28d34ebdacdb87ed2eb68d689fccf95 80825 596bf42ebcd9ae4eb&fmt=H.

Bowen, Sandra, and Harvey Rude. "Assessment and Students with Disabilities: Issues and
Challenges with Educational Reform." Rural Special Education Quarterly 25: 24-30,
Summer 2006. Journal online. Available from http://vnweb .hwwilsonweb .com.1p.hscl.
ufl.edu/hww/jumpstart.jhtml?recid=0bc05f7a67b790e70e397f5ebc28d34765dac3af94 199
7748ddlal6fl331 5ca2688 123f95f066fl&fmt=P.

Brighton Webbs Ltd. "Brighton Webbs Ltd. Statistical and Data Services for Industry." [Online]
Brighton Webbs Ltd, 2004. Available from < http ://www.brighton-webs. co.uk/Statistics/
central~tendency.asp >










Browder, Diane, and Karena Cooper-Duffyr. "Evidence-Based Practices for Students with Severe
Disabilities and the Requirement for Accountability in "No Child Left Behind"." The
Journal of Special Education 37: 157-163, Fall 2003. Journal online. Available from
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.1p.hscl.ufl.ed/w/uptr hm~ei=b0fa71
790e70e3 97f5ebc28d34ebdacdb87ed2eb68a0402 17c85d023f995al 6c~aad0caf5 8&fmt=P.

Byrnes, MaryAnn. "Alternate Assessment FAQs (and Answers)." Teaching Exceptional
Children 36: 58-63, July/August 2004. Journal online. Available from
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.1p.hscl.ufl.ed/w/uptr hm~ei=b0fa71
790e70e397f5ebc28d34ee4f4dl40d9e929b90f 6a66 e57d1e346fbel e7a6&fmt=P.

Chapman, Laura. Status of Elementary Art Education." Studies in Art Education 46: 1 18-13 7,
Winter 2005. Journal online. Available from
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.1p.hscl.ufl.ed/w/uptr hm~ei=b0fa71
790e70e397f5ebc28d34d43ce3392 1c936baeab7c26bl17ddcb6a63e6d7eae07 1345f&fmt=P.

Cohn, Carl. "NCLB Implementation Challenges: The Local Superintendent's View." Peabody
Journal of Education 80: 156-169, 2005. Journal online. Available from
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.1p.hscl.ufl.ed/w/uptr hm~ei=b0fa71
790e70e3 97f5ebc28d34765dac3 af94199773 0d80afl acO2978595 1dbl19708 17e809&fmt=H.

Coladarci, Theodore. "Adequate Yearly Progress, Small Schools, and Students with Disabilities:
The Importance of Confidence Intervals When Making Judgments about AYP." Rural
Special Education Quarterly 24: 40-47, Winter 2005. Journal online. Available from
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.1p.hscl.ufl.ed/w/uptr hm~ei=b0fa71
790e70e397f5ebc28d34d43ce3392 1c936bafae311 86a870d08d2 14420b45e69a568&fmt=P.

Council for Exceptional Children. "CEC Denounces President's Budget Proposal." [Online]
Council for Exceptional Children, 2007. Available from
Display .cfm&CONTENTID= 8087>.

Council for Exceptional Children, "CECs Summary of Significant Issues," [online] The New
IDEA, 2004, available from .

DeBray, Elizabeth, Kathryn McDermott, and Priscilla Wohlstetter. "Introduction to the Special
Issue on Federalism Reconsidered: The Case of the No Child Left Behind Act." Peabody
Journal of Education 80: 1-18, 2005. Journal online. Available from
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.1p.hscl.ufl.ed/w/uptr hm~ei=b0fa71
790e70e397f5ebc28d34d43ce3392 1c936bac3ec95d92632237eb8 103f37f27b85c5&fmt=H.

Donlevy, Jim. "No Child Left Behind: Failing Schools and Future Directions." International
Journal oflnstructional2\~edia 30: 335-338, 2003. Journal online. Available from
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.1p.hscl.ufl.ed/w/uptr hm~ei=b0fa71
790e70e397f5ebc28d34ebdacdb87ed2eb68f219538c83e4903e l93&fmt=H.

"Education Statistics Quarterly." [Online] National Center for Education Statistics, Available
from .









"Florida Department of Education," [online] available from


Florida Department of Education. "2006 Guide to Calculating Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP):
Technical Assistance Paper." [Online] Florida Department of Education, 2006. Available
from

Florida Department of Education. "2006 Guide to Calculating School Grades: Technical
Assistance Paper." [Online] Florida Department of Education, 2006. Available from
.

Florida Department of Education. "Consolidated State Application Accountability Workbook."
[Online] Consolidated State Application Accountability Workbook, 2007. Available from
.

Florida Department of Education. "ESE Rules Changes Webcast." [Online] Bureau of
Exceptional Education and Student Services, 2007. Available from
.

Florida Department of Education, "Fact Sheet: NCLB And Adequate Yearly Progress," Florida
Department Of Education, 2005, http://www.fidoe. org/NCLB/FactSheet-AYP .pdf.

Florida Department of Education. "FCAT Myths vs. Facts." [Online] Florida Department of
Education, Available from .

Florida Department of Education. "Florida NCLB Consolidated Application." [Online]
Consolidated State Application Accountability Workbook, 2007. Available from <
http://www.ed. gov/admins/l ead/account/statepl ans03/fic sa. doc >

Florida Department of Education. "Florida School District Data." [Online] Your Florida
Department of Education, 2006. Available from


"Florida Department of Education." [Online] Florida School Grades, Available from
s=0 1 &schoolYear-200 5%2D2006& school_grade=&report=AYP&l evel= School >

Florida Department of Education. "Florida School Grades." [Online] 2005-2006 School
Accountability Reports: All Districts, 2006. Available from
.

Florida Department of Education, "Measuring Adequate Yearly Progress," Florida Department
Of Education, http://web. fldoe. org/NCLB/default. cfm/.

Florida Department of Education. "Providing Our Children with a World-Class Education."
[Online] MyFlorida.com, 2004. Available from










Florida Department of Education, "Sunshine State Standards." [Online] Available from
http ://www.firn.edu/doe/menu/sss.htm.

Florida Department of Education. "The Bush-Brogan A+ Plan for Education." [Online] ,
Available from


Florida Senate. "The Florida Constitution." [Online] The Florida Senate, 2006. Available from
s#a09501>.

Flowers, Claudia, Diane Browder, and Lynn Ahlgrim-Delzell. "An Analysis of Three States
Alignment Between Language Arts and Mathematics Standards and Alternate
Assessments." Exceptional Children 72: 201-215, Winter 2006. Journal online. Available
from
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.1p.hscl.ufl.ed/w/uptr hm~ei=b0fa71
790e70e397f5ebc28d34765dac3af94 1997781 a298acbbe40f9c27a50e00656 1f861&fmt=H.

Fowler, Frances. "The Great School Choice Debate." The Clearing House 76: 4-7,
September/October 2002. Journal online. Available from
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.1p.hscl.ufl.ed/w/uptr hm~ei=b0fa71
790e70e397f5ebc28d343 1da5cf9cl 6cObe836f5b32f82574cb6 17a8b962505a32e9&fmt=H.

Gartin, Barbara, and Nikki Murdick. "IDEA 2004: The IEP." Remedial and Special Education
26: 327-331, November/December 2005. Journal online. Available from
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.1p.hscl.ufl.ed/w/uptr hm~ei=b0fa71
790e70e397f5ebc28d34d43ce3392 1c936badl 5ea25dcc7f4988a5a7c3763096d9fa&fmt=P.

Gilchrist County School District. "Gilchrist County School District." [Online] Gilchrist County
School District, 2007. Available from .

Goertz, Margaret. "Implementing the No Child Left Behind Act: Challenges for the States."
Peabody Journal of Education 80: 73-89, 2005. Journal online. Available from
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.1p.hscl.ufl.ed/w/uptr hm~ei=b0fa71
790e70e397f5ebc28d34d43ce3392 1c936bac3ec95d92632237ebe7b04fb0bbabc79&fmtH

Gonzalez, Gerardo. "Influences of NCLB on K-12 Systemic Educational Reform." Tech Trends
50: 28-29, March/April 2006. Journal online. Available from
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.1p.hscl.ufl.ed/w/uptr hm~ei=b0fa71
790e70e3 97f5 eb c2 8d3476 5dac3 af94 19977f~df793 0e6c3 27f2a823 el1ff4c9743 cc&fmt=H.

Goodman, Geoffrey. Keeping The Funding And Standards: "The Choice Has To Be Both".
Private email message to author. 25 April 2005.










Gunzenhauser, Michael. "Normalizing the Educated Subject: A foucaultian Analysis of High-
Stakes Accountability." Educational Studies 39: 241-59, June 2006. Journal online.
Available from
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.1p.hscl.ufl.ed/w/uptr hm~ei=b0fa71
790e70e397f5ebc28d34 765dac3af94 1997740cd242bb5958ae9ed4a63bd5808fb,11l&fmt=H.

Hager, Karen, and Timothy Slocum. "Using Alternate Assessment to Improve Educational
Outcomes." Rural Special Education Quarterly 24: 54-59, Winter 2005. Journal online.
Available from
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.1p.hscl.ufl.ed/w/uptr hm~ei=b0fa71
790e70e397f5ebc28d34d43ce3392 1c936bafae311 86a870d08ded29550b2da403bf&fmt=P.

Hallahan, Daniel, and James Kauffman, Exceptional Learners: Introduction to Special
Education (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1997).

Handler, Beth. "Two Acts, One Goal: Meeting the Shared Vision of No Child Left Behind and
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004." Thze Clearing House
80: 5-8, September/October 2006. Journal online. Available from
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.1p.hscl.ufl.ed/w/uptr hm~ei=b0fa71
790e70e3 97f5ebc28d34765dac3 af94199773 0d80afl acO2978595 1dbl19708 17e809&fmt=H.

Harriman, Nancy. "Perceptions of Students and Educators on the Impact of No Child Left
Behind: Some Will and Some Won't." Rural Special Education Quarterly 24: 64-69,
Winter 2005. Journal online. Available from
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.1p.hscl.ufl.ed/w/uptr hm~ei=b0fa71
790e70e397f5ebc28d34d43ce3392 1c936bafae311 86a870d08d2dda8d97304fcedl&fmt=P.

Howe, Kenneth, and Kevin Welner. School Choice and the Pressure to Perform: Deja Vu for
Children with Disabilities?." Remedial and Special Education 23: 212-221, July/August
2002. Journal online. Available from
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.1p.hscl.ufl.ed/w/uptr hm~ei=b0fa71
790e70e397f5ebc28d343 1da5cf9cl 6cObe86e32a9bf3ee744ded46fd7fl c7a2cl 94&fmt=H.

Howell, William. "Switching Schools? A Closer Look at Parents' Initial Interest in and
Knowledge about the Choice Provisions of No Child Left Behind." Peabody Journal of
Education 81: 140-179, 2006. Journal online. Available from
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.1p.hscl.ufl.ed/w/uptr hm~ei=b0fa71
790e70e397f5ebc28d34765dac3af94 1997791fcbaa6985293 124d8866ad5faa3d96&fmt=H.

"IDEA-Reauthorized Statute." [Online] Alignment with the No Child Left Behind Act, Available
from .

Kickbush, Peter. New Policy Helps States Better Assist Students with Disabilities. Private email
message to author. 1 June 2005.

Kickbush, Peter. Spellings: Reward Teachers Who Get Results. Private email message to author.
20 May 2005.










Lassila, Christy. "Florida School Grades & Adequate Yearly Progress." [Online] Florida
Department of Education, 2006. Available from
.

Linn, Robert. "Accountability: Responsibility and Reasonable Expectations." Educational
Researcher 32: 3-13, October 2003. Journal online. Available from
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.1p.hscl.ufl.ed/w/uptr hm~ei=b0fa71
790e70e397f5ebc28d34ebdacdb87ed2eb68e6dde~a lcee7830a611a05ecl d6ba2&fmt=H.

Martindale, Trey, Carolyn Pearson, L. K. Curda, and Janet Pilcher. "Effects of an Online
Instructional Application on Reading and Mathematics Standardized Test Scores." Journal
ofResearch on Technology in Education 37: 349-360, Summer 2005. Journal online.
Available from http://vnweb .hwwilsonweb .com.1p.hscl.ufl .edu/hww/jumpstart.j html?
recid=0bc05f7a67bl1790e70e397f5ebc28d34d43ce3392 1c936ba8 145893073ddef4c593dl d
d4d3 ec473 6&fmt=H.

Mathis, William. "The Cost of Implementing the Federal No Child Left Behind Act: Different
Assumptions, Different Answers." Peabody Journal of Education 80: 90-119, 2005.
Journal online. Available from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.1p.hscl.ufl.euhw
jumpstart.jhtml?recid=0bc05f7a67bl1790e70e397f5ebc28d34d43ce3392 1c936bac3ec95d92
63 223 7e6 172e3 146ce8 168b&fmt=H.

McDermott, Kathryn, and Laura Jensen. "Dubious Sovereignty: Federal Conditions of Aid and
the No Child Left Behind Act." Peabody Journal of Education 80, no. 2 (2005): 39-56.

McDonnell, Lorraine. "No Child Left Behind and the Federal Role in Education: Evolution or
Revolution?." Peabody Journal of Education 80: 19-38, 2005. Journal online. Available
from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.1p.hscl.ufl.euhwjmsathmlrcd
Obc05f7a67bl1790e70e397f5ebc28d34d43ce3392 1c936bac3ec95d92632237e958b3 509534
641b7&fmt=H.

McLaughlin, Margaret, Sandra Embler, and Glenda Hemnandez. "No Child Left Behind and
Students with Disabilities in Rural and Small Schools." Rural Special Education Quarterly
24: 32-39, Winter 2005. Journal online. Available from
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.1p.hscl.ufl.ed/w/uptr hm~ei=b0fa71
790e70e397f5ebc28d34d43ce3392 1c936bafae311 86a870d08d55d51 0cf24f8f707&fmt=P.

Moores, Donald. "The No Child Left Behind and the Individuals With Disabilities Education
Acts: The Uneven Impact of Partially Funded Federal Mandates on Education of Deaf and
Hard of Hearing Children." American Annals of the Deaf 1 50: 75-80, 2005. Journal online.
Available from http://vnweb .hwwilsonweb .com.1p.hscl.ufl .edu/hww/jumpstart.j html?
recid=0bc05f7a67bl1790e70e397f5ebc28d34d43ce3392 1c936bacl15da6c927988d2c6b7bc2
8b98926067&fmt=H.

Munich, John, and Rocco Testani. "NEA Sues over NCLB." Education Next 5, Fall 2005.
Journal online. Available from
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.1p.hscl.ufl.ed/w/uptr hm~ei=b0fa71
790e70e397f5ebc28d34d43ce3392 1c936ba4a7881 d20e3c3d6754d56c36fc73 1f3 8&fmt=H.










National Commission on Excellence in Education. "A Nation At Risk." [Online] Archived
Information, 1 983. Available from .

Newbold, Barry. "The Faceless Mandates of NCLB." Kappa Delta Pi Record 41 : 7-9, Fall 2004.
Journal online. Available from
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.1p.hscl.ufl.ed/w/uptr hm~ei=b0fa71
790e70e397f5ebc28d34ee4f4dl40d9e929b275303c92l~e5ff729952dedb6&fmt=H.

Norlin, John. From Rowley to Buckhannon: 50 Court Decisions Special Educators Need to
Know (Horsham, Pennsylvania: LRP, 2004).

Norlin, John. NCLB and IDEA '04: A Side-By-Side Analysis. Horsham: LRP, 2005.

Okaloosa County School District. "Okaloosa County School District." [Online] Okaloosa County
School District: Best in Florida, 2006. Available from

Orlich, Donald. "No Child Left Behind: An Illogical Accountability Model." Thze Clearing
House 78: 6-11, September/October 2004. Journal online. Available from
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.1p.hscl.ufl.ed/w/uptr hm~ei=b0fa71
790e70e397f5ebc28d34ee4f4dl40d9e929bl14366436d2b9fb5fbl168293eeee6e32b&fmt=H.

Paige, Rod. "Key Policy Letters Signed by the Education Secretary or Deputy Secretary."
[Online] Ed.gov, 2003. Available from

Peterson, Paul, and Martin West. "Is Your Child's School Effective?." Education Next 6: 76-80,
Fall 2006. Journal online. Available from
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.1p.hscl.ufl.euhwrsl/eutsinefltxtjm.

Petrilli, Michael. "Misdirected Energy." Education Next 7: 5, Winter 2007. Journal online.
Available from
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.1p.hscl.ufl.ed/w/uptr hm~ei=b0fa71
790e70e397f5ebc28d34524897 178207968bb49fee422d0fad8dl 08a9dc55fa404fl&fmt=H.

Platt, John, Richard Casey, and Richard Faessel. "The Need for a Paradigmatic Change in
Juvenile Correctional Education." Preventing School Failure 51: 31-38, Fall 2006. Journal
online. Available from
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.1p.hscl.ufl.ed/w/uptr hm~ei=b0fa71
790e70e397f5ebc28d34765dac3af94 19977064da2ce364287f03363fb93287cfb73&fmt=P

Prasse, David. "Legal Supports for Problem-Solving Systems." Remedial and Special Education
27: 7-15, January/February 2006. Journal online. Available from
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.1p.hscl.ufl.ed/w/uptr hm~ei=b0fa71
790e70e397f5ebc28d34765dac3af94 199770590cab8e39 14bec77f50543b55b408b&fmt=P.










Rodriquez, Gloria. "Vertical Equity in School Finance and the Potential for Increasing School
Responsiveness to Student and Staff Needs." Peabody Journal of Education 79: 7-30,
2004. Journal online. Available from
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.1p.hscl.ufl.ed/w/uptr hm~ei=b0fa71
790e70e3 97f5 ebc28d3 4ee4f4dl140d9e929b42ff69ffe5467dfe3 1 cff2fe029ca5b&fmt= P .

Rosenbusch, Marcia. "The No Child Left Behind Act and Teaching and Leamning Languages in
U.S. Schools." The M~odern Language Journal 89: 250-261, Summer 2005. Journal online.
Available from
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.1p.hscl.ufl.ed/w/uptr hm~ei=b0fa71
790e70e397f5ebc28d34d43ce3392 1c936bab732a74ef5 14ca7d3bb90196a07ab 1dc&fmt=P.

Smith, Emma. "Raising American Standards in Schools: The Case of No Child Left Behind."
Journal of Education Policy 20, no. 4 (2005): 507-524.

Thomas, Stephen, and Charles Russo. Special Education Law/: Issues & Implications for the '90s.
Topeka: National Organization on Legal Problems of Education, 1995.

Thompson, David, and Craig Wood. Money & Schools. Larchmont: Eye on Education, 2005.

Towles-Reeves, Elizabeth, Stephanie Kampfer-Bohach, Brent Garrett, Jacqueline Kearns, and
Jennifer Grisham-Brown. "Are We Leaving Our Children Behind?." Journal ofDisability
Policy Studies 17: 40-48, Summer 2006. Journal online. Available from
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.1p.hscl.ufl.ed/w/uptr hm~ei=b0fa71
790e70e397f5ebc28d34765dac3af94 199776137a73 83c9ea5d7 14e927b~bf863b3d&fmt=P.

Tumbull, Ann, H. Rutherford Tumbull III, Marilyn Shank, and Dorthy Leal. Exceptional Lives:
Special Education In Today's Schools (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1995).

U. S. Department of Education. "Building the Legacy: IDEA 2004." [Online] Ed.gov, 2007.
Available from


U. S. Department of Education. "Calculating Participation Rates." [Online] Ed.gov, 2004.
Available from .

U.S. Department of Education. "Executive Summary." [Online] Ed.gov, 2004. Available from


U. S. Department of Education. "Extra Credit." [Online] Ed.gov, 2007. Available from


U. S. Department of Education. "Key Policy Letters Signed by the Education Secretary or
Deputy Secretary." [Online] Ed.gov, 2005. Available from
.









U. S. Department of Education. "New No Child Left Behind Flexibility: Highly Qualified
Teachers." [Online] No Child Left Behind, Available from
.

U. S. Department of Education. "No Child Left Behind." [Online] Ed.gov, 2007. Available from


U. S. Department of Education. "Office of Management and Budget." [Online] U. S. Department
of Education, 2007. Available from
.

U. S. Department of Education. "Paige Approves Florida State Accountability Plan Under No
Child Left Behind." [Online] No Child Left Behind, 2003. Available from
.

U. S. Department of Education. "Paige Joins President Bush for Signing of Historic No Child
Left Behind Act of 2001." [Online] Ed.gov, 2007. Available from


U. S. Department of Education. "The Achiever." [Online] Ed.gov, 2007. Available from
.

U. S. Department of Education. "U. S. Department of Education." [Online] Ed.gov, 2007.
Available from .

Wanker, William, and Kathy Christy. State Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act."
Peabody Journal of Education 80: 57-72, 2005. Journal online. Available from http://
vnweb.hwwilsonweb .com.1p.hscl.ufl .edu/hww/jumpstart.j html?recid=0bc05f7a67bl1790e7
0e397f5ebc28d34d43ce3392 1c936bac3ec95d92632237e03cO3774adb09c49&fmtH

Wiener, Ross, and Daria Hall. "Accountability Under No Child Left Behind." The Clearing
House 78: 17-21, September/October 2004. Journal online. Available from
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.1p.hscl.ufl.ed/w/uptr hm~ei=b0fa71
790e70e397f5ebc28d34ee4f4dl40d9e929bl14366436d2b9fb5f51 0457ba84202ac8&fmt=H.

Wong, Kenneth, and Herbert Walberg. "Introduction to the Special Issue on Contemporary
School Choice Research." Peabody Journal of Education 81: 1-6, 2006. Journal online.
Available from
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.1p.hscl.ufl.ed/w/uptr hm~ei=b0fa71
790e70e397f5ebc28d34765dac3af94 1997791fcbaa6985293 1219ab6a37fl l2ac4b&fmt=H.

Wright, Peter, Pamela Wright, and Suzanne Heath. No Child Left Behind. Hartfield: Harbor
House Law Press, Inc, 2004.









Yell, Michell, Antonis Katsiyannas, and James Shiner. "The No Child Left Behind Act,
Adequate Yearly Progress, and Students With Disabilities." Teaching Exceptional
Children 38: 32-29, March/April 2006. Journal online. Available from
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.1p.hscl.ufl.ed/w/uptr hm~ei=b0fa71
790e70e397f5ebc28d34765dac3af94 19977017bc36153958cl1be2eeb 1d74623 8f73&fmt=H.

Yunker Katherine, Carolyn Nagle, and Kimber Malmgren. "Students with Disabilities and
Accountability Reform." Journal ofDisability Policy Studies 17: 28-39, Summer 2006.
Journal online. Available from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.1p.hscl.ufl.eu
hww/jumpstart.jhtml?recid=0bc05f7a67bl1790e70e397f5ebc28d34765dac3af94 199776137
a73 8 3c9ea5 d7b ae99223 d073 00 58&fmt=H.

Zirkel, Perry. "Does Brown v. Board of Education Play a Prominent Role in Special Education
Law?." Journal ofLaw & Education 34, no. 2 (April 2005): 255-271.

Legal Citations in Order of First Use

20 U.S.C. @ 1400 (c)(1)

20 U. S.C. ( 6311 (b)(2)(C) (v)(II)(c c)

FLA. Stat. ch. 1003.01 (3)(a)

20 U.S.C. g@ 6301 et seq. (2002)

20 U.S.C. ( 6311(b)(2) (2002)

20 U.S.C. g@ 1400 et seq. (2004)

FLA. Stat. ch. 2006.74 (2006)

U. S. Const. amend. X

U. S. Const.

20 U.S.C. ( 6361(b)(8)(B) (2002)

20 U.S.C. @ 1400 (c)(5)(A) (2004)

20 U.S.C. @ 1400 (c)(2)

20 U.S.C. ( 6301 (2002)

20 U.S.C. ( 6319 (2002)

20 U.S.C. ( 6311 (2002)

FLA. Stat. ANN. @ 1008.22 (3)(b) (LexisNexis 2004)

FLA. Stat. ANN. @ 1008.34 (5) (LexisNexis 2004)

FLA. Stat. ANN. @ 1008.22 (LexisNexis 2004)









20 U.S.C. g@ 6301 et seq. (1965)

20 U.S.C. g@ 6301-6578 (1965)

20 U.S.C. g@ 6301 et seq. (1994)

20 U.S.C. ( 6316 (c)(7)(A) (2002)

20 U.S.C. ( 6316 (2002)

20 U.S.C. g@ 6301-6578 (2002)

20 U.S.C @ 1400 (1975)

20 U.S.C.S. g@ 1400-1491 (1990)

20 U.S.C. g@ 1400-1487 (1997)

20 U.S.C. ( 602 (10)(A) (2002)

20 U.S.C. ( 617 (b) (2004)

20 U.S.C. ( 612 (a)(15)(A)-(B) (2002)

20 U.S.C. ( 602 (10)(A) (2002)

FLA. Stat. ch. 1008.31 (1)(b) (2007)

20 U.S.C. ( 6316 (b)(1)(E) (2002)

Fla. Const. of 1885, art. IX, @ 4(a)

FLA. Stat. ch. 2001.02 (2)(J) (2007)

FLA. Stat. ch. 2000.21 (7) (2007)

FLA. Stat. ch. 1000.01 (2007)

20 U.S.C. ( 6311 (b)(2)(A) (2002)

20 U.S.C. ( 6311 (b)(2)(I) (2002)

20 U.S.C. ( 6311(b)(2)(H) (2002)

20 U.S.C. ( 6311(b)(2)(F) (2002)

20 U.S.C. @ 1400 (d) (2004)

20 U.S.C. ( 6361(b)(8)(B) (2002)

FLA. Const. art. IX, @ 1 (amended 2002)









Case Law and Litigation

Brown v. Board' of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

Mills v. Board' of Education of District of Columbia, 348 F.Supp. 866 (D.C. 1 972).

Pontiac, et al., v. Spellings (Filed in the U. S. District Court for the Eastern Court of Michigan on
April 20, 2005). The case was dismissed on November 23, 2005.









BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Mark W. Stockdale was born in 1965 in Rochester, New York. The eldest of two children

Mark was raised in Fairport New York for the larger portion of his childhood. He graduated from

Penfield High School in 1984. Immediately after graduation he returned to his family's roots in

Gainesville, Florida. For the next several years he led a variegated life, traveling and pursuing

careers from sales to carpentry.

Ten years latter he decided to pursue a degree in education. Mark received a M.Ed.

degree from the University of Florida in 1998. He earned certifications in Learning Disabilities,

and Emotional Handicaps. His primary professional interest was in working with at-risk students.

Among other things he has served as special education department chair at an alternative school,

math teacher in a juvenile detention center, and tutoring coordinator at a large high school.

Mark focused his doctoral studies on educational law, particularly as it related to special

education. Upon completion of his degree Mark plans to pursue a career in public K-12

education administration. His ultimate goal is to become superintendent of a school district, and

implement a plan for more hands on vocational programs. He is also interested in a post-

secondary professorship. Mark continues to reside in Gainesville with Circe, his Harley; and

Fred a devoted Bassett hound.





PAGE 1

1 SPECIAL EDUCATION STUDENTS IN SELECTED FLORIDA HIGH SCHOOLS: ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS AS MEASURED BY THE POLICIES SET FORTH IN THE NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT BY MARK W. STOCKDALE DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORI DA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2008

PAGE 2

2 2008 Mark W. Stockdale

PAGE 3

3 To my Mother, Carolyn Dey Lobkowicz

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thanking everyone responsible for helping m e complete the daunting tasks I have been confronted with during my quest to finish this dissertation is near impossible. I apologize to anyone I may have inadvertently left out. My co mmittee members have been invaluable. I thank them all for their willingness to serve on my committee and the time they have given up to meet with me. My chair and mentor Dr. Craig Wood has been amazing in his dedication, guiding me through the difficulties involved in finding a topic and learning how to resear ch and cite the law. I appreciate Dr. David Honeyman s guidance in the area of polic y research. Dr. Mary Brownell and Dr. Jeanne Repetto not only aided me through the doctoral process but served to inspire me toward such a lofty goal years ago when I starte d my studies in education as an undergraduate. I thank them both for so many years of support and en couragement; I will neve r forget my roots in special education. In addition to my committee I would like to thank the countless professors who have aided me along the way. Of all the academic support I have had, I am probably most thankful to Angela Rowe who has helped me and answered ne ver-ending questions for years, in many ways she truly was my academic adviser. My Mother, Carolyn Lobkowicz, has believed in me and encouraged me to press ever onward throughout this process and I am eternally gr ateful for all her suppor t. Finally I want to thank all my friends who have helped me through out this endeavor. I will now finally have time to start repaying the endless favors they have done for me.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES ...........................................................................................................................7 ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... ...............8 CHAP TER 1 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY ..................................................................................... 10 Introduction .................................................................................................................. ...........10 Need for the Study ..................................................................................................................12 History of Special Education ..................................................................................................13 Floridas A+ Plan ...................................................................................................................15 No Child Left Behind .............................................................................................................17 Individuals with Disab ilities Education Act ...........................................................................18 Research Question ..................................................................................................................21 Method of Study .....................................................................................................................22 Limitations of the Study ...................................................................................................... ...23 2 LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................................................25 Parameters of Literature Review ............................................................................................ 25 No Child Left Behind .............................................................................................................26 Individuals with Disab ilities Education Act ...........................................................................38 Floridas A+ Plan ....................................................................................................................43 The Interaction of IDEA and NCLB Policies ......................................................................... 44 Punitive Policy Measures Mandated by the No Child Left Behind Act and the Individuals with Disab ilities Education Act .......................................................................47 The Public Policy of Parental School Choice ......................................................................... 49 Public Policy and Subgroup AYP Under NCLB ....................................................................52 3 RESEARCH DESIGN ............................................................................................................57 Introduction .................................................................................................................. ...........57 Floridas Grading System .......................................................................................................58 Adequate Yearly Progress ......................................................................................................60 Data Collection .......................................................................................................................62 Summary ....................................................................................................................... ..........65 4 OBSERVATIONS .................................................................................................................. 66 Introduction .................................................................................................................. ...........66 School Grades and ESE Criteria .............................................................................................69

PAGE 6

6 School Grades and Percent of Criteria Met ............................................................................71 Mitigating Factors ............................................................................................................ .......74 School Data .............................................................................................................................77 Summary ....................................................................................................................... ..........80 Anecdotal Observations ........................................................................................................ ..82 5 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................... .83 Purpose ....................................................................................................................... ............83 Controversy ................................................................................................................... ..........83 Florida ....................................................................................................................... ..............84 Three Policies .........................................................................................................................87 Final Analysis .........................................................................................................................90 Plausible Ramifications ..........................................................................................................93 APPENDIX A SAMPLE REPORTS ..............................................................................................................95 B DISTRICT DATA ................................................................................................................ 122 C SCHOOL DATA ..................................................................................................................125 WORKS CITED ................................................................................................................... .......130 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .......................................................................................................142

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 4-1 State percentages of studen ts at or above grade level ........................................................68 4-2 District grades and number of ESE cells met .................................................................... 69 4-3 Number of ESE cells me t by all schools in study ..............................................................69 4-4 Number of ESE cells met by A schools in study ............................................................... 70 4-5 Number of ESE cells met by B schools in study ............................................................... 70 4-6 Number of ESE cells met by C schools in study ............................................................... 70 4-7 Number of ESE cells met by D schools in study ............................................................... 70 4-8 School Grades and ESE criteria .........................................................................................71 4-9 Percent of criteria met by A schools and number of ESE cells met .................................. 72 4-10 Percent of criteria met by B schools and number of ESE cells met .................................. 73 4-11 Percent of criteria met by C schools and number of ESE cells met .................................. 73 4-12 Percent of criteria met by D schools and number of ESE cells met .................................. 74 4-13 Grade and % criteria met ................................................................................................ ...75

PAGE 8

8 Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy SPECIAL EDUCATION STUDENTS IN SELECTED FLORIDA HIGH SCHOOLS: ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS AS MEASURED BY THE POLICIES SET FORTH IN THE NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT By Mark W. Stockdale May 2008 Chair: R. Craig Wood Major: Educational Leadership The author conducted a policy analysis of th e impact of the special education student population [referred to as exceptional st udent education (ESE) in Floridas A+ Plan and as students with disabilities (SWD) under the No Child Left Behind Act ] in selected Florida high schools regarding adequate yearly progress (AYP) as measured by the polic ies set forth in the No Child Left Behind Act. The major laws involved in this examination were the No Child Left Behind Act ( NCLB ), the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ( IDEA ), and Floridas A+ Plan Florida was chosen because of the quality and clarity of the education policy in the states A+ Plan This policy mandated that students must pass the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) in order to graduate from high school. Scores and partic ipation in this statewide test were the foundation of Floridas A+ Plan and were used to measure adequate yearly progress at both the school and district levels. The state and Federal policies were examined to determine if special education students had an impact on adequate yearly progress under either No Child Left Behind or Floridas A+ Plan

PAGE 9

9 Data were gathered from the official Florid a Department of Education (FLDOE) web site. All of the highest and lo west scoring districts, as measured by Floridas A+ Plan were examined. Within these districts data from all the highest and lowest scoring high schools were gathered. A comparison was then made between the school grade under Floridas A+ Plan and if the school made adequate yearly progress under the No Child Left Behind Act Data from schools that made adequate yearly progress were examined to determine if and how st udents with disabilities impacted the calculations under both No Child Left Behind and Floridas A+ Plan Thirty-seven school districts and 109 high schools in Florida we re examined in this study. Of the fifteen high schools that did make ade quate yearly progress only two of them did so without dismissing the students with disa bilities category due to small group size.

PAGE 10

10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY Introduction The purpose of this study was to discove r th e impact of the special education1 student population on the policies set forth by the No Child Left Behind Act ( NCLB ).2 The No Child Left Behind Act was signed into law in 2002 by President Bush.3 It was the most encompassing of Federal laws governing education. The succe ssfulness of schools and districts under NCLB4 was measured through the ability to make adequate yearly progress (AYP).5 This dissertation examined the impact of the special education student population on AYP.6 In making a determination of the impact of special education student s on education policy two Federal laws must be considered, the NCLB ,7 and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ( IDEA).8 No Child Left Behind9 was the most encompassing educational law. Signed into law in 2002, it addressed issues incl uding: funding, achievement, highly qualified teachers, punitive measures, mandatory student remediation, school restructuring, and school 1 Special education is a generic term for students qualifying for more individualized education. Under IDEA these students are referred to as individuals with disabilities [20 U.S.C. 1400 (c)(1)]. In NC LB they are referenced as students with disabilities, SWD [20 U.S.C. 6311 (b)(2)(C)(v)(II)(cc)]. In Fl orida it is referred to exceptional student education ESE [FLA. Stat. ch. 1003.01 (3)(a)]. A ll these terms are used interchangeably in this paper. 2 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 3 "U.S. Department of education," [online] No Child Left Behind, available from . 4 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 5 20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2) (2002) 6 AYP is defined in NCLB and referenced to the NCLB definition in IDEA 2004. Florida's A+ Plan references making AYP as defined by NCLB; however, the state uses a school grading system to determine progress. These issues are addressed latter in this paper. When AYP is us ed without a legal citation it is being used generically to refer to student and school pr ogress without limiting it to the definition of only one law. 7 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 8 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. (2004) 9 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002)

PAGE 11

11 choice for students in low performing schools.10 The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act11 dealt exclusively with students with disabilities. This law wa s reauthorized in 2004. One of the major objectives of the reauthorization of IDEA12 was to align it with NCLB .13 The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act14 mirrored much of the language found in NCLB .15 This included issues such as: funding, stude nt remediation, accountability, achievement, and disaggregated data collection.16 This study was conducted in the state of Flor ida because it had a model state plan for increasing student achievement. The Florida statute governing achieving adequate yearly progress was the A+ Plan .17 Governor Bush signed the A+ Plan18 into law in 2000. The basic principals of the A+ Plan were: set state goals; measure a nnual learning; gr ade schools and monitor progress; eliminate social promotion; reward schools; assist failing schools and give parents more choices; raise educ ator standards; rate college of education performance; raise admission standards to education programs; reward quality educators; hold educators 10 "U.S. Department of Education," [online] A Guide to Education and No Child Left Behind, available from . 11 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. (2004) 12 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. (2004) 13 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 14 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. (2004) 15 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 16 "IDEA-Reauthorized Statute," [onl ine] Alignment with the No Child Left Behind Act, available from . 17 FLA. Stat. ch. 2006.74 (2006) 18 FLA. Stat. ch. 2006.74 (2006)

PAGE 12

12 accountable; improve teacher training.19 Many of these concepts are paralleled in the policies of NCLB .20 These three laws were the primary references for this policy study. Data were gathered from the Florida Departme nt of Education web site21 and analyzed in accordance with the policies of the intersection of these laws. The gold standard ultimately being how the special education student population im pacted high schools making AYP22 under the auspices of NCLB .23 Need for the Study As noted in the Tenth A mendment, The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.24 Education is not mentioned in the Constitution ,25 therefore it is reserved to the states. This raises the question, why s hould the states be concerned with a Federal policy regarding education? The answer lies in funding. The realit y is that even though Federal education dollars are a very low percentage of a states education budget26 it would be politically untenable to 19 FLA. Stat. ch. 2006.74 (2006) 20 20 U.S.C. 6301 et.seq. (2002) 21 "Florida Department of Education," [online] av ailable from . 22 20 U.S.C. 6311 (b)(2) (2002) 23 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 24 U. S. Const. amend. X 25 U. S. Const. 26 Only about 8 percent of education funding comes fro m the federal level as cited in. "Education Statistics Quarterly," [online] National Center fo r Education Statistics, available from .

PAGE 13

13 refuse the money.27 If a state legislature accepts Federal education dollars they must follow the policies laid out by the Federal laws. The result of virtually mandated Federal polic ies regarding education may have been a defacto violation of the Tenth Amendment;28 however, as of yet no stat e legislature has opted out of following these policies. The f act that no state has opted out demonstrates the major impact these laws had on the nation,29 or more specifically the states.30 Considering that these laws had punitive measures up to and includin g the state take over of a school,31 these policies needed to be examined in detail. The basic premise of IDEA32 was that students with special needs required individualized education, be it through an adapted or modifi ed curriculum. Instruction for students with disabilities should be ava ilable through a contin uum of services.33 History of Special Education Advocates for special education have had a long and arduous battle to becom e protected under Federal law.34 Recognition of the need to provide services for people of any age, and in particular students who have disabilities, has been slow to develop.35 The Perkins School for the 27 This is based on the political reality that no constituent wants their taxes raised and a loss of revenue would necessitate an increase. A public policy maker who raises taxes tends lose favor with the general population. 28 Kathryn McDermott, and Laura Jensen. "Dubious Sovereignty: Federal Conditions of Aid and the No Child Left Behind Act," Peabody Journal of Education 2, no. 80 (2005); U.S. Const. amend. X. 29 Council for Exceptional Children, "CECs Summary of Si gnificant Issues," [onlin e] The New IDEA, 2004, available from . 30 Detailed ramifications were addressed in chapter two, in the punitive issues section. 31 20 U.S.C. 6361(b)(8)(B) (2002) 32 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. (2004) 33 20 U.S.C. 1400 (c)(5)(A) (2004) 34 Stephen Thomas, and Charles Russo, Special Education Law: Issues & Implications for the '90s (Topeka: National Organization on Legal Problems of Education, 1995). 35 20 U.S.C. 1400 (c)(2)

PAGE 14

14 Blind, founded by Samuel Howe in 1830, was one of the first institutions to try and assist the differently-abled, rather than merely warehouse them.36 In 1864 Gallaudet University was founded for the deaf.37 The Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) 38 eventually followed these intuitions in 1922; however, it was not unt il the 1950s that advoc acy groups started to proliferate and push for legal protections for Americas disabled children.39 Brown v. Board of Education40 had a tremendous impact on the creation of law governing students with disabilities education; however, its implicat ions were not considered in that respect for almost another twenty years.41 In 1972, The District Court of Columbia42 opined that based on the reasoning held in Brown v. the Board,43 all children have a right to a free public education.44 This was one of the first decisions to rec ognize the right of students with disabilities to a public education, and was noted as the first law to directly address the issue of educating handicapped children.45 36 Daniel Hallahan, and James Kauffman, Exceptional Learners: Introduction to Special Education (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1997). 37 Ann Turnbull, H. Rutherford Turnbull III, Marilyn Shank, and Dorothy Leal, Exceptional Lives: Special Education In Today's Schools (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1995). 38 CEC was founded as a professional organization, which now has many branches covering various types of disabilities as well as parent and professional issues. 39 Daniel Hallahan, and James Kauffman, Exceptional Learners: Introduction to Special Education 40 Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka 347 U.S. 483 (1954). 41 Perry Zirkel, "Does Bown v. Board of Education Play a Prominent Role in Special Education Law?" Journal of Law & Education 34, no. 2 (April 2005). 42 Mills v. Board of Education of District of Columbia 348 F.Supp. 866 (D.C. 1972). 43 Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka 347 U.S. 483 (1954). 44 Mills v. Board of Education of District of Columbia 348 F.Supp. 866 (D.C. 1972). 45 Stephen Thomas, and Charles Russo, Special Education Law: Issues & Implications for the '90s

PAGE 15

15 Floridas A+ Plan If Floridas A+ Plan46 were not the model for NCLB,47 it easily could have been based on the similar aspects of the plan to NCLB Governor Bush Announced his plans for education on January, 5 1999 and three years later on January, 8 2002 President Bush signed NCLB48 into law. If one reads the objectives of the two laws it is clear that Florida could have been the model for the national plan. In Governor Bushs announcement of the A+ Plan49 he stated, "We can see that children learn a year's wo rth of knowledge in a year's worth of time, and work with unbridled determination to ensure that no chil d in our education system is left behind."50 When President George W. Bush announced the No Child Left Behind Act he stated, These reforms express my deep belief in our public schools and their mission to build th e mind and character of every child, from every background, in every part of America.51 The name No Child Left Behind Act52 alone is indicative of the degree to whic h the national plan was modeled after the A+ Plan .53 Florida has since incorporated the NCLB54 goal of having 100 percent of students at proficiency by the 2013-2014 school year into its plan. Florida had intermediate goals for Math 46 FLA. Stat. ch. 2006.74 (2006) 47 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 48 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 49 FLA. Stat. ch. 2006.74 (2006) 50 Florida Department of Education, "The Bush-Brogan A+ Plan for Education," [online] available from . 51 U.S. Department of Education, "Executiv e Summary," [online] ED.gov, available from . 52 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 53 FLA. Stat. ch. 2006.74 (2006) 54 20 U.S.C. 6301 (2002)

PAGE 16

16 and Reading.55 Floridas goals included the objective of having all teachers and aides being highly qualified, as defined by NCLB56 by July 1, 2006. The goal of the state, districts, and individual schools making AYP57 was included in the plan. Florida already had the Sunshine State Standards ( SSS) in place as an appropriate guide for curriculum.58 The Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test ( FCAT )59 was given annually to measure student achievement. The test was coded to distinguish district school and sub-group achievement levels.60 Scores from year to year were used to de termine state, district and school AYP.61 The States A+ Plan62 was used to determine individual school grades. This allo wed the identification of low performing schools, which were required to se t aside 10 percent of funds for professional development under NCLB .63 The A+ Plan64 identified schools that did not make AYP. The state made school grades available on the Florida Depart ment of Education web site.65 This allowed schools to be targeted 55 Florida Department of Education, "Fact Sheet: NCLB And Adequate Yearly Progress," Florida Department Of Education 2005, http://www.fldoe.org/ NCLB /FactSheet-AYP.pdf. 56 20 U.S.C. 6319 (2002) 57 20 U.S.C. 6311 (2002) 58 Florida Department of Education, "Sunshine State Standards. [Online] Available from http://www.firn.edu/doe/menu/sss.htm. 59 FLA. Stat. ANN. 1008.22 (3)(b) (LexisNexis 2004) 60 FLA. Stat. ANN. 1008.34 (5) (LexisNexis 2004) 61 FLA. Stat. ANN. 1008.22 (LexisNexis 2004) 62 FLA. Stat. ch. 2006.74 (2006) 63 20 U.S.C. 6316 (c) (7) (A) (2002) 64 FLA. Stat. ch. 2006.74 (2006) 65 Florida Department of Education, "Measuring Adequate Yearly Progress," Florida Department Of Education http://web.fldoe.org/ NCLB /default.cfm/.

PAGE 17

17 as needing assistance as required by NCLB .66 If a Title I67 school failed to make AYP for two consecutive years the district had to allow students to attend another school in the district that did make AYP. The lowest performing students were given priority, a nd the district had to make transportation available at no cost to parents of these students. After three consecutive years of failure the school also had to offer supplemental in struction. After four y ears the district must either replace certain staff, or implement a comp letely new curriculum. At five years the school had to be completely restructured, this meant reopening as either a publ ic charter school, or replacing all or most of the schools staff.68 Floridas implementation and evaluation plan met the requirements of NCLB .69 No Child Left Behind President George Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act ( NCLB )70 into law on January 8, 2002.71 The statement of purpose of NCLB read: The purpose of this title [ 20 USCS 6301 et seq.] is to ensure that all children have a fa ir, equal and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education and reach, at a minimu m, proficiency on challenging state academic achievement standards and state academic assessments. This purpose can be accomplished by The purpose section went on to list twelve ways in which this could be accomplished. (1) Ensure high quality assessments aligned with common exp ectations (2) Meet the needs of low achieving students (3) Close achievement gaps between minority and non minority students as well as 66 20 U.S.C. 6316 (2002) 67 20 U.S.C. 6301-6578 (2002) 68 20 U.S.C. 6316 (2002) 69 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 70 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 71 "U.S. Department of Education," [online] No Child Left Behind, available from .

PAGE 18

18 between low SES students and their peers (4) Hold schools, districts, a nd states accountable and provide alternatives for students in schools th at fail to make AYP (5) Distribute resources equitably with an emphasis on where there is the greatest need (6) Increase accountability through rigorous state standards and assessments (7) Greater flexibili ty, but also greater accountability for teachers and schools (8) Creat e accelerated programs that increase amount and quality of instruction (9) Promot e scientifically based instructional materials and methods (10) Increase opportunities for staff development (11) Coordinate services wi thin this section and with other agencies (12) Ensure parents participation in their childrens education. 72 The scope of NCLB73 was far reaching. It had caveats ra nging from high stakes testing, to requiring scientifically proven instructional methods and material s, to specific requirements about teachers and paraprofessi onals being highly qualified.74 Many saw this law as an unprecedented intrusion into the domain of the states.75 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act In 1975, the predecessor of The Individuals with Disabilities Education A ct ( IDEA) 200476 was passed into law. The Education for all Handicapped Children Act ( EHCA ),77 was the first Federal law to guarantee handica pped children an education. It established regulations and requirements with regard to what services were provided and where these services were to take 72 20 U.S.C. 6301 (2002) 73 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 74 20 U.S.C. 6301 (2002) 75 Council for Exceptional Children, "CECs Summary of Significant Issues," 76 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. (2004) 77 20 U.S.C 1400 et seq. (1975)

PAGE 19

19 place. One of the issues Congre ss noted in this law was that, at the time, there were over a million disabled students not rece iving any public education at all.78 EHCA79 was changed significantly in 1990 to become the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act .80 The most obvious change was the use of p erson first language in the name of the law and throughout its text.81 Issues addressed in previous case law such as Hoing v. Doe, and Board of Educ. of Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. V. Rowley were clarified.82 IDEA 1990 was considered by the CEC and other child advocates to have addressed six major points. (1) Zero reject, all children are ent itled to a free and appropr iate education (FAPE) (2) Students are entitled to a non-discriminatory evaluation (3) The education should be appropriate to both the students age and ability (4) The student s education should occur in the least restrictive environment (5) Procedural due process regulations were considerably expanded and clarified (6) Parental and student participation in all d ecisions was greatly emphasized.83 In 1997, IDEA was reauthorized to become 20 U.S.C. 1400-1487.84 This version included exclusionary criteria in identification, such as a student could not be considered SLD if the deficit were due to a lack of instruction in reading or math. IDEA 85 stated that all 78 20 U.S.C 1400 (1975) 79 20 U.S.C 1400 et seq. (1975) 80 20 U.S.C.S. 1400-1491 (1990) 81 This change evidenced a shift in how the students covered by this law were to be thought of, and referred to; i.e., Johnny is a person with a specific learning disability (SLD), not an SLD child. 82 John Norlin, From Rowley to Buckhannon: 50 Court Decisions Special Educators Need to Know (Horsham, Pennsylvania: LRP, 2004). 83 These are major elements only and by no means represent a detailed view of the reauthorization. 20 U.S.C.S. 1400-1491 (1990) 84 20 U.S.C. 1400-1487 (1997) 85 20 U.S.C. 1400-1487 (1997)

PAGE 20

20 students must participate in any standardized testing or take an alternative assessment. A number of changes and additions were made regarding the discipline of students with disabilities.86 Transition services were to be consid ered and, where appropriate, provided to students starting at age fourteen.87 It was clarified th at parents or guardia ns were allowed to examine all records.88 In 2004 IDEA89 underwent its most recent and in some aspects its most dramatic reauthorization. This version of the law had many changes of significan ce; however, unlike the prior reauthorizations this time the changes had mo re to do with legal issues than with children. There were many changes in the latest reauthorizati on, but without question the most important goal of this version of the law was to align it with NCLB .90 Bringing the two most significant Federal education laws into accord is appropriate policy, but only if the virtues they extol and the application of them are in fact to the benefit of students, after all any e ducation policy by definition should be conceived and applied for the sole purpose of im proving the potential of Americas youth. According to Orlich it could be argued the policy legisl ators created by passing NCLB91 was encroaching on the states ab ility to best serve students.92 This was pointedly demonstrated by the inclusion of the following disc laimer in the law, which was so dramatic as 86 20 U.S.C. 1400-1487 (1997) 87 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. 1400-1487 (1997) (Formerly age sixteen) 88 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. 1400-1487 (1997) 89 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. (2004) 90 Council for Exceptional Children, "CECs Summary of Significant Issues," 91 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 92 Donald Orlich, "No Child Left Behind : An Illogical Accountability Model," The Clearing House 78, September/October 2004 [journal on-line]; available from ; http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/hww/jumpst art.jhtml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1790e70e397f5ebc28d34ee 4f4d140d9e929 b14366436d2b9fb5 fb168293eeee6e32b&fmt=H.

PAGE 21

21 to be included in its entirety: Prohibition Against Federal Mandat es, Direction, or Control: Nothing in this title shall be construed to au thorize an officer or employee of the Federal Government to mandate, direct, or control a Stat e, local education agency, or schools specific instructional content, academic achievement sta ndards and assessments, curriculum, or program of instruction.93 The inclusion of this statement was of great interest becau se its content is implicit in the Tenth Amendment .94 Its inclusion was most likely an afterthought to assure that the obvious increase of the Federal Governments intrusion into education was not construed as a violation of the Constitution.95 The increase in Federal involveme nt was not strictly a violation because states could always opt not to receive Federal funding fo r education and be exempt from these laws. To date, no state has done so, but th e ever-increasing requirements and mandates that must be met may give states more reason to consider opting out. Given that the needs of special education students are so dramatic that it required over 200 pages of law96 to ensure that they receive a free and appropriate education, how they are addressed under all education policies is of great importan ce. This study examined the interaction between the special educati on population and the policies set forth by NCLB .97 Research Question The purpose of this public policy study was to determ ine the impact of the special education student population on sc hools ability to make AYP98 as measured by the policies set 93 20 U.S.C. 617 (b) (2004) 94 U. S. Const. amend. X 95 Kathryn McDermott, and Laura Jensen, "Dubious Sovereignty: Federal Conditions of Aid and the No Child Left Behind Act," Peabody Journal of Education 2, no. 80 (2005); U.S. Const. amend. X 96 Not counting all the rules and regulations. 97 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 98 20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2) (2002)

PAGE 22

22 forth in NCLB .99 Specifically the question was, how did the SWD subgroup effect the likelihood of selected Florida high schools making AYP.100 In the findings it became clear that the size of the SWD subgroup figured prominently in AYP calculations. This study examined NCLB ,101 IDEA,102 and Floridas A+ Plan .103 These laws were important wi th regard to how they each measured AYP. It became clear that there were disparities in the result s of these measures. In order to examine this issue the highest and lowest performing distri cts in Florida were examined.104 Within the aforementioned districts the highest and lowest performing high schools were studied to see if the sp ecial education population impacted whether or not they made AYP.105 Method of Study This study was designed as an analysis of public policy. The m ajority of materials utilized in this study were prim ary source, specifically; NCLB ,106 IDEA,107 and Floridas A+ Plan .108 Data in this study were gathered from the offi cial Florida Department of Education (FLDOE) web site.109 All sixty-seven Florida school district s were reviewed. The highest and lowest 99 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 100 20 U.S.C. 6311 (b)(2) (2002) 101 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 102 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. (2004) 103 FLA. Stat. ch. 2006.74 (2006) 104 Appendix B. 105 Appendix C; 20 U.S.C. 6311 (b)(2) (2002) 106 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 107 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. (2004) 108 FLA. Stat. ch. 2006.74 (2006) 109 "Florida Department of Education," [online] av ailable from .

PAGE 23

23 graded districts (A and C) were included in the study. Within the include d districts the highest and lowest graded high schools (r anging from A to F) were exam ined. The highest and lowest graded districts and schools were included for gr eatest degree of sepa ration of achievement levels. Data were drawn from thirty-seven di stricts and 109 schools, for a total of 472 reports (see appendix A for a sample of all reports relating to one district and a school within that district as an example of the reports data were gathered from). All of the report s were printed from the FLDOE web site;110 however, each individual report had its own lengthy URL. The complete citation for the sample reports is included in appendix A. In the body of this paper the FLDOE searchable database web site111 was cited, with the understandin g that all reports may be brought up from that searchable database. Limitations of the Study This policy analysis exam ined two Federal laws, NCLB112 and IDEA.113 The primary focus was on the impact that special education students had on AYP as measured under the auspices of NCLB .114 This study was limited to the state of Fl orida. The primary state law examined was Floridas A+ Plan .115 All districts in the state were revi ewed. The highest and lowest scoring districts were selected for comparison. Within the highest and lowest scoring districts the highest and lowest scoring high schools were examined to determine if the spec ial education population 110 "Florida Department of Education," [online] av ailable from . 111 "Florida Department of Education," [online] Florida School Grades, available from . 112 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 113 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. (2004) 114 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 115 FLA. Stat. ch. 2006.74 (2006)

PAGE 24

24 impacted AYP,116 as measured by the policies set forth under NCLB .117 This was done based on data gathered from the FLDOE web site.118 Schools that made AYP119 under the provisions of NCLB120 were examined to see if the percentage/n umber of special edu cation students impacted the AYP121 determination under NCLB .122 An unexpected ancillary comparison of note was the difference in making AYP under the state pl an compared to the Federal standards.123 116 20 U.S.C. 6311 (b)(2) (2002) 117 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 118 "Florida Department of Education," [online] Florida School Grades, available from . 119 20 U.S.C. 6311 (b)(2) (2002) 120 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 121 20 U.S.C. 6311 (b)(2) (2002) 122 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 123 Florida's A+ Plan allows schools to make "provisional AY P" an issue that will be addressed in a latter chapter.

PAGE 25

25 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Parameters of Literature Review This policy exam ination was based on primar y source information as much as possible. The major Federal laws examined were the No Child Left Behind Act1 ( NCLB ), and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act2 ( IDEA). At the state level Floridas A+ Plan3 was reviewed. All three of these laws were examined with regard to there relevance to the research question in the previous chapter, they were briefly reviewed in this chapter. The source of raw data and the harvesting thereof was addr essed in detail in chapter three. No peer-reviewed literature of a directly comparative nature to this study was found. Ultimately a review was done of available peer-reviewed literature tangentially related to aspects of this policy analysis. Data, used in the study were the most recent av ailable at the time of writing (the 2005-2006 school year). The oldest law noted was aut horized in 1999 and the most recent in 2004, as a result the majority of the lite rature considered pertin ent in this review was published in the last four years. The policy question that guided this review was: What was the impact of the special education population on selected Florida high schools regarding adequate yearly progress as measured by the policies set forth in the No Child Left Behind Act.4 Florida was the state chosen to conduct the study in. The liter ature review was grouped along the following concepts: (1) An overview of NCLB5 (2) An overview of IDEA 20046 (3) An overview of Floridas A+ Plan7 (4) 1 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 2 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. (2004) 3 FLA. Stat. ch. 2006.74 (2006) 4 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 5 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002)

PAGE 26

26 Detail the literature on the ramifications of the interaction of IDEA8 and NCLB ,9 as they relate to public policy (5) An examinati on of the punitive measures of IDEA10 and NCLB11 as they relate to public policy (6) An examination of the public policy literature regard ing parents rights to school-choice under the two la ws (7) Public policy a nd subgroup AYP under NCLB.12 No Child Left Behind The No Child Left Behin d Act13 was seen by some as a dramatic shift in Americas educational policies.14 While there were some major changes, if its development were viewed over the last forty years, NCLB15 was really the next step in a gradual progression of change.16 The national emphasis on education shifte d from micro to macro-management.17 This shift could also be viewed in terms of a change from equity, as viewed in an input model, to an accountably 6 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. (2004) 7 FLA. Stat. ch. 2006.74 (2006) 8 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. (2004) 9 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 10 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. (2004) 11 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 12 No peer-reviewed public policy literature of the A+ Plan relating to this study was found. 13 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 14 Carolyn Yunker, Katherine Nagle, and Kimber Malmgren, "Students with Disabilities and Accountability Reform," Journal of Disability Policy Studies 17, Summmer 2006 [journal on-line]; available from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/hww/jump start.jhtml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1790e70e397f5ebc28d3476 5dac3af94199776137a7383c9ea5d7bae99223d0730058&fmt=H. 15 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 16 Lorraine McDonnell, "No Child Left Behind and the Fede ral Role in Education: Evolution or Revolution?," Peabody Journal of Education 80, 2005 [journal on-line]; available from; http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/hww/jump start.jhtml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1790e70e397f5ebc28d34d4 3ce33921c936bac3ec95d92632237e958b3509534641b7&fmt=H. 17 David Bloomfield, and Bruce Cooper, "Making Sense of NCLB," T.H.E. Journal 30, May 2003 [journal on-line]; available from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/hww/jumpst art.jhtml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1790e70e397f5ebc28d34eb dacdb87ed2eb68d689fccf95808255cb8594752192de6e&fmt=H.

PAGE 27

27 model as evidenced through the demand for educational excellence.18 In order to understand these shifts it is important to look at the histor y of the most encompassi ng Federal education law. The predecessor of NCLB19 was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson on April 11, 1965. Part of the provisions of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act20 ( ESEA) addressed educational benefits directed toward disadvantaged children. This part of the law was called Chapter One .21 Additional funds were allocated to certain schools based on the percentage of students they had that qualified as low socio-economic-status (SES). Between 1965 and 1980 ESEA22 was reauthorized four times, each time more narrowly defining the intent that funds be used to benefit low SES students.23 In 1983 the A Nation at Risk report24 stated that Americas public schools were being eroded by mediocrity. Among other things the repor t showed that 40 percen t of minority children were functionally illiterate a nd only 30 percent of high school students could solve multi-step math problems. This report heralded the begi nning of more accountab ility. The commission recommended; raising graduation requirements, adopting higher measurable standards, increased time devoted to academics, and raising teacher standards.25 18 Lorraine McDonnell, "No Child Left Behind and the Fede ral Role in Education: Evolution or Revolution?," 19 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 20 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (1965) 21 This section is now called Title On e. 20 U.S.C. 6301-6578 (1965) 22 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (1965) 23 Lorraine McDonnell, "No Child Left Behind and the Fede ral Role in Education: Evolution or Revolution?," 24 National Commission on Excellence in Education, "A Na tion At Risk," [online] Archived Information, 1983, available from . 25 Peter Wright, Pamela Wright, and Suzanne Heath, No Child Left Behind (Hartfield: Harbor House Law Press, Inc, 2004).

PAGE 28

28 Many of the issues raised in A Nation at Risk were reflected in the Improving Americas Schools Act26 of 1994 ( IASA ). This re-authorization required challenging content, and raising standards. The Improving Americas Schools Act27 required states to implement assessments aligned with the new higher standards. Schools were to be held accountable for meeting these standards.28 It was also at this time the term adequate yearly progress (AYP) first came into play from the Federal level. The Improving Americas Schools Act29 set high standards for all students. In exchange for aspiri ng to these high standards states were given flexibility in the manner in which they were implemented. A natural result of states having leeway was that there was considerable variability in the way state legislatures implemented the law. Even given latitude, by 2001 only seventeen states were on track to meet the requirements of IASA .30 This led to the latest reauthorization of ESEA, NCLB .31 The No Child Left Behind Act32 was signed into law by Pres ident George W. Bush on January 8, 2002. In presenting his plans for NCLB33 President Bush said, These reforms express deep belief in our public schools and their mission to build the mi nd and character of every child, 26 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (1994) 27 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (1994) 28 Margaret Goertz, "Implementing the No Child Left Behind Act: Challenges for the States," Peabody Journal of Education 80, 2005 [journal on -line]; available from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/hww/jump start.jhtml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1790e70e397f5ebc28d34d4 3ce33921c936bac3ec95d92632237ebe7b04fb0bbabc79&fmt=H. 29 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (1994) 30 Lorraine McDonnell, "No Child Left Behind and the Fede ral Role in Education: Evolution or Revolution?," 31 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 32 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 33 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002)

PAGE 29

29 from every background in every part of America.34 In his executive summary the President went on to list four major areas of reform: (1 ) Increased accountability (2) More choices for parents and students (3) Greater flexibility for states, school districts, and schools (4) Putting reading first.35 These were not new goals, they evolved w ith the series of re -authorizations of ESEA .36 The statement of purpose of NCLB read: The purpose of this title [ 20 USCS 6301 et seq.] is to ensure that all child ren have a fair, equal and signifi cant opportunity to obtain a highquality education and reach, at a minimum, proficiency on challeng ing state academic achievement standards and state academic assessments. This purpose can be accomplished by37 The purpose section went on to list twelve ways in which this could be accomplished.38 This represents a brief overview of the history of NCLB39 and its present form after being reauthorized in 2002. There were peer reviewed articles that herald the No Child Left Behind Act40 as the savior of public education;41 however, discounting political agenda press-releases42 the author of this 34 U.S. Department of Education, "Executive Summary," [online] Ed.gov, 2004, available from . 35 U.S. Department of Education, "Executive Summary," [online] Ed.gov, 2004, available from . 36 Lorraine McDonnell, "No Child Left Behind and the Fede ral Role in Education: Evolution or Revolution?," 37 20 U.S.C. 6301 (2002) 38 As noted in chapter one. 39 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 40 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 41 Ross Wiener, and Daria Hall, "Account ability Under No Child Left Behind," The Clearing House 78, September/October 2004 [journal on-line]; available from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/hww/jumpst art.jhtml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1790e70e397f5ebc28d34ee 4f4d140d9e929b14366436d2b9fb5f510457ba84202ac8&fmt=H.

PAGE 30

30 study found the preponderance of le gitimate literature seemed to address the difficulties in implementing NCLB43 and/or achieving its goals.44 There was little debate that the altruistic goals of NCLB45 were laudable.46 The idea of all children achie ving at grade level by 2014 was admirable, but whether this goal c ould be achieved was controversial.47 Considering that only seventeen states ever fully met the requirements of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 199448 it would be an understatement to say that NCLB49 was a controversial law, even legislators were having some misgivings as the reauthorization deadline approached.50 The primary concern of this public policy study was the impact of special education students on making adequate yearly progress (AYP) under NCLB .51 Federal guidelines on AYP were written in broad strokes leaving the specifics to the states; however, according to the 42 U.S. Department of Education, "Executive Summary," [online] Ed.gov, 2004, available from . 43 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 44 As is demonstrated throughout this section. 45 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 46 Carl Cohn, "NCLB Implementation Challeng es: The Local Superintendent's View," Peabody Journal of Education 80, 2005 [journal on -line]; available from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/hww/jump start.jhtml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1790e70e397f5ebc28d34d4 3ce33921c936bac3ec95d92632237e8ffd64e3cce298d4&fmt=H. 47 Emma Smith, "Raising Standards in American Sc hools: The Case of No Child Left Behind," Journal of Education Policy 20, no. 4 (2005). 48 William Wanker, and Kathy Christy, "State Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act," Peabody Journal of Education 80, 2005 [journal on-line]; available from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/hww/jump start.jhtml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1790e70e397f5ebc28d34d4 3ce33921c936bac3ec95d92632237e03c03774adb09c49&fmt=H. 49 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 50 Gerardo Gonzalez, "Influences of NCLB on K-12 Systemic Educational Reform," Tech Trends 50, March/April 2006 [journal on-lin e]; available from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/hww/jump start.jhtml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1790e70e397f5ebc28d3476 5dac3af9419977f0df7930e6c327f2a823e1ff4c9743cc&fmt=H 51 20 U.S.C. 6311 (b)(2) (2002)

PAGE 31

31 Secretary of Education the guidelines were inflexible.52 Adequate yearly progress applied to states, districts a nd individual schools. No Child Left Behind outlined the basic tenants for establishing AYP.53 Education secretary Rod Paige sent out an AYP guidance letter outlining ten major guidelines for states to de sign individual AYP plans around: (1) A single statewide accountability system applied to all public schools and LEAs. (2) All public school students are included in the State accountability system. (3) A States definition of AYP is based on expectations for growth in student achievement that is continuous and subs tantial, such that all students are proficient in reading ma th no later than 2013-2014. (4) A State makes annual decisions about the achievement of all public schools and LEAs. (5) All public schools and LEAs are held accountable for the achievement of individual subgroups. (6) A States definition of AYP is base d primarily on the States academic assessments. (7) A States definition of AYP includes gr aduation rates for high schools and an additional indicator selected by the St ate for middle and elementary schools (for example attendance rates). (8) AYP is based on separate reading/la nguage arts and math achievement objectives. (9) A States accountability system is statistically vali d and reliable. (10) In order for a school to make AYP, a St ate ensures that it assessed at least 95% of students in each subgroup enrolled.54 52 U. S. Department of Education, "Paige Joins President Bush for Signing of Historic No Child Left Behind Act of 2001," [online] Ed.gov, 2007, available from . 53 20 U.S.C. 6311 (b)(2) (2002) 54 Rod Paige, "Key Policy Letters Signed by the Education Secretary or Deputy Secretar y," [online] Ed.gov, 2003, available from .

PAGE 32

32 Some authors viewed NCLB55 as positive advancement of educational public policy. Wiener and Hall noted that higher education is the key to success in America today. Their statistics showed that 28 percen t of students entering two or f our year colleges will need remedial courses in English, language arts, or mathematics. Seventy-five percent of students requiring no remediation will earn at least a Bachelor of Arts degree or better, while only 45 percent needing remedial courses will achieve a bachel or of arts degree. The numbers dropped to 36 percent if one or more remedial classes are in reading. These authors insisted that quality and intensity of high school education are the bigge st predictors of colle ge success, and that watered down courses leave students ill equipp ed for success in American society. Wiener, and Hall considered NCLB s AYP56 provision an excellent method of targeting students who need assistance before their deficiencies become the harbinger of failu re. They considered NCLB57 goals to be reasonable based on the fact that thousands of schools around the country were meeting or exceeding the State goals. Finally they wrote that while AYP58 alone was not enough to put schools on the right track, it served its purpose by publicly calling a ttention to schools that were not meeting high standards of education.59 President Bushs administration had published a lot of material addressing NCLB .60 Not surprisingly this information was all of a pos itive nature. The United States Department of 55 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 56 20 U.S.C. 6311 (b)(2) (2002) 57 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 58 20 U.S.C. 6311 (b)(2) (2002) 59 Ross Wiener, and Daria Hall, "Account ability Under No Child Left Behind," 60 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002)

PAGE 33

33 Education (USDE) had a large searchable web site.61 A link on this site lead to a vast site devoted exclusively to NCLB .62 This site contained; press rele ases, fact sheets, information for parents, teachers, and administrators. It was also open to anyone with an e-mail account to sign up to receive newsletters such as the Achiever63 and No Child Left Behind Extra Credit .64 These newsletters used government sta tistics and antidotal stories to publicize the positive aspects of NCLB65 and various success stories from the national level all the way down to specific schools. This pulpit was used to show NCLB66 in its best light, and rebuke claims such as NCLB being an unfunded mandate.67 The site was also used to justif y controversial issues such as the requirement that all teachers be highly qualified by July, 2006,68 noting that the Presidents budget allocated nearly three billion dollars to the states to help meet the deadline.69 From this perspective NCLB70 was a proactive advancement of educa tional public policy. It is important to 61 U. S. Deparment of Education, "U. S. Deparment of Education," [online] Ed.gov, 2007, available from . 62 U. S. Department of Education, "No Child Left Behind," [online] Ed.gov, 2007, available from . 63 U. S. Deparment of Education, "The Achiver," [online] Ed.gov, 2007, available from . 64 U. S. Department of Education, "Extra Credit," [online] Ed.gov, 2007, available from . 65 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 66 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 67 Geoffrey Goodman, Keeping The Funding And Standards: The Choice Has To Be Both, private email message to author, 25 April 2005. 68 20 U.S.C. 6319 (2002) 69 Peter Kickbush, Spellings: Reward Teachers Who Get Results, private email message to author, 20 May 2005. 70 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002)

PAGE 34

34 keep in mind that these remarks and statistics were all carefully crafted by the administration that created NCLB .71 Aside from governmental publications and some non-peer reviewed literature, the majority of articles tended to criticize NCLB72 to one degree or another. Linn began his article, No reasonable person is against acc ountability that enhances the quality of education.73 He also noted that accountability must be shared on a large scale if it were to be effective, and warned against arbitrary goals. Part of Linns study ex amined the trend of student improvement on national test scores. At the cu rrent rate of improvement it w ould take 166 years for 100 percent of twelfth grade students to be at proficiency. In other words it would ta ke a gain of 11.8 percent per year for all twelfth grade students to be proficient by the 2013-2014 dead line. Growth at this rate would be unprecedented considering the cu rrent growth rate of seniors was only .05 percent.74 Donlevy also considered the timeline for AYP.75 He raised the question of the practicality of having 100 percent of students at proficiency by the end of the 2013-2014 school year. Donley noted that many states, including Florida had hun dreds of failing schools already. He predicted that NCLB AYP76 objectives would have to be modified in order to avert dramatic consequences on a national scale. He suggested that the meas ure of AYP be based on multiple factors rather 71 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 72 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 73 Robert Linn, "Accountability: Responsibility and Reasonable Expectations," Educational Researcher 32, October 2003: First paragraph[journal on-line]; available from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/hww/jumpst art.jhtml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1790e70e397f5ebc28d34eb dacdb87ed2eb68e6dde9ea11cee7 830a611a05ec1d6ba2&fmt=H. 74 Robert Linn, "Accountability: Responsibility and Reasonable Expectations," 75 20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2) (2002) 76 20 U.S.C. 6311 (b)(2) (2002)

PAGE 35

35 than primarily on one state-wide test, and using that information to assist failing schools rather than penalize them. In his article Donlevy compared NCLB77 to the Regents system of assessment used in New York States public edu cation plan. It was proposed to raise the passing score on the regents exam from 55 to 65 the next school year. It quickly became evident that this change would cause large numbers of students to fail. In view of this the Board of Regents extended the deadline for changing the passing score.78 This same sort of reasonable expectation should be applied to AYP under NCLB .79 In his article, Newbold raised similar concerns regarding schools a nd states making AYP. His paper recounted concerns raised by the schoo l officials and legislat ors in Utah during a meeting with officials from the USDE. One school administrator expressed concern that the punitive measures (withholding funding) against fa iling schools would actually be the most detrimental to the very students NCLB80 is supposed to help. She asked, Isnt there a way to use the [sic] data in such a way that it doesnt disenfranchise students? No, was the response.81 State officials estimated that it would take $182 million to implement the scientifically based strategies needed to meet the AYP deadline, yet the state only received five million dollars in 77 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 78 Jim Donlevy, "No Child Left Behind: Failing Schools and Future Directions," International Journal of Instructional Media 30, 2003 [journal on-line]; available from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/hww/jumpst art.jhtml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1790e70e397f5ebc28d34eb dacdb87ed2eb68f21953a80ca8930e94960033ef2c9631&fmt=H. 79 Susan Albrecht, and Candace Joles "Accountability and Access to Opport unity: Mutually Exclusive Tenets Under a High-Stakes Testing Mandate," Preventing School Failure 47, Winter 2003 [journal on-line]; available from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/hww/jumpst art.jhtml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1790e70e397f5ebc28d34eb dacdb87ed2eb68ae12a0fd3c7d1347e66269b85901d7dd&fmt=H. 80 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 81 Barry Newbold, "The Facel ess Mandates of NCLB," Kappa Delta Pi Record 41, Fall 2004: Reaching academic Benchmarks section[journal on-line]; available from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/hww/jumpst art.jhtml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1790e70e397f5ebc28d34ee 4f4d140d9e929b2753034ce92f5c4e751ff729952dedb6&fmt=H.

PAGE 36

36 Federal funding. Upon bringing this up, the USDE representati ves and Federal legislators responded by citing the flexibili ty states have in meeting NCLB82 objectives. Newbold noted that he saw no tangible suggestion on how to bridge the gap.83 Money was not merely an issue in terms of how much it cost to comply with NCLB.84 It was also a concern in terms of how the money in question must be spent. Bloomfield and Cooper looked at the need to make AYP85 from the perspective of how money had to be spent to be in compliance. The No Child Left Behind Act86 was the first Federal education law that mandated private service provide r involvement. This caveat app lied to schools that failed to make AYP. They must enlist private assistance ra nging from tutoring to complete take over of the school as a charter by a private individual or company. An unintended financial consequence of this policy was that most states will have to contract with private comp anies in order to create and grade the extensive stat e-wide testing mandated under NCLB .87 The National Education Associat ion filed suit against the Se cretary of Education claiming that NCLB88 was an unfunded mandate.89 States were free to refuse Federal education dollars and 82 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 83 Barry Newbold, "The Facel ess Mandates of NCLB," 84 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 85 20 U.S.C. 6311 (b)(2) (2002) 86 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 87 David Bloomfield, and Bruce Cooper, "NCLB: A New Role for the Federal government," T.H.E. Journal 30, May 2003 [journal on-lin e]; available from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.u fl.edu/hww/jumpstart.jhtml?recid=0bc05f7a671790e70e397f5ebc28d34ebd acdb87ed2eb68d689fccf9580825596bf42ebcd9ae4eb&fmt=H 88 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 89 Pontiac, et al, v. Spellings (Filed in the U. S. District Court for the Eastern Court of Michigan on April 20, 2005); The case was dismissed on November 23, 2005.

PAGE 37

37 opt out of NCLB Some states, have th reatened to do this, but to date no state has.90 DeBray, McDermott, and Wohlstetter wrote that the likel ihood of states refusing funding is remote, and that traditionally states do not refuse Federal funding.91 The question of funding is always an issue with Federal mandates. It has been argued that NCLB92 was an unfunded mandate.93 The first question was, could one call NCLB94 a mandate? It was not a mandate in the sense that st ates did have the right to opt out of NCLB ,95 but in doing so they would lose the Federal funding linked to it. McDermott a nd Jensen addressed this issue in terms of conditional funding. They noted that education was not the only area in which the Federal government has used wit hholding Federal funds to apply pressure to the states to comply. They cited the example of the fifty-fi ve mile per hour speed limit, of the 1970s. The government effectively created a national speed limit by threatening to withhold Federal highway funds if states did not implement the sp eed limit. Like education this was an area that had always been left to the stat es. It was constitutional because st ates did not have to comply if they were willing to decline the fundi ng. The same reasoning was applied to NCLB .96 It was not 90 John Munich, and Rocco Testan i, "NEA Sues over NCLB," Education Next 5, Fall 2005 [journal on-line]; available from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/hww/jump start.jhtml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1790e70e397f5ebc28d34d4 3ce33921c936ba4a7881d20e3c3d6754d56c36fc731f38&fmt=H. 91 Elizabeth DeBray, Kathryn McDermott, and Priscilla Wohlstetter, "Introduction to the Special Issue on Federalism Reconsidered: The Case of the No Child Left Behind Act," Peabody Journal of Education 80, 2005 [journal on-line]; available from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/hww/jump start.jhtml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1790e70e397f5ebc28d34d4 3ce33921c936bac3ec95d92632237eb8103f37f27b85c5&fmt=H. 92 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 93 William Mathis, "The Cost of Implementing the Federal No Child Left Behind Act: Different Assumptions, Different Answers," Peabody Journal of Education 80, 2005 [journal on-line]; available from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/hww/jump start.jhtml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1790e70e397f5ebc28d34d4 3ce33921c936bac3ec95d92632237e6172e3146ce8168b&fmt=H. 94 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 95 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002)

PAGE 38

38 a mandate and was considered constitutional becaus e states could opt out if they refused Federal funds.97 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act98 ( IDEA) of 1997 was reauthorized by congress on November 19, 2004, and signed into law by President George W. Bush on December 3, 2004. The majority of the changes in IDEA99 2004 took effect on July 1, 2005. One of the major focuses of this reauthorization was to align IDEA100 with NCLB .101 To this end and to better serve children with disabilities, othe r notable differences included new rules for; evaluation time lines, identifying students with lear ning disabilities, defining highly qualified, allowing for trials of multi-year Individualized Education Plans (IEP), changes in procedural safeguards, additions in monitoring and enforc ement, and many changes regarding research.102 The provisions of the law took effect July 1, 2005 with the exception of the requirement that teachers be highly qualified103 which was to take effect immediately. The Federal government has responded to the states difficultie s in meeting the highly qualified mandate. In a fact sheet that addressed new flexibility, U.S. Secretary of Education Rod Paige announced flexibility for meeting the highly qualified requireme nts for, rural teachers, science teachers, and 96 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 97 Kathryn McDermott, and Laura Jensen, "Dubious Sovereignty: Federal Conditions of Aid and the No Child Left Behind Act," Peabody Journal of Education 2, no. 80 (2005); U.S. Const. amend. X. 98 20 U.S.C. 1400-1487 (1997) 99 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. (2004) 100 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. (2004) 101 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 102 Council for Exceptional Children, "CECs Summary of Si gnificant Issues," [onlin e] The New IDEA, 2004, available from . 103 20 U.S.C. 602 (10)(A) (2002)

PAGE 39

39 multi-subject teachers.104 In a latter policy letter to chief state school officers Secretary Margaret Spellings announced a one year extension of the d eadline for all teachers in core subjects being highly qualified, moving the deadline to the end of the 2006-2007 school year. This extension was available to states making a good faith effort toward compliance.105 It is worthy of note that a state or local education agencys failure to meet the highly quali fied requirements could not be construed as creating a right of ac tion for a student or a class of students.106 Another area of concern under IDEA107 was that of making adequate yearly progress (AYP). Adequate yearly progress under IDEA108 was defined by NCLB .109 The No Child Left Behind Act110 required the reporting of pr ogress and participation of four major sub-groups including SWD.111 The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act112 further defined the requirements for making AYP in terms of special education students partic ipation in the required state wide testing.113 104 U. S. Department of Education, "New No Child Left Behind Flexibility: Highly Qualified Teachers," [online] No Child Left Behind, available from . 105 U. S. Department of Education, "Key Policy Letters Signed by the Education Secr etary or Deputy Secretary," [online] Ed.gov, 2005, available from . 106 U. S. Department of Education, "Building the Legacy: IDEA 2004," [online] Ed. gov, available from . 107 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. (2004) 108 20 U.S.C. 612 (a)(15)(A)-(B) (2002) 109 20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2) (2002) 110 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 111 Peter Wright, Pamela Wright, and Suzanne Heath, No Child Left Behind 112 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. (2004) 113 Sandra Bowen, and Harvey Rude, "A ssessment and Students with Disabilities: Issues and Challenges with Educational Reform," Rural Special Education Quarterly 3, Summer 2006 [journal on-line]; available from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/hww/jump start.jhtml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1790e70e397f5ebc28d3476 5dac3af941997748dd1a16f13315ca2688123f95f066f1&fmt=P.

PAGE 40

40 The Individuals with Dis abilities Education Act114 mirrored NCLB115 in mandating full participation in state-wide testing with the cav eat that up to 1 percent of special education students (those with the most significant cogn itive difficulties) may be evaluated with an alternative assessment test and stil l be included in AYP calculations.116 In a latter policy change Secretary of Education Spellings announced that states could apply for a waiver to this rule, allowing up to 2 percent of the SWD population to participate in alternative assessments and count toward the rules for making AYP.117 Prasse observed, The line between gene ral and special educ ation is blurring.118 This was evident in the area of testing and particularly so in terms of alte rnative assessment. Much of the latitude in design of alternative assessment m easures was being removed to make them more accurately aligned with the state assessments.119 An Individualized Education Plan (IEP)120 created by a team of individuals drove SWD education. One of the requirements of the IEP was that it addressed particip ation in standardized 114 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. (2004) 115 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 116 Claudia Flowers, Diane Browder, and Lynn Ahlgrim-Del zell, "An Analysis of Thre e States Alignment Between Language Arts and Mathematics Stan dards adn Alternate Assessments," Exceptional Children 72, Winter 2006 [journal on-line]; available from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/hww/jump start.jhtml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1790e70e397f5ebc28d3476 5dac3af941997781a298acbbe40f9c27a50e006561f861&fmt=H. 117 Peter Kickbush, New Policy Helps States Better assist Students with Disabilities, private email message to author, 1 June 2005. 118 David Prasse, "Legal Supports for Problem-Solving Systems," Remedial and Special Education 27, January/February 2006: 14[journal on-line]; available from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/hww/jump start.jhtml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1790e70e397f5ebc28d3476 5dac3af94199770590cab8e3914bec77f50543b55b408b&fmt=P. 119 U. S. Department of Education, "Building the Legacy: IDEA 2004," [online] Ed. gov, available from . 120 An Individualized Education Plan (IEP) is a document that outlines the goals and objectives for each students education. It also delineates the services and modificati ons that will be provided to help accomplish the goals.

PAGE 41

41 testing. All students must be assessed annuall y, a SWD could particip ate with or without accommodations or may participate in an alternative assessment.121 These decisions were to be made by the IEP team.122 The concept of a Federal limit was in juxtaposition to the concept of an individualized plan. The 2 per cent cap on how many students with disabilities could be counted toward AYP presented a dilemma for states.123 If the number of stude nts taking alternative assessments exceeded the cap it could preclude a school, district, or st ate from making AYP.124 The funding of any public policy is worthy of note. The funding of special education was complicated because it required recognizing that so me students have greater needs than others. State legislatures funded special programs in different ways ranging from, weighted formulas to categorical grants.125 The concept of funding students acco rding to need was referred to as Vertical Equity.126 The law promised to fund 40 percent of the cost of IDEA by 2011. In dollars this represented up to; $12 billion plus for 2005, $14 b illion plus for 2006, $16 billion plus for 2007, 121 MaryAnn Byrnes, "Alte rnate Assessment FAQs (and Answers)," Teaching Exceptional Children 36, July/August 2004 [journal on-lin e]; available from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/hww/jumpst art.jhtml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1790e70e397f5ebc28d34ee 4f4d140d9e929b90f6a626a3de05a78d51e346fbe1e7a6&fmt=P. 122 Barbara Gartin, and Nikki Murdick, "IDEA 2004: The IEP," Remedial and Special Education 26, November/December 2005 [journ al on-line]; available from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/hww/jump start.jhtml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1790e70e397f5ebc28d34d4 3ce33921c936bad15ea25dcc7f4988a5a7c3763096d9fa&fmt=P. 123 Sandra Bowen, and Harvey Rude, "A ssesment and Students with Disabilities: Issues and Challenges with Educational Reform," 124 20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2) (2002) 125 David C. Thompson, and R. Craig Wood, Money & Schools (Larchmont: Eye On Education, 2005). 126 This is as opposed to horizontal equity which assure s everyone receives equal funding, instead of resources according to level of need, as noted in: Gloria Rodriquez, "Vertical Equity in School Finance and the Potential for Increasing School Responsiveness to Student and Staff Needs," Peabody Journal of Education 79, 2004 [journal online]; available from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/hww/jumpst art.jhtml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1790e70e397f5ebc28d34ee 4f4d140d9e929b42ff69ffe5467dfe31c0ff2fe029ca5b&fmt=P.

PAGE 42

42 $19 billion plus for 2008, $21 billion plus for 2009, $23 billion plus for 2010, over $26 billion for 2011, and such funds as necessary from 2012 onward to fund need at 40 percent. Unfortunately these were the maximum amounts that congress may allocate, not guarantees.127 The Council for Exceptional Children issued a press release in February of 2007 decrying President Bushs 2008 budget proposa l. They asserted that Bush had proposed cutting funding for IDEA.128 They argued, As the number of students served under IDEA continues to grow, the Presidents newest budget pr oposal, in effect, under funds IDEA. Furthermore, the gap between the promised 40 percent funding of IDEA and current funding levels widens, undermining the administrations pronouncements of support for children and youth with disabilities.129 In 2006 the Federal budget for IDEA130 was $10.6 billion, 3.4 billon less than the $14 billion that was supposed to be allocated as an incremental increase toward the proposed 40 percent. The 2007 budget proposed only a $100 m illion dollar increase making the gap between the laws proposed allocation and actual dollars appropriated even greater.131 This funding short fall lent credence to the argument that IDEA132 was not being appropriately funded. 127 U. S. Department of Education, "Building the Legacy: IDEA 2004," [online] Ed.gov, 2007, Third paragraph available from http://idea.ed.gov/explore/view/p /%2Croot%2Cdynamic%2CTopicalBrief%2C18%2C. 128 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. (2004) 129 Council for Exceptional Children, "CEC Denounces Pres ident's Budget Proposal," [online] Council for Exceptional Children, 2007, available from . 130 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. (2004) 131 U. S. Department of Education, "Office of Management and Budget," [online] U. S. Department of Education, 2007, available from . 132 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. (2004)

PAGE 43

43 Floridas A+ Plan Florida statute created distri cts contiguous with county boundaries creating a total of sixtyseven geographically large districts.133 These districts were co mprised of 3,830 schools with 318,721 full time teachers, serving 2,673,563 students.134 In the 1970s the Florida Commission on Education Reform and Accountability was formed.135 The commission made recommendations with regard to creating a well e ducated workforce in the state. The commission recommended assessments as a method of raising educational achievement. Theses recommendations were adopted by the State Boar d of Education, and hence forth students in grades; three, five, eight, and eleven were given state wide assessments.136 During the early 1990s Florida developed the Sunshine State Standards ( SSS). These standards were comprised of goals and benchmarks specifically aligned to each course and grade level in the state.137 In 1998 a state constitutional amendment was passed to restructure the states educational system creating a kindergarten through bachelors degree (K-20) system.138 In the same year the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test ( FCAT ) was implement. This test was aligned with the SSS and given to all students in grades third through tenth. The tenth grade 133 Fla. Const. art. IX, 4(a) 134 Florida Department of Education, "Florida School District Data," [online] Your Florida Department of Education, 2006, available from . 135 FLA. Stat. ch. 2001.02 (2)(J) (2006) 136 Trey Martindale, Carolyn Pearson, L. K. Curda, and Jane t Pilcher, "Effects of an Online Instructional Application on Reading and Mathematics Standardized Test Scores," Journal of Research on Technology in Education 37, Summer 2005 [journal on-line]; available from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/hww/jump start.jhtml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1790e70e397f5ebc28d34d4 3ce33921c936ba8145893073ddef4c593d1dd4d3ec4736&fmt=H. 137 FLA. Stat. ch. 2000.21 (7) (2007); Florida Department of Education, "Sunshine State Standards. [Online] Available from http://www.firn.edu/doe/menu/sss.htm. 138 FLA. Stat. ch. 1000.01 (2007); Florida Senate, "The Florida Constitution," [online] The Florida Senate, 2006, available from .

PAGE 44

44 FCAT eventually became a requirement for grad uation with a standard high school diploma.139 All of this lead up to the creation of Floridas A+ Plan .140 The Bush/Brogan A+ Plan141 was signed into law on June 21, 1999.142 The two legs of this plan were increased funding a nd increased accountability. The A+ Plan143 had eight sub-parts: (1) Record increase in school funding (2) More co mprehensive and rigorous student testing (3) End social promotion (4) Raise teacher standard s (5) Grade schools and issue school report cards (6) Help failing schools (7) Expanded choice fo r parents with opportunity scholarships (8) School safety.144 Floridas NCLB compliance pl an met Federal requirements.145 The Interaction of IDEA and NCLB Policies Three years after the creation of NCLB ,146 IDEA147 was reauthorized. The primary purpose of the latest reauthorization of IDEA148 was to align it with NCLB .149 In NCLB ,150 IDEA151 was 139 For special education students there was an option to wa ive the FCAT requirement to receive a standard diploma by proving content knowledge. Florida also offered a special diploma option allowing students to graduate, but did not qualify them for college admission. Florida Department of Education, "FCAT Myths vs. Facts," [online] Florida Department of Education, available from . 140 FLA. Stat. ch. 2006.74 (2006) 141 FLA. Stat. ch. 2006.74 (2006) 142 Two years prior to the signing of NCLB 143 FLA. Stat. ch. 2006.74 (2006) 144 Florida Department of Education, "Providing Our Children with a World-Class Education," [online] MyFlorida.com, 2004, available from http://www.myflorida.com/myflorida/educa tion.laws/accompworldclasseducaplan.htm. 145 Florida Department of Education, "Florida NCLB Consolidated Application," [online] Consolidated State Application Accountability Workbook, 2007, available from . 146 20 U.S.C. 6301 et. seq. (2002) 147 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. (2004) 148 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. (2004) 149 Barbara Gartin, and Nikki Murdick, "IDEA 2004: The IEP," 150 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002)

PAGE 45

45 referenced no less than thirty-eight times, and in IDEA,152 NCLB153 was referenced repeatedly.154 Much of the language in IDEA155 mirrored that of NCLB ,156 and in many instances referred to sections of NCLB .157 Section 20 U.S.C. 6311 (b)(2) of NCLB established the criteria for states defining adequate yearly progress (AYP). Section 612 (a)(15)(A)-(B) of IDEA required states to correlate performance goals for students with di sabilities with the states definition of AYP. Section 20 U.S.C 7801 (23) of NCLB defined highly qualified fo r public school teachers who teach core subjects. Section 602 (10)(A) of IDEA adopts the NCLB definition. In section 20 U.S.C. 6311 (b)(3)(ix)(I)-(II), NCLB required all students to pa rticipate in state-wide assessments. Section 612 (a)(16)(A) of IDEA called for the participation of all students with disabilities in statewide a ssessments including using accommodations or alternative assessments.158 Bringing the two laws into better alignment c ould be viewed as a proactive step toward a positive outcome for Americas public school stude nts. Handler pointed out the positive aspect 151 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. (2004) 152 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. (2004) 153 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 154 Beth Handler, "Two Acts, One Goal: Meeting the Shared Vision of No Child Left Behind and Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004," The Clearing House 80, September/October 2006 [journal online]; available from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/hww/jump start.jhtml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1790e70e397f5ebc28d3476 5dac3af941997730d80af1ac029785951db1970817e809&fmt=H. 155 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq (2004) 156 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 157 Michell Yell, Antonis Katsiyannas, and James Shiner, "The No Child Left Behind Act, Adequate Yearly Progress, and Students With Disabilities," Teaching Exceptional Children 38, March/April 2006 [journal on-line]; available from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/hww/jump start.jhtml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1790e70e397f5ebc28d3476 5dac3af9419977017bc36153958c1be2eeb1d746238f73&fmt=H. 158 John Norlin, NCLB and IDEA '04: A Side-By-Side Analysis (Horsham: LRP, 2005).

PAGE 46

46 of the collaboration of the two laws, In cont rast to previous ve rsions of both laws, NCLB and IDEA 2004 demonstrate a unification of educati onal procedures, responsibilities and expectations for success of students with disabilities.159 Bowen, and Rude wrote, The partnership of NCLB and IDEIA [ sic ] provide the opportunity for successful academic achievement for students with disabilities by implementing the systemic changes mandated by NCLB through the individual lens of the IEP (Indi vidualized Education Plan) as regulated by IDEIA [ sic ].160 The alignment of the two laws was not necessarily all positive. The nature of the two laws could be viewed as in opposition to each other. Moores took a nega tive view of the nature of the interaction of the two laws. He wrote that NCLB161 was to have precedence over IDEA.162 He also indicated that the goal of having 100 percent of students on grade level was unachievable. He addressed the idea that the Federally mandated 99 percent participation in state assessments was in opposition to the spirit of the i ndividualized education plans mandated by IDEA .163 Yell, Katsiyannas, and Shiner made a similar argument, Because NCLB emphasizes group data for AYP determinations, its guiding pr incipals may be perceived as misaligned with the focal point 159 Beth Handler, "Two Acts, One Goal: Meeting the shared Vision of No Child Left Behind and Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004," Fifth paragraph. 160 Sandra Bowen, and Harvey Rude, "Assessment and Studen ts with disabilities: Issues and Challenges with Educational Reform," First section. 161 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. 162 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. (2004) 163 Donald Moores, "The No Child Left Behind and the Individuals With Disabilities Education Acts: The Uneven Impact of Partially Funded Federal Mandates on Ed ucation of Deaf and Hard of Hearing Children," American Annals of the Deaf 150, 2005 [journal on-line]; available from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/hww/jump start.jhtml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1790e70e397f5ebc28d34d4 3ce33921c936bac15da6c927988d2c6b7bc28b98926067&fmt=H.

PAGE 47

47 of IDEA decision-makingthe individual student.164 Clearly the alignment of the two laws was controversial. Punitive Policy Measures Mandated by the No Child Left Behind Act and the Individuals w ith Disabilities Education Act Success under both the No Child Left Behind Act165 ( NCLB ) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act166 ( IDEA) was measured by making adequate yearly progress. Conversely this measure was also used to denote failure. In the positive parlance of education the word failure was not used, in its place was the phrase, in need of improvement. Punitive measures began with parents being allowed to move their children from schools in need of improvement to schools making AYP.167 The final punitive measure was the school being taken over by the state or becoming a charter school.168 The punitive measures were progressive. A school was deemed in need of improvement if it had not met AYP requirements for two consecutive years. The first year of being deemed in need of improvement; all students were offered public school choice, the school must develop a two year improvement plan, and extend learni ng time. The second year they must add the requirement of making supplemental educational se rvices available. The third year the local education agency169 (LEA) must take at least one of th e following actions; replace school staff responsible for failure, implement a new scientif ically based curriculum, significantly decrease 164 Michell Yell, Antonis Katsiyannas, and James Shiner, "The No Child Left Behind Act, Adequate Yearly Progress, and Students With Disabilitie s," NCL and IDEA 2004 section. 165 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 166 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. (2004) 167 20 U.S.C. 6311 (b)(2) (2002) 168 Michell Yell, Antonis Katsiyannas, and James Shiner, "The No Child Left Behind Act, Adequate Yearly Progress, and Students With Disabilities,". 169 The term local education agency refers to the district level administration.

PAGE 48

48 management authority at the school level, extend the school day or year, appoint an outside expert to advise the school on how to achieve AYP, or reorganize the school internally. After four years of being in need of improvement th e LEA must do one of the following; reopen the school as a charter school, replace the principal and staff, have a private company takeover the school, let the state takeover the school, or some other form of major restructuring of school management. In year five the school must be under a new governance plan by the first day of school that year.170 The aforementioned punitive actions were substantial; however, they were not all inclusive. The laws also provided for the withhol ding of Federal aid to schools that continue to fail to make AYP.171 The Individuals with Disab ilities Education Act172 also used AYP as a measure of progress. Section 612 (a)(15)(A)-(B) of IDEA references NCLB section 20 USC 6311 (b)(2) directly quoting the definition of AYP from NCLB Under IDEA173 AYP determinations were made on the state level. If a state failed to make AYP for two consecutive years the United States Department of Education (USED) will advise the state on available sources for technical assistance and/or direct the use of Part B funds174 in the areas of need. If the state failed to make AYP for three or more consecutive years all of the above applied plus at least one of the following; require a corrective action plan (if the problem can be solved in a year), require the 170 U. S. Department of Education, "Calculating Partic ipation Rates," [online] Ed.gov, 2004, available from . 171 Elizabeth DeBray, Kathryn McDermott, and Priscilla Wohlstetter, "Introduction to the Special Issue on Federalism Reconsidered: The Case of the No Child Left Behind Act," 172 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. (2004) 173 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. (2004) 174 Part B of IDEA is the largest part, it deals with serving special education students age 3-21.

PAGE 49

49 state to enter into a compliance agreement, withhold 20-50 percent of Federal part B funds, seek to recover funds and/or withhold future payments. If at anytime the USED determined that a state needs substantial intervention or there was a substantial failure to comply then the USED will do one or more of the following; recover funds, withhold future part B funds, refer the matter to the USED inspector general, or refer the matter for appropriate enforcement, up to and including the Department of Justice.175 The weight of these two laws put considerable strain on local schools. Administrators were faced with the daunting reality of punitive measures ranging from: loss of some local control, and Federal funding; to state take over of their schools. Out of frustration, superintendents sometimes argue that they could do a much better job rescuing kids if they were left to their own devices rather than the tender mercie s of state and federal initiatives.176 The Public Policy of Pa rental School Choice Parental school choice was one of the provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act .177 If a school failed to make adequate yearly progress fo r two years in a row parents must be given the option of transferring their children to a sc hool in the district that is making AYP.178 This was a new provision of the law but not a new concept. School choice dates back to the one-room school houses of the nineteenth century. At th at time communities had control over the pedagogical content and style of th eir schools. Over time schools and districts have grown in size creating a more cen tralized governance.179 175 John Norlin, NCLB and IDEA '04: A Side-By-Side Analysis 176 Carl Cohn, "NCLB Implementation Challenges: The Local Superintendent's View," second paragraph. 177 20 U.S.C. 6316 (b)(1)(E) (2002) 178 20 U.S.C. 6316 (b)(1)(E) (2002) 179 Kenneth Wong, and Herbert Walberg, "Introduction to the Special Issue on Contemporary School Choice Research," Peadbody Journal of Education 81, 2006 [journal on-line]; available

PAGE 50

50 School choice has experienced a mandated resurgence under NCLB .180 Fowler framed the debate over school choice excellently, School choice is easily the most controversia l education policy i ssue of our time. Its supporterswho are mostly, but not entirely, political conservativesusually advocate school choice as a way to use competition to encourage public schools to improve. Its opponentswho are mostly, but not entirely, polit ical liberalsusually argue against it because they fear that it will increase segregation by race and social class while transforming the public school system into a dumping ground for the students who are the most difficult to educate.181 The proponents of school choice based its advantages on the concept of market accountability. This is an economic model being a pplied to the more abstract concept of school quality. While educational success can not be measured in dollars Adams and Hill made a good argument for market accountability. A market model of school accountability differs from other accountability systems in that the principal and accountable agents relate as customers and providers, exchanging patronage for service in the expectation that ch oice will promote quality service, at least at a level that satisfies customer expectations. In other words, in a market-based model, choice is the mechanism that promotes accountability.182 Looking at school choice from a market accounta bility model it would appear that it was a positive method of improving schools. Choice in combination with the punitive aspects of NCLB183 should have created better schools and districts.184 Not all researchers have seen choice http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/hww/jump start.jhtml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1790e70e397f5ebc28d3476 5dac3af941997791fcbaa69852931219ab6a37f112ac4b&fmt=H. 180 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 181 Frances Fowler, "The Great School Choice Debate," The Clearing House 76, September/October 2002: first paragraph [journal on-line]; available from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/hww/jump start.jhtml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1790e70e397f5ebc28d3431 da5cf9c16c0be836f5b32f82574cb617a8b962505a32e9&fmt=H. 182 Jacob Adams, and Paul Hill, "Educational Accountability in a Regulated Market," Peabody Journal of Education 81, 2006: third paragraph [journal on-line]; available from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/hww/jump start.jhtml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1790e70e397f5ebc28d3476 5dac3af941997791fcbaa698529312c4f984805fe267bc&fmt=H. 183 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002)

PAGE 51

51 policy in such a positive light. Of particular conc ern were the implications for special education students under the provisions of school choice. For instance Howe and Welner were concerned that school choice would make it easier for students with disabili ties to be excluded from higher performing schools. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act185 promoted inclusion. In the first section of IDEA it stated that SWD have a more effective education by, having high expectations for such children and ensuring thei r access to the general ed ucation curriculum in the regular classroom, to th e maximum extent possible186 Choice under NCLB187 encouraged competition by promoting one standard to measure the achievement of all students and implementing punitive measures for schools that fail to make AYP.188 These purposes are at odds. Howe and Welner contended that schools will find ways to keep from accepting SWD from lower performing schools, leaving their fate to a legally if not de facto substandard school.189 Laws are passed with the intent of changing pub lic policy. It is important to note that the intent of policy change is not necessarily born out in the reality of its implementation. Petrilli had a rather sardonic view of NCLB ,190 While the laws rhetoric is John Wayne tough, its reality is Tiny Tim timidCompetition via school choice is the other weapon in the tough love arsenal, 184 See arguments presented in throughout this section. 185 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. (2004) 186 20 U.S.C. 1400 (c)(5)(A) (2004) 187 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 188 20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2) (2002) 189 Kenneth Howe, and Kevin Welner, "School Choice and th e Pressure to Perform: Deja Vu for Children with Disabilities?," Remedial and Special Education 23, July/August 2002 [journal on-line]; available from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/hww/jump start.jhtml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1790e70e397f5ebc28d3431 da5cf9c16c0be86e32a9bf3ee744ded46fd7f1c7a2c194&fmt=H. 190 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002)

PAGE 52

52 and until its wielded at large scale, we are unlikely to see real results.191 Choice implies options. If parents are not awar e of the option, they do not have one. Howell found that only 0.3 percent of students in Massachusetts public sc hools who were eligible for school choice took advantage of it. His study attributed this to parents not being informed of their option.192 There is no doubt that all the policy changes in the world will not have the intended impact if that policy is not followed. School choice is no different from any other policy if it were not implemented as intended under the auspices of NCLB193 its true impact on the quality of education will not be known. Public Policy and Subgroup AYP Under NCLB The im pact of the students with disa bilities population on AYP as dictated by NCLB194 was not well examined in peer reviewed literature. Peer reviewed public po licy articles that did examine the SWD subgroup impact on AYP195 made reference to the lack of literature on the subject. Many articles noted th e lack of research on the imp act of subgroups in general on AYP.196 Other areas of concern in cluded; standardization, subg roup size, narrowing of the curriculum, and alternative assessments. 191 Michael Petrilli, "Misdirected Energy," Education Next 7, Winter 2007: Third paragraph[journal on-line]; available from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/hww/jump start.jhtml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1790e70e397f5ebc28d3452 4897178207968bb49fee422d0fad8d108a9dc55fa404f1&fmt=H. 192 William Howell, "Switching Schools? A Closer Look at Parents' Initial Interest in and Knowledge about the Choice Provisions of No Child Left Behind," Peabody Journal of Education 81, 2006 [journal on-line]; available from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/hww/jump start.jhtml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1790e70e397f5ebc28d3476 5dac3af941997791fcbaa6985293124d8866ad5faa3d96&fmt=H. 193 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 194 20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2) (2002) 195 20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2) (2002) 196 20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2) (2002)

PAGE 53

53 McLaughlin, Embler, and Herna ndez noted three aspects of NCLB197 public policy of concern to SWD: universal conten t, and achievement standards; st andardized assessments for all students; high stakes account ability. They noted that AYP198 was the most controversial policy dictated by NCLB ,199 particularly for subgroup populations. Ac cording to their article the policy behind NCLB200 held every student to the same standa rds regardless of circumstances. They pointed out that SWD subgroup data were frequently not report ed due to subgroup size. This meant that the necessary changes needed to bene fit SWD were not likely to be recognized and implemented.201 Abedi pointed out that in many schools some of the subgroups were small enough that AYP data was not reported.202 The required minimum size for a subgroup to be considered statistically significant varied widely. McLaughlin, Embler, and Hernandez reported that for subgroups to be counted in AYP203 calculations the minimum s ubgroup size ranged from 5 to 200.204 The concern with this policy was that, if subgroups were freque ntly not included in 197 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 198 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 199 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 200 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 201 Margaret McLaughlin, Sandra Embler, and Glenda Hernandez, "No child Left Behind and Students with Disabilities in Rural and Small Schools," Rural Special Education Quarterly 24, Winter 2005 [journal on-line]; available from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/hww/jump start.jhtml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1790e70e397f5ebc28d34d4 3ce33921c936bafae31186a870d08d55d510cf24f8f707&fmt=P. 202 Jamal Abedi, "The No Child Left Behind Act and E nglish Language Learners: Assessment and Accountability Issues," Educational Researcher 33, January/February 2004 [journal on-line]; available from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/hww/jumpst art.jhtml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1790e70e397f5ebc28d34ee 4f4d140d9e929b00d8126029350d633419a1ecbec6f5b8&fmt=P. 203 20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2) (2002) 204 Margaret McLaughlin, Sandra Embler, and Glenda Hernandez, "No child Left Behind and Students with Disabilities in Rural and Small Schools,"

PAGE 54

54 AYP205 calculation, then it is impossible to tell if NCLB206 was truly leaving no child behind. Hager and Slocum were of the view that policy should not just be about meeting legal mandates but rather meeting the vision behind the policy.207 Rosenbusch viewed NCLB208 as a public policy whose premise was that Americas public schools were failing. She felt that NCLB209 policies might actually be detrimental to schools with large numbers of students falling into the subgr oups of concern. The l ogic behind the argument was that schools with a large number of low SES students will tend to narrow the focus of the curriculum to primarily include only tested subjec ts. This focus would deprive the very students NCLB210 was supposed to help of a broader liberal arts education.211 No Child Left Behind represented an unprecedented change in public school policy. Coladarci wrote, much about NCLB is troublesome not least of which is the delusional expectation that all student s reach proficiency by 2014.212 One of his other issues of concern was subgroup AYP. He pointed out the double edge d sword of subgroups not being counted due 205 20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2) (2002) 206 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 207 Karen Hager, and Timothy Slocum, "Using Altern ate Assessment to Improve Educational Outcomes," Rural Special Education Quarterly 24, Winter 2005 [journal on-line]; available from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/hww/jump start.jhtml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1790e70e397f5ebc28d34d4 3ce33921c936bafae31186a870d08ded29550b2da403bf&fmt=P. 208 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 209 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 210 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 211 Marcia Rosenbusch, "The No child Left Behind Act and Teaching and Learning Languages in U.S. Schools," The Modern Language Journal 89, Summer 2005 [journal on-line]; available from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/hww/jump start.jhtml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1790e70e397f5ebc28d34d4 3ce33921c936bab732a74ef514ca7d3bb90196a07ab1dc&fmt=P. 212 Theodore Coladarci, "Adequate Yearly Progress, Small Schools, and Students with Disabilities: The Importance of Confidence Intervals When Making Judgments About AYP," Rural Special Education Quarterly 24, Winter 2005: 45[journal on-line]; available from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/hww/jump start.jhtml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1790e70e397f5ebc28d34d4 3ce33921c936bafae31186a870d08d214420b45e69a568&fmt=P.

PAGE 55

55 to small size, and also the f act that if one subgroup failed to make AYP the entire school failed.213 Theoretically in a small school one studen t in a subgroup could be the cause of the whole school failing to make AYP.214 Students with disabilities must participate in high-high stakes testing, but had more options than the other subgroups. These students co uld: take the general assessment without accommodations; take the general assessment with accommodations; take an alternative assessment. Towles-Reves, Kampfer-Bohach, Garrett, Kearns, and Grisham-Brown demonstrated concern that ofte ntimes the accommodations on a students IEP were not properly followed during testing.215 Up to 1 percent of the SWD subgroup could make AYP by passing an alternative assessment.216 Alternative assessments were to mirror the standards on regular assessments. This limited the ability to assess functional skills which were often the IEP goals for students with severe disabilities. An add itional quandary regarding alternative assessments was the lack of research on the effectiveness of large scale alte rnative assessments in addressing achievement levels of students with severe disabilities.217 213 Theodore Coladarci, "Adequate Yearly Progress, Small Schools, and Students with Disabilities: The Importance of Confidence Intervals When Making Judgments About AYP," 214 Nancy Harriman, "Perceptions of Stude nts and Educators on the Impact of No Child Left Behind: Some Will and Some Won't," Rural Special Education Quarterly 24, Winter 2005 [journal on-line]; available from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/hww/jump start.jhtml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1790e70e397f5ebc28d34d4 3ce33921c936bafae31186a870d08d2dda8d97304fced1&fmt=P. 215 Elizabeth Towles-Reeves, Stephanie Kampfer-Bohach, Br ent Garrett, Jacqueline Kearns, and Jennifer GrishamBrown, "Are We Leaving Our Children Behind?," Journal of Disability Policy Studies 17, Summer 2006 [journal on-line]; available from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/hww/jump start.jhtml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1790e70e397f5ebc28d3476 5dac3af94199776137a7383c9ea5d714e927b0bf863b3d&fmt=P. 216 Karen Hager, and Timothy Slocum, "Using Alternate Assessment to Improve Educational Outcomes," 217 Diane Browder, and Karena Cooper-Duffy, "Evidence-Base d Practices for Students with Severe Disabilities and the Requirement for Accountability in "No Child Left Behind"," The Journal of Special Education 37, Fall 2003 [journal on-line]; available from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/hww/jumpst art.jhtml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1790e70e397f5ebc28d34eb dacdb87ed2eb68a040217c85d023f995a16c0aad0caf58&fmt=P.

PAGE 56

56 No Child Left Behind was viewed by some as a policy that micromanaged education through the extensive reporting requirements.218 Platt, Casey, and Faessel noted that the reporting requirements of NCLB made alternative programming diffi cult, straining the resources and options for students served in juvenile justice facilities.219 Ultimately it is not the intent of policy that matters but the reality of its translation into practice.220 It is important that educators examine and report on the impact public policies have in practice and make recommendations for any needed reforms.221 218 Laura Chapman, "Status of Elementary Art Education," Studies in Art Education 46, Winter 2005 [journal online]; available from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/hww/jump start.jhtml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1790e70e397f5ebc28d34d4 3ce33921c936baeab7c26b17ddc b6a63e6d7eae071345f&fmt=P. 219 John Platt, Richard Casey, and Richard Faessel, "The Need for a Paradigmatic Change in Juvenile Correctional Education," Preventing School Failure 51, Fall 2006 [journal on-line]; available from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/hww/jump start.jhtml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1790e70e397f5ebc28d3476 5dac3af9419977064da2ce364287f03363fb93287cfb73&fmt=P. 220 Nancy Ares, and Edward Buendia, "Opportunities Lost: Local Translations of Advocacy Policy Conversations," Teachers College Record 109, March 2007 [journal on-line]; available from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/hww/jump start.jhtml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1790e70e397f5ebc28d3452 4897178207968b74306d132681a7965764ea8546de85b3&fmt=P. 221 Laura Chapman, "Status of Elementary Art Education,"

PAGE 57

57 CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH DESIGN Introduction The purpose of this public policy study wa s to discover the impact of the special education1 student population on the policies set forth by the No Child Left Behind Act ( NCLB ).2 The successfulness of Florida schools and districts under NCLB3 was measured through the ability to make adequate yearly progress (AYP).4 This study was conducted utilizing data collected on the performance of st udents with disabilities (SWD) as a subgroup of the entire high school population. The study was done in the state of Florida becau se it had a model state plan for increasing student achievement.5 Floridas law governing achieving adequate yearly progress was the A+ Plan .6 Governor Bush signed the A+ Plan7 into law in 2000. The basic principals of the A+ Plan were: Set state goals, Measure annual learning, Grade schools and monitor progress, Eliminate social promotion, Reward schools, Assist failing schools, 1 Special education is a generic term for students qualifying for more individualized education. Under IDEA these students are referred to as individuals with disabilities [20 U.S.C. 1400 (c)(1)]. In NC LB they are referenced as students with disabilities, SWD [20 U.S.C. 6311 (b)(2)(C)(v)(II)(cc)]. In Flor ida it is referred to as exceptional student education ESE [FLA. Stat. ch. 1003.01 (3)(a)]. All the above terms are used interchangeably in this paper. 2 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 3 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 4 20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2) (2002) 5 Paul Peterson, and Martin West, "I s Your Child's School Effective?," Education Next 6, Fall 2006 [journal online]; available from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hs cl.ufl.edu/hww/results/results_single_fulltext.jhtml. 6 FLA. Stat. ch. 2006.74 (2006). 7 FLA. Stat. ch. 2006.74 (2006)

PAGE 58

58 Give parents more choices, Raise educator standards, Rate college of education performance, Raise admission standards to education programs, Reward quality educators, Hold educators accountable, Improve teacher training,8 The grading of schools and distri cts referred to in Floridas A+ Plan9 were used to determine if they had made adequate yearly progress.10 Many of these concepts were parallel to the policies of NCLB ,11 as the A+ Plan12 was Floridas primary policy for NCLB13 compliance.14 In summary this public policy study utilized tw o different overall measures for collecting data. The first policy was Floridas grading syst em for districts and schools. The second policy was schools and districts making AYP under NCLB .15 It is important to und erstand the nature of these data before examining the collecti on methodology that was used in this study. Floridas Grading System The Florida legislature created school distri cts contiguous with c ounty boundaries creating a total of sixty-seven geog raphically large districts.16 These districts were comprised of 3,830 8 FLA. Stat. ch. 2006.74 (2006) This revised numerous sections of Florida law. 9 FLA. Stat. ch. 2006.74 (2006) 10 Florida Department of Education, "2006 Guide to Calculating Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): Technical Assistance Paper," [online] Florida Depart ment of Education, 2006, available from . 11 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 12 FLA. Stat. ch. 2006.74 (2006) 13 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 14 Paul Peterson, and Martin West, "I s Your Child's School Effective?," 15 20 U.S.C. 6311 (b)(2) (2002) 16 Fla. Const. art. IX, 4 (a)

PAGE 59

59 schools with 318,721 full time teachers, serving 2,673,563 students,17 of which 521,257 were students with disabilities.18 Floridas schools were assigned grades from A to F. These grades were determined by several fact ors including points awarded base d on six performance criteria: 1. One point for each percent of student s who meet high standards by scoring at or above FCAT19 Achievement Level 3 in reading. 2. One point for each percent of student s who meet high standards by scoring at or above FCAT Achievement Level 3 in mathematics. 3. One point for each percent of student s who meet high standards by scoring 3.5 or higher on the FCAT writing assessment. In the event that there are not at least 30 eligible students tested in wri ting, the district average in writing is substituted. 4. One point for each percent of students making learning gains in reading. 5. One point for each percent of student s making learning gains in mathematics. 6. One point for each percent of the lo west performing students making learning gains in reading. In the event that there are not at least 30 eligible students, the schools reading learning gains are substituted.20 These points were totaled and turned into grades: 410 and above, was an A school; 380409 was a B school; 320-379 was a C school; 28 0-319 was a D school; anything less than 280 gave a school a grade of F. In addition to th e point system two other factors were used in calculating school grades. Schools ha d to test at least 90 percent21 of students or the grade was lowered. In order to be an A school at least 95 percent of students must have been tested. A 17 Florida Department of Education, "Florida School District Data," [online] Your Florida Department of Education, 2006, available from . 18 Florida Department of Education, "ESE Rules Changes Webcast," [online] Bureau of Exceptional Education and Student Services, 2007, available from . 19 The Florida Comprehensive Achievement Test (FCAT) is the statewide standardized test based on high standards given in Florida. As mandated by: 20 U.S.C. 6311 (b)(2)(A) (2002) 20 Florida Department of Education, "2006 Guide to Calculating School Grades: Technical Assistance Paper," [online] Florida Department of Education, 2006, available from . 21 NCLB requires 95 percent of students be tested to achieve AYP, as noted in: 20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2)(I) (2002)

PAGE 60

60 second rule was that schools earning a C or better must show that at least half of the lowest performing students made annual lear ning gains (within the last two years), for a school to earn an A, half of the lowest performing students must have made gains during the current year.22 Adequate Yearly Progress Public Policy enacted by the Florida state legislature created a sy stem of using school grades as the measure of su ccess for schools and districts.23 This public policy study was conducted in Florida; however, the ultimate test was not state measures, but rather how the districts and schools performed based on the national standards set forth in NCLB .24 The national standard under NCLB was AYP.25 The No Child Left Behind Act allowed individual states to submit plans for how they would measure AYP.26 Floridas plan had four major components; participation, reading proficiency, ma th proficiency, and other criteria.27 Participation: At least 95% of all students enrolled in a public school participate in the state assessment program. Students must be tested using the FCAT or an appropriate alternate assessment for limited English prof icient students (LEP) and students with disabilities (SWD). This requirement applie s to all students and each subgroup for reading and mathematics.28 22 Florida Department of Education, "2006 Guide to Calculating School Grades: Technical Assistance Paper," [online] Florida Department of Education, 2006, available from . 23 Florida Department of Education, "2006 Guide to Calculating School Grades: Technical Assistance Paper," [online] Florida Department of Education, 2006, available from . 24 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 25 20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2) (2002) 26 Floridas plan can be viewed at: http://www.fldoe.org/NCLB/ 27 FLA. Stat. ch. 2006.74 (2006) 28 These groups are mandated by NCLB to include; all major ethnic groups, economically disadvantaged, limited English proficient, and students with disabilities. As manda ted by: 20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2) (2002). This makes a total of eight sub groups in Florida. This information was gathered from, FLA. Stat. ch. 1008.34 (2006) The direct quotes are from a technical assistance paper, see: Florida Department of Education, "2006 Guide to Calculating Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): Technical Assist ance Paper," [online] Florida Department of Education, 2006, available from .

PAGE 61

61 Reading Proficiency: The state has set annual objectives for reading proficiency based on the ultimate goal to have 100% of all stude nts proficient in reading by 2013-14. For 200506, the state objective is to have at least 44% of all students and each subgroup reading at or above grade level. For purposes of AYP determination, students scoring 3 and above are considered proficient.29 Math Proficiency: The state has also set annual object ives for math proficiency based on the ultimate goal to have 100% of all stude nts proficient in math by 2013-14. For 2005-06, the state objective is to have at least 50% of all stude nts and each subgroup scoring at or above grade level in math. For purposes of AYP determination, students scoring 3 and above are considered proficient.30 Other Criteria: NCLB requires the state definition of AYP to include graduation rate and at least one additional academic indicator as de termined by the state. In Florida, the writing assessment will be used as the additional indicat or and school grades will be used as an additional condition. Thus, in a ddition to the three criteria listed above, schools must meet three other criteria: Improve performance in Writing by 1%: All schools must demonstrate a 1% improvement in the percentage of students m eeting state standards in writing. For purposes of AYP determination, students scoring 3 and above are meeting state standards. The writing target is also met if the school has a writing performance rate of 90% or better.31 Improve the graduation rate by 1%: High schools must demonstrate a 1% improvement in its graduation rate. The target is also met if a school attains a rate of 85% or better in the current year.32 The school is not a D or an F: The A+ school Grades are ca lculated prior to AYP. If a school receives a D or an F, th at school does not make AYP.33 All of these guidelines for making AYP in the st ate of Florida were s ubject to two caveats of exception; the first being safe harbor, and the second being the stude nts with disabilities mathematical adjustment. Safe harbor allowed schools that had met all other requirements 29 This information was gathered from, FLA. Stat. ch. 10 08.34 (2006) The direct q uotes are from a technical assistance paper, see: Florida Department of Education, "2006 Guide to Calculating Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): Technical Assistance Paper," [online] Florida Department of Education, 2006, available from . 30 Ibid. 31 Ibid. 32 Ibid. 33 Ibid.

PAGE 62

62 except for proficiency in reading and/or math to make AYP if th e sub group(s) in question met all other requirements and improved proficiency by at least 10 percent over the prior years calculation.34 Of great importance to this study was the SWD mathematical adjustment. This adjustment allowed for an increase in the percentage of students making AYP in the SWD subgroup, if the only reason the schoo l failed to make AYP was due to the math and/or reading proficiency of the SWD subgroup. If the SWD subgroup made AYP with the additional 13 percent mathematical adjustment35 then the school was deemed to have made AYP.36 Data Collection Data regarding grades and AYP were collected from the offi cial Florida Department of Education (FLDOE) website.37 This site was an open domain, with no identifiers for data on individual students. The FLDOE site had search able data bases for gathering information on grades, AYP and many other types of edu cational data on districts and schools.38 No one report contained all the information ne eded, thus reports had to be examined for each district and subsequently for each school.39 In the process of c onducting the secondary data analysis the first 34 Florida Department of Education, "2006 Guide to Calculating Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): Technical Assistance Paper," [online] Florida Depart ment of Education, 2006, available from . 35 Florida Department of Education, "Florida School Grades and Adequate Yearly Progress," [online] Florida Department of Education, 2006, available from . 36 Florida Department of Education, "2006 Guide to Calculating Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): Technical Assistance Paper," [online] Florida Depart ment of Education, 2006, available from . 37 "Florida Department of Education," [online] av ailable from . 38 "Florida Department of Education," [online] Florida School Grades, available from . 39 Appendix A containing representative reports.

PAGE 63

63 step in gathering data was to compare the grades for all sixtyseven school districts.40 The highest and lowest scorin g districts were chosen for this pub lic policy analysis. The highest and lowest selected school districts were chosen for greatest degree of separation in achievement levels. This set up a dichotomous measure of data. Data of central tendency (districts graded B) were discarded as they produced no differential for comparison.41 The highest scoring districts made a grade of A, the lowest scoring districts received a grade of C. There were twenty-four A districts, and thirteen districts scoring a C, for a total of thirty-seven districts meeting the criteria for this study.42 High schools were used in this study due to the high stakes measures governing receiving a standard high school diploma.43 Ultimately much of the final measure of the accountability movement driving education was based on graduation rates of high school students.44 Each of the thirty-seven districts were examin ed to identify the highest and lowest graded high schools. The examination continued with review ing the district-school accountability report for each district.45 The school reports consisted of three pages, each page represented an 40 Florida Department of Education, "Florida School Grad es," [online] 2005-2006 School Accountability Reports: All Districts, 2006, available from . 41 Brighton Webs Ltd, "Brighton Webs Ltd. Statistical and Data Services for Industry," [online] Brighton Webs Ltd, 2004, available from < http://www.brighton-w ebs.co.uk/Statistics/central_tendency.asp>. 42 Florida Department of Education, "Florida School Grad es," [online] 2005-2006 School Accountability Reports: All Districts, 2006, available from . 43 Florida Department of Education, "FCAT Myths vs. Facts," [online] Florida Department of Education, available from . 44 Lorraine McDonnell, "No Child Left Behind and the Fede ral Role in Education: Evolution or Revolution?," Peabody Journal of Education 80, 2005 [journal on-line]; available from; http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/hww/jump start.jhtml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1790e70e397f5ebc28d34d4 3ce33921c936bac3ec95d92632237e958b3509534641b7&fmt=H. 45 See appendix A for sample district report. The main databa se searchable site can be found at: "Florida Department of Education," [online] Florida School Grades, available from .

PAGE 64

64 individual report. The first repo rt contained thirty-nine cells giving an overview of the schools achievement. Thirty-six of the cel ls were dichotomous indicating if the school tested 95 percent of the population, and subgroup populat ions, and if the target per centage of the aforementioned were at grade level or not. Th e other three cells were; total writing proficiency met, total graduation criteria met, and the school grade. Th e second page gave the actual percentages for the same information. The third page ga ve the number of students in each cell.46 This examination yielded 109 school s ranging in grade from A to F.47 Within this data set the schools were further examined to determine if they made AYP or not.48 Reports from each school were examined to determine what specific factors were involved in the achievement of AYP.49 A general factor in making AYP in Florida included provisional AYP.50 Factors relevant to making AYP or not were considered in terms of the SWD subgroup. These factors included; if the subgroup was to small to have to be considered in school AYP calculations, safe harbor, and if the SWD mathematical adjustment wa s applied. This resulted in fifteen schools to 46 See appendix A for sample reports. The main database s earchable site can be found at: "Florida Department of Education," [online] Florida Sc hool Grades, available from . 47 All of the highest and lowest scoring schools were review ed in each of the highest an d lowest scoring districts. 48 Schools that made provisional AYP under Floridas guidelines were counted as not having made AYP because they did not make AYP under NCLB. 49 See appendix A for a sample school reports. The main database searchable site can be found at: "Florida Department of Education," [online] Florida School Grades, available from . 50 FLA. Stat. ch. 1008.31 (1)(b) (2007); Provisional AYP did not count under NCLB. As noted in: American Teacher, "Florida Reveals AYP Disconnect," American Teacher 90, November 2005 [journal on-line]; available from; http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/hww/result s/results_fulltext_maincontentframe.jhtml;hwwilsonid=X M325AKTNCOSRQA3DIOSFF4ADUNGMIV0.

PAGE 65

65 examine with regard to how they made AYP an d as to the impact of the SWD subgroup on a school making AYP.51 Summary Data from Florida school dist ricts and high schools were ev aluated in terms of making AYP under the auspices of NCLB52 and with regard to school/distr ict grades as determined under the regulations set forth by Floridas A+ Plan .53 Both accountability policies were designed to improve student performance. The considerable disparity in the ratings between the two methods of evaluation was examined. Data showed that despite Floridas A+ Plan54 being the States NCLB55 compliance plan, the two were not evalua ting districts and schools in similar enough manners to provide equivalent results.56 In addition it became ev ident that a SWD population large enough to be counted57 hindered the likelihood of a high school making AYP.58 Ultimately all these data were evaluated with regard to the impact the SWD population had on making AYP under NCLB59 in selected Florida high schools 51 These data were distilled from 472 reports comprising over 1100 pa ges of information. 52 20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2) (2002) 53 FLA. Stat. ch. 2006.74 (2006) 54 FLA. Stat. ch. 2006.74 (2006) 55 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 56 Appendicies B and C. 57 The subgroup had to be at least 30 students, and be 15 percent of the total school population or 100 students to be included in AYP calculations: Florida Department of Education, "2006 Guide to Calculating Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): Technical Assistance Paper," [online] Fl orida Department of Education, 2006, available from . 58 20 U.S.C. 6311 (b)(2) (2002) 59 20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2) (2002)

PAGE 66

66 CHAPTER 4 OBSERVATIONS Introduction The data set for the study was public high schools in the state of Florida. T he most recent data available were used.1 All sixty-seven school districts in the state of Florida were examined. High schools were the focus of the study due to the impact high-stakes testing had on receiving a high school diploma.2 Examining the highest and lowest grad ed districts resulted in thirty-seven districts to review, twenty-four gr aded A, and thirteen graded C.3 The thirty-seven districts ranged in population from 1,225 to 271,470 students, with an average of 33,365 students. The ESE population ranged from 12 to 33 percent, averaging 21 percent.4 The total percent of criteria met for each district ranged from 67 to 92 percent.5 Within the aforementioned districts the highest and lowest scoring high sc hools yielded 109 schools to revi ew, ranging in grades from A to F.6 School populations ranged from sixty-seven to 2,693 with an average size of 933. The percentage of ESE students at the school leve l ranged from 1 to 28 percent, averaging 13 percent.7 1 Data were sometimes referred to as 2005-2006 and sometimes as 2006, these referenced the same school year. 2 Michael Gunzenhauser, "Normalizing the Educated Subject: A Foucaultian Analysis of High-Stakes Accountability," Educational Studies 39, June 2006 [journal on-line]; available from; http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/hww/jump start.jhtml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1790e70e397f5ebc28d3476 5dac3af941997740cd242bb5958ae9ed4a63bd5808fb11&fmt=H. 3 Appendix B for district data. 4 The main database searchable site can be found at: "Florida Department of Education," [online] Florida School Grades, available from . 5 Appendix B district data. 6 Appendix C. 7 The main database searchable site can be found at: "Florida Department of Education," [online] Florida School Grades, available from

PAGE 67

67 State, district, and school reports were set up with three different pages on the official Florida Department of Education (FLDOE) website.8 The first page consisted of thirty-eight9 dichotomous cells marked yes or no. Thirty-six of the cells were made up of rows and columns. The rows were labeled; Total, White, Black, Hi spanic, Asian, American Indian, Economically Disadvantaged, Limited English Proficiency, and Students with Disabilities. The four columns were headed; 95% Tested Reading, 95% Test ed Math, Reading Proficiency Met, Math Proficiency Met. The other two cells were; Tota l Writing Proficiency Met, and Total Graduation Criterion Met. The report also indicated the percen t of cells met, and if AYP were achieved. The second page gave more detailed data, and list ed the percentages, for participation and proficiency in each category and subgroup. The third page of the re port listed the actual number of students participating or making proficiency in each category.10 The state level page one report contained thir ty-eight cells for reporting information. Of these thirty were satisfactorily met, putting the states percentage of criteria met at 79 percent. The state of Florida did test 95 percent of the Students With Disabiliti es (SWD) subgroup in both reading and math; however, the SWD subgroup did not meet the proficiency requirements in either reading or math.11 Only 30 percent of the SWD popula tion scored at grade level in . 8 Each page is a different website. "Florida Department of Education," [online] Florida School Grades, available from . 9 Thirty-nine cells for the individual school reports. 10 Appendix A for sample reports; The main database sear chable site can be found at: "Florida Department of Education," [online] Florida Sc hool Grades, available from . 11 State report page one: Florida Department of Education, [online] Florida School Grades, available from http://schoolgrades.fldoe.org/default.asp.

PAGE 68

68 reading, the target was 44 percen t. In math only 32 percent of the SWD subgroup were at grade level, the target was 50 percent. The total state population did make the ta rget percentages, with 57 percent on grade level in reading, and 61 percent on grade level in math.12 The state as a whole did not make AYP under NCLB.13 These data were summarized in table 4-1. Table 4-1 State percentages of st udents at or above grade level Actual Goal Total reading 57% 44% Total math 61% 50% SWD reading 30% 44% SWD math 32% 50% The district page one report wa s organized in the same manner as the state report. It also contained thirty-eight cells. Four of the cells concerned the SWD sub group; percent tested in reading, percent tested in math, percent at grade level in reading, and per cent at grade level in math. None of the thirty-seven district s studied made AYP as defined by NCLB.14 Twenty-four districts were graded A:15 twenty-one met the criteria for two of the ESE cells; three met the criteria for three of the ESE cells. Th irteen districts made a grade of C:16 one met the criteria for all of the ESE cells; ten met the criteria for two cells; one achieved in one cell; one met the criteria for none of the cells.17 These data were summarized in table 4-2. 12 State report page two: Florida Department of Education, [online] Florida School Grades, available from http://schoolgrades.fldoe.org/default.asp?action= reportAYP2&thisdistrict=00&thisschoolYear=20052006&schoolNumbers=&districts=46&schoolYear=2005 %2D2006&school_grade=&report=AYP&level=State. 13 State report page one: Florida Department of Education, [online] Florida School Grades, available from http://schoolgrades.fldoe.org/default.asp. 14 None of the sixty-seven districts in Florida made AYP. See the sample district report in appendix A. Appendix B shows data on the districts that qualified for the study. 15 Alachua, Bay, Brevard, Broward, Calhoun, Charlotte, Citr us, Clay, Gilchrist, Hillsbor ough, Leon, Marion, Martin, Monroe, Nassau, Okaloosa, Palm Beach, Santa Rosa, Sara sota, Seminole, St. Johns, Sumter, Wakulla, Walton. 16 Baker, Bradford, Columbia, DeSoto, Franklin, Gadsden, Hamilton, Hendry, Jefferson, Madison, Putnam, Suwannee, Taylor. 17 See appendix B for district data. See appendix A for sample district report. The main database searchable site can be found at: "Florida Department of Education," [online] Florida School Grades, available from

PAGE 69

69 Table 4-2 District grades and number of ESE cells met Grade 4 Cells 3 Cells 2 Cells 1 Cell 0 Cells A 0 3 21 0 0 C 1 0 10 1 1 The individual school reports we re designed in the same manner as the state and district reports. Page one of each school report had thirty-nine cells,18 including the aforementioned four ESE cells. One hundred and nine high schools were reviewed in th is public policy study: fortytwo made a grade of A; twenty-two made a grade of B; twenty made a grade of C; twenty-four made a grade of D; one school was graded F. Thirty-five of the schools discounted AYP for the SWD subgroup as not applicable;19 eleven met the criteria for none of the ESE cells; six met the criteria for one cell; forty-six met the criteria fo r two cells; nine met the criteria for three cells; two met the criteria for all four ESE cells.20 These data were summarized in table 4-3. Table 4-3 Number of ESE cells met by all schools in study # Cells met NA 4 3 2 1 0 # Schools 35 2 9 46 6 11 School Grades and ESE Criteria Forty-two schools m ade a grade of A: eighteen had ESE cells listed as not applicable due to the subgroup size; two made th e criteria for all cells; eight made the criteria for three cells; . 18 The school report added a cell for school grade not included in the state and district page one reports. State and district grades were gathered from other reports. See appendix A. 19 If a subgroup was small enough not to be counted in AYP calculations under Federal guidelines it was designated as NA in the cell. For a subgroup to be counted in AYP cal culations, the subgroup must have at least thirty students, and account for at least 15 percent of the school population in tested grades or be 100 students or more. As noted in: Florida Department of Education, "2006 Guide to Calculating Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): Technical Assistance Paper," [online] Florida Depart ment of Education, 2006, available from . 20 Appendix C school data.

PAGE 70

70 eleven made the criteria for two cells; two made the criteria for one cell; one made none of the ESE cell criteria. These data were summarized in table 4-4. Table 4-4 Number of ESE cells met by A schools in study # Cells met NA 4 3 2 1 0 # Schools 18 2 8 11 2 0 Twenty-two schools made a grade of B: four ha d ESE cells listed as not applicable due to the subgroup size; none made the criteria for al l cells; none made the cr iteria for three cells; eleven made the criteria for two cells; three made the cr iteria for one cell; f our made none of the criteria. These data were summarized in table 4-5. Table 4-5 Number of ESE cells met by B schools in study # Cells met NA 4 3 2 1 0 # Schools 4 0 0 11 3 4 Twenty schools made a grade of C: five had ES E cells listed as not applicable due to the subgroup size; none made the criteria for all cells; none made the criteria for three cells; fourteen made the criteria for two cells; none made the crit eria for one cell; one made none of the criteria. These data were summarized in table 4-6. Table 4-6 Number of ESE cells met by C schools in study # Cells met NA 4 3 2 1 0 # Schools 5 0 0 14 0 1 Twenty-four schools made a grade of D: eight ha d ESE cells listed as not applicable due to the subgroup size; none made the criteria for all cells; one made th e criteria for three cells; ten made the criteria for two cells; one made the criteria for one cell; four made none of the criteria. These data were summarized in table 4-7. Table 4-7 Number of ESE cells met by D schools in study # Cells met NA 4 3 2 1 0 # Schools 8 0 1 10 1 4

PAGE 71

71 The school that was graded an F did not m eet the criteria for any of the ESE cells.21 Data from this section were summar ized in part in table 4-8. Table 4-8 School Grades and ESE criteria Grade # ESE cells met # Of schools # Making AYP A NA 18 11 A 4 2 2 A 3 8 0 A 2 11 0 A 1 2 0 A 0 1 0 B NA 4 2 B 4 0 0 B 3 0 0 B 2 11 0 B 1 3 0 B 0 4 0 C NA 5 0 C 4 0 0 C 3 0 0 C 2 14 0 C 1 0 0 C 0 1 0 D NA 8 0 D 4 0 0 D 3 1 0 D 2 10 0 D 1 1 0 D 0 4 0 F 0 1 0 School Grades and Percent of Criteria Met Forty-two schools were scored an A, thirteen of them made 100 per cent of the criteria: eleven of the thirteen made 100 percent of th e criteria by dismissing the ESE population as not applicable due to the size of the subgroup; two met the criteria for all four ESE cells. Twenty-one 21 Appendix C for school data. Appendix A for sample school reports. The main database searchable site can be found at: "Florida Department of Education," [online] Florida School Grades, available from .

PAGE 72

72 A schools met 90 to 99 percent of the criteria : seven did so by using the not applicable designation for the ESE subgroup; seven met the cr iteria for three out of the four ESE cells; another seven made the criteria for two of the ESE cells. Seven A schools met between 80 and 89 percent of the criteria: one met the criteria for three out of four ESE cells; four met the criteria for two cells; one met the criteria for one cell; on e met the criteria for none of the ESE cells. One A school fell in the 70 to 79 percent range, meeting the criteria for one ESE cell. These data were summarized in table 4-9. Table 4-9 Percent of criteria met by A schools and number of ESE cells met # Cells met NA 4 3 2 1 0 100% of criteria 11 2 0 0 0 0 90-99% of criteria 7 0 7 7 0 0 80-89% of criteria 0 0 1 4 1 1 70-79% of criteria 0 0 0 0 1 0 60-69% of criteria 0 0 0 0 0 0 50-59% of criteria 0 0 0 0 0 0 Twenty-two schools made a grade of B: two me t 100 percent of the criteria, both of these did so while denoting the ESE subgroup as not applicable. Six schools graded B met 90 to 99 percent of the criteria: two di d so while denoting the ESE subgroup as not applicable; the other four met the criteria for two of the four ESE ce lls. Eleven of the B schools met 80 to 89 percent of the criteria: six of these school s met the criteria for two of the ESE cells; two met the criteria for one ESE cell; three failed to meet the criteria for any of the ESE cells Three of the schools earning a grade of B met 70 to 79 pe rcent of the criteria: one met the requirements for two out of four ESE cells; one met the requirements for one cell; one met the requirements for none of the ESE cells. These data were summarized in table 4-10. Twenty schools earned a grade of C, four met 90 to 99 percent of the cr iteria: three did so while designating the ESE subgroup as not applicable; one met the criteria for two of the four ESE cells. Ten of the C schools met 80 to 89 percen t of the criteria: one did so while designating

PAGE 73

73 the ESE subgroup as not applicable; the other nine met the criteria for two of the four ESE cells. Four of the schools that earned a grade of C met 70 to 79 percent of the criteria: one did so while designating the ESE subgroup as not applicable; the other three met the criteria for two out of four ESE cells. Two of the C schools met 60 to 69 percent of the criteria: one of these did so while meeting the criteria for two of the four ESE cells; the other met the criteria for none of the ESE cells. These data were summarized in table 4-11. Table 4-10 Percent of criteria met by B schools and number of ESE cells met # Cells met NA 4 3 2 1 0 100% of criteria 2 0 0 0 0 0 90-99% of criteria 2 0 0 4 0 0 80-89% of criteria 0 0 0 6 2 3 70-79% of criteria 0 0 0 1 1 1 60-69% of criteria 0 0 0 0 0 0 50-59% of criteria 0 0 0 0 0 0 Table 4-11 Percent of criteria met by C schools and number of ESE cells met # Cells met NA 4 3 2 1 0 100% of criteria 0 0 0 0 0 0 90-99% of criteria 3 0 0 1 0 0 80-89% of criteria 1 0 0 9 0 0 70-79% of criteria 1 0 0 3 0 0 60-69% of criteria 0 0 0 1 0 1 50-59% of criteria 0 0 0 0 0 0 Twenty-four schools earned a grade of D, three met 80 to 89 percent of the criteria: two did so while designating the ESE subgroup as not appli cable, the other one met the criteria for two out of four ESE cells. Fifteen of the D schools me t 70 to 79 percent of the criteria: five did so while designating the ESE subgroup as not applicable; one met the cr iteria for three out of four ESE cells; two met the criteria for two of the ESE cells; one met the criteria for one ESE cell; three met the criteria for none of the ESE cells. Five of the D schools met 60 to 69 percent of the criteria: one did so while desi gnating the ESE subgroup as not applicable; the othe r four met the

PAGE 74

74 criteria for two of the four ESE cells. One D sc hool met 50-59 percent of the criteria and met the requirements for none of the ESE cells. These data were summarized in table 4-12. Table 4-12 Percent of criteria met by D schools and number of ESE cells met # Cells met NA 4 3 2 1 0 100% of criteria 0 0 0 0 0 0 90-99% of criteria 0 0 0 0 0 0 80-89% of criteria 2 0 0 1 0 0 70-79% of criteria 5 0 1 2 1 3 60-69% of criteria 1 0 0 4 0 1 50-59% of criteria 0 0 0 0 0 1 The school that received a grade of F met 56 percent of the criteria and met the criteria for none of the ESE cells.22 Data from this section were su mmarized in part in table 4-13. Mitigating Factors There were several m itigating factors involved in determining if a school made adequate yearly progress or not. One of these was safe harbor.23 Safe harbor applied to subgroups in reading and math. The school in question must have met all of the othe r state indicators, in Florida these included; writing, graduation rate, and school grad e. The subgroup must have met writing proficiency by increasing sc ores by 1 percent or more over the prior year, or the school as a whole must have had 90 percent of st udents demonstrating writing proficiency. The subgroup must also have met the graduation rate requirement by increasing the graduation rate by 1 percent over the prior year, or the schools graduation rate must have been 85 percent or better. The subgroup could still be considered to have made AYP if the groups number of non22 See appendix C for school data. See appendix A for sample district report. The main database searchable site can be found at: "Florida Department of Education," [online] Florida School Grades, available from . 23 20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2)(I) (2002)

PAGE 75

75 proficient scores were reduced by at least 10 percent from th e prior year. Safe harbor only applied to subgroup AYP in reading and/or math.24 Table 4-13 Grade and % criteria met Grade % Criteria met # Of schools # NA for ESE A 100 13 11 A 90-99 21 7 A 80-89 7 0 A 70-79 1 0 B 100 2 2 B 90-99 6 2 B 80-89 11 0 B 70-79 3 0 C 90-99 20 3 C 80-89 10 1 C 70-79 4 1 C 60-69 2 0 D 80-89 3 2 D 70-79 15 5 D 60-69 5 1 D 50-59 1 0 F 56 1 0 Another provision that applie d to all subgroups was the size of the subgroup. The criteria for a subgroup making AYP only applied if there were at least thirty stud ents in the subgroup. In order for AYP to apply the number in the subgroup mu st also represent at least 15 percent of the schools tested population. If the group was not 15 percent of the schools tested population or 100 students then AYP did not apply to that subgroup in that school.25 No Child Left Behind made one provision specifically re lating to students with disabilities and calculating adequate yearly progress. This caveat allowed for 1 percent of the most 24 Florida Department of Education, "2006 Guide to Calculating Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): Technical Assistance Paper," [online] Florida Depart ment of Education, 2006, available from . 25 These are denoted as not applicable (NA) in the data. As noted in: Florida Department of Education, "2006 Guide to Calculating Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): Technical Assistance Paper," [online] Florida Department of Education, 2006, available from .

PAGE 76

76 cognitively impaired students with disabilities to take an altern ative assessment, as opposed to the statewide assessment used to measure if stud ents were meeting grade level requirements. The 1 percent was calculated on a district basis so as not to significantly penalize a particular school. Up to 1 percent of SWD could be considered at grade level if they made an acceptable score on the alternative assessment. These scores were included as proficient in AYP calculations.26 Florida had an additional exception with regard to the SWD subgroup making AYP. This exception was referred to as the SWD mathematical adjustment. This adjustment applied if the only reason a school did not make AYP was b ecause the SWD subgroup did not make AYP. The mathematical adjustment could be applied to the SWD subgroup in reading and/or math if the schools failure to make AYP was due solely to one of these two cells. In the 2005-2006 school year the SWD mathematical adjustment was 13 pe rcent. If the SWD subgroup reached the target proficiency level by adding 13 percent to the actua l percent proficient in reading and/or math then the subgroup was proficient and the school was deemed to have made AYP. The SWD subgroup must have met the requirements for wr iting proficiency and graduation rates for the mathematical adjustment to apply.27 The final issue in understanding these data was also a Florida policy. Florida had something referred to as provisional AYP.28 A school had to meet the cr iteria for all thirty-nine 26 NCLB did not limit how many students may take an alternative assessment as it was an IEP team decision, but if more than 1 percent took and passed an alternative assessmen t they had to be counted as non-proficient. As noted in: Florida Department of Education, "2006 Guide to Calculating Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): Technical Assistance Paper," [online] Florida Depart ment of Education, 2006, available from . 27 Florida Department of Education, "2006 Guide to Calculating Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): Technical Assistance Paper," [online] Florida Depart ment of Education, 2006, available from . 28 FLA. Stat. ch. 1008.31 (1)(b) (2007)

PAGE 77

77 cells to make AYP as outlined in NCLB .29 If the school failed to make AYP but was graded an A or B school then the state deemed it to have made provisional AYP.30 Forty-nine schools of the 109 in this study made provisional AYP.31 School Data Sixty-seven districts were re viewed; thirty-seven m et th e criteria for the study. One hundred and nine high schools met the study crit eria. Fifteen of the high schools made AYP under NCLB,32 thirteen were graded A and two earned a B. Two of the fifteen made AYP under NCLB33 without using the not applicable (NA) designation34 for the SWD subgroup. Both of these schools were graded A.35 One of the two schools to make AYP36 while not discounting the SWD subgroup was Bell High School located in the Gilchrist County School District. The G ilchrist County School District had 1,722 students enrolled to be tested in reading, and 1,718 in math. Four hundred and eighty and 479 were in the SWD subgr oup for reading and math respectively.37 Students with 29 20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2) (2002) 30 Florida Department of Education, "2006 Guide to Calculating Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): Technical Assistance Paper," [online] Florida Depart ment of Education, 2006, available from . 31 FLA. Stat. ch. 1008.31 (1)(b) (2007):;Provisional AYP did not count under NCLB (provisional AYP will be addressed in the following chapter). As noted in: Am erican Teacher, "Florida reveals AYP Disconnect," American Teacher 90, November 2005 [journal on-line]; available from; http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/hww/result s/results_fulltext_maincontentframe.jhtml;hwwilsonid=X M325AKTNCOSRQA3DIOSFF4ADUNGMIV0. 32 20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2) (2002) 33 20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2) (2002) 34 This means that the SWD subgroup did not need to be considered in AYP calculations. 35 Appendix C. 36 20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2) (2002) 37 District report page three: Florida Department of Education, [online] Florida School Grades, available from http://schoolgrades.fldoe.org/default.asp?action= reportAYP3&thisdistrict=21&thisschoolYear=20052006&schoolNumbers=&districts=21&schoolYear=2005%2D2006&school_grade=&report=AYP&level=District.

PAGE 78

78 Disabilities constituted 28 per cent of the Gilchrist County Sc hool District population. Ninetynine percent of the students in the SWD subgroup were tested. Thirty-f our and thirty-seven percent of ESE students scored at or above grade level in read ing and math respectively. Sixtythree and 70 percent of all tested students in the district scored at or above grade level in reading and math respectively.38 The district did not make AYP, mee ting only 90 percent of the criteria, receiving a grade of A. The district tested 95 percent of SWD but the subgroup did not reach the target proficiency rate in reading or math.39 Bell High School had 511 students to be tested in reading, and 509 to be tested in math. One hundred and forty-one and 140 were enrolled in the SWD subgroups for reading and math respectively. Twenty-eight percent of the Bell High School population was ESE.40 One hundred percent of students were test ed in the SWD subgroup. Twenty-eight percent of the SWD subgroup were at grade level in reading a nd 29 percent were proficient in math.41 The school as a whole had 55 and 65 percent of tested students sc oring at or above grad e level in reading and 38 District report page two: Florida Department of Education, [online] Florida School Grades, available from http://schoolgrades.fldoe.org/default.asp?action= reportAYP2&thisdistrict=21&thisschoolYear=20052006&schoolNumbers=&districts=21&schoolYear=2005%2D2006&school_grade=&report=AYP&level=District. 39 District report page one: Florida Department of Education, [online] Florida School Grades, available from http://schoolgrades.fldoe.org/default.asp. 40 School report page three: Florida Department of Education, [online] Florida School Grades, available from http://schoolgrades.fldoe.org/default.asp?action= reportAYP3&thisdistrict=21&thisschoolYear=20052006&schoolNumbers=210031&districts=21&schoolYear =2005%2D2006&school_grade=&report=AYP&level=Sc hool. 41 Theses scores fell short of the goals of 44 and 50 perc ent at grade level in reading and math respectively. They met the AYP criteria through the safe harbor provision. See school report page two: Florida Department of Education, [online] Florida School Grades, available from http://schoolgrades.fldoe.org/default.asp?action= reportAYP2&thisdistrict=21&thisschoolYear=20052006&schoolNumbers=210031&districts=21&schoolYear =2005%2D2006&school_grade=&report=AYP&level=Sc hool.

PAGE 79

79 math respectively. The school made AYP, meeting 100 percent of the crit eria, receiving a grade of A.42 The other high school to make AYP43 while including the SWD subgroup in AYP calculations was Niceville Seni or High School in the Okaloos a County School District. The Okaloosa County School District had 18,897 students enrolled to be tested in reading, and 18,891 in math. Three thousand one hundred and eighteen and 3,115 were in the SWD subgroup for reading and math respectivel y. Students with disabilities re presented 16 percent of the Okaloosa County School District.44 Ninety-seven percent of th e students in SWD subgroup were tested. District-wide 44 and 49 pe rcent of ESE students scored at or above grade level in reading and math respectively. Seventy and 75 percent of all tested students in the district scored at or above grade level in read ing and math respectively.45 The district did not make AYP,46 meeting only 92 percent of the criteria, receiving a grade of A. The district tested 95 percent of SWD subgroup, but the subgroup did not reach th e target proficiency rate in math.47 Niceville Senior High School had 1,185 students to be tested in reading, and 1,183 to be tested in math. One hundred and twenty-five a nd 124 were enrolled in the SWD subgroups for 42 School report page one: Florida Department of Education, [online] Florida School Grades, available from http://schoolgrades.fldoe.org/default.asp?action=verifySe lectionSchool&report=AYP&districts=21&schoolYear=20 05-2006&school_grade=&level=School&schoolNumbers=210031. 43 20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2) (2002) 44 District report page three: Florida Department of Education, [online] Florida School Grades, available from http://schoolgrades.fldoe.org/default.asp?action= reportAYP3&thisdistrict=46&thisschoolYear=20052006&schoolNumbers=&districts=46&schoolYear=2005%2D2006&school_grade=&report=AYP&level=District. 45 District report page two: Florida Department of Education, [online] Florida School Grades, available from http://schoolgrades.fldoe.org/default.asp?action= reportAYP2&thisdistrict=46&thisschoolYear=20052006&schoolNumbers=&districts=46&schoolYear=2005%2D2006&school_grade=&report=AYP&level=District. 46 20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2) (2002) 47 District report page one: Florida Department of Education, [online] Florida School Grades, available from http://schoolgrades.fldoe.org/default.asp.

PAGE 80

80 reading and math respectively. Eleven percent of the Nicevill e Senior High School population was ESE.48 Ninety-eight percent of the SWD subgroup we re tested in reading and 99 percent of SWD subgroup were tested in math. Thirty-two percent of the SWD subgroup were at grade level in reading,49 and 50 percent were at grade level in math. Ninety-nine and 62 percent of all students tested scored at or above grade level in reading and math respectively.50 The school made AYP, meeting 100 percent of th e criteria, receiving a grade of A.51 Summary School data were analyzed with regard to Fl orida school grades while taking into account data relating to m aking adequate year ly progress under the auspices of the No Child left behind Act .52 These data were viewed in terms of the number of the ESE subgroup cells met,53 and also in terms of total percent of criteria met.54 A key factor in studyi ng these data was the not applicable designation (NA), which was used if the subgroup in question did not meet the minimum size requirement to be included in AYP55 calculations. Fifteen of the 109 Florida high 48 School report page three: Florida Department of Education, [online] Florida School Grades, available from http://schoolgrades.fldoe.org/default.asp?action= reportAYP3&thisdistrict=46&thisschoolYear=20052006&schoolNumbers=460211&districts=46&schoolYear =2005%2D2006&school_grade=&report=AYP&level=Sc hool. 49 This counted as meeting the 44 percent target after the SWD mathematical adjustment. 50 School report page two: Florida Department of Education, [online] Florida School Grades, available from http://schoolgrades.fldoe.org/default.asp?action= reportAYP2&thisdistrict=46&thisschoolYear=20052006&schoolNumbers=460211&districts=46&schoolYear =2005%2D2006&school_grade=&report=AYP&level=Sc hool. 51 School report page one: Florida Department of Education, [online] Florida School Grades, available from http://schoolgrades.fldoe.org/default.asp?action=verifySe lectionSchool&report=AYP&districts=46&schoolYear=20 05-2006&school_grade=&level=School&schoolNumbers=460211. 52 Appendix C; 20 U.S.C. 6311 (b)(2) (2002) 53 Table 4-8 54 Table 4-13 55 20 U.S.C. 6311 (b)(2) (2002)

PAGE 81

81 schools in this study made adequate yearly progress56 representing only 14 percent of the schools studied. Only two of the fifteen high schools made adequate yearly progress57 without dismissing the students with disabilities population due to small group size. This meant that only 13 percent of schools making AYP58 did so without dismissing the SWD subgroup; furthermore, only 2 percent of all high schools in the study made AYP59 without dismissing the SWD population.60 This indicated that a high school that had a la rge students with disabili ties population would have a decreased likelihood of achieving AYP.61 Public policy must use valid and reliable measures to determine if the objectives set forth in the policy are being met. It stands to reason that two policies having th e same objective should have comparable results for evaluations conduc ted on the same sample population. This was not the case with data in this study reviewed under the policies of Floridas A+ Plan62 and NCLB.63 Thirty-nine percent of the high schools examined were graded A under the provisions of Floridas A+ Plan.64 Only 14 percent of the same samp le made AYP as measured by NCLB.65 56 20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2) (2002) 57 20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2) (2002) 58 20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2) (2002) 59 20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2) (2002) 60 Appendix C; The two schools that did make AYP without dismissing the SWD subgroup due to small size did so through one using the SWD mathematical adjustment, and the other using safe harbor. 61 20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2) (2002) 62 FLA. Stat. ch. 2006.74 (2006) 63 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 64 FLA. Stat. ch. 2006.74 (2006) 65 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002)

PAGE 82

82 This variation showed that the St ate school grade does not predict AYP66 under the Federal policy.67 Anecdotal Observations There were a few additional observations con cerning data gathered in this study. They were not germ ane to this public policy study; ho wever, they were worthy of note for possible future research. Eleven of the districts graded C were located in the eastern panhandle of Florida. Ten of them were contiguous. The two outliers were in south central Florida. The A school districts showed no grouping, appe aring to be scattered throu ghout the state. Socio-economic status (SES) may have been a pred ictive factor in school grade. Districts that were graded an A had between 18 and 80 percent low SES students with an average of 40 percent. Districts that were graded C ranged from 43 to 74 percent lo w SES student population w ith an average of 59 percent. It is important to note that the Florida Education Finance Program68 (FEFP) had no poverty index. This may have further impact ed results through schools not being funded equitably. Another factor in making AYP may have been district size. Th e number of students in the districts studied ranged from, 1,225 to 271,470. Districts graded an A ranged in size from 2,274 to 271,470 students. Districts graded a C ra nged in size from 1,225 to 12,274. It is possible that many smaller districts we re not receiving en ough total funding to ad equately educate students.69 66 20 U.S.C. 6311 (b)(2) (2002) 67 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 68 FLA. Stat. ch. 1011.60-1011.77 (2006) 69 These are merely casual observations for areas of possible future research. All data mentioned is contained in appendices A and B.

PAGE 83

83 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS Purpose The goal of this public policy study was to dete rm ine the impact of the special education student population on selected Florida high schoo ls achieving AYP1 as measured by the policies set forth in NCLB .2 The process of exploring this questi on included reviewing policies set forth by IDEA 20043 and Floridas A+ Plan .4 All of Floridas school dist ricts were reviewed under the A+ Plan5 and the highest and lowest graded dist ricts were included in the study. The same process was applied to high schools within the aforementioned districts. School grades and achievement of AYP6 were compared in terms of the imp act of the SWD population as a whole.7 Controversy Som e would argue that Florid as public policy regarding maki ng adequate yearly progress (AYP)8 did a better job of accurately portraying stude nt achievement than the policies created by the No Child Left Behind Act ( NCLB ).9 Peterson and West claimed that Florida policy had a much more accurate measure of student progre ss than the Federal measures. They wrote, accountability works only if the yardstick used to measure performance is reasonably accurate. Unfortunately, the yardstick required by the federal law is not. Our analysis of its 1 20 U.S.C. 6311 (b)(2) (2002) 2 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 3 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. (2004) 4 FLA. Stat. ch. 2006.74 (2006) 5 FLA. Stat. ch. 2006.74 (2006) 6 20 U.S.C. 6311 (b)(2) (2002) 7 Appendicies A and B. 8 FLA. Stat. ch. 2006.74 (2006) 9 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002)

PAGE 84

84 workings in Florida reveals it to be badly flawed and not as accurate as the measuring stick employed by the state of Florida for similar purposes.10 In reality data in this study indicated that Floridas public polices relating to AYP11 were far from being in alignment with those outlined in NCLB .12 Twenty-four Florida school districts earned a grade of A, yet none of them made AYP as defined by NCLB .13 Forty-two high schools that qualified for this study were graded A; however, only fifteen of these made AYP under the requirements of NCLB .14 Florida published school grades and rewarded schools based on those grades.15 Florida Districts and schools that rece ived high grades w ere prominently displayed on websites, newsletters, and often on signs in front of schools.16 This policy may have been misleading to the public. The Okaloosa County School District received a grade of A. The district website referred to the district as the best in Florida, and had a link showing al l the A and B graded schools. In keeping with the image of being the Best in Fl orida the fact that the district did not make AYP17 was not mentioned.18 The Gilchrist County School District was graded an A. The website 10 Paul Peterson, and Martin West, "I s Your Child's School Effective?," Education Next 6, Fall 2006: second paragraph [journal on-line]; available from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/ hww/results/results_single_fulltext.jhtml. 11 FLA. Stat. ch. 1008.31 (1)(b) (2007) 12 20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2) (2002) 13 20 U.S.C. 6311 (b)(2) (2002): Appendix B. 14 20 U.S.C. 6311 (b)(2) (2002): Appendix C. 15 See appendix A for sample district and school reports. The main database searchable site can be found at: "Florida Department of Education," [online] Florida School Grades, available from . 16 As witnessed by author. 17 20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2) (2002)

PAGE 85

85 proudly proclaimed this on the home page. There was no mention of the fact that the district did not make AYP under the rules set forth in NCLB .19 In order to make AYP under the auspices of NCLB20 a school must have met 100 percent of the criteria submitted in the state NCLB compliance plan.21 Only fifteen of the 109 schools studied met 100 percent of the criteria mandate d by the state. Forty-ni ne schools in the study made provisional AYP.22 Listing schools as having made provisional AYP23 further confused determinations of the effectivene ss of Florida schools. According to American Teacher a memo from the Florida Department of Education stat ed that there was no di fference between having made provisional AYP24 and having failed to make AYP25 altogether. This begs the question, why have a label of provisional AYP26 at all? It could be argued that this piece of public policy existed solely to boost the public perception of the quality of edu cation in the state of Florida.27 18 Okaloosa County School District, "Okaloosa County School District," [online] Okaloosa County School District: Best in Florida, 2006, available from . 19 Gilchrist County School District, "Gilchrist County School District," [online] Gilchris t County School District, 2007, available from . 20 20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2) (2002) 21 Florida Department of Education, "2006 Guide to Calculating Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): Technical Assistance Paper," [online] Florida Depart ment of Education, 2006, available from . 22 FLA. Stat. ch. 1008.31 (1)(b) (2007); Appendix C. 23 FLA. Stat. ch. 1008.31 (1)(b) (2007) 24 FLA. Stat. ch. 1008.31 (1)(b) (2007) 25 20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2) (2002) 26 FLA. Stat. ch. 1008.31 (1)(b) (2007) 27 American Teacher, "Florida reveals AYP disconnect," American Teacher 90, November 2005 [journal on-line]; available from; http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/hww/result s/results_fulltext_maincontentframe.jhtml;hwwilsonid=X M325AKTNCOSRQA3DIOSFF4ADUNGMIV0.

PAGE 86

86 No Child Left Behind28 did not set intermediate goals for progress. The standard of progression toward meeting the goal of having 100 percent of students at proficiency by 20132014 school-year was left to the states to determine.29 Floridas intermediate goals were integral to making AYP determinations for districts and schools. There was not a si ngle school district in the state that made AYP30 based on the intermediate goals of 44 percent proficient in reading and 50 percent proficient in ma th for the 2005-2006 school year.31 Floridas benchmarks for the percent of students achieving at gr ade level were slated to increas e every year starting with the 2004-2005 school year reaching 100 per cent in the 2013-2014 school year.32 Given the lack of acceptable performance at this writing it seemed unlikely that the situation would improve as target percentages rose. The failure to make adequate yearly progress33 did not go unnoticed. The United States Department of Education (USE D) made revisions to the NCLB34 policies in an attempt to make it easier for states to comply and achieve. One of the first changes in policy was to extend the deadline for requiring teachers to be highly qualified.35 The next change in policy pertained specifically to students with disabilities. The US ED created a policy allowing states to apply to 28 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 29 20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2)(H) (2002) 30 20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2) (2002) 31 Appendix B; Florida Department of Education, "2006 Guide to Calculating School Grades: Technical Assistance Paper," [online] Florida Department of Education, 2006, available from . 32 Christy Lassila, "Florida School Grades & Adequate Yearly Progress," [online] Florida Department of Education, 2006, available from . 33 20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2) (2002) 34 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 35 U. S. Department of Education, "Key Policy Letters Signed by the Education Secr etary or Deputy Secretary," [online] Ed.gov, 2005, available from .

PAGE 87

87 double the 1 percent cap on SWD being counted as proficient if they took and passed an alternative assessment.36 Three Policies The study exam ined three different public policies; NCLB ,37 IDEA,38 and Floridas A+ plan.39 The No Child Left Behind Act was the Federal public policy designed to improve education in America, ultimately having every stude nt in the country at gr ade level by the end of the 2013-2014 school year.40 The A+ plan41 was intended to be aligned with NCLB42 so that the state would be in compliance with the mo st all encompassing Federal education law43 to date. The Individuals with Disabilities Act44 was reauthorized to bring it into better alignment with NCLB .45 The intended purpose of th ese policies was to raise student achievement through accountability.46 36 Peter Kickbush, New Policy Helps States Better assist Students with Disabilities, private email message to author, 1 June 2005. 37 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 38 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. (2004) 39 FLA. Stat. ch. 2006.74 (2006) 40 20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2)(F) (2002) 41 FLA. Stat. ch. 2006.74 (2006) 42 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 43 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 44 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. (2004) 45 Sandra Bowen, and Harvey Rude, "A ssessment and Students with Disabilities: Issues and Challenges with Educational Reform," Rural Special Education Quarterly 3, Summer 2006 [journal on-line]; available from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/hww/jump start.jhtml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1790e70e397f5ebc28d3476 5dac3af941997748dd1a16f13315ca2688123f95f066f1&fmt=P. 46 Jacob Adams, and Paul Hill, "Educational Accountability in a Regulated Market," Peabody Journal of Education 81, 2006 [journal online]; available from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/hww/jump start.jhtml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1790e70e397f5ebc28d3476 5dac3af941997791fcbaa698529312c4f984805fe267bc&fmt=H.

PAGE 88

88 There is no argument that improving public ed ucation is an admirable goal; however, it would appear that while the goal of all three pub lic policies was the same, they were not working in concert. The purpose of IDEA was to improve the educational opportunities and outcomes for students with disabilities.47 The purpose of NCLB was for all children to obtain a high-quality education, and achieve proficiency on state academic standards.48 These sound similar enough, yet there were some glaring differences. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act supported an individualized education plan for ea ch special education stud ent, tailored to meet each students abilities and goals.49 The No Child Left Behind Act proposed holding all but the smallest percentage of students to the highest standards. Other than to mention scientifically proven teaching methods and one standardized assessment for all students in each state, NCLB focused largely on accountability.50 Holding all students to one st andard was in juxtaposition to the spirit of the policies of IDEA.51 The reauthorization of IDEA52 in 2004 changed much of the language in this policy to mirror that of NCLB53 but the spirit of the two laws was still divergent. Floridas A+ plan54 was adapted to become Floridas NCLB55 compliance plan.56 The plan was approved by the USED.57 Given these two facts it would seem that there should have been 47 20 U.S.C. 1400 (2004) 48 20 U.S.C. 6301 (2002) 49 20 U.S.C. 1400 (d) (2004) 50 Michell Yell, Antonis Katsiyannas, and James Shiner, "The No Child Left Behind Act, Adequate Yearly Progress, and Students With Disabilities," Teaching Exceptional Children 38, March/April 2006 [journal on-line]; available from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/hww/jump start.jhtml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1790e70e397f5ebc28d3476 5dac3af9419977017bc36153958c1be2eeb1d746238f73&fmt=H. 51 20 U.S.C. 1400 (2004) 52 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. (2004) 53 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 54 FLA. Stat. ch. 2006.74 (2006)

PAGE 89

89 no conflict between these two policies. As demonstr ated by these data gathered in the study these two policies were far from being in accord.58 Both of these policies addressed AYP, in fact the A+ plan59 mentioned it specifically as related to NCLB .60 The Florida public policy used a provisional AYP,61 which was mentioned nowhere in NCLB ,62 and did not count under NCLB63 policies.64 Floridas NCLB compliance plan was further fl awed in general by the policy of grading schools and districts. As demonstrated by data in this study, school and district grades showed no causation with regard to making AYP as outlined by NCLB .65 It is inconceivable that th ree policies that theoretically had the same goal were not following or measured by the same standards. Th e ramifications of these policy conflicts were far reaching. There were three issues that these conflicts brought into sharp relief. The first was financial, the second was public perception, and finally the most important was the welfare of Americas public school students. 55 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 56 Florida Department of Education, "Consolidated St ate Application Accountability Workbook," [online] Consolidated State Application Accountability Workbook, 2007, available from . 57 U.S. Department of Education, "Paige Approves Florida State Accountability Plan Under No Child Left Behind," [online] No Child Left Behind, 2003, available from . 58 Appendix B and Appendix C. 59 FLA. Stat. ch. 2006.74 (2006) 60 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 61 FLA. Stat. ch. 1008.31 (1)(b) (2007) 62 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 63 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 64 Florida Department of Education, "2006 Guide to Calculating Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): Technical Assistance Paper," [online] Florida Depart ment of Education, 2006, available from . 65 20 U.S.C. 6311 (b)(2) (2002)

PAGE 90

90 Failure to make adequate yearly progress under NCLB66 could have a major impact on the financial status of schools and dist ricts. Starting with the second year of a school failing to make AYP67 parents must be given the choice of moving their children to a school that did make AYP.68 There were associated costs such as space available and teachers needed to maintain appropriate class size;69 however, the major initial financial im pact associated with failure to make AYP70 was the transportation costs associated w ith transporting students to schools that were making AYP.71 In some cases transporting student s to a school that made AYP would involve a plane ride.72 These costs could escalate to th e restructuring of schools and the withholding of Federal funds.73 Final Analysis The im pact of the SWD population on Florid a high schools was dramatic. Only 14 percent of the 109 schools in the study made AYP as measured under NCLB74 policy; furthermore, only 2 percent of high schools made AYP wit hout dismissing the SWD subgroup from AYP 66 20 U.S.C. 6311 (b)(2) (2002) 67 20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2) (2002) 68 20 U.S.C. 6361(b)(8)(B) (2002) 69 FLA. Const. art. IX, 1 (amended 2002) 70 20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2) (2002) 71 20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2) (2002) 72 Theodore Coladarci, "Adequate Yearly Progress, Small Schools, and Students with Disabilities: The Importance of Confidence Intervals When Making Judgments about AYP," Rural Special Education Quarterly 24, Winter 2005 [journal on-line]; available from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/hww/jumpst art.jhtml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1790e70e397f5ebc28d34ee 4f4d140d9e929b00d8126029350d633419a1ecbec6f5b8&fmt=P. 73 "U.S. Department of Education," [online] A Guide to Education and No Child Left Behind, available from . 74 20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2) (2002)

PAGE 91

91 calculations as mandated by the policies set forth under NCLB .75 The SWD sub group was dismissed due to small group size in the AYP76 calculations by 32 percent of the schools in this study. Data in this study represen ted the SWD population as bei ng dismissed due to small group size, by using the designation, NA.77 The analysis of data collected in the study clearly presented two conclusions. The first was that while aspiring toward the same goal, Floridas A+ Plan78 and NCLB79 did not have interrater reliability with re gard to measures of school achievement The second issue was, that if a Florida high school were to have a SWD of sufficient size as to be included in AYP80 calculations, then the school had a limited likel ihood of achieving adequate yearly progress as outlined in Federal law.81 Forty-two schools were graded an A under Floridas A+ Plan ,82 yet only fifteen made AYP under NCLB .83 Thirty-nine percent of schools achieved the highest level of achievement as measured by the A+ Plan ,84 while only 14 percent made adequate yearly progress under NCLB .85 75 20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2) (2002) 76 20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2) (2002) 77 Appendix C. This nomenclature was used both in the official reports (Appendix A) and in tables and appendices created by the author. 78 FLA. Stat. ch. 2006.74 (2006) 79 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 80 20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2) (2002) 81 20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2) (2002) 82 FLA. Stat. ch. 2006.74 (2006) 83 20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2) (2002) 84 FLA. Stat. ch. 2006.74 (2006) 85 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002)

PAGE 92

92 A Florida high school was 2.8 times more likel y to be graded an A school by the state86 than it was to make AYP87 under Federal law.88 Florida had a provisional AYP89 designation that was given to an additiona l forty-nine schools90 but had no bearing on achie ving AYP as defined by Federal statute.91 This represented serious discord between the reliability of the two methods of evaluation. These policies should be reviewed further with the intent of bringing them into better alignment.92 Fifteen schools in the study made AYP.93 Two schools did so without dismissing the SWD subgroup due to small size. Based on these data a Florida high school is 7.5 times less likely to achieve AYP94 if the schools population of students w ith disabilities is large enough to be included in NCLB95 calculations. The examination of these data call into question the validity of NCLB96 calculations and raise considerable con cern over the implications for students with disabilities. Given the demonstrated impact that the SWD subgroup has on the likelihood of a 86 FLA. Stat. ch. 2006.74 (2006) 87 20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2) (2002) 88 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 89 FLA. Stat. ch. 1008.31 (1)(b) (2007) 90 Forty-five percent of the high schools studied. 91 20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2) (2002) 92 Paul Peterson, and Martin West, "I s Your Child's School Effective?," Education Next 6, Fall 2006: second paragraph [journal on-line]; available from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/ hww/results/results_single_fulltext.jhtml. 93 20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2) (2002); Thirteen schools that made AYP were graded A, and two were graded B. It is yet another disparity that a school could make AYP yet not have received a grade of A. 94 20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2) (2002) 95 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 96 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002)

PAGE 93

93 high school making AYP97 it is possible that school admini strators will attempt to refuse accepting special education st udents into schools making AYP98 from failing schools.99 Plausible Ramifications This dissertation addressed the im pact of the SWD subgroup population on the likelihood of Florida high schools ability to achieve AYP100 under the provisions of NCLB.101 There were additional concerns that should be noted regardin g the impact these policies may have had on the students in the SWD subgroup. Reading the policies regarding a ssessment in both IDEA102 and NCLB103 it would appear that the intention wa s to measure and ultimately improve the achievement level of the SWD subgroup. This study demonstrated through the analysis of collected da ta that if the SWD subgroup was included in AYP calculations then the schoo l was 7.5 times less likely to make AYP. It was also noted that thirty-five of the 109 schools (32 percent) st udied did not include the SWD subgroup in the AYP calculation. Dismissing the SWD subgroup from calculations would appear to be in juxtaposition to th e intent of the policies. 97 20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2) (2002) 98 20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2) (2002) 99 Kenneth Howe, and Kevin Welner, "School Choice and th e Pressure to Perform: Deja Vu for Children with Disabilities?," Remedial and Special Education 23, July/August 2002 [journal on-line]; available from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/hww/jump start.jhtml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1790e70e397f5ebc28d3431 da5cf9c16c0be86e32a9bf3ee744ded46fd7f1c7a2c194&fmt=H. 100 20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2) (2002) 101 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 102 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. (2004) 103 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002)

PAGE 94

94 The A+ Plan104 was approved by the Federal government as Floridas NCLB compliance plan.105 As noted earlier the SWD subgroup had to ach ieve the target percentage proficiency level or the school failed to make AYP. The A+ Plan106 had several caveats regarding calculating AYP: if the subgroup was to small it did not ha ve to be included; if the subgroup made 10 percent improvement it was counted as proficie nt; if the SWD subgroup was the only reason the school did not achieve then a mathematical adju stment of 13 percent wa s added to the percent proficient. It is possible that the alternative meas ures used in the calcul ation of AYP under these plans disenfranchised students with disabilities as there scores we re not included in calculations or reports. One could argue that through the met hods of adjusting or dismissing data on students with disabilities the policies masked the achieve ment level of the very students they were designed to help. 104 FLA. Stat. ch. 2006.74 (2006) 105 Florida Department of Education, "Florida NCLB Consolidated Application," [online] Consolidated State Application Accountability Workbook, 2007, available from . 106 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002)

PAGE 95

95 APPENDIX A SAMPLE REPORTS This append ix lists a sample of the Florid a Department of Education (FLDOE) web sites used to gather data for district and school inform ation. Included is a list of sites for one district and one school within that distri ct. With the exception of the Florida state district grades these individual reports can be ge nerated from the FLDOE searchable web cite, which is cited throughout out the study. Following the list of sample web sites, is a series of PDF files showing what each sample site looks like in corresponding order. Web Site Names and Addresses FLDOE Searchable Data Base: http://schoolgrades.fldoe.org/default.asp? action=main&sc hoolNumbers=010421&districts=01&s choolYear=2005%2D2006&school_grade =&report=AYP&level=School Florida State District Grades: http://www.fldoe.org/news/2006/2006_06_22/2006DistrictGrades.pdf Grades for all Alachua Count y School District Schools: http://schoolgrades.fldoe.org/de fault.asp? action=verifySelectionSchool&thisSort=type&schoolN umbers=&allSchools=yes&districts=01&sc hoolYear=2005%2D2006&school_grade=&report=S G&level=School Alachua County School District Data: http://www.firn.edu/doe/eias/flmove/alachua.htm Alachua County School Distri ct AYP Report Page One: http://schoolgrades.f ldoe.org/default.asp Alachua County School Distri ct AYP Report Page Two: http://schoolgrades.fldoe.org/de fault.asp? action=reportAYP2&th isdistrict=01&thisschoolYear=2 0052006&schoolNumbers=&districts=01&school Year=2005%2D2006&school_grade=&report=AY P&level=District Alachua County School District AYP Report Page Three: http://schoolgrades.fldoe.org/de fault.asp? action=reportAYP3&th isdistrict=01&thisschoolYear=2 0052006&schoolNumbers=&districts=01&school Year=2005%2D2006&school_grade=&report=AY P&level=District F. W. Buchholz High School AYP Report Page One: http://schoolgrades.fldoe.org/de fault.asp? action=verifySelectionSchool&report=AYP&districts= 01&schoolYear=2005-2006&school_grade =&level=School&schoolNumbers=010431

PAGE 96

96 F. W. Buchholz High School AYP Report Page Two: http://schoolgrades.fldoe.org/de fault.asp? action=reportAYP2&th isdistrict=01&thisschoolYear=2 005-2006&schoolNumbers=010431&districts=0 1&schoolYear=2005%2D2006&school_grade =&report=AYP&level=School F. W. Buchholz High School AYP Report Page Three: http://schoolgrades.fldoe.org/de fault.asp? action=reportAYP3&th isdistrict=01&thisschoolYear=2 0052006&schoolNumbers=010431&districts=01&sch oolYear=2005%2D2006&school_grade=&rep ort=AYP&level=School Florida State AYP Report Page One: http://schoolgrades.f ldoe.org/default.asp Florida State AYP Report Page Two: http://schoolgrades.fldoe.org/de fault.asp? action=reportAYP2&th isdistrict=00&thisschoolYear=2 0052006&schoolNumbers=&districts=&schoolYe ar=2005%2D2006&school_grade=&report=AYP &level=State Florida State AYP Report Page Three: http://schoolgrades.fldoe.org/de fault.asp? action=reportAYP3&th isdistrict=00&thisschoolYear=2 0052006&schoolNumbers=&districts=&schoolYe ar=2005%2D2006&school_grade=&report=AYP &level=State

PAGE 97

97 Sample PDF Files

PAGE 98

98

PAGE 99

99

PAGE 100

100

PAGE 101

101

PAGE 102

102

PAGE 103

103

PAGE 104

104

PAGE 105

105

PAGE 106

106

PAGE 107

107

PAGE 108

108

PAGE 109

109

PAGE 110

110

PAGE 111

111

PAGE 112

112

PAGE 113

113

PAGE 114

114

PAGE 115

115

PAGE 116

116

PAGE 117

117

PAGE 118

118

PAGE 119

119

PAGE 120

120

PAGE 121

121

PAGE 122

122 APPENDIX B DISTRICT DATA

PAGE 123

123 District Grade # Students AYP % ESE % SES % Criteria met Number ESE cells not met % ESE passing FCAT reading % Total passing FCAT reading Broward A 271,470 no 16 41 92 2 35 59 Calhoun A 2,274 no 26 52 92 2 34 62 Okaloosa A 30,983 no 20 28 92 1 44 70 Clay A 34,152 no 22 25 90 2 43 64 Gilchrist A 2,893 no 33 50 90 2 34 63 Santa Rosa A 25,187 no 19 32 90 1 44 70 Wakulla A 4,914 no 23 35 90 2 38 63 Brevard A 75,160 no 24 30 87 2 38 68 Leon A 32,316 no 23 37 87 2 41 65 Charlotte A 17,868 no 22 40 85 2 34 62 Nassau A 10,860 no 17 34 85 2 33 62 Sarasota A 41,884 no 27 29 85 2 39 64 Seminole A 67,473 no 19 31 85 2 40 67 Walton A 6,892 no 17 48 85 1 31 62 Alachua A 29,108 no 32 46 82 2 29 57 Bay A 27,610 no 20 46 82 2 35 62 Citrus A 15,835 no 22 42 82 2 35 61 Marion A 42,026 no 21 53 82 2 25 55

PAGE 124

124 District Grade # Students AYP % ESE % SES % Criteria met Number ESE cells not met % ESE passing FCAT reading % Total passing FCAT reading Martin A 18,141 no 20 30 82 2 37 66 St. Johns A 25,734 no 18 18 82 2 38 71 Sumter A 7,416 no 17 53 82 2 29 57 Palm Beach A 174,911 no 19 42 79 2 30 56 Hillsborough A 193,669 no 19 49 77 2 31 56 Monroe A 8,587 no 22 39 74 2 37 62 Baker C 4,855 no 12 43 85 2 27 51 Taylor C 3,378 no 23 57 85 2 36 56 Columbia C 10,188 no 19 54 79 2 28 54 Bradford C 3,779 no 14 53 77 2 26 51 Hendry C 7,572 no 18 70 77 2 24 45 Franklin C 1,350 no 18 61 74 3 25 48 Putnam C 12,274 no 21 66 74 2 25 49 DeSoto C 5,019 no 20 59 72 0 19 45 Madison C 3,032 no 27 74 72 2 19 43 Suwannee C 5,948 no 14 53 72 2 24 52 Gadsden C 6,515 no 18 80 67 2 17 34 Hamilton C 2,006 no 16 56 67 2 27 39 Jefferson C 1,225 no 29 70 67 4 12 36

PAGE 125

125 APPENDIX C SCHOOL DATA

PAGE 126

126 District District grade School # To be tested School grade AYP % Criteria met # ESE cells not met % ESE % SES % ESE passing % Total passing Broward A Pompano 735 A yes 100 NA 2 29 NA 70 Broward A Atlantic 286 A yes 100 NA 4 39 NA 65 Broward A William 286 A yes 100 NA 4 19 NA 71 Broward A Cooper 1201 A yes 100 NA 9 8 27 57 Leon A Lawton 1027 A yes 100 NA 9 6 37 66 Okaloosa A OWC 67 A yes 100 NA 1 7 blank blank Palm Beach A Alexander 695 A yes 100 NA 4 7 blank 71 Palm Beach A Suncoast 669 A yes 100 NA 2 14 blank 81 St. Johns A Nease 1003 A yes 100 NA 8 4 22 32 Seminole A Hagerty 509 A yes 100 NA 10 8 38 41 Walton A S. Walton 278 A yes 100 NA 11 18 blank 51 Brevard A Satellite 1025 B yes 100 NA 10 8 32 63 Brevard A Merritt 808 B yes 100 NA 13 12 25 51 Gilchrist A Bell 511 A yes 100 0 28 44 28 55 Okaloosa A Niceville 1185 A yes 100 0 11 9 32 39 Martin A Jensen 821 A P 97 NA 12 19 13 28 Palm Beach A Spanish 1046 A P 97 NA 7 9 20 36 St. Johns A Bartram 1320 A P 97 NA 8 3 19 43 Seminole A Crooms 320 A P 97 NA 9 34 blank 42 Palm Beach A W. Boca 1225 A P 95 NA 8 12 18 33 Broward A Nova 1063 A P 92 NA 6 31 28 52 Palm Beach A Boca 995 A P 90 NA 10 24 30 34 Brevard A Astronaut 760 B P 90 NA 12 21 6 41 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

PAGE 127

127 District District grade School # To be tested School grade AYP % Criteria met # ESE cells not met % ESE % SES % ESE passing % Total passing Brevard A Titusville 788 B P 90 NA 12 23 25 52 Seminole A Howell 1238 A P 82 4 11 29 15 26 Brevard A Palm Bay 1293 B P 82 4 15 29 23 44 Marion A Belleview 859 B P 82 4 15 34 10 30 Marion A Vanguard 944 B P 82 4 13 41 12 27 Martin A South 1139 B P 79 4 16 25 21 23 Okaloosa A Choctawhatchee 993 A P 85 3 13 24 20 27 Seminole A Winter 1309 A P 79 3 13 21 28 33 Charlotte A Charlotte 1094 B P 87 3 19 34 22 46 Marion A Forest 1235 B P 82 3 12 34 12 25 Marion A Dunnellon 726 B P 79 3 18 52 blank 26 Bay A Crawford 1067 A P 92 2 12 21 21 52 Palm Beach A Jupiter 1580 A P 92 2 10 9 27 31 Palm Beach A Park 1810 A P 92 2 10 13 25 35 Sarasota A Venice 1142 A P 92 2 14 17 19 34 Broward A Cypress 2693 A P 90 2 6 10 29 59 Leon A Leon 963 A P 90 2 12 1 27 55 Palm Beach A Wellington 1196 A P 90 2 11 14 23 37 Broward A Western 1343 A P 87 2 10 14 17 49 Sarasota A Riverview 1326 A P 87 2 14 17 15 28 Alachua A Buchholz 1113 A P 85 2 14 24 23 58 Seminole A Brantley 1678 A P 85 2 10 18 15 30 Brevard A Melbourne 1226 B P 90 2 11 13 18 51 Brevard A Eau Gallie 1213 B P 90 2 15 19 14 46 Charlotte A Lemon 794 B P 90 2 18 27 20 48 Seminole A Oviedo 1467 B P 90 2 10 14 17 28 Martin A Martin 1007 B P 85 2 15 20 14 24 Nassau A Fernandina 934 B P 85 2 15 25 15 31

PAGE 128

128 District District grade School # To be tested School grade AYP % Criteria met # ESE cells not met % ESE % SES % ESE passing % Total passing Okaloosa A Crestview 1008 B P 85 2 16 22 20 29 Seminole A Lyman 1247 B P 85 2 12 32 24 27 Brevard A Bayside 1199 B P 82 2 15 27 14 40 Charlotte A Port 1151 B P 82 2 18 42 15 40 Seminole B Seminole 1668 B P 77 2 11 40 21 26 Santa Rosa A Pace 985 A P 97 1 12 21 22 44 Clay A Fleming 1123 A P 95 1 13 7 25 53 Hillsborough A Plantation 1030 A P 95 1 11 15 23 60 Hillsborough A Sickles 1490 A P 95 1 8 12 27 54 Broward A Marjory 1548 A P 92 1 7 8 30 58 Okaloosa A Walton 1005 A P 92 1 13 17 27 43 Hillsborough A Gaither 1186 A P 90 1 10 23 41 49 Seminole A Mary 1437 A P 85 1 12 24 32 27 Walton A Walton 417 C no 95 NA 8 45 blank 31 Citrus A Citrus 852 C no 90 NA 11 35 23 35 Nassau A Nassau 588 C no 90 NA 12 22 9 31 Baker C Baker 741 C no 87 NA 12 35 28 32 Sumter C Wildwood 265 C no 74 NA 19 63 11 19 Bay A Haney 90 D no 87 NA 20 57 NA 21 Franklin C Apalachicola 74 D no 85 NA 14 51 blank 24 Hamilton C Hamilton 599 D no 77 NA 13 58 blank 24 Broward A Smart 283 D no 74 NA 8 50 NA 15 Gadsden C Gadsden 608 D no 74 NA 15 74 17 13 Palm Beach A Tech 575 D no 74 NA 13 57 blank 19 Suwannee C Suwannee 694 D no 74 NA 12 42 19 24 Broward A Blanche 1184 D no 62 NA 10 60 18 23 Desoto C Desoto 665 C no 69 4 16 57 blank 27 Alachua A East Side 1059 D no 74 4 25 52 8 38

PAGE 129

129 District District grade School # To be tested School grade AYP % Criteria met # ESE cells not met % ESE % SES % ESE passing % Total passing Alachua A Gainesville 1111 D no 72 4 20 40 16 40 Taylor C Taylor 393 D no 72 4 17 40 17 18 Hillsborough A East Bay 1440 D no 56 4 14 56 16 27 Jefferson C Jefferson 189 F no 56 4 26 65 blank 18 Hillsborough A Middleton 993 D no 74 3 17 65 9 30 Brevard A Rockledge 942 C no 90 2 13 18 17 46 Clay A Middleburg 1026 C no 87 2 16 26 11 36 Santa Rosa A Milton 967 C no 87 2 18 42 27 37 Calhoun A Blountstown 224 C no 85 2 24 46 33 41 Citrus A Crystal 706 C NO 85 2 16 38 14 42 Citrus A Lecanto 979 C no 85 2 15 36 19 39 Hendry C Labelle 547 C no 85 2 18 61 blank 23 Putnam C Interlachen 525 C no 85 2 19 63 13 22 Sarasota A N. Port 1175 C no 85 2 17 33 12 25 Clay A Orange 1329 C no 82 2 11 25 13 38 Bradford C Bradford 510 C no 77 2 27 39 14 27 Putnam C Palatka 916 C no 77 2 17 48 13 17 Sarasota A Booker 923 C no 74 2 18 39 21 16 Monroe A Key 758 C no 67 2 19 30 20 27 Wakulla A Wakulla 697 D no 82 2 18 26 23 32 Columbia C Columbia 1066 D no 77 2 16 45 14 36 Marion A Marion 837 D no 77 2 19 50 blank 22 St. Johns A Augustine 853 D no 77 2 16 27 14 22 Madison C Madison 417 D no 74 2 19 57 13 28 Palm Beach A Glades 698 D no 72 2 18 92 29 14 Broward A Plantation 1560 D no 67 2 9 41 15 25 Hendry C Clewiston 534 D no 67 2 19 62 23 24 Palm Beach A Leonard 1122 D no 64 2 14 49 8 19 Palm Beach A Boynton 847 D no 62 2 17 54 11 13 Leon A Amos 649 D no 74 1 16 45 10 20

PAGE 130

130 WORKS CITED Textual References Adams, Jacob, and Paul Hill. "Educational Accountability in a Regulated Market." Peabody Journal of Education 81: 217-235, 2006. Journal online. Available from http://vnweb. hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/hww/ju mpstart.jhtml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1790e70e397f5 ebc28d34765dac3af941997791fcbaa698529312c4f984805fe267bc&fmt=H. Albrecht, Susan, and Candace Joles. "Accountab ility and Access to Opportunity: Mutually Exclusive Tenets Under a Hi gh-Stakes Testing Mandate." Preventing School Failure 47: 86-91, Winter 2003. Journal online. Availabl e from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp. hscl.ufl.edu/hww/jumpstart.jhtml? recid=0bc05f7a67b1790e70e397f5ebc28d34ebdacdb87e d2eb68ae12a0fd3c7d1347e66269b85901d7dd&fmt=H. American Teacher. "Florida Reveals AYP Disconnect." American Teacher 90, November 2005. Journal online. Available from http:// vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/hww/ results/results_fulltext_maincontentfra me.jhtml;hwwilsonid=XM325AKTNCOSRQA3DI OSFF4ADUNGMIV0 Ares, Nancy, and Edward Buendia. "Opportunities Lost: Local Translations of Advocacy Policy Conversations." Teachers College Record 109: 561-589, March 2007. Journal online. Available from http://vnweb.hwwilsonwe b.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/h ww/jumpstart.jhtml ?recid=0bc05f7a67b1790e70e397f5ebc28d34524897178207968b74306d132681a7965764 ea8546de85b3&fmt=P. Bloomfield, David, and Bruce Coope r. "Making Sense of NCLB." T.H.E. Journal 30: 6-32, May 2003. Journal online. Available from http:/ /vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/hww/ jumpstart.jhtml?recid=0bc05f 7a67b1790e70e397f5ebc28d34ebdacdb87ed2eb68d689fccf9 5808255cb8594752192de6e&fmt=H. Bloomfield, David, and Bruce Cooper. "NCLB: A New Role for the Federal government." T.H.E. Journal 30: 6-9, May 2003. Journal online. Available from http://vnweb. hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/hww/ju mpstart.jhtml?recid=0bc05f7a671790e70e397f5e bc28d34ebdacdb87ed2eb68d689fccf9580825596bf42ebcd9ae4eb&fmt=H. Bowen, Sandra, and Harvey Rude. "Assessment a nd Students with Disab ilities: Issues and Challenges with Educational Reform." Rural Special Education Quarterly 25: 24-30, Summer 2006. Journal online. Available fr om http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl. ufl.edu/hww/jumpstart.jhtml?re cid=0bc05f7a67b1790e70e397f5ebc28d34765dac3af94199 7748dd1a16f13315ca2688123f95f066f1&fmt=P. Brighton Webbs Ltd. "Brighton Webbs Ltd. Statistical and Data Services fo r Industry." [Online] Brighton Webbs Ltd, 2004. Available from < http://www.brighton-we bs.co.uk/Statistics/ central_tendency.asp >.

PAGE 131

131 Browder, Diane, and Karena Cooper-Duffy. "Evide nce-Based Practices for Students with Severe Disabilities and the Requirement for Acc ountability in "No Child Left Behind"." The Journal of Special Education 37: 157-163, Fall 2003. Journal online. Available from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.e du/hww/jumpstart.jh tml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1 790e70e397f5ebc28d34ebdacdb87ed2eb68a040217c85d023f995a16c0aad0caf58&fmt=P. Byrnes, MaryAnn. "Alternate Asse ssment FAQs (and Answers)." Teaching Exceptional Children 36: 58-63, July/August 2004. Journal online. Available from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.e du/hww/jumpstart.jh tml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1 790e70e397f5ebc28d34ee4f4d140d9e929b90f6a626a3de05a78d51e346fbe1e7a6&fmt=P. Chapman, Laura. "Status of Elementary Art Education." Studies in Art Education 46: 118-137, Winter 2005. Journal online. Available from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.e du/hww/jumpstart.jh tml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1 790e70e397f5ebc28d34d43ce33921c936baeab7c26b17ddcb6a63e6d7eae071345f&fmt=P. Cohn, Carl. "NCLB Implementation Challenges: The Local Superintendent's View." Peabody Journal of Education 80: 156-169, 2005. Journal online. Available from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.e du/hww/jumpstart.jh tml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1 790e70e397f5ebc28d34765dac3af941997730d80af1ac029785951db1970817e809&fmt=H. Coladarci, Theodore. "Adequate Yearly Progress, Small Schools, and Students with Disabilities: The Importance of Confid ence Intervals When Making Judgments about AYP." Rural Special Education Quarterly 24: 40-47, Winter 2005. Journal online. Available from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.e du/hww/jumpstart.jh tml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1 790e70e397f5ebc28d34d43ce33921c936bafae31186a870d08d214420b45e69a568&fmt=P. Council for Exceptional Children. "CEC Denounces President's Budget Proposal." [Online] Council for Exceptional Child ren, 2007. Available from . Council for Exceptional Children, "CECs Summary of Significant Issues," [online] The New IDEA, 2004, available from . DeBray, Elizabeth, Kathryn McDermott, and Prisci lla Wohlstetter. "Intr oduction to the Special Issue on Federalism Reconsidered: The Case of the No Child Left Behind Act." Peabody Journal of Education 80: 1-18, 2005. Journal online. Available from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.e du/hww/jumpstart.jh tml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1 790e70e397f5ebc28d34d43ce33921c936bac3ec95d92632237eb8103f37f27b85c5&fmt=H. Donlevy, Jim. "No Child Left Behind: Failing Schools and Future Directions." International Journal of Instructional Media 30: 335-338, 2003. Journal online. Available from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.e du/hww/jumpstart.jh tml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1 790e70e397f5ebc28d34ebdacdb87ed2eb68f21953a80ca8930e94960033ef2c9631&fmt=H. "Education Statistics Quarterly." [Online] Natio nal Center for Education Statistics, Available from .

PAGE 132

132 "Florida Department of Educati on," [online] available from . Florida Department of Education. "2006 Guide to Calculating Adequate Y early Progress (AYP): Technical Assistance Paper." [Online] Florida Department of Education, 2006. Available from . Florida Department of Education. "2006 Guid e to Calculating School Grades: Technical Assistance Paper." [Online] Florida Depa rtment of Education, 2006. Available from . Florida Department of Education. "Consolidat ed State Application Accountability Workbook." [Online] Consolidated State Application Accountability Workbook, 2007. Available from . Florida Department of Education. "ESE Rule s Changes Webcast." [Online] Bureau of Exceptional Education and Student Services, 2007. Available from . Florida Department of Education, "Fact Sheet: NCLB And Adequate Yearly Progress," Florida Department Of Education 2005, http://www.fldoe.org/NCLB /FactSheet-AYP.pdf. Florida Department of Education. "FCAT Myths vs. Facts." [Online] Florida Department of Education, Available from . Florida Department of Educa tion. "Florida NCLB Consolidat ed Application." [Online] Consolidated State Application Acco untability Workbook, 2007. Available from < http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/acco unt/stateplans03/flcsa.doc >. Florida Department of Educati on. "Florida School District Da ta." [Online] Your Florida Department of Education, 2006. Available from . "Florida Department of Education." [Onlin e] Florida School Grades, Available from . Florida Department of Education. "Flori da School Grades." [Online] 2005-2006 School Accountability Reports: All Di stricts, 2006. Available from . Florida Department of Education, "M easuring Adequate Yearly Progress," Florida Department Of Education http://web.fldoe.org/ NCLB /default.cfm/. Florida Department of Educa tion. "Providing Our Children with a World-Class Education." [Online] MyFlorida.com, 2004. Available from .

PAGE 133

133 Florida Department of Educa tion, "Sunshine State Standards. [Online] Available from http://www.firn.edu/doe/menu/sss.htm. Florida Department of Education. "The Bush-B rogan A+ Plan for Education." [Online] Available from . Florida Senate. "The Florida Constitution." [On line] The Florida Senate, 2006. Available from . Flowers, Claudia, Diane Browder, and Lynn Ahlg rim-Delzell. "An Analysis of Three States Alignment Between Language Arts and Mathematics Standards and Alternate Assessments." Exceptional Children 72: 201-215, Winter 2006. Journal online. Available from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.e du/hww/jumpstart.jh tml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1 790e70e397f5ebc28d34765dac3af941997781a298acbbe40f9c27a50e006561f861&fmt=H. Fowler, Frances. "The Great School Choice Debate." The Clearing House 76: 4-7, September/October 2002. Journal online. Available from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.e du/hww/jumpstart.jh tml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1 790e70e397f5ebc28d3431da5cf9c16c0be836f5b32f82574cb617a8b962505a32e9&fmt=H. Gartin, Barbara, and Nikki Murdick. "IDEA 2004: The IEP." Remedial and Special Education 26: 327-331, November/December 2005. Journal online. Available from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.e du/hww/jumpstart.jh tml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1 790e70e397f5ebc28d34d43ce33921c936bad15ea25dcc7f4988a5a7c3763096d9fa&fmt=P. Gilchrist County School District. "Gilchrist County School Distri ct." [Online] Gilchrist County School District, 2007. Available from . Goertz, Margaret. "Implementing the No Child Left Behind Act: Challenges for the States." Peabody Journal of Education 80: 73-89, 2005. Journal online. Available from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.e du/hww/jumpstart.jh tml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1 790e70e397f5ebc28d34d43ce33921c936bac3ec95d92632237ebe7b04fb0bbabc79&fmt=H. Gonzalez, Gerardo. "Influences of NCLB on K-12 Systemic Educational Reform." Tech Trends 50: 28-29, March/April 2006. Journa l online. Available from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.e du/hww/jumpstart.jh tml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1 790e70e397f5ebc28d34765dac3af9419977f0df7930e6c327f2a823e1ff4c9743cc&fmt=H. Goodman, Geoffrey. Keeping The Funding And Standards: "The Choice Has To Be Both". Private email message to author. 25 April 2005.

PAGE 134

134 Gunzenhauser, Michael. "Normalizing the Educat ed Subject: A foucaultian Analysis of HighStakes Accountability." Educational Studies 39: 241-59, June 2006. Journal online. Available from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.e du/hww/jumpstart.jh tml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1 790e70e397f5ebc28d34765dac3af941997740cd242bb5958ae9ed4a63bd5808fb11&fmt=H. Hager, Karen, and Timothy Slocum. "Using Alte rnate Assessment to Improve Educational Outcomes." Rural Special Education Quarterly 24: 54-59, Winter 2005. Journal online. Available from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.e du/hww/jumpstart.jh tml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1 790e70e397f5ebc28d34d43ce33921c936bafae31186a870d08ded29550b2da403bf&fmt=P. Hallahan, Daniel, and James Kauffman, Exceptional Learners: Introduction to Special Education (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1997). Handler, Beth. "Two Acts, One Goal: Meeting th e Shared Vision of No Child Left Behind and Individuals with Disabilities E ducation Improvement Act of 2004." The Clearing House 80: 5-8, September/October 2006. Jo urnal online. Available from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.e du/hww/jumpstart.jh tml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1 790e70e397f5ebc28d34765dac3af941997730d80af1ac029785951db1970817e809&fmt=H. Harriman, Nancy. "Perceptions of Students and Educators on the Impact of No Child Left Behind: Some Will and Some Won't." Rural Special Education Quarterly 24: 64-69, Winter 2005. Journal online. Available from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.e du/hww/jumpstart.jh tml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1 790e70e397f5ebc28d34d43ce33921c936bafae31186a870d08d2dda8d97304fced1&fmt=P. Howe, Kenneth, and Kevin Welner. "School Choice and the Pressure to Perform: Deja Vu for Children with Disabilities?." Remedial and Special Education 23: 212-221, July/August 2002. Journal online. Available from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.e du/hww/jumpstart.jh tml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1 790e70e397f5ebc28d3431da5cf9c16c0be86e32a9bf 3ee744ded46fd7f1c7a2c194&fmt=H. Howell, William. "Switching Schools? A Closer Look at Parents' Initial Interest in and Knowledge about the Choice Provisi ons of No Child Left Behind." Peabody Journal of Education 81: 140-179, 2006. Journal online. Available from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.e du/hww/jumpstart.jh tml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1 790e70e397f5ebc28d34765dac3af941997791fcbaa6985293124d8866ad5faa3d96&fmt=H. "IDEA-Reauthorized Statute." [Onl ine] Alignment with the No Child Left Behind Act, Available from . Kickbush, Peter. New Policy Helps States Better Assi st Students with Disabilities. Private email message to author. 1 June 2005. Kickbush, Peter. Spellings: Reward Teachers Who Get Results. Private email message to author. 20 May 2005.

PAGE 135

135 Lassila, Christy. "Florida School Grades & Adequate Yearly Progre ss." [Online] Florida Department of Education, 2006. Available from . Linn, Robert. "Accountability: Responsibil ity and Reasonable Expectations." Educational Researcher 32: 3-13, October 2003. Journa l online. Available from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.e du/hww/jumpstart.jh tml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1 790e70e397f5ebc28d34ebdacdb87ed2eb68e6dde9ea11cee7830a611a05ec1d6ba2&fmt=H. Martindale, Trey, Carolyn Pearson, L. K. Curd a, and Janet Pilcher. "Effects of an Online Instructional Application on Reading and Ma thematics Standardized Test Scores." Journal of Research on Technology in Education 37: 349-360, Summer 2005. Journal online. Available from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.c om.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/hww/jumpstart.jhtml? recid=0bc05f7a67b1790e70e397f5ebc28d34d43ce33921c936ba8145893073ddef4c593d1d d4d3ec4736&fmt=H. Mathis, William. "The Cost of Implementing th e Federal No Child Left Behind Act: Different Assumptions, Different Answers." Peabody Journal of Education 80: 90-119, 2005. Journal online. Available from http:// vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/hww/ jumpstart.jhtml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1790e70e397f5ebc28d34d43ce33921c936bac3ec95d92 632237e6172e3146ce8168b&fmt=H. McDermott, Kathryn, and Laura Jensen. "Dubious Sovereignty: Federal Conditions of Aid and the No Child Left Behind Act." Peabody Journal of Education 80, no. 2 (2005): 39-56. McDonnell, Lorraine. "No Child Left Behind and th e Federal Role in Education: Evolution or Revolution?." Peabody Journal of Education 80: 19-38, 2005. Journal online. Available from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl .ufl.edu/hww/jumpstart.jhtml?recid= 0bc05f7a67b1790e70e397f5ebc28d34d43ce33921c936bac3ec95d92632237e958b3509534 641b7&fmt=H. McLaughlin, Margaret, Sandra Embler, and Gle nda Hernandez. "No Child Left Behind and Students with Disabilities in Rural and Small Schools." Rural Special Education Quarterly 24: 32-39, Winter 2005. Journal online. Available from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.e du/hww/jumpstart.jh tml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1 790e70e397f5ebc28d34d43ce33921c936bafae31186a870d08d55d510cf24f8f707&fmt=P. Moores, Donald. "The No Child Left Behind and the Individuals With Disabilities Education Acts: The Uneven Impact of Partially Funde d Federal Mandates on Education of Deaf and Hard of Hearing Children." American Annals of the Deaf 150: 75-80, 2005. Journal online. Available from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.c om.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/hww/jumpstart.jhtml? recid=0bc05f7a67b1790e70e397f5ebc28d34d43ce33921c936bac15da6c927988d2c6b7bc2 8b98926067&fmt=H. Munich, John, and Rocco Testani. "NEA Sues over NCLB." Education Next 5, Fall 2005. Journal online. Available from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.e du/hww/jumpstart.jh tml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1 790e70e397f5ebc28d34d43ce33921c936ba4a7881d20e3c3d6754d56c36fc731f38&fmt=H.

PAGE 136

136 National Commission on Excellence in Education. "A Nation At Risk." [Online] Archived Information, 1983. Available from . Newbold, Barry. "The Faceless Mandates of NCLB." Kappa Delta Pi Record 41: 7-9, Fall 2004. Journal online. Available from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.e du/hww/jumpstart.jh tml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1 790e70e397f5ebc28d34ee4f4d140d9e929b2753034ce92f5c4e751ff729952dedb6&fmt=H. Norlin, John. From Rowley to Buckhannon: 50 Court Decisions Special Educators Need to Know (Horsham, Pennsylvania: LRP, 2004). Norlin, John. NCLB and IDEA '04: A Si de-By-Side Analysis Horsham: LRP, 2005. Okaloosa County School District. "Okaloosa County School District ." [Online] Okaloosa County School District: Best in Fl orida, 2006. Available from . Peterson, Paul, and Martin West. "Is Your Child's School Effective?." Education Next 6: 76-80, Fall 2006. Journal online. Available from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/h ww/results/results_single_fulltext.jhtml. Petrilli, Michael. "Misdirected Energy." Education Next 7: 5, Winter 2007. Journal online. Available from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.e du/hww/jumpstart.jh tml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1 790e70e397f5ebc28d34524897178207968bb49fee422d0fad8d108a9dc55fa404f1&fmt=H. Platt, John, Richard Casey, and Richard Faessel. "The Need for a Paradigmatic Change in Juvenile Correctional Education." Preventing School Failure 51: 31-38, Fall 2006. Journal online. Available from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.e du/hww/jumpstart.jh tml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1 790e70e397f5ebc28d34765dac3af9419977064da2ce 364287f03363fb93287cfb73&fmt=P. Prasse, David. "Legal Supports for Problem-Solving Systems." Remedial and Special Education 27: 7-15, January/February 2006. Journal online. Available from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.e du/hww/jumpstart.jh tml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1 790e70e397f5ebc28d34765dac3af94199770590cab8e3914bec77f50543b55b408b&fmt=P.

PAGE 137

137 Rodriquez, Gloria. "Vertical E quity in School Finance and the Potential for Increasing School Responsiveness to Student and Staff Needs." Peabody Journal of Education 79: 7-30, 2004. Journal online. Available from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.e du/hww/jumpstart.jh tml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1 790e70e397f5ebc28d34ee4f4d140d9e929b42ff69ffe5467d fe31c0ff2fe029ca5b&fmt=P. Rosenbusch, Marcia. "The No Child Left Behi nd Act and Teaching and Learning Languages in U.S. Schools." The Modern Language Journal 89: 250-261, Summer 20 05. Journal online. Available from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.e du/hww/jumpstart.jh tml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1 790e70e397f5ebc28d34d43ce33921c936bab732a74ef514ca7d3bb90196a07ab1dc&fmt=P. Smith, Emma. "Raising American Standards in Sc hools: The Case of No Child Left Behind." Journal of Education Policy 20, no. 4 (2005): 507-524. Thomas, Stephen, and Charles Russo. Special Education Law: Issues & Implications for the '90s Topeka: National Organization on Legal Problems of Education, 1995. Thompson, David, and Craig Wood. Money & Schools Larchmont: Eye on Education, 2005. Towles-Reeves, Elizabeth, Stephanie Kampfer-B ohach, Brent Garrett, Jacqueline Kearns, and Jennifer Grisham-Brown. "Are We Leaving Our Children Behind?." Journal of Disability Policy Studies 17: 40-48, Summer 2006. Jour nal online. Available from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.e du/hww/jumpstart.jh tml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1 790e70e397f5ebc28d34765dac3af94199776137a7383c9ea5d714e927b0bf863b3d&fmt=P. Turnbull, Ann, H. Rutherford Turnbull III, Marilyn Shank, and Dorthy Leal. Exceptional Lives: Special Education In Today's Schools (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1995). U. S. Department of Education. "Buildi ng the Legacy: IDEA 2004." [Online] Ed.gov, 2007. Available from . U. S. Department of Education. "Calculating Participation Rates." [Online] Ed.gov, 2004. Available from . U.S. Department of Education. "Executive Summary." [Online] Ed.gov, 2004. Available from . U. S. Department of Education. "Extra Credit." [Online] Ed.gov, 2007. Available from . U. S. Department of Education. "Key Policy Letters Signed by the Education Secretary or Deputy Secretary." [Online] Ed.gov, 2005. Available from .

PAGE 138

138 U. S. Department of Education. "New No Ch ild Left Behind Flexibil ity: Highly Qualified Teachers." [Online] No Child Left Behind, Available from . U. S. Department of Education. "No Child Le ft Behind." [Online] Ed.gov, 2007. Available from . U. S. Department of Education. "Office of Management and Budget." [Online] U. S. Department of Education, 2007. Available from . U.S. Department of Education. "Paige Approve s Florida State Accountability Plan Under No Child Left Behind." [Online] No Child Left Behind, 2003. Available from . U. S. Department of Education. "Paige Joins President Bush for Signing of Historic No Child Left Behind Act of 2001." [Online] Ed.gov, 2007. Available from . U. S. Department of Education. "The Achi ever." [Online] Ed.gov, 2007. Available from . U. S. Department of Education. "U. S. De partment of Education." [Online] Ed.gov, 2007. Available from . Wanker, William, and Kathy Christy. "State Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act." Peabody Journal of Education 80: 57-72, 2005. Journal online Available from http:// vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/hww/jumpstart.jhtml? recid=0bc05f7a67b1790e7 0e397f5ebc28d34d43ce33921c936bac3ec95d92632237e03c03774adb09c49&fmt=H. Wiener, Ross, and Daria Hall. "Accountability Under No Child Left Behind." The Clearing House 78: 17-21, September/October 2004. Jo urnal online. Available from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.e du/hww/jumpstart.jh tml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1 790e70e397f5ebc28d34ee4f4d140d9e929b14366436d2b9fb5f510457ba84202ac8&fmt=H. Wong, Kenneth, and Herbert Walberg. "Introduction to the Special Issue on Contemporary School Choice Research." Peabody Journal of Education 81: 1-6, 2006. J ournal online. Available from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.e du/hww/jumpstart.jh tml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1 790e70e397f5ebc28d34765dac3af941997791fcbaa69852931219ab6a37f112ac4b&fmt=H. Wright, Peter, Pamela Wright, and Suzanne Heath. No Child Left Behind Hartfield: Harbor House Law Press, Inc, 2004.

PAGE 139

139 Yell, Michell, Antonis Katsiyannas, and James Shiner. "The No Child Left Behind Act, Adequate Yearly Progress, and Students With Disabilities." Teaching Exceptional Children 38: 32-29, March/April 2006. Journal online. Available from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.e du/hww/jumpstart.jh tml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1 790e70e397f5ebc28d34765dac3af9419977017bc36153958c1be2eeb1d746238f73&fmt=H. Yunker Katherine, Carolyn Nagle, and Kimber Malmgren. "Students with Disabilities and Accountability Reform." Journal of Disability Policy Studies 17: 28-39, Summer 2006. Journal online. Available from http:/ /vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/ hww/jumpstart.jhtml?recid= 0bc05f7a67b1790e70e397f5ebc28d34765dac3af94199776137 a7383c9ea5d7bae99223d0730058&fmt=H. Zirkel, Perry. "Does Brown v. Boar d of Education Play a Prominent Role in Special Education Law?." Journal of Law & Education 34, no. 2 (April 2005): 255-271. Legal Citations in Order of First Use 20 U.S.C. 1400 (c)(1) 20 U.S.C. 6311 (b)(2 )(C)(v)(II)(cc) FLA. Stat. ch. 1003.01 (3)(a) 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002) 20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2) (2002) 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. (2004) FLA. Stat. ch. 2006.74 (2006) U. S. Const. amend. X U. S. Const. 20 U.S.C. 6361(b)(8)(B) (2002) 20 U.S.C. 1400 (c)(5)(A) (2004) 20 U.S.C. 1400 (c)(2) 20 U.S.C. 6301 (2002) 20 U.S.C. 6319 (2002) 20 U.S.C. 6311 (2002) FLA. Stat. ANN. 1008.22 (3)(b) (LexisNexis 2004) FLA. Stat. ANN. 1008.34 (5) (LexisNexis 2004) FLA. Stat. ANN. 1008.22 (LexisNexis 2004)

PAGE 140

140 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (1965) 20 U.S.C. 6301-6578 (1965) 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (1994) 20 U.S.C. 6316 (c)(7)(A) (2002) 20 U.S.C. 6316 (2002) 20 U.S.C. 6301-6578 (2002) 20 U.S.C 1400 (1975) 20 U.S.C.S. 1400-1491 (1990) 20 U.S.C. 1400-1487 (1997) 20 U.S.C. 602 (10)(A) (2002) 20 U.S.C. 617 (b) (2004) 20 U.S.C. 612 (a)(15)(A)-(B) (2002) 20 U.S.C. 602 (10)(A) (2002) FLA. Stat. ch. 1008.31 (1)(b) (2007) 20 U.S.C. 6316 (b)(1)(E) (2002) Fla. Const. of 1885, art. IX, 4(a) FLA. Stat. ch. 2001.02 (2)(J) (2007) FLA. Stat. ch. 2000.21 (7) (2007) FLA. Stat. ch. 1000.01 (2007) 20 U.S.C. 6311 (b)(2)(A) (2002) 20 U.S.C. 6311 (b)(2)(I) (2002) 20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2)(H) (2002) 20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2)(F) (2002) 20 U.S.C. 1400 (d) (2004) 20 U.S.C. 6361(b)(8)(B) (2002) FLA. Const. art. IX, 1 (amended 2002)

PAGE 141

141 Case Law and Litigation Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka 347 U.S. 483 (1954). Mills v. Board of Education of District of Columbia 348 F.Supp. 866 (D.C. 1972). Pontiac, et al., v. Spellings (Filed in the U. S. Di strict Court for the Easter n Court of Michigan on April 20, 2005). The case was dismissed on November 23, 2005.

PAGE 142

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Mark W Stockdale was born in 1965 in Rochester, New York. The eldest of two children Mark was raised in Fairport New York for the larger portion of his child hood. He graduated from Penfield High School in 1984. Immedi ately after graduation he return ed to his familys roots in Gainesville, Florida. For the next several years he led a variegated life, traveling and pursuing careers from sales to carpentry. Ten years latter he decided to pursue a degree in education. Mark received a M.Ed. degree from the University of Florida in 1998. He earned certifications in Learning Disabilities, and Emotional Handicaps. His primary professional in terest was in working with at-risk students. Among other things he has served as special education department chair at an alternative school, math teacher in a juvenile detention center, and tutoring coordinator at a large high school. Mark focused his doctoral studie s on educational law, particul arly as it related to special education. Upon completion of his degree Mark plans to pursue a career in public K-12 education administration. His ultimate goal is to become superintendent of a school district, and implement a plan for more hands on vocational pr ograms. He is also interested in a postsecondary professorship. Mark continues to resi de in Gainesville with Circe, his Harley; and Fred a devoted Bassett hound.