Special Education Research, Policy & Practice - 2018

SPECIAL EDUCATION RESEARCH, POLICY & PRACTICE

November 15, 2018 Volume 2, Issue 1 Table of Contents

Page

Editorial Board of Reviewers

3

Quality edTPA Videos: An Analysis of Two Exemplars Stephen J. Hernandez

5

Questions in Special Education: Unjust Access to Inequitable Outcomes Amy Ballin

14

Making the Community Your Classroom: The Importance of Coordinating Instruction in Multiple Settings Heather Bish

28

What Parents of Children with Chromosome Variations Feel About Special Education Teacher’s Understanding of Their Children’s Educational Problems Jay R. Lucker and Anne T. Molloy Principals’ Perspectives on Teacher Preparation: Does Merging Two Programs Make a Difference Regarding the Abilities of New Teachers?

Andrea M. Kent and Rebecca M. Giles Social Benefits of Students with Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (Chronic Fatigue Syndrome) Participating in Recess Matthew D. Lucas and Amy M. Scott

1

45

53

73

Table of Contents

Page

Reliability and Validity of the Self-Advocacy Scale Marcia L. Montague, Patricia S. Lynch, Trey W. Armstrong, and Linda G. Castillo

77

Screening for Early Numeracy Skill Development Gena Nelson and Allyson J. Kiss

88

Comparing Approaches for Students in Special Education Taking Notes on Science Texts Deborah K. Reed and Keely Norris

97

Choosing to Become a Special Educator: Investigating Preservice Teachers’ Preferences Linda M. Reeves, Rebecca M. Giles, and Todd M. Johnson

113

What’s in a Name? One Canadian Province’s Interpretations of Inclusion and Inclusive Education Ken Reimer

129

Using the Core-Selective Evaluation Process to Identify a PSW: Integrating Research, Practice, and Policy Edward K. Schultz and Tammy L. Stephens-Pisecco

138

Mobile Technology Devices for Children with Developmental Disabilities: A Systematic Review Julia VanderMolen and Kaitlin Chauv

156

Special Education Personnel: Who is Serving Special Education Students in Ohio?

Patricia Prunty

176

Author Guidelines and Publishing Process

192

Copyright and Reprint Rights

194

2

Editorial Board of Reviewers

All members of the Hofstra University Special Education Department will sit on the Editorial Board for the SPECIAL EDUCATION RESEARCH, POLICY & PRACTICE. Each of the faculty will reach out to professionals in the field whom he/she knows to start the process of building a list of peer reviewers for specific types of articles. Reviewer selection is critical to the publication process, and we will base our choice on many factors, including expertise, reputation, specific recommendations and previous experience of a reviewer.

Editor George Giuliani, J.D., Psy.D., Hofstra University Hofstra University Special Education Faculty Elfreda Blue, Ph.D. Stephen Hernandez, Ed.D. Gloria Lodato Wilson, Ph.D. Mary McDonald, Ph.D., BCBA Darra Pace, Ed.D. Diane Schwartz, Ed.D. Editorial Board Mohammed Alzyoudi, Ph.D., UAEU Faith Andreasen, Ph.D., Morningside College Vance L. Austin, Ph.D., Manhattanville College Amy Balin, Ph.D., Simmons College Dana Battaglia, Ph.D., Adelphi University Brooke Blanks, Ph.D., Radford University Kathleen Boothe, Ph.D., Southeastern Oklahoma State University Nicholas Catania, Ph.D. Candidate, University of South Florida Lindsey A. Chapman, Ph.D. Candidate, University of Miami Morgan Chitiyo, Ph.D., Duquesne University Jonathan Chitiyo, Ph.D., University of Pittsburgh at Bradford Heidi Cornell, Ph.D., Wichita State University Lesley Craig-Unkefer, Ed.D., Middle Tennessee State University Amy Davies Lackey, Ph.D., BCBA-D Josh Del Viscovo, MS, BCSE, Northcentral University Janet R. DeSimone, Ed.D., Lehman College, The City University of New York Lisa Dille, Ed.D., BCBA, Georgian Court University William Dorfman, B.A. (MA in progress), Florida International University Brandi Eley, Ph.D. Tracey Falardeau, M.A., Oklahoma State Department of Education Danielle Feeney, Ph.D. Candidate, University of Nevada, Las Vegas Lisa Fleisher, Ph.D., New York University Neil O. Friesland, Ed.D., MidAmerica Nazarene University Theresa Garfield Dorel, Ed.D., Texas A&M University San Antonio Leigh Gates, Ed.D., University of North Carolina Wilmington Sean Green, Ph.D. Deborah W. Hartman, M.S., Cedar Crest College Shawnna Helf, Ph.D., Winthrop University 3

Nicole Irish, Ed.D., University of the Cumberlands Randa G. Keeley, Ph.D., New Mexico State University Hyun Uk Kim, Ph.D., Simmons College Louisa Kramer-Vida, Ed.D., Long Island University Nai-Cheng Kuo, PhD., BCBA, Augusta University RenÊe E. Lastrapes, Ph.D., University of Houston-Clear Lake Debra Leach, Ed.D., BCBA, Winthrop University Marla J. Lohmann, Ph.D., Colorado Christian University Mary Lombardo-Graves, Ed.D., University of Evansville Pamela E. Lowry, Ed.D., Georgian Court University Matthew D. Lucas, Ed.D., Longwood University Jay R. Lucker, Ed.D., Howard University Jennifer N. Mahdavi, Ph.D., BCBA-D, Sonoma State University Alyson Martin, Ed.D., Fairfield University Marcia Montague, Ph.D., Texas A&M University Chelsea T. Morris, Ph.D. Candidate, University of Miami Gena Nelson, Ph.D. Candidate, American Institutes for Research Lawrence Nhemachena, MSc, Universidade Catolica de Mozambique Maria B. Peterson Ahmad, Ph.D., Western Oregon University Christine Powell. Ed.D., California Lutheran University Deborah Reed, Ph.D., University of Iowa Ken Reimer, Ph.D., University of Winnipeg Dana Reinecke, Ph.D., Long Island University-C.W. Post Denise Rich-Gross, Ph.D., University of Akron Benjamin Riden, ABD - Ph.D., Penn State Mary Runo, Ph.D., Kenyatta University Emily Rutherford, Ed.D., Midwestern State University Carrie Semmelroth, Ed.D.., Boise State University Pamela Schmidt, M.S., Freeport High School Special Education Department Edward Schultz, Ph.D., Midwestern State University Mustafa Serdar KOKSAL, Ph.D., Inonu University Emily R. Shamash, Ed.D., Teachers College, Columbia University Christopher E. Smith, PhD, BCBA-D, Long Island University Gregory W. Smith. Ph.D., University of Southern Mississippi Emily Sobeck, Ph.D., Franciscan University Ernest Solar, Ph.D., Mount St. Mary’s University Gretchen L. Stewart , Ph.D. Candidate, University of South Florida Roben Taylor, Ed.D., Dalton State College Jessie Sue Thacker-King, Arkansas State University Julia VanderMolen, Ph.D., Grand Valley State University Cindy Widner, Ed.D. Candidate, Carson Newman University Kathleen G. Winterman, Ed.D., Xavier University Sara B. Woolf, Ed.D., Queens College, City University of New York Perry A. Zirkel, J.D., Ph.D., Lehigh University

4

Quality edTPA Videos: An Analysis of Two Exemplars Stephen J. Hernandez, Ed.D. Hofstra University

Abstract This article provides the reader with insight into the essential elements needed for a high-quality video to be used as the visual evidence required in an edTPA portfolio. Submitting an edTPA portfolio is a requirement for teacher certification in a number of states and the inclusion of a video sample representative of one’s clinical teaching experience is an essential element in several components of this portfolio. The reader will be provided with an analysis of two case studies that illustrate how one can incorporate as little as 20 minutes of video as evidence of one’s teaching and student assessment for up to eight of fifteen rubrics for an edTPA portfolio.

Quality edTPA Videos: An Analysis of Two Exemplars Procuring a teaching credential typically involves completing a state approved teacher preparation program and passing one or several teacher certification exams. Each state determines the evidence the prospective teacher must submit to be awarded the credential (Wilson, Hallam, Pecheone, & Moss, 2014). While completing a teacher preparation program is a given across each state, the other measures of teaching competency can vary. These measures take on the form of skills based assessments intended to measure content or pedagogical knowledge, some form of student teaching, and/or an actual assessment of teaching practice.

The use of video evidence, specifically recordings of student teaching in the classroom, has become central to the pre-service teacher assessment process, particularly with the implementation of edTPA as a high stakes measure of competency for those seeking teacher certification in a growing number of states across the country. The question then becomes what are the essential characteristics are of a quality edTPA video? That question is the focus of this article.

Pre-service teachers have several undertakings to accomplish on the path to becoming a successful educator. Initially, they need to develop and apply knowledge of subject matter, content standards and subject-specific pedagogy. Next, they need to develop and apply knowledge of students, including varied strengths, needs, and interests while also considering research and theory about how students learn. Finally, they need to reflect on, justify, and analyze evidence of the effects of instruction on student learning (SCALE 2013). Together, these undertakings are incorporated into the edTPA assessment process within the context of five dimensions of teaching (SCALE, 2016).

As such, video evidence is potentially critical in the assessment of all five dimensions.

The first dimension of teaching being evaluated is the planning of instruction and assessment. This is where the candidate establishes the instructional and social context for student learning and includes lesson plans, instructional materials and students’ assignments and/or assessments. As part of this first dimension, candidates demonstrate how their plans align with content standards as well as the specific goals and objectives delineated for students with special needs. In addition, the candidate’s planning must note how their lesson plans build upon students’ prior academic learning and life experiences as well as how the planned instruction is differentiated to address student needs. In addition to the documented artifacts that help support one’s claims as detailed in their 5

Context for Learning, lesson plans, instructional materials and commentaries, candidates can illustrate the comprehensiveness of their planning through the video evidence of their instruction.

The second dimension that is assessed through an edTPA portfolio is the instruction and engagement of students. For this dimension, this is where video evidence is front and center. Here is where candidates need to include into their portfolio one or two unedited video clips of 15-20 minutes from the learning segment. The permissible length varies depending on the subject specific handbook. In addition, dimension two requires an analysis detailing how the candidate engages students in learning activities as well as commentary regarding subject-specific pedagogical strategies used to facilitate student learning.

The third dimension that is evaluated in the context of an edTPA portfolio is the assessment of student learning and reflecting on your own teaching. Candidates are evaluated on how they will and have provided evidence of the assessment of student learning through the documented evaluation criteria that as used in the analysis of student learning process. How a candidate provides evidence of assessment and the evaluation of student learning varies from one subject specific handbook to another but in general one has the option of including video, audio or written feedback as evidence of student learning. In addition, candidates must discuss how they provided elicited and monitored student responses to develop deep understanding of the subject matter. This is the “feedback” component of the portfolio.

The fourth dimension being assessed through one’s edTPA portfolio is an analysis of a candidate’s teaching effectiveness. The evidence that is reviewed within the framework of the candidate’s commentaries for the Planning, Instruction and Assessment tasks. More specifically, in Task One (Planning), candidates justify their plans based on the candidate’s knowledge of diverse students’ learning strengths and needs and principles of research and theory. In Task Two (Instruction), candidates explain and justify which aspects of the learning segment were effective, and what the candidate would change. In Task Three, candidates use their analysis of assessment results to inform next steps for individuals and groups with varied learning needs. As is the case with the first dimension, video illustrations of effective instruction are a key ingredient in how well one’s portfolio is evaluated.

The fifth dimension of teaching that a candidate is evaluated on is their ability to develop the use of academic language in students. A candidate is evaluated based on their ability to support students’ oral and written use of academic language to deepen subject matter understandings. For this dimension, a candidate’s competency is determined from the portfolio’s commentaries and videos that explain and provide evidence of how students demonstrate academic language using student work samples and/or video recordings of student engagement.

These five dimensions of teaching are assessed through a candidate’s edTPA portfolio using several sources of evidence that include various artifacts and commentaries. Specifically, the planning task looks at the instructional and social context, lesson plans, instructional materials, student assignments, and the planning commentary. The instruction task relies upon video clips of the candidate’s teaching as well as the instructional commentary. Meanwhile, the assessment task looks at the evaluation criteria used to analyze student learning, an analysis of whole class assessment, an analysis of learning and sample of feedback to three students and finally the assessment commentary.

As noted, the scores one receives on an edTPA portfolio is reliant on many items provided by the candidate. How well one scores on these items will determine whether the candidate receives a passing score on their portfolio. Scores are given to candidates work within the realm of 13 – 18 6

rubrics, depending on the subject-specific handbook that is being used. The scores received correlate with the candidate’s readiness to teach and are described as follows:  A level one score is representative of the knowledge and skills of a seriously struggling candidate who is not ready to teach.  A level two score represents the knowledge and skills of a candidate who is possibly ready to teach.  A level three score represents the knowledge and skills of a candidate who is qualified to teach.  A level five score represents a candidate with a solid foundation of knowledge and skills for a beginning teacher.  A level five score represents the advanced skills and abilities of a candidate very well qualified and ready to teach.

As described above, the progression from a score of one to five is indicative of the candidate’s expanding repertoire of skills & strategies as well as a deepening of their rationale for what was taught and a reflection on how effective the teaching was. In general, a score of one is illustrative of a candidate who lacks an individualized, student specific focus, and engages in fragmented and indiscriminate instruction rather than teaching that is integrated, intentional and well executed.

It is not overstating the fact to say that the most critical evidence of an edTPA portfolio are the video(s) submitted for Task 2 and possibly for Task 3 as well. For as much work it is planning the lessons for Task 1, if the candidate does not execute those plans well and lacks video evidence of those lessons, the integrity of the portfolio will suffer, potentially beyond repair. Let’s now review those practices and strategies that are necessary for creating an effective video footage for an edTPA portfolio.

So what are the features of a quality edTPA video? For one, it is not necessary to produce an award-winning video! This is not a cinematography contest. It is necessary though for the candidate to provide a video that is of sufficient clarity in sight and sound so the scorer can easily discern what occurred in the candidate’s classroom. The scorer needs to see the candidate engaged with the students in a manner that is consistent with the requirements of the five rubrics in Task 2 as well as the other rubrics in Task 3 that allow for video evidence to be cited.

Before we review each of the rubrics in Task 2, one needs to remember a couple of points regarding the videotaping process. First, candidates must practice using the video equipment at home before they begin the taping of any lessons. Next, make sure candidates have consent forms from students and adults who may appear in the video. Once the consent forms are in hand and the candidate knows who can and cannot appear in the video, candidates should set up the camera in a “video friendly” location in the classroom or another appropriate instructional setting and complete some practice taping before they record their lessons. Establishing a video friendly setting in the classroom means organizing the room for filming. Candidates should position the camera in the room so the footage will provide the scorer with the visual evidence of you and the focus students engaged in the teaching and learning process. If possible, the teacher’s desk should be moved to a location off camera and have the students without consent placed out of the camera range in the classroom.

Setting up the video equipment in advance before filming and then engaging in practice videotaping will allow the candidate and the students to become comfortable with the presence of the equipment and gives the candidate the opportunity to refine their presence while on camera.

Once the candidate does begin to videotape their edTPA lessons, they should record the entire set of three to five lessons. Doing so will give them a good deal of recorded material from which they 7

can choose from for thier submitted clip(s). The additional footage will also provide the candidates with “back-up” in the event there is a technical or quality related problem with the video. The additional material may also be necessary in the event there is the need for a retake of all or a portion of the portfolio. The last suggestion might be the most important practical step candidates take in creating their portfolio – making sure to save in multiple locations each and every file, including the video clip(s) they are creating for thier edTPA submission. The last thing candidates want to have happen to them is finding out that their videotaped evidence has been corrupted, damaged or lost. Frequently saving files, in more than one location, is an absolute necessity.

It is critical that the submitted video clip(s) illustrate the candidate engaging the students during the lessons. At minimum, a visual image of the candidate’s face must appear in at least one video clip in order to confirm their identity. Even better, the candidates must make sure that the video(s) illustrate them and their students actively engaged in instruction and learning. More information regarding this is noted below. Candidates must also remember to not share or post the video(s) on public venues or with those unaffiliated with the edTPA assessment process. In addition, candidates must make sure they submit unedited video clips that are the appropriate length as specified in the applicable subject-specific manual. Finally, the video clip(s) must feature the teaching and learning emphasis of the candidate’s subject area.

More specifically, as the candidate engaged the students in instruction, they need to ask themselves several questions when deciding what segment of their video footage they will submit as the evidence.

1. How did they demonstrate respect and rapport and responsiveness to students with varied needs and backgrounds, and challenge students to engage in learning?

2. How did they elicit and build on student responses in ways that developed and deepened their content understanding?

3. In what ways did they connect new content to their students’ prior academic learning and personal, cultural, or community assets during the instructional process as noted in the Context for Learning?

4. Did they refer to examples from the video clips in the responses to the prompts?

Particularly;  Did they explain how their instruction engaged students?  Did they describe how their instruction linked students’ prior academic learning and personal, cultural, and community assets with new learning?  Finally, did they identify in their video(s) learning tasks that actively engaged the students in the central focus of the learning segment?

Once the candidate has identified where the evidence exists in their video footage, the candidate then needs to crop the clip(s) for their portfolio. Remember, the submitted video clip(s) cannot be edited. That requires the video evidence be continuous footage of the candidate’s teaching. It is also important for the candidate to recognize that the 15-20-minute video must provide evidence of the teaching and learning required across the five rubrics of Task 2 along with possibly an additional three rubrics for Task 3. For that reason, the candidate must select video clip(s) that illustrate multiple approaches for engaging student learning. While candidates may question how they can demonstrate everything in just 15 – 20 minutes of video footage, it has been found that video evidence of well-planned and skillfully executed lessons are able to address the all of the edTPA rubrics that allow video evidence. One tool that some candidates have found useful is Figure 1. I recommend candidates use this chart as they watch their video(s) to determine where they see evidence of each of the required elements as detailed by each of the prompts in Task 2 and Task 3 in their subject specific handbook. Noting in advance the location of the video evidence prior to writing the commentaries lessens the time spent determining what video locations need to be cited in the commentaries. Candidates do not submit this chart with their portfolio. It is simply 8

an aide for determining where in the candidates’ video the evidence exists for each of the rubrics noted in the chart.

Figure 1 Task 2: Identifying Appropriate Video

Rubric 6 – Learning Environment

Rubric 7 – Engaging the student(s)

Rubric 8Deepening Student Learning

Rubric 9 – SubjectSpecific Pedagogy (Supporting Teaching and Learning in Special Education)

Rubric 10 – Analyzing Teaching Effectiveness

Task 3 – Rubric 11: Evidence of Learning & Rubric 12: Providing Feedback Rubric 14: Language Use

Lesson 1

Lesson 2

Lesson 3

Hernandez, S. (2015) Adapted from Casey (2015) Using the data noted in the above chart, the candidate must timestamp where in the to-be-submitted video clip(s) the evidence exists that is going to be cited in the portfolio commentary. The candidate wants to lead the scorer to where the illustrations are that support the claims they are making in the commentaries. Failing to accurately timestamp is like providing driving directions to someone without telling them where and when to make a left or right-hand turn. The more specific the directions are, the less likely the driver will get lost. The same holds true for the candidate’s commentary and the directions they are providing the scorer when they are viewing their video clip(s).

Now that you have a good sense as to the importance of the video evidence in the construction of your edTPA portfolio, let’s now look at two portfolios and see the impact their video evidence had on their edTPA scores in rubrics 6–10 in Task 2 as well as in rubrics 11, 12, and 14 in Task 3.

A Case Study of Effective Video Analysis: Tom This section and the next one provide you with an analysis of two scored edTPA portfolios. The analysis focuses on the rubrics in Tasks 2 and 3 where video was submitted as evidence. The first portfolio, submitted by Tom, received a total score of 43 out of 75 and is consistent with the national average of 44.2 for 15 rubric portfolios (Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity, 2016). The second portfolio, submitted by Jessica, received a total score of 64. Getting back to Tom and his portfolio, he received scores of 3 in nine rubrics, scores of 4 in two rubrics, and scores of 2 in four rubrics. Specifically, Tom’s scores in the rubrics that used video evidence are as follows: In Task 2, he scored a 3 for rubrics 6, 7, and 8, along with a 4 in rubric 9. He scored a 2 for rubric 10. In Task 3, Tom received scores of 3 in rubrics 11 and 12 and a score of 2 in rubric 14.

9

Remember, candidates need to receive a minimum score of 3 for their work to be considered indicative of someone who is qualified to teach. A score of 2 on the other hand represents the knowledge and skills of a candidate who is possibly ready to teach. Unless you receive a couple of rubric scores above a 3, scores of 2 in more than just 4–5 rubrics will likely result in a failing portfolio. In Task 2, rubric 6 (learning environment) pertains to the candidate’s ability to demonstrate a positive learning environment that supports students’ engagement in learning. In this rubric Tom received a perfectly acceptable score of 3. As noted in the subject-specific Understanding Rubric Level Progressions guidebook (Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity, 2016), a candidate receives this score because of video evidence illustrating the engagement of students in a respectful manner where they establish a rapport with the learners.

That respect and rapport created by Tom allowed the students to easily communicate with him. His score is also indicative of Tom being able to facilitate a positive learning environment. Why did Tom not receive a higher score in this rubric? A review of the difference between a score of 3 and 4 on rubric 6 rests on the candidate challenging the students to engage in higher-order thinking or the application of new learning. Demonstrating just respect, rapport, while not illustrating the creation of a positive learning environment, will result in a maximum score of 3 on this rubric.

Rubric 7 (engaging students in learning) addresses how you as the candidate engage students in the learning process. Tom received another 3 for this rubric, primarily because of the video evidence illustrating him using strategies designed to engage the students in content appropriate learning, which is related to the students’ prior knowledge and experiences.

Rubric 8 (deepening student learning) addresses the candidate’s ability to deepen student learning.

On this rubric, Tom again scored a 3. This score was achieved primarily through Tom illustrating the structuring of the learning process in a way that prompted the students to apply new knowledge and skills in concert with the established goals of the lessons. In addition, the video recording showed Tom providing accurate and specific feedback to his students. A score of 4 would have resulted if, in addition to the evidence noted earlier, he had been able to prompt the students to apply the knowledge learned in the portfolio lessons. Rubric 9 (subject-specific pedagogy) addresses subject-specific pedagogy, and in this area Tom scored the best out of all the other Task 2 rubrics, receiving a 4 out of 5. He achieved this score by showing in his video the use of instructional strategies that foster the students’ progress toward achieving the learning segment goals. Even more specifically, his score reflected his ability to promote a deeper understanding of the content in his students through guided practice and self-directed learning. Tom’s score on rubric 10 (analysis of teaching effectiveness) was only 2. As noted earlier, a score below 3 represents the skills of someone who is possibly ready to teach. In Tom’s case, his portfolio was superficial in its ability to propose changes in future learning experiences. In addition, the changes he did propose were not directly related to the students and their knowledge, as illustrated in the video. In addition to the required use of video evidence for Task 2 (instruction), candidates can use video evidence in their analysis of the portfolio’s assessment results (Task 3). Specifically, candidates in some content areas can illustrate their ability to analyze student learning (rubric 11— analysis of student learning) and provide feedback to a student to guide their learning (rubric 12— providing feedback to guide further learning) as well as convey their analysis of the students’ use of language (rubric 14).

Tom did use video evidence for all three of these rubrics, with sufficient success in rubrics 11 and 12. He was not so proficient in documenting student language use for rubric 14. For all three of these rubrics, Tom included an additional video clip as an artifact for Task 3. For rubric 11, Tom’s score of 3 demonstrated an analysis that draws on his knowledge of students’ performance along with the students’ strengths and needs. Tom also scored a 3 on rubric 12, with his video clip illustrating detailed feedback to the students. When it came to Tom’s ability to analyze the 10

student’s language use, the rubric 14 (analyzing language use) score of 2 is indicative of limited relationship of the identified language use to the learning segment’s learning goals.

Upon conclusion, Tom’s use of video, and his commentary analysis, provided him with just enough evidence to receive a level three score in five of the video-applicable rubrics. His score of 4 in rubric 9 just barely offset the two rubrics (#10 and #14) with scores of 2. On review, Tom’s scores in the Task 3 rubrics may have been improved with better analysis of his available evidence.

Instead of using a different video clip for his Task 3 evidence, he may have had more illustrative video from his Task 2 video clip, or he could have chosen to not use video evidence at all for Task 3. The next case study is a contrast to Tom’s and provides an example as to how just 20 minutes of video can result in a high score on all eight video-relevant rubrics.

A Case Study of Effective Video Analysis: Jessica This analysis is a portfolio that received a much higher score than Tom. In this case, Jessica received a total edTPA score of 64 (out of a maximum of 75). Her portfolio uses of video evidence received scores of 4.0 (out of 5) on rubrics 6, 7, 9, and 10, a score of 5 on rubric 8 in Task 2 (instruction), and scores of 4, 5, and 4, respectively, on rubrics 11, 12, and 14 in Task 3. As already noted, rubric 6 pertains to the candidate’s ability to demonstrate a positive learning environment that supports students’ engagement in learning. As stated earlier, Jessica received a score of 4 for this rubric. This score is indicative of the candidate creating an instructional environment that facilitated a positive learning environment that provides both support and challenge for the students as it pertains to the lesson objectives for the learning goal. In addition, the video footage illustrated the encouragement of and existence of mutual respect and rapport among students and between the students and the candidate. Jessica’s ability to engage her students in the learning process resulted in her receiving a score of 4 on rubric 7. This score resulted from the fact that Jessica demonstrated her engagement with the students in a way that facilitated their learning and made connections between the students’ prior learning and their personal, cultural, and community assets. In addition, Jessica clearly demonstrated the use of appropriate scaffolding that integrated the objectives of the learning goal with one another and provided evidence of smooth transitions from one learning activity to another. Deepening student learning is the focus of rubric 8, and on this rubric Jessica scored a 5 out of 5. The candidate’s score resulted from the inclusion of evidence in the clips showing students being provided with the opportunity to engage in self-monitoring and selfcorrection. In addition, Jessica provided the students with the opportunity to build on the knowledge and skills related to the desired learning outcomes. For rubric 9 candidates need to provide evidence of how they support learning as it relates to the subject content. Jessica scored a 4 in this rubric by explicitly demonstrating her ability to provide the students with appropriate instructional strategies, supports, and materials that then capitalize on student learning. Finally, rubric 10, the last one in Task 2, requires candidates to analyze their own teaching effectiveness and asks how the candidates used evidence to evaluate and change their own teaching practice to then meet students’ varied learning needs. As with most of the rubrics in Task 2 (instruction), Jessica received a score of 4 on this rubric. She accomplished this by proposing changes to her teaching that relate directly to the strengths and needs of the students as illustrated in the video footage submitted. As noted in Tom’s case, candidates can also use video evidence when it comes to their work for Task 3. Jessica did just that, providing video evidence from her Task 2 in analyzing student learning and guiding student learning from feedback in Task 3.

Jessica received scores of 4, 5, and 4, respectively, for rubrics 11, 12, and 14. Remember, Jessica effectively illustrated her skills across eight rubrics in less than 20 minutes of video footage! On rubric 11, Jessica used details regarding her students’ strengths and needs as well as the levels and types of supports they need. Specifically, she conveyed specific knowledge of her students as it 11

relates to their progress toward achieving the learning goal. That level of detail paid off handsomely on rubric 12 where she scored a 5. An analysis of the score and her portfolio shows that Jessica provided explicit feedback to the student and specifically relates the feedback to the student’s prior learning. Finally, Jessica employed video evidence from her Task 2 video in her analysis for rubric 14, the only other rubric in Task 3 that can cite video evidence. For this rubric, Jessica scored a 4 out of 5 by identifying and describing the video evidence illustrating the student’s use of the relevant language functions, applicable vocabulary, and the associated language demand of discourse. Key here is the evidence showing not just the use of language functions and vocabulary but also the appropriate use of discourse (or syntax) as an associated language demand. In addition, Jessica’s score in rubric 14 was a result of her analysis, including specific information noting the growth and/or struggles of students in the development of content understandings.

To summarize, Jessica was deliberate and focused on creating a high content video. Her video provided evidence of her clearly establishing respect and rapport, promoting an appropriate and effective learning environment, and engaging students in a manner that facilitated high quality and in-depth learning in a supportive environment. In addition, the video exhibited her keen analysis of the students’ performance while also reflecting on her teaching, student-directed feedback, and their use of content-relevant language. Accomplishing this took advance preparation, planning, and a continual focus on maximizing the use of video evidence to address the required components of her portfolio. In the end, Jessica’s work paid off.

Conclusions The purpose of this article is to provide the reader with a detailed guide on the use of video footage in the creation of a high quality edTPA portfolio. Note must be taken that no one component of one’s portfolio is independent of the other. A poorly designed set of lesson plans will be reflected in the video footage taken of those lessons. And while it has been previously stated that a welldeveloped planning task, if not reflected in the video evidence, can result in a low score, the fact remains that candidates need to pursue the goal of producing a high-quality portfolio overall and avoid the trap of attempting to skirt around the work in any one of the tasks or rubric requirements.

The guidance provided in this article has provided effective support to other edTPA candidates but the guidance, suggestions, and strategies discussed here will not result in a high score if the candidate is not committed to producing a well-developed portfolio. Use the information provided here as an aide in the process, not as a substitute for your own pedagogical insight and knowledge.

References Darling Hammond, L., & Baratz-Showden, J. (2005). A good teacher in every classroom: Preparing the highly qualified teachers our children deserve. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.

National Research Council. (2001). Testing teacher candidates: The role licensure tests in improving teacher quality. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity. (2013). edTPA Field Test: Summary report. Palo Alto, CA. Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity. (2016). Educative assessment & meaningful support. 2015 edTPA administrative report. Palo Alto, CA. Wilson, M., Hallam, P. J., Pecheone, R. L., & Moss, P. A. (2014). Evaluating the

12

validity of portfolio assessments for licensure decisions. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22(6). Retrieved October 14, 2016, from http://dx.doi. org/10.14507/epaa.v22n6.2014.

16028 About the Author Stephen J. Hernandez, Ed.D., is an Assistant Professor in Special Education, the Director of Early Childhood Special Education, and the edTPA Coordinator in the School of Education at Hofstra University. In his role as edTPA Coordinator, Dr. Hernandez provides training and guidance to students in the development of their edTPA portfolios as well as to faculty in their support of these students.

13

Questions in Special Education: Unjust Access to Inequitable Outcomes Amy Ballin, Ph.D. Simmons College

Abstract The development of special education services intended to help struggling students may do more harm than good, depending on students’ ability to access high-quality resources. The inequities in the socially constructed system of special education emerge in this ethnographic case study of the educational journeys of nine students diagnosed with a language-based learning disability. The study highlights the consequences of the diagnosis process as well as heroic efforts made by parents to secure an education that aligned with their child’s needs. This research draws attention to the Kelsey School (a pseudonym), a private school that created an environment that enabled these nine children to learn to read. Given the success of these children once they found their way to Kelsey, the author questions the inequities embedded in special education that allow some children a privileged education while others are denied this same access.

Keywords: Special education, misdiagnosis, access to education, social construction of special education, specific learning disability Questions in Special Education: Unjust Access to Inequitable Outcomes Since the inception of public schools in the United States, the discourse on educational equity has been largely absent, despite the myth of education as the great equalizer (Oakes, Lipton, Anderson, & Stillman, 2014) and the concept of education as a necessity for the health of a democracy (Ravitch, 2010; Yell, 2016). Legally, stemming from compulsory education laws in all states as of 1893, all children should have the right to an education (Yell, 2016). Yet, when some children cannot access the provided education, the outcomes of their educational journey will not match those of students who can navigate through schooling accessing the given curriculum. Inequity in education is complex and involves multiple factors. This paper focuses on the possible ways in which special education services for students with moderate language-based learning disabilities have become a vehicle for inequity in the ways in which children have or have not been able to access the appropriate education to match their learning needs.

The responsibilities and failures of public schools have been the subject of debate for decades (Ravitch, 2010). Often, in these discussions, students are seen as at fault for not meeting some expectation set up by teachers, the school district, the state board of education, or even the federal government. Children are often blamed for their behavior; they are, at times, told they are not working up to their potential, and they are ostracized for their learning challenges (Ballin, 2016).

Sometimes this “blame” can be the result of bias on the part of the teacher or the administration, a lack of cultural understanding, or a misdiagnosis of a learning challenge. Blame may also stem from a lack of understanding of how to teach children who may learn differently from those who fall within a perceived norm (Dudley-Marling & Gurn, 2010).

Fortunately, there are models of schooling that have proven to be successful when other venues have failed. This research examines how students with language-based learning disabilities (LBLD) went from a debilitating experience in their public schools to a successful learning experience in a private school, designed exclusively for children diagnosed with LBLD. Analyzing 14

the children’s success adds important data to the field. It also raises questions about why these children were able to access this education and why this kind of an education is sometimes not provided and not accessible to all children who need this level of support.

At the heart of this research is the question of whether a meaningful education is a right or a privilege. Despite state compulsory education laws, the quality of education and each child’s opportunity to access that education are not necessarily equitable (Oakes et al., 2014). Education that is not accessible, or is of such poor quality that a child cannot learn, draws into question the meaning of a right to an education and the benefit of that education. It appears that certain children, based on race, socioeconomic class, gender, access to resources, and perceived ability, have privileges that open doors to education that is not necessarily available to all children (Oakes et al., 2014). Special education specifically highlights ethical questions about accessibility of education (Blanchett, 2010).

Students identified as having special needs have a long history of being ignored and excluded in the educational system. Before the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) of 1975, many of these children were barred from school or placed in substandard settings (Yell, 2016). With the advent of EAHCA, the precursor to the Individuals with Disability Act (IDEA), reauthorized in 2004, students with special needs now receive Individualized Educational Plans (IEPs) that are supposed to help them access the curriculum. Special education laws have helped many children, but the avenues to receive support have not been equitably distributed, and some students have been harmed by the special education labeling process (Gold & Richards, 2012).

This process begins when a child is referred for special education based on a teacher’s or a team’s assessment of the child’s needs—an assessment that may include judgments not necessarily based on scientific evidence. Next, the child receives a diagnosis to fit into one of the thirteen categories of disabilities as defined by IDEA. This identification process disproportionately assigns the special education label to more black and brown students than to their white peers. Consequences of the labeling process include the stigma of special education assignment, misdiagnosis of the need for special education, and an education that at times is a lower quality and perhaps not adequately challenging for the student’s ability. Due to the disproportionality of black and brown students, special education has been described more as a sorting process than an identification process (Blanchett, 2010; Gold & Richards, 2012; Harry & Klingner, 2014).

This article is based on qualitative research regarding the educational journeys of nine white students diagnosed with LBLD, who went from attending a public school to attending a private school designed to meet their educational needs and challenges. I focus on three aspects of the students’ experiences. First, I lay out the common struggles the nine white students experienced trying to obtain an education. Second, I analyze the many structures in place at the Kelsey school (a pseudonym for the school under study) that support students in finding success at this program.

Finally, I explore the inequities inherent to the special education process. These include the labeling and sorting process as well as the intentions, applications, and limitations of special education law that provided the privileges the Kelsey students obtained and that at the same time prohibit others from gaining access to an education that meets their potential.

This study focused on students who were unsuccessful in the public school special education system. Through my years working in public schools, I have witnessed many students who have been helped by special education services. These are not the students that are part of this study.

Many of the parents of the students described appreciation of the public school teachers, noting that despite good intentions, they felt the teachers did not have the training, resources, or time to meet the needs of their child.

15

Literature Review This literature review begins with a focus on three areas of special education pertaining to the experiences of the nine students in the study. First, to receive special education services, a student must meet the requirements of specific categories, some of which rely on the judgment of school personnel. Second, the definition of an appropriate education remains ambiguous despite numerous court cases. Third, special education can be viewed as a system that reinforces school segregation (Blanchett, 2010; Harry & Klingner, 2014). Finally, this literature review describes research on educational practices that appear to benefit diverse groups of students without needing to sort and label individuals.

Special Education Categories The socially constructed system of special education may create challenges for students despite the original intention of special education laws to help students who struggle the most. Several researchers describe special education as being, from its inception, a sorting process designed to spotlight the ways in which students deviate from a perceived norm (Crawford & Bartolome, 2010; Harry & Klingner, 2014; Losen, Ee, Hodson, & Martinez, 2015). In order to obtain services in schools, struggling students must be deemed eligible to meet one of the thirteen categories designated in the Individuals with Disabilities Act of 2004 (IDEA) or must qualify under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to receive accommodations (Wright & Wright, 2015). Yet, how individual schools make the determination of eligibility in certain categories has been questioned (Harry & Klingner, 2014).

Certain disability categories are referred to as judgment categories and are not clearly defined.

These categories include specific learning disabilities, emotional disturbance, and intellectual disability (Gold & Richards, 2012; Harry & Klingner, 2014; Herzick, 2015). With these categories, school personnel are left to use determination systems that are not scientifically based or might be normed based on European American culture (Harry & Klingner, 2014). Teachers, along with others on an eligibility team, might use checklists, culturally biased testing, and their own judgment to determine eligibility (Harry & Klingner, 2014; Herzik, 2015; Wlodkowski & Ginsberg, 1995).

When teachers and other school team members rely on their own judgment in determining eligibility, they may not be aware of their own biases. Harry and Klingner (2014) noted significant inconsistencies with diagnoses within schools and between schools. Additionally, Fish’s research (2016) manipulated race/ethnicity and English Language Learner designations, as well as other characteristics such as behavioral issues for male students, in fictional case studies. She asked teachers to read the case studies and determine the students’ eligibility. The results confirmed that students’ perceived race/ethnicity influenced the ways in which teachers assigned moderate disability status.

Since 1975, Congress has been aware of the discrepancies in special education diagnoses that assign judgment labels in higher proportion to black and brown students as compared to their white peers. In the reauthorization of IDEA in 2004, Congress acknowledged and intended to address these discrepancies, yet the issue of overrepresentation of black and brown students in special education continues today (Herzik, 2015; Wright & Wright, 2015). As Harry and Klingner (2014) noted in their research, this overrepresentation may deny black and brown students a higher quality of education as they are disproportionally placed in sub-separate classrooms with a less challenging curriculum. Also, assigning deficit labels, such as those assigned to meet the special education criteria, may affect children’s self-esteem, as they see the deficit label as a measure of their ability (Crawford & Bartolome, 2010; Gold & Richards, 2012). Gold and Richards (2012) argue that the disabilities label for African American students can result in more harm than good, based on historic negative labels assigned to African Americans and the impact that negative labeling can 16

have on a child’s confidence in his or her ability. Gold and Richards further note that labeling can limit the expectations adults have for children, as well as the expectations that children have for themselves.

Ambiguity About Quality of Education Quality of education is often debated in the legal system. The Supreme Court heard the case of the Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley (1982), and a standard was set to determine the meaning of a “free appropriate public education” (FAPE) for students with disabilities. The standard suggested that students with disabilities are entitled to a specialized education, but that education does not need to be the best education. In a more recent Supreme Court decision, Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District RE-1 (2017), hailed as a victory for students with special needs, the Supreme Court challenged this standard, suggesting that the education needs to be more than just a minimal benefit to meet the requirements for FAPE. In his decision, Justice Roberts noted that a poor quality education should not be considered an education at all (Wright & Wright, 2017). Yet, Yell and Bateman (2017) note that the Supreme Court did not support Endrew’s parents’ request to provide students with disabilities an education equal to those without disabilities.

Segregated Advantages and Disadvantages Based on the Specific Learning Disability Label Beyond the judgments in special education diagnosis are the ways in which black and brown students are serviced that differ from the ways in which white students with the same assigned label are serviced. This difference creates advantages for one group and disadvantages for the others, which ultimately influences the student’s educational trajectory (Blanchett, 2010).

Sleeter (2010) argued that the learning disability label was created by white middle-class parents to protect their children. Sleeter noted that the label was created based on political circumstances of the time. White middle-class parents wanted their children to be distinguished from low-achieving minority students. The specific learning disability (SLD) category describes the child as having average to above-average intelligence but sometimes processing information differently. With this label, white middle-class students who were struggling in school were not seen as having low intelligence; rather, they just had learning disabilities. With this category, white children were protected from being associated from low-achieving minority students.

Today, more black and brown children are labeled with specific learning disability (SLD), but the ways in which they receive services differs from their white counterparts. Blanchett (2010) argued that the same label of SLD brings educational advantages to white middle-school students and disadvantages to black and brown students. White students are more likely to receive special education services within the general education classroom, whereas black and brown students are more likely to be removed to a segregated setting with a lower level of academic challenge.

Blanchett (2010) explains that these differences may explain the lower graduation rates of black and brown students compared to their white peers with the same SLD label.

These examples are poignant in considering the term “achievement gap.” In fact, many educational researchers suggest that it is not, in fact, an achievement gap that is the problem, but instead an opportunity gap; many black and brown students are denied the same opportunities as their white peers even within the same school system (Lewis & Diamond, 2015). To borrow civil rights lawyer Michelle Alexander’s observation about housing discrimination, noted in Ballin (2016), “We have not gotten rid of school segregation, ‘merely redesigned it’ (Alexander, 2012). This segregation has denied students access to an education” (p. 156).

17

Maehr and Midgley (1996) noted that many schools, acknowledging that some students enter school at a disadvantage, initiate self-esteem programs. However, these programs assume that all of the problems of poverty and racial discrimination exist outside the school; only rarely do educators look within the school to see the institution’s role in perpetuating inequality.

McLaren (2003) notes that the hidden curriculum, defined as “the unintended outcomes of the schooling process” (p. 212) allows teachers to blame academic failure on the individual student rather than challenging the teacher to scrutinize societal influences such as racism and classism and to understand how these influences are perpetuated in the school environment.

Creating Equity Through Inclusion and Collaboration Given the challenges posed by school systems in creating equitable learning environments, many educators believe the focus should shift from blaming students to discerning what schools can do to provide a quality education for all students regardless of labels. The inclusion movement attempts to meet this challenge. Inclusion means that all children can find success in the general education environment, and teaching strategies such as Differentiated Instruction (DI) and Universal Design for Learning (UDL) offer teachers the tools to meet the diverse needs of all learners (Stanford & Reeves, 2009).

The inclusion movement is not without debate. Many argue that inclusion is a social justice issue, yet others are concerned that not all students will get the services they need in the inclusive classroom. Using a disabilities studies lens, Wilson (2017) suggests that the general education classroom was designed for white middle-class neurotypical males. She notes that students with defined disabilities are seen as intruders to this space. Inclusion often implies that students with disabilities are invited into this classroom rather than being seen as a typical student in the classroom. Wilson explains that disabilities studies views the classroom environment as the problem, not the students, and therefore it is the classroom teacher who needs to adapt strategies such as UDL to create an environment that meets the needs of diverse learners. Yet, attempts to make classrooms inclusive using DI and UDL do not guarantee that all students are getting an education that meets their needs (Obiakor, Harris, Mutua, Rotatori, & Algozzine, 2012). This is the paradox of inclusion.

There are many strategies, structures and supports needed to achieve an inclusive learning environment. Among other necessities, an effective inclusive environment includes time for teachers to collaborate, a supportive administration, and a willingness to differentiate curriculum, which entails creating a culturally responsive curriculum (Obiakor et al., 2012). Key to the current research study is the importance of teacher collaboration, a cornerstone of the Kelsey School.

DuFour (2003) defined collaboration as “The systematic process in which we work together to analyze and impact professional practice in order to improve our individual and collective result” (p. 63). Research suggests that a collaborative teacher culture increases student achievement (Fullan & Hargreaves, 1996; Moore Johnson et al., 2004; Shulman, 2004).

In a collaborative teacher culture, the norm is that teachers work together and that teacher growth is valued (Little, 1990; Moore Johnson et al., 2004). Teachers feel empowered and share common visions and goals (DuFour, 2003; Shulman, 2004). Teachers agree that when they work together, learning opportunities for students are increased (Moore Johnson et al., 2004) and that this culture promotes trust and openness among colleagues (Fullan & Hargreaves, 1996). Moore Johnson et al.

(2004) describe this as a culture “where there [is] ongoing professional exchange among all teachers across experience levels” (p. 142).

18

In this culture, new teachers are “not left alone to sink; instead, they are kept afloat by a culture of support—to the benefit of their students” (Moore Johnson et al., 2004, p. 161). This environment fosters an ongoing interchange and mutual appreciation between veteran teachers and new teachers.

Young teachers typically have knowledge about technology, a creative sense, and abundant energy.

Veteran teachers have wisdom, experience, and expertise (Fullan & Hargreaves, 1996).

In a collaborative teacher culture, collaboration is embedded within the school. It is systematic and purposeful. There are structures in place that promote collaboration rather than relying on it to happen by chance. Teams of teachers are organized to address specific questions about student achievement. However, some of the obstacles impeding a truly collaborative teaching environment include adequate time for teachers to meet and sufficient support to allow teachers to experiment and try new ways of teaching (Fullan & Hargreaves, 1996).

Although the most dramatic changes in schools have been legislative, legislation is unable to bring about essential changes in thinking (Sarason, 1996). These changes come when school staff shares common vision and goals. To alter school culture, teachers and administrators must work together.

In this process, teachers gain autonomy and a sense of investment in their school (DuFour, 2003).

Conclusion to the Literature Review The unnecessary labeling of children, which assigns them to a socially constructed category designated by IDEA, has a number of repercussions. These include blaming students for their educational struggles, expecting less of these students, decreasing students’ confidence in themselves as learners, perpetuating a myth of the “normal” child, and continuing a system that promotes inequality within public education, all of which deny many students the right to a quality education. Shaywitz (2003) noted that an underdiagnosis of LBLD in schools denies some students services they need. Harry and Klingner (2014) suggested an overdiagnosis of minority students as having special needs relegates these students to placement in special education, where they are likely to receive lower-quality instruction and lower expectations. Both over- and underdiagnosis are problematic, suggesting a broken system that may do more harm than good for the students dependent on this system for services they need. Many students are being left behind not because of their own deficits, but because they are victims of a social construct that limits their education (Harry & Klingner, 2014; Shaywitz, 2003).

Inclusive methods of teaching students might eliminate the need to label students. Teachers working in collaboration can support an inclusive learning environment when the teacher has the necessary supports, training, and strategies to create a learning environment that serves a variety of student needs. Students in this study benefited from a separate educational environment that used a collaborative teaching approach geared toward students diagnosed with LBLD. While this system benefited these nine students, many other students are not able to attend a private school. As Wilson (2017) states, a disability lens focus would suggest that the classroom environment should change so that all students can find success.

Method For this research, I used a combined qualitative method to examine the educational journeys of nine students with LBLD who attended the Kelsey School, a private school that accepts publicly and privately funded students. A “collective case study” (Creswell, 2007, p. 74) was used to follow individual students’ educational journeys, along with an ethnographic approach used to examine the culture of the Kelsey School. In a collective case study, multiple cases are used to study one issue. In this case, the issue was the students’ educational journeys.

19

The use of qualitative case studies is not meant to imply generalizability between cases, but only to illustrate the topic of study, which in this research is the educational journey of nine students (Berg, 2004; Creswell, 2007). However, this study is also ethnographic in nature. Ethnographic studies, often associated with the field of anthropology, have become commonplace in school settings (Creswell, 2007; Spindler, 1982; Wilcox, 1982). This approach encourages the researcher’s immersion in the fieldwork setting so she can understand cultural patterns (Glesne, 1999; Spindler, 1982). In ethnography, the researcher tries to maintain a presence at the field site because this provides the best vantage point for understanding, representing, and reporting the participants’ views about the research topic. The researcher’s observations are then translated into a written account that interprets and describes the culture (Berg, 2004; Van Maanen, 1988).

The study focuses on the perspectives of the students, their parents, and the faculty and staff at the Kelsey School, and then presents this information in narrative form, incorporating themes from the individual cases.

Participants The participants in this study included students, faculty, and staff at the Kelsey School as well as the parents of the students. All student participants attended the Kelsey School after previously attending their local public school. All of the student participants were identified as having a LBLD, and all were in middle school at the time of this study. The first group of five students was recruited through e-mails sent to parents of children at Kelsey, requesting student volunteers who had had a difficult school experience before arriving at Kelsey and who then found success at Kelsey. Selections were corroborated by the faculty at the school.

This first group of five students is referred to as the primary group. Using collective case study and ethnographic approaches, I observed these students in classes and interviewed the students, a parent of each student, the students’ case managers, some of their teachers, and selected administrators at the school. After beginning the research with this initial group, I realized the importance of including more stories about the students’ process of getting to Kelsey. Four additional students were recruited through the same process. For the second group, I interviewed one parent of each student, but only one of the students, and did not observe any of these students’ classes or interview their teachers. The reason for this was that enough student data had been gathered from class observations and interviews in the primary group.

Demographics. Of the nine students, four identified as male and five as female. I identified all of the students’ and their parents’ race as white. The parents self-identified their socioeconomic status (SES); the range was from low SES to high SES, with the majority falling in the middle-income bracket, and only one parent identifying as working class. All staff and administrators who were interviewed were also identified as white. In total, ten parents and fourteen Kelsey school personnel were interviewed.

Data Collection I collected data from three sources: (1) observations of students in the classroom and at unstructured times; (2) interviews with students, parents, and staff; (3) examination of artifacts such as school publications, bulletin boards, student records, and parents’ personal files. This diversity of data collection methods provided a variety of sources to authenticate the data. I began with classroom observations and then interviewed students, parents, teachers, and administrators.

In total, interviews consisted of six students, ten parents, ten teachers and case managers, and four administrators. Student report cards and parents’ personal files served as the primary source of documents (artifacts), along with Kelsey publications.

20

Data Analysis For the data analysis, I used a coding system along with a reflective journal. The reflective journal contains my reactions and thoughts during data collection (Delamont, 2002; Glesne, 1999) and helped me to identify bias in the analysis of the data. Coding, as defined by Glesne (1999), is “a progressive process of sorting and defining and defining and sorting those scraps of collected data” (p. 135). The data was coded according to the overarching categories that emerged.

The data broke down into two natural areas: (1) each student’s journey to get to Kelsey, and (2) subsequently, each student’s experience at Kelsey. The major themes of the journey to Kelsey included a break in trust, a fight, emotional consequences, blame, coping strategies, not learning to read, an outsider guiding the way, an instinct that something was wrong, and self-education.

Themes of the Kelsey experience included safety, a belief in the Kelsey approach, commonality with others with LBLD, a supportive environment, confidence as a learner, and accessible curriculum. After establishing these broad categories, I then began narrowing and redefining the data into subcategories, followed by the process of transforming the data from categories and themes into patterns in a sequence that told a story (Glesne, 1999).

Findings and Implications Common Struggles The nine students in this study reported emotional and academic struggles before finding a private school that provided the support needed for success in school. In the public school setting, these students experienced blame from their teachers and in some cases their parents, due to their academic challenges. They were told they were not working to their potential, and a few of them admitted to giving up due to immense frustration. The students were not able to do the homework despite modifications, and often their parents stepped in to do it for them to avoid a meltdown.

All of the students in this study were found eligible for special education in the public schools and were placed on Individual Education Plans (IEPs), with the exception of one student who had been removed from school by her parents in second grade before such a determination was made; she was later found eligible for Kelsey. Even with supports from the IEP, these students and their parents reported how the children struggled academically, and how the emotional toll of their frustration affected their life at home. More than one parent reported constant fights trying to get their child to school. One child barricaded himself in the bathroom and refused to come out; the parent had to take the hinges off the door to get to the child. Another child placed the thermometer in hot water to fabricate a temperature. Still another parent admitted to pulling her child by her hair to get her into the car to go to school. Some children called from school saying they needed to come home because they had a stomachache, and one threatened to kill herself if her mother made her go to school.

With these dire consequences at home, these children’s mothers (in all cases it was the mothers who led these fights) started talking with neighbors, friends, and co-workers, and the parents learned that there were other options. They heard that the Kelsey school had met other children’s needs, and so they began investigating how to enroll their child at Kelsey. In many cases, the parents had to reject the expert advice of the public school personnel. Many of the parents were told that test scores showed the cognitive limitations of their child. One parent was told that she was expecting too much out of her daughter. The parents had to rely on what they knew about their child to reject the testing and reports coming from the school system.

21

With information gathered from other parents with children at Kelsey, along with their own parental instinct regarding the intelligence of their child, the parents entered the legal system. Most of the parents hired educational advocates and lawyers, and all of the parents documented every IEP meeting and interaction at the school. Parents had to educate themselves about how to navigate the school system. One parent went to the library, others searched the Internet, and most sought out advice from knowledgeable friends. The parents, in most cases, had to sue the school system to show that their child was not getting a free appropriate public education (FAPE) as designated under IDEA. In one case the parent was able to get the school system to agree to the Kelsey placement without going to court, after their attorney threatened a lawsuit.

In the end, the mothers were successful, but many of them endured emotional and financial consequences, and their children were left in limbo in a damaging situation while the adults engaged in legal battles. Families had to make financial sacrifices to pay for lawyers and advocates.

One mother developed a stress-related illness. Most experienced harassment from other parents in the community and from school personnel, who ostracized them for supposedly taking money away from the rest of the public school children.

Structures and Qualities at the Kelsey School At Kelsey, the parents found the difference they were looking for. Their children now wanted to go to school. The parents reported a complete transformation as their children no longer got frustrated trying to complete homework, and their self-esteem began to rise as they started to realize that they could learn. The students found commonality with their peers and were no longer embarrassed when they read out loud. For many of the students, it was the first time they felt confident as a learner knowing they could access the curriculum. As the child found success, the parents began to regain the trust that an educational system could effectively teach their child.

Based on interviews with students, parents, and school personnel, it is clear that there were many aspects of the Kelsey School’s structure tailored to children with LBLD that helped these children find success. First, the classes were small (7-8 students) and the teachers were given specific training in how to teach to the students’ disabilities.

Second, the school has a 3:1 student-to-teacher ratio, along with plenty of staff available to help students. For example, a case manager is assigned to every child. These staff members support the child as needed and maintain communication with the parent.

Third, the teachers are devoted to the mission of the school. They understand this population of learners, and in interviews, they articulated their commitment to supporting a child’s learning by changing their own teaching when a child is confused or does not understand how to do the work.

They make sure the student can do the assigned homework and ask the parents not to participate.

Fourth, the school maintains a collaborative and supportive work environment. Interviewed teachers marveled at the amount of support that is available to them. If they do not know how to teach something, veteran teachers make themselves available. If they have a child with challenging behaviors, they can find assistance. They never feel alone having to sort out any academic or behavioral issues concerning the students in their classroom. They also noted that they have time to collaborate. Time is often one of the reasons given that teachers are not able to collaborate; however, at Kelsey daily meetings are worked into the schedule so they always have a dedicated time to work together.

Finally, the school maintains a consistent academic structure. Students are taught in a similar method with similar expectations across all classes. For example, as students walk into most 22

classes, they will see an agenda on the board. The students put their names and the date on their papers in a consistent fashion for all classes. All teachers use the same writing technique that is taught at every grade level. In interviews, the students noted this consistency and how it made learning less confusing. Often students with LBLD have an additional diagnosis such as executive function disorder or attention deficit disorder (Shaywitz, 2003). The consistency of the classroom routine facilitates the child’s success in the learning environment.

Discussion Most people would agree that all children have the right to an education, yet the quality of that education has been drawn into question by scholars, by the courts, and by parents of children who are not thriving in the public educational system. One in five children have a LBLD diagnosis, and many of these students will not find the support and resources they need in the public school system (Shaywitz, 2003).

This research allows us to observe that the path to finding a successful learning environment to match a child’s educational needs can be arduous. Without the tenacity and privilege of their parents, these students might never have been academically successful.

From this study it appears that parents have to know how to navigate the educational system. They must have the resources to obtain legal assistance, and they need to have the luxury of time to fight for their child. Finally, in many cases, the parents need the confidence to trust their own instincts about their child’s capabilities in order to reject the analysis made by experts in the school. The parents must maintain the confidence to know that it is not the child who has the problem, but in fact the school personnel who are not implementing effective strategies to educate the child.

There are many lessons that can be learned from the approach of the Kelsey School. This private, specialized school maintains small class sizes, which decreases stress for both the students and the teachers. The small class size makes it possible for the teacher to truly differentiate learning for each student—something that is nearly impossible with a class size of 20 or 30. The teachers at Kelsey are given time to meet every day, and they are supported by veteran teachers. There is an embedded understanding that it takes tremendous effort to become a good teacher. The administration at Kelsey understands that every teacher is always learning and perfecting his or her practice. The culture of the school is accepting and collaborative, and the teachers noted their dedication to the school mission, which speaks to supporting students with LBLD to reach their potential.

These nine children were fortunate, as their parents were able to secure them an education that worked. Not all children are this lucky. Kelsey has a selective admissions process, and without financial resources to pay the private school tuition, parents must have additional resources to hire advocates and lawyers to fight the district school to fund this privileged education.

Many of the children in this study admitted to feeling hopeless about getting an education, and one students said she was suicidal. Too many students are not given the opportunity to learn to read and to find success in school. Many of these children give up and do not have the right circumstances in place, as the children at Kelsey did, in order to find an education that works. Shaywitz (2003) claims that all children can learn to read given the right environment. When students are not given access to a suitable educational environment they can express their frustration by developing poor behavior, becoming the class clown, or finding some other unproductive strategy to cope with their learning environment, as the students in this research demonstrated before coming to Kelsey.

Robust research suggests that incarcerated youth have a higher proportion of struggling readers 23

than their non-incarcerated peers. The cause of this discrepancy may be a diagnosed learning disability or poor teaching, school absences, or a lack of opportunity for a quality education (Snowling, Adams, Bowyer-Crane, & Tobin, 2000). It seems clear that a poor education can create unnecessary havoc in a child’s life, as was expressed by the students in this study before they came to Kelsey. In the public school setting, the students in this study were described as lazy, unmotivated, faking, and not working to their potential—when what they needed was a program that could teach to their disability.

The theory of disabilities studies suggests that all children can find success if we redefine the idea of normal and create inclusive classrooms that teach to the range of natural diversity (Wilson, 2017). This would eliminate the documented concerns of overdiagnosis in special education for brown and black children (Harry & Klingner, 2014). A child’s right to an education can be thwarted when he or she is erroneously placed in special education through a faulty diagnosis process that relies on judgment categories. These students are disproportionately black and brown students, and they may suffer in their educational needs due to the stigma of the special education label and the ways in which special education curriculum may not meet the child’s academic abilities (Blanchett, 2010; Gold & Richards, 2012; Harry & Klingner, 2014). Creating inclusive classrooms that teach to the range of diverse learners would also allow students with LBLD to stay in the public school.

This research raises questions regarding the responsibilities for a child’s struggles in school. Are a child’s struggles or failure in a school the child’s fault, the parents’ fault, or the schools’ fault?

What are the roles of our institutions that are failing some students, and supporting inherent inequalities leading to racist practices that hinder educational attainment? The research suggests that students enter public schools from different backgrounds with various advantages, and our institutionalized system of education is not yet creating an avenue that both acknowledges these differences and teaches to them without blame.

The quality of education is key. Children are not all made the same, and in fact, there is no “normal” (Dudley-Marling & Gurn, 2010). Therefore, schools must adjust their teaching to meet the needs of the child. This research study offers more evidence that children with learning differences are able to succeed, given the environment they need and deserve. The child should not be blamed for not being able to meet the expectations of the teacher, the state, or the federal government. It is the school’s responsibility to teach the child in whatever ways the child individually needs. It is not the job of the child to fit into a fabricated norm (Dudley-Marling & Gurn, 2010).

Limitations of the Study This research is not intended to draw far-reaching generalizations about special education in general, or methods used to teach students with the LBLD diagnosis. Instead, this study serves to shed light on the journeys of a few students and what can be learned from their experience of finding an education that worked. The Kelsey School may not have all of the solutions for all students. In fact, the school limits its admission to a specific kind of learner, only accepting students they believe they have the expertise to teach. There are many students turned away from Kelsey, much to the disappointment of the families, due to the admissions department’s belief that the child would not find success at the school.

Therefore, the information garnered from Kelsey, and the ways in which the school personnel create a successful learning environment for the students they work with, are not generalizable.

This study followed the journeys of only nine white students, all from similar socioeconomic backgrounds. The parents self-identified largely as having middle- and upper-middle-class 24

socioeconomic status, with only one parent identifying as working class. Further, the study was conducted at one school. For all these reasons, the findings cannot be generalized to a larger population. The experiences of these students do not represent those of all students with learning disabilities, or of any other larger group of students.

Another limitation is that this study only examined the students’ and parents’ perspectives on each child’s school experience before coming to Kelsey. I did not go back to each child’s elementary school to see whether the families’ stories could be corroborated or added to by school personnel.

Conclusion Eisner (1991) explains that a case study can add powerful knowledge: “One of the most useful of human abilities is the ability to learn from the experience of others” (p. 202). Illuminating the stories of these students with learning disabilities allows others to learn from these students’ experiences, deepening the discourse around students’ educational experiences. The fact that these nine students were able to find their way to an education that met their needs demonstrates that this opportunity could be beneficial to more students who need a specialized education. This study illustrates that without resources, these opportunities are not available to all students; these nine students were not able to get the services they needed within the public school educational system, which raises important questions about the role of special education.

References Alexander, M. (2012). The new Jim Crow. New York, NY: The New Press.

Ballin, A. (2016). The quest for meaningful special education. New York, NY: Rowan and Littlefield.

Blanchett, W. (2010). Telling it like it is: The role of race, class and culture in the perpetuation of learning disability as a privileged category for the white middle class. Disability Studies Quarterly, 30(2). Retrieved from http://dsq-sds.org/article/view/1233/1280 Berg, B. (2004). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. New York, NY: Pearson.

Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson School District v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982).

Crawford, F. A., & Bartolome, L. (2010). Labeling and treating linguistic minority students with disabilities as deficient and outside the normal curve: A pedagogy of exclusion. In C. Dudley-Marling & A. Gurn (Eds.), The myth of the normal curve (pp. 151-170). New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Creswell, J. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Delamont, S. (2002). Fieldwork in educational settings. New York, NY: Routledge.

Dudley-Marling, C. & Gurn, A. (2010). Introduction: Living on the boundaries of normal. In C. Dudley-Marling & A. Gurn (Eds.), The myth of the normal curve (pp. 1-8). New York, NY: Peter Lang.

DuFour. (2003). “Collaboration lite” puts student achievement on a starvation diet. Journal of Staff Development, 24(4), 63-64.

Eisner, E. W. (1991). The enlightened eye. New York, NY: Macmillan.

Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District RE-1, 580 U.S., 137 S.Ct. 988 (2017).

Fish, R. (2016). The racialized construction of exceptionality: Experimental evidence of race/ethnicity effects on teachers' interventions. Social Science Research, 317-334.

Retrieved from https://drive.google.com/file/d/ 0BxrKdaoARx08XzFWdkpHaTV5Yk9KY2JRNzFjdDc5TDZOb3k4/view Fullan, M., & Hargreaves, A. (1996). What's worth fighting for in your school. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

25

Glesne, C. (1999). Becoming qualitative researchers. New York, NY: Addison Wesley Longman.

Gold, M., & Richards, H. (2012). To label or not to label: The special education question for African Americans. Educational Foundations, 26(1-2), 143-156.

Harry, B., & Klingner, J. (2014). Why are so many minority students in special education?

Understanding race and disability in schools (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Herzik, L. (2015). A better IDEA: Implementing a nationwide definition for significant disproportionality to combat overrepresentation of minority students in special education.

San Diego Law Review, 52(4), 951-966.

Lewis, A., & Diamond, J. (2015). Despite the best intentions: How racial inequality thrives in good schools. New York, NY: Oxford Press.

Little, J. W. (1990). Teachers as colleagues. In A. Lieberman (Ed.), Schools as collaborative cultures: Creating the future now (pp. 165-188). New York, NY: Falmer Press.

Losen, D. J., Ee, J., Hodson, C., & Martinez, T. (2015). Disturbing inequities: Exploring the relationship between racial disparities in special education identification and discipline. In D. Losen (Ed.), Closing the school discipline gap: Equitable remedies for excessive exclusion (pp.89-106). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Maehr, M. L., & Midgley, C. (1996). Transforming school cultures. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

McLaren, P. (2003). Life in schools: An introduction to critical pedagogy in the foundations of education. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

Moore Johnson, S., Birkeland, S., Donaldson, M., Kardos, S., Kauffman, D., Liu, E. (2004).

Finders and keepers: Helping new teachers survive and thrive in our schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Oakes, J., Lipton, M., Anderson, L., & Stillman, J. (2014). Teaching to change the world. New York, NY: Taylor and Francis.

Obiakor, F. E., Harris, M., Mutua, K., Rotatori, A., & Algozzine, B. (2012). Making inclusion work in general education classrooms. Education and Treatment of Children, 3, 477.

Ravitch, D. (2010). The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and choice are undermining education. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Sarason, S. B. (1996). Revisiting the culture of the school and the problem of change. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Shaywitz, S. (2003). Overcoming dyslexia: A new and complete science-based program for reading problems at any level. New York, NY: Vintage Books.

Shulman, L. (2004). The wisdom of practice: Essays on teaching, learning, and learning to teach.

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Sleeter, C. (2010). Why is there learning disabilities? A critical analysis of the birth of the field in its social context. In T. S. Popkewitz (Ed.), The formation of school subjects: The struggle for creating an American institution (pp. 210-237). London, England: Palmer Press.

(Reprinted in Disability Studies Quarterly 30(2). Retrieved from http://dsqsds.org/article/view/1233/1280) Snowling, M. J., Adams, J. W., Bowyer-Crane, C., & Tobin, V. (2000). Levels of literacy among juvenile offenders: The incidence of specific reading difficulties. Criminal Behaviour & Mental Health, 10(4), 229.

Spindler, G. (Ed.). (1982). Doing the ethnography of schooling: Educational anthropology in action. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Stanford, B., & Reeves, S. (2009). Making it happen: Using Differentiated Instruction, Retrofit framework, and Universal Design for Learning. Teaching Exceptional Children Plus, 5(6) Article 4. Retrieved from http://escholarship.bc.edu/education/tecplus/vol5/iss6/art4 Van Maanen, J. (1988). Tales of the field: On writing ethnography. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

26

Wilcox, K. (1982). Ethnography as a methodology and its application to the study of schooling: A review. In G. Spindler (Ed.), Doing the ethnography of schooling: Educational anthropology in action (pp. 454-456). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.

Wilson, J. (2017). Reimagining disability and inclusive education through Universal Design for Learning. Disability Studies Quarterly, 37(2), 2. doi:10.18061/dsq.v37i2.5417 Wlodkowski, R. J., & Ginsberg, M. B. (1995). A framework for culturally responsive teaching.

Educational Leadership, 53(1), 17.

Wright, P. W., & Wright, P. D. (2015). Special education law. Hartfield, VA: Harbor House Law Press.

Wright, P., & Wright, P. (2017, March 22). Educational benefit: “Merely more than de minimis” or “meaningful”? Supreme Court revisits requirements in Endrew F. v. Douglas Co. Sch. Dist.

RE-1. Retrieved from http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/art/ endrew.douglas.benefit.fape.htm#sthash.uZOHklMK.dpuf Yell, M. (2016). Law and special education (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Yell, M., & Bateman, D. (2017). Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District (2017): FAPE and the U.S. Supreme Court. Teaching Exceptional Children, 50(1), 7-15. doi:10.1177/0040059917721116 About the Author Dr. Amy Ballin’s career as an educator spans over 30 years and includes teaching science education, counseling children with language-based learning disabilities, and teaching at Simmons College as an assistant professor in the special education department. Dr. Ballin’s scholarly interests include a focus on creative approaches to teaching pedagogy and social action to eradicate injustices embedded within our educational system. She believes in connecting the social and emotional lives of children with their academic success and in designing teaching methods to engage a wide range of learners to find solutions to teaching children rather than blaming children.

Her research area and interests include exploring how racial and socioeconomic assumptions intersect with the social construction of special education. Dr. Ballin’s publications include: Adult graduate student voices. (2016). Adult Learning, 27(2), 76-83.; The Quest for Meaningful Special Education. (2016). New York, NY: Rowan and Littlefield; and Trash Conflicts: A Science and Social Studies Curriculum on the Ethics of Disposal. (1993). Cambridge, MA: Engaging Schools.

27

Making the Community Your Classroom: The Importance of Coordinating Instruction in Multiple Settings Heather Bish, Ed.D. American Women’s College at Bay Path University Abstract In K-12 special education students with intellectual impairments are entitled under special education law to stay in high school until age 22. Many of these students attend a Life Skills classroom within public school buildings. The research done on the outcomes of postsecondary life for these students reveal that they are often unemployed, underemployed, under paid, and lack selfadvocacy skills. This case study was conducted to explore a program in Western Massachusetts that provided students with a transition program that offered employment, independent living, wraparound support, and instructional practices that go beyond teaching in a typical classroom. The students who attended this postsecondary program practice employment skills, develop selfdetermination skills, and the promotion of social interaction and increased independent levels.

Keywords: Transition, postsecondary program, adult transition program

Making the Community Your Classroom: The Importance of Coordinating Instruction in Multiple Settings Life Skills students with intellectual disabilities need to be adequately prepared to function in their community through gainful employment and independent living. Life skills are defined as “skills or tasks that contribute to the successful independent functioning of an individual in adulthood�

(Cronin, 1996, p. 54). These students have intellectual disabilities that impact their learning so significantly their curriculum is focused on a functional track to prepare them for autonomy (Cronin, 1996). Some life skills students remain in school until age 22, requiring explicit teaching and services in the transition to adulthood. Although they comprise a small minority in a school system, life skills students account for a great deal of the special-education budget. Therefore, secondary school systems must contend with the question of what sort of program best suits these students.

In the past, students have been kept in the high school setting with younger peers, while others were sent out to supported workshops with peers that were much older. Students with intellectual disabilities need an environment that provides the support a K-12 setting has in place, but with the opportunities for work experience and education that a college or employment setting offers. In addition, they need life-skill experience in their community navigating public transportation or buying and preparing food for themselves (Cronin, 1996).

Integrating students with intellectual disabilities aged 18-22 into the community for post-secondary education/training, work experience, and independent living skills is a challenge for secondary school systems (Benz, Lindstrom & Yovanoff, 2000). It is a challenge for public high schools to develop appropriate learning environments as well as developmentally appropriate curriculum that provides the necessary opportunities for these students (Benz et. al., 2000). In order to provide the appropriate environments, it is important to collaborate with community partners. A case study was conducted to examine the inner workings of a real-life transitional life skills program to illustrate how a group of secondary public school stakeholders built a transition program that 28

supports students with intellectual disabilities aged 18-22 within their community. Transitioncentered education that foreshadows the environment students will enter is paramount and promotes self-determination so that students can take control of their lives and direct them to the best of their developmental abilities.

Method A case study approach was used for this study to illustrate the evolution of an adult transition program, to show how decisions were made and implemented, and to explain what the results were with regard to building a wraparound program for students with intellectual disabilities aged 18-22.

Case study research requires the in-depth study of one or more instances of a phenomenon in its real-life context and captures the perspective of participants involved in the phenomenon (Gall, Gall & Borg, 2007). A case study is often used when examining contemporary events (Yin, 2014).

This case study relied on three sources of evidence: direct observation, interviews of the people involved in the program’s development, and documents (Yin, 2014).

Three strategies were used to gather evidence about how a transition wraparound program was built: participant observation, interviews, and review of documentation. These strategies allowed for the program to be seen in action, to hear from the perspectives of the participants, and to look at what kinds of documents were created to support the program’s development.

Participants The participant stakeholders for this study were selected based on purposeful selection and criterion-based selection (Maxwell, 2005). This strategy was chosen for this case study because a particular setting, persons, and activities are being selected intentionally in order to give evidence that cannot be acquired from other sources (Maxwell, 2005).

The ATP for students with intellectual disabilities in a public school system is a reflection of the person who built it. Four people participated in this study, and each held a unique perspective about the development and ongoing work associated with the wraparound program. The Superintendent, who had been the previous Special Education Director, strongly supported “out of the box” thinking and programming, the current Special Education Director, who had a long history of educational and work experience with transitioning students to the adult community, the Special Education Teacher had worked with adults with disabilities and felt passionate about getting the students in the program to the top of their abilities in independence, employment, and navigating around the community. Finally, to provide one family’s perspective, a parent who previously had a student in the program was interviewed.

The research questions focused on the program’s design process, promising practices and strengths, and program challenges. The following research questions guided the analysis: What process did one community use to develop its wraparound program for providing employment, postsecondary education, and independent living opportunities for students with intellectual disabilities? The participants presented their experiences and a description of the themes that emerged from their stories that are related to the research questions.

Setting The setting for this case study was in a small community and high school. The city has three high schools, six middle schools, four elementary schools and six pre-schools. The Adult Transition Program (ATP) was founded in 1996 and serves 18-22 year old students with intellectual disabilities and supports their transitions to adulthood. The Superintendent of Schools, the Special Education Director, and a Special Education teacher working in the school district joined together to develop and implement the program. They have since engaged parents and other community 29

members in the ongoing development of the program, and the relationships with the collaborating agencies are central to the program’s success. The program is now a collaborative effort between the public schools, agencies supporting adults with disabilities, and businesses and non-profits in the community. Since its inception, the program has served approximately 50 students, a significant number given the small town within which it is situated.

The program is nestled in a small town and serves a student population that is often overlooked.

There, such programs are rare and the costs associated can sometimes prohibit their sustainability.

Nonetheless, the school district and community have built and sustained the ATP. The purpose of this case study was to better understand how they made it happen.

Program Story The Adult Transition Program (ATP) was developed in response to a pressing need within the community. ATP is a postsecondary program for students aged 18-22 who require transition services. Students proceed through K-12 education and either earn a diploma or certificate of attendance/attainment. The off-campus location of the program allows students the opportunity to return to a high-school program, in a different setting. The program is located down the street from the public schools in a building that once housed a number of other businesses, and has an attached greenhouse. The essence of the program is preparing students for the transition to adulthood and the community in situational learning environments. Students at the time were not receiving the necessary supports and opportunities to successfully transition from their school into adulthood. Today, the program also helps the school district to comply more fully with the mandates outlined in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). ATP provides students with most of the requirements laid out in IDEA. When IDEA was reauthorized in 1997, transition planning was mandated to begin at age 14 and required high schools to provide a course of study that related to students with disabilities’ individual career interests, and reflected those plans in the student’s IEP. In the Adult Transition Program, students were afforded a course of study that applies to their career interest.

As the Adult Transition Program overview description states, “Most students have completed four years of a high-school program and are ready to stress the skills needed to work and live in their community” (Document, Adult Transition Program Description). Students are assessed based on their interests and strengths following IDEA guidelines. Employment opportunities are sought using these assessment findings. The wraparound approach supports these students’ transition into adulthood both during their secondary school years and after. According to the Special Education Teacher, the students “learn different things on a day-to-day basis.” Through recreational, daily living, and employment opportunities, students gain independence, build habits and routines, and gain confidence in their own skills. The Special Education Director reinforces the integration of the students and program goals: “Their goal is to graduate, so how can we get that?

We do independent living skills as you saw, plus we do vocational stuff.” That can be difficult to work into the students’ high-school years because the students who are struggling academically are also trying to engage in these other program areas. The Special Education Director described, We do a lot of inclusion here, which is wonderful, but what happens as they get older?

They can be included in the basic-level classes or they can be put in the remedial classes.

They can get all their credits. They can pass MCAS (Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System) but while you are focusing on that, the life-skills component that they need kind of falls by the wayside. Their goal is to graduate so how can we get that plus get them on a path for career and living on their own and everything they need to live on their own? How can we combine those two?

30

The Special Education Director describes the Adult Transition Program as a program “for students who have not passed MCAS and who require more training and skills for adult living.” The offcampus location was perfect for this program. Students who are 18 years old are usually not in a high school setting, and the Special Education Director feels strongly that they should not be.

She asks, “What do we typically do at age 18? We get out of the high school. We’re not there anymore.”

The Special Education Director knows how transition requirements can be held up in the courts and has expanded her requirements for the program. She allows students who have passed MCAS and earned a diploma, but need “transition” skills to enroll. As she describes, In my program, what I’ve come to find out, and we’ve done this for the last three years, is that some of the students may have passed MCAS but they still don’t have the skills to get into the job. So for those students I established the last two years as a post-graduate contract for students who want to get more skills and get more vocational skills.

In order to address transition for students with intellectual disabilities and those who may not have a severe academic disability, but do need further skill development to enter the workforce they extended the program. As the Special Education Director reports, Every year the group of students that you have changes. We like this to be an individual program. So you need to focus specific aspects of that program on the individual needs of the students. I have had some students that have been very challenging and so we’ve done a split program. They come to us for the independent living skills and they will go there to do the vocational. They are out (into the community). They have their own specific work site. In terms of the high school program, it has grown.

In these special cases, students sign a contract stating that they will follow the goals they have set and when they have completed them, they will exit the program. Students must fill out a two- page document reporting the meeting date and location, their name and address, parent(s) name and address, telephone numbers, emergency contacts, medications, their profile or disability, their concerns, and goals. The person responsible for the student’s program is listed, as are the program location, dates of attendance, and how the student will be transported to the program. This document requires signatures from the student, his guardian and the special education administrator or designee (Document, Post-Graduate Program).

IDEA specifically requires districts to provide transition services that give adult students with developmental and other disabilities the opportunity to learn the skills associated with independence, employment, and recreation in a community-based setting. IDEA states, Is [IDEA] designed to be within a results-oriented process, that is focused on improving the academic and functional achievement of the child with a disability to facilitate the child’s movement from school to post-school activities, including postsecondary education, vocational education, integrated employment (including supported employment); continuing and adult education, adult services, independent living, or community participation (Retrieved from www.ed.gov).

The Adult Transition Program includes the components in IDEA by using an individualized approach to planning a student’s program, accessing assessment results to drive the process, offering instruction in daily living, independence, employment, and recreation. The goal of the program is to provide a seamless transition for students to adulthood.

31

IDEA offers four important areas for building transition services in a secondary setting (McMahan & Baer, 2001, p. 171). First, services must be based on the individual student's needs and interests.

Second, services must be developed through an outcome-oriented process and identify clear steps toward reaching a student's desired employment and adult-living goals. Third, these services must be a coordinated set of activities encompassing a broad range of services and supports including those provided by the school, family, community, adult service systems, and postsecondary environments. Fourth, transition services must improve a student's movement from school to postschool activities by developing necessary supports that extend into early adulthood (McMahan & Baer, 2001, p. 171).

Through recreational, daily living, and employment opportunities, students gain independence, build habits and routines and gain confidence in their own skills. As the Parent of a student in the Program stated about her daughter, “She has a feeling (of being) somewhat accomplished.”

Students learn skills in the classroom and then apply them in the appropriate setting, i.e. at a job, in a restaurant, at home (Observation, 9/16/14). For example, students learn to use a calculator to estimate costs of lunch or groceries. The program’s objective is to get students to practice skills with a layered level of support and gives them time to integrate those skills to where they are independent at performing them, and then integrate them into the applicable setting. “Our mission is to enhance the quality of life for students assisting them to become as independent as possible” (Document: Adult Transition Program Description). It is also important to keep students in the community and in the school system to learn those skills. The Superintendent was committed to this ideal, and describes how the process to build this program started, We bought out an old building that was run by an association for retarded citizens, and there was one small greenhouse attached to that and we retrofitted that and now we have the transitional program. We are going to have a store, we do woodworking, arts and crafts, garden tending, life-skills internships and we plant 160,000 flowers in a week. Most families want to keep their children at home so if we can help facilitate that, I think we do a better justice to the families and the communities and the students.

The goal of the program is to prepare for transition planning for each student individually with a focus on their personal characteristics and their vision for the future. As the Special Education Director states, … it is what our goal is to really look at transition planning and for our students to look at what they really need and how are we going to get them to their goals. What is their vision? What are we going to help with? What supports are we going to put in place to accomplish that vision or at least close to that vision?

The value of transferring skills from the classroom or on campus to the community aids in the success of the transition process. The staff organizes a structure of supports to help the students accomplish that vision or at least come close. The Special Education Director argues that good transition planning gets students prepared for integrating into the community and provides the opportunities to apply those skills in internships, work placements, and job shadows.

Procedures The participant observation method was used in this case study to distinguish features in an 18-22 wraparound program and to provide details about its design and how it is being implemented. In order to observe the programs, I spent one day in the life of a student (Stringer, 2007). I followed the student’s schedule to see all aspects of the program, including check in at the high school and job site. I participated only when needed or required.

32

The primary data was gleaned from the semi-structured one-to-one interviews with the various stakeholders. The interviews provided a chance for each participant to describe the process of planning and implementing the program and his or her reason for doing so in his or her own words.

The interviews gave participants the opportunity to explore the details of their experiences and what effect those had on their motivation to be a part of the creation of this program. The interview process provided individual records of the participants’ views and perspectives and gave participants the opportunity to review the issues and agenda of the study and the chance to reflect on the nature of events that concern them. Four stakeholders were interviewed for approximately one hour each. The intent of the interviews was to capture and interpret the meaning participants make of the events in the process (Kvale, p. 174).

During the interview process I captured and interpreted what occurred in the planning and development and summarized what I heard. The interviews began with some orienting questions in order to direct the interviewee towards the experience, such as how did you become interested in the 18-22 year old students with intellectual disabilities? What is your experience with teaching outside of a classroom? The line of inquiry was semi-structured, like a guided conversation, and the stream of questions were fluid rather than rigid (Yin, 2014, p. 110). The first part of the data analysis occurred at the same time so that further questions could be developed to enhance understanding. I analyzed the interview data by using a hypothesis-matrix method, which allows the interviewer to prove or disprove the relevant hypotheses and allows for alternative hypotheses and interpretations to develop naturally (Kvale, p. 180).

Finally, a review of documentation included records that were produced reflecting key pieces of the case under study (Helm, 2000). The documents collected for this study will show how a wraparound program was built, which include The Adult Transition Program Description, Project Reach Description, and Post-School Student Summary. These documents described the development of the current program.

Data Analysis The first step in my analysis of the data was to read the interview transcripts, observational notes, and documents. By using coding, I was able to classify and compare information in the same category that assisted in the development of my theoretical concepts. I organized my categories into organizational, substantive, and theoretical categories in order to distinguish the concepts (Maxwell, 2005). As a result, these codes will help supply the themes that will give structure to the study and offer answers to the research questions.

Implementation In the Classroom The Adult Transition Program instruction involves concrete, experiential, vocational skill development (Document: Adult Transition Program Description). The program was set up to foster independence in students. Pre-teaching is used so that students can practice a set of skills and apply them in a real-world activity. As the Parent of a student in the program states, “You have to try to do that [pre-teaching] so that they get used to being in a situation. You can’t throw them all in a situation that they are not familiar with because it just does not go over well.” Staff members accompany students to their worksites and use rubrics to assess student job performance.

Program staff members also pay attention to skills they teach in other settings that impact the students’ success at their jobs. These daily living skills impact the students’ job performance on a social level and students often need verbal reminders to brush their hair, wash their hands, and use manners while eating at a lunch break. This all contributes to their ability to assimilate into the community with greater independence and less supports (Observation 9/16/14).

33

Students who are a part of the Adult Transition Program enter with a variety of disabilities, and the various levels at which the students enter can become difficult during instructional activities.

The Special Education Teacher reports, “You don’t have students that are all the same level. So it is kind of, you have to adjust your program.” During the observation, it was noticed that some students were able to follow the schedules and chore lists independently, while others needed staff assistance or cueing. One student spent most of his time in another room doing sensory activities and crafts. Given the multiple needs and various degrees of disability and abilities, each student’s program needs to be developed individually.

The conception of the program was to prepare students for the transition to the next set of services at age 22. The Superintendent, the Special Education Director, and the Special Education Teacher felt it was important to teach students the skills they would need out in the community, at home, and in a job. The Special Education Director emphasizes, “We look at the skill areas that we need to work on in the Individual Education Plan (IEP) and transition plans.” They built this program so that students could practice those skills on campus, and then apply them in the community setting. The value of transferring skills from the classroom or on campus to the community aids in the success of the transition process. The Special Education Teacher shares, What happens is we have a few (students) that have gone out to get an actual job. The majority of them end up in an extended program, the majority have gone to an adult disability support agency and they will go out and do a work program with them [the students].

In the classroom, students are responsible for designing a menu for the week and purchasing the groceries to cook their lunch recipes (Observation 9/16/14). Students do chores around the campus, such as cleaning sinks, vacuuming, and sweeping the floors. According to the Special Education Teacher, the students clean because “we don’t have custodians in our building. You just don’t have that luxury. If the toilet is plugged, we all try to figure out how to you know take care of it.”

Students are responsible for the upkeep of their classroom; they are, in essence, the maintenance department. Students are taught to perform these skills independently and teachers use a rubric to identify areas where students need support. Students are given visual and verbal cues to remind them to complete tasks. Chores are written on a list and labeled by a student name.

There are “daily duties,” “morning chores,” and “lunch duties,” and students check off the list when they have completed each, demonstrating their independence (Document: classroom rubric, Observation 9/16/14). The chores rotate weekly.

Students are assisted by instructional strategies that move from the classroom to the community.

Many activities are replicated on the school grounds to teach the students before making the transition to a real-life setting. As the Adult Transition Program overview describes, “The students continue to focus on reading and math skills, but as they relate to independent living.

We work on menu planning, grocery shopping, restaurant pricing, survival language, telephone skills to name a few” (document, Program Description). When students reach the community setting, they are supported by “natural supports” within the job, staff from the school, and staff from the agencies in the community. Working together each of these components offers a wraparound of supports or layered support so that the student can reach maximum potential with greatest opportunities for independence. This reciprocal relationship set up and built by program stakeholders is reflected throughout the conception, design and implementation of this program.

34

Recreation and Daily Living Skills The observations of the program revealed that students are encouraged to become as independent as possible while in the program. They learn to take the bus and receive other travel training. They are brought out into the community and taught about safety signs and following safety rules, i.e. crossing in a crosswalk. Two times a week, the students attend a fitness program at the YMCA and practice hygiene after they work out by taking a shower (Document: Adult Transition Program Description). As the Special Education Teacher reports that, For recreation we go to the Y (YMCA) twice a week. One day we go swimming, one day we do weight-lifting or cardio. And we go out to lunch once a month; and do various field trips depending on the season. Like, in the fall we try to do apple picking or pumpkins. In December we always take the bus to the mall and go out to lunch. They also can do Christmas shopping and stuff like that.

The Adult Transition Program description reports, Students participate twice weekly in a fitness program at the YMCA. One day for approximately one hour, students work in the fitness room utilizing the various machines; on the second day we participate in an aerobics swim program. Students are required to shower after exercises promoting personal hygiene. On a daily basis, students work on personal hygiene skills such as teeth brushing, hair combing and washing up (Document, Adult Transition Program Description).

Students took field trips to local restaurants to have lunch. Observations revealed that students make their own decisions about what they want to eat at each restaurant they visit. Before students went on these field trips, pre-teaching is used to identify menu items and costs, as well as what kind of dining was required at the particular restaurant. During the classroom observation, students were seen using a menu to identify food choices and prices. They used special money calculators to add in tips for the waiters/waitresses. The Special Education Teacher recounts, “you know we teach them the difference between the restaurants, whether it is a sit down or a buffet, so they know whether to leave a tip” prior to going to the restaurant.

Students use a menu and special money calculators to determine the cost and bring their own money to pay for the meal (Observation 9/16/14). The Special Education Director explains, They have a menu of any restaurant we go to, we figure out do you have enough money to pay for it? If you don’t, what do you do? Ok. Well I can’t have soda. Can you have water? Yes. Water is free. You can have a glass of water. We’ve had some students that might have enough for a drink and a snack and depending on the restaurant, most of them (the restaurants) will allow us to do this. They make a sandwich and they bring it with them (to lunch). They are still with the group. They still have the activity. They still participate.

Finally, travel training is another community-based endeavor that encourages students to become independent. Teachers use the free training with students around the community and area. The Special Education Director articulates, “We’ve done travel training. They learn how to take the bus. They get their ID. When they are in the community they are taught safety.”

Employment The Adult Transition Program uses multiple ways to get students job experience: job shadows, internships, and volunteer work. Some students even get paid employment while a part of the program. The program provides students the opportunity to try a variety of work sites prior to transitioning out of the program at age 22 (Document: Program Description). At the time of this study, the school system offered paid-employment opportunities for two students. As the Special 35

Education Director explains, “One is a van monitor for young kids. The other one works for our maintenance department. He does a phenomenal job. So those are two that started off as internships.” These internship opportunities allowed the students the chance to learn job- related skills in the appropriate work setting. There are a number of internship opportunities, including some at the Health Care Center. Students also volunteer at Community Food Pantry at the Congregational Church (Interview, Special Education Director). The Special Education Teacher affirms, “At the Dalti Health Center, they [students] ended up going and moving into that position.”

All of these job opportunities are secured by staff and families, and through word of mouth, as the Special Education Director recalls, to “people, parents or staff who might know somebody. One of our parents told me where to contact for students in food service.” These situated learning experiences are evident throughout the Adult Transition Program. The Special Education Director is a “big advocate of employing or volunteering our students within district,” and the district currently employs two of the students, one in maintenance and the other as a bus monitor. The Special Education Director exclaims, “They are paid! They are actually employees of our Public Schools!”

The Special Education Director states, “we actually pound the pavement for jobs.” She also explained the program places students in community food banks and soup kitchens and at Goodwill.

They have also done shadowing work at veterinarian offices and in childcare centers. The Special Education Director reports, We had one student at the high school that was at a Machine Shop. He had an internship and he was told to finish high school and you’ve got a job. He did!

Students that are at our Goodwill. Those are opportunities. We’ve done job shadows at veterinarians or childcare. I have other students who have been volunteering in a community kitchen.

The Special Education Director feels that by getting students the most experience out in the community, she is familiarizing them with community members. Additionally, students are gaining the chance to see what kind of work environments they like and do not like.

Design Collaboration in the Community Students were supported at various levels in the community and in the classroom. Natural supports were utilized as much as possible. Students were initially supported by school staff. Support is then transferred to employers, community members, agencies and families as they gain skills.

During the observations it was revealed that there is a three-to-one student-to-staff ratio. Students are similarly supported in their community (Observation 9/16/14). “We have the staff to student ratio is actually pretty small. It maybe one-to-three” (Personal Communication, Special Education Teacher). Teacher assistants go with students to worksites in the community. The special education teacher sets up with the worksite management how the role of the teacher assistants will work and if they need to step in for support to the student. Otherwise, the expectation is that students will follow the instructions of the employers once on site (Observation 9/16/14).

One aspect of the program that supports community based work is the school’s partnership with an adult disability support agency. Their mission statement is to, “provide quality services, advocacy, and education for people with disabilities, which affirms the rights of full inclusion, diversity, and well-being” (Retrieved from www.bfair.org). This kind of support in the community is crucial to students who are moving from school to adult living. The Special Education Teacher explains that for students to internalize the skills they will need, “you just have to you know, go over things many times before you actually do the real thing that you are doing.” This agency both 36

helps students locate jobs and supports them on the job. They complete a substantial employment assessment to identify the student’s interests and strengths. Students in this program must be referred under the Department of Developmental Disabilities (Retrieved from www.bfair.org). The community, including businesses, restaurants,YMCA, and the school system, work as a coordinated team to include these students in society by using an integrated-scaffolding approach that fosters independent, mutually supportive learning opportunities (Observation 9/16/15).

These integrated layers of support from the school administration, school personnel, community businesses, agencies, and families leads to student integration and independence. As the Superintendent reflects on the town’s support and philosophy he expresses, “That is one wonderful thing about this town; and it is a very caring community that takes care of the people that live here. So they are very supportive of these kind of out-of-the-box programs that we develop and we run.” This kind of wraparound support provides students with the opportunity to explore career interests. It provides the agencies the ability to get to know the students they will soon be working with in the adult services. Students and families can get to know the agencies and the level of support they offer. The Special Education Director expresses, “We have our adult support program in the County. That is a Department of Developmental Services (DDS) funded program.” These partnerships support students’ integration into the community by identifying their strengths and interests using assessment data and remaining as active members of the students’ IEP TEAM. According to the Special Education Director, helping students integrate into their community “is about getting good transition planning; getting more students out into the community for internships.

The model built by the superintendent, special education director and special education teacher, provided a collaborative framework to build a collaboration-based program. The integration of the community support for the students to gain independent skills and work experience is an integral part of this program. As the Special Education Director reports about agency support: There is also an adult agency network. I utilize them to do vocational evaluations. They do excellent vocational evaluations and situational assessments. They go out to the community and they work in different businesses.

The developers of the Adult Transition Program believed that building a program with community support offered the students a better chance at the greatest degree of independence after aging out of the program at 22 years old. The Superintendent imparts, “we wanted to make sure that they were able to transition into an adult-living situation either through active employment, better daily-living skills, how to cook and clean and care for themselves, ride the bus….” Furthermore, the Special Education Director describes student success, I have a student who is working for our maintenance department. He is basically graduated. He’s working. We have another student who is doing volunteering in the Pre-K. There have been other students who have done job shadows. Those are the students who might move on to college. One year, I had like four out of eight kids stay at the college (local community college) to do an associate degree. That was a positive.

Rather than thinking about the program in terms of the students alone, the Superintendent describes the program and its purpose as contributing to the community, the families, and the district as a whole. The Superintendent connected the use of the building to helping the town. He describes how using the program greenhouse and growing plants benefitted the students and the town. “We provide all of the gardens for all of the city of Southwestern, and that is all kids run.

37

We plant[ed] 160,000 flowers in a week. The Superintendent also describes the program as an investment in the community. He states, We just go out there and do it, there is not a lot of red tape and it affords us a lot of flexibility. They [city government] have learned over time that when we do something, we do it well. And then we do it a little bit better than that. So it is a good marriage of city government administrative oversight and program development.

As a result of the Superintendent’s relationships with city government, the town and officials support the vision of the school administrators and a reciprocal relationship has developed.

Family Support The Special Education Teacher has found that while students in this program are able to complete tasks and gain skills, these lessons do not tend to transfer over to their own homes. She states her concern: “It doesn’t always get carried over in the home area. So I would like to see that be a little bit more challenging. I would like to see it carried over.” From a parent’s perspective, a parent offers what most challenged her daughter. She reflects, For me, the greatest challenge was, that of course we all want them to reach their potential, but I think as a parent you kind of have some reservations [early] on. I think I had more of a safety issue, knowing that she had some boundaries with safety. And it ended up being that she couldn’t go out because of safety issues on public transportation.

She is too trusting; I guess so that did not work for her. I think those kind of things were hardest for me, although you want them to reach their maximum potential, but I think when you live with them on a daily basis you are pretty in tune as to their limitations and even though you want them to try and go beyond that. So that was the hardest for me is to kind of let her be out there and make it or break it.

The parent also reported that the greatest benefit of the Adult Transition Program for her daughter was that she was social and had pride in her accomplishments. The parent reports that her daughter had expressed interest in college, but it was “certainly nothing that is even remotely close to something that she could do.” She explains that her daughter currently lives at home, but she hopes that by the time she is thirty she will be a little bit more independent. The Parent reports, “We are just trying to figure out what that is (looks like).”

The Parent said her daughter attends a supported work placement and she is happy. She is grateful for the program’s support towards independent skills, but especially the confidence her daughter gained and the skills to ensure success.

Parents are concerned about safety, while teachers want to push for as much independence as possible. This can create a challenge for those serving these populations. Sometimes parents will not have the same expectations for the students to perform at home, so a student may do laundry at school but not in the home environment. The Parent expressed her frustration about this and hopes for a better school-to-home connection. She explains, “I would really love for there to be an extension of our program that extended out into the family. We teach the kids to cook and clean and do laundry and stuff like that, and when the kids get home they say no we don’t know how to do that.”

Teaching in the Context of Adult Transition Teaching students with intellectual disabilities is complex because it requires coordinating various learning environments, including classroom settings, work placements, community agencies, and recreational facilities. Additionally, typical-classroom practice tends to be less effective for students with intellectual disabilities because they have a harder time grasping instructional 38

practices like lecture, cooperative-learning groups, research practice, homework, and culminating projects (Burdge, 2006, p. 22). Therefore, adult transition programs in high schools require teachers to employ instructional techniques that include step-by-step directions and a real-life component to give instruction meaning and engage the students in the curriculum. According to Hunt (as cited in Eccles, et al., 1993) ,“a teacher should not only take account of a student’s contemporaneous needs by providing whatever structure he presently requires, but also view his present need for structure on a developmental continuum along which growth toward independence and less need for structure is the long-term objective” (p. 92) Students entering the adult-transition phase are shifting away from instruction for academic skills and toward recreational, employment, and daily-living skills. The teacher in adult transition programs drive this type of programming and instruction, and they must be able to coordinate instruction in multiple environments to be effective (Cronin, Patton, & Wood., 2007).

Coordinating Assessment Data to Evaluate Transition Process Teachers in adult transition programs must continually evaluate the needs of the student to guide his or her practice and the design and foci of the transition program. Levinson and Ohler (1998) state, “the foundation of transition planning is an ongoing-assessment program that begins in elementary school, continues through high school, and is continually linked to developmental objectives” (p. 67). Approaches and focal points associated with meeting this population of students’ learning needs evolve as they progress through elementary, middle, junior and senior high school and into a postsecondary program (Cronin, Patton, & Wood, 2007). A number of skills taught at the elementary level are reinforced and practiced at the middle and high school levels, allowing students to exercise and integrate their learned skills. Revisiting various skills gives students the chance to further progress in the curriculum and ultimately apply them to real-life settings (Cronin et al., 2007). In the case of students with intellectual disabilities, the curriculum and learning goals become increasingly distinct from their developmental-typical peers as they progress through school: areas of communication, community engagement, home/school safety, leisure, self-care, self-direction, social, and employment become important to address and assess to meet the student’s particular needs (Cronin et al., 2007, p. 31). By continuously assessing the students in these areas, teachers are able to develop programs tailored to the needs of the individual student.

Students with significant learning disabilities need more emphasis on career development because of their general lack of career awareness (Levinson & Ohler, 1998). They also need time to develop the skills necessary to be successful in a postsecondary environment or employment. In order to plan the transition process for students in adult transition programs, program leaders must use multiple assessment tools, such as the Vineland Self-Help Assessment in addition to the typical measures like high stakes’ standardized tests. They must work with agency assessments to help them determine students’ strengths and career interests. Based on the assessment information and the cooperation of the agency staff, the teacher must coordinate a learning plan both at school and off campus for the student to build requisite skills and engage in employment, recreation, hygiene, social, and daily-living lessons.

Setting Up the Environment for Instruction Adult transition programs should focus on academic skills, recreation, employment, and dailyliving skills by bringing students off campus to practice what they learn in school in “real-life” situations. Teachers must be deliberate in planning how students are introduced to real-life settings and how to incorporate identified skills. A widespread theme in the literature is the application of learned knowledge to real-life situations (Blumberg, Carroll, & Petroff, 2008; Clarke, et al., 2011).

It is essential to connect the unit of instruction to a specific life scenario. Eccles (1998) remarks, 39

“…teachers should provide the optimal level of structure for current levels of maturity while providing a sufficiently challenging environment to pull students toward higher levels of cognitive and social maturity” (Eccles et al., 1998, p. 92).

For example, many programs at the middle and high school level are designed for this population of students. They are generally referred to as “Life Skills” classrooms, and students generally placed in them have a developmental or cognitive delay. These programs are substantially separate and concentrate on functional-skill development. However, too often, students are not provided with age-appropriate materials or opportunities. Eccles et al. (1998) noted that during the adolescent time period there is an increase in conflict with these students over issues related to autonomy and control (p. 91). Learning opportunities must connect with future goals. Students should be involved in their transition process so that they can gain understanding of their strengths and weaknesses, and advocate for their own interest areas. Additionally, they should be a part of developing a program for themselves to help them anticipate and plan for an appropriate independent adult life. Transition- centered educations are not add-on activities, but essential components that guide the development of all education programs for students with intellectual disabilities starting at age 14 (Kohler, & Field, 2003, p. 176).

Teachers must introduce students to the possibility of skills required for varied career opportunities and what those options look like. The teacher must be able to coordinate all of these moving parts and instruct in various locations. The adult transition programs must aggressively maintain multisite learning environments to combat the types of outcomes students with intellectual disabilities tend to face. For example, only 63% of youth with a disability are competitively employed compared to the six percent competitively-employed mentally retarded youth (NLTS, 1987). Thus it is essential to prepare students with workplace skills during their K-12 years, but especially in a post-secondary or adult transition program.

Research on interest-job matches for students demonstrates that students gain improved self-esteem and work satisfaction, and experience lower levels of anxiety and exhaustion when they have a job consistent with their interests (Estrada-Hernandez et al., 2008, p. 15). Adult transition programs should use local agencies, such as rehabilitation centers, and Department of Developmental Disabilities, to help them assess students’ vocational skills, interests and strength areas as they approach the age of 22. Interest-job matches are essential for students with disabilities to attain and keep jobs (Estrada-Hernandez et al., 2008). Agencies must prioritize interest-job matches by linking students to authentic employment opportunities instead of placing them in low-interest and piece workshops that pay below the minimum wage. The practice of partnering with outside adult agencies provides agencies with the opportunity to collaboratively support the students, their families, and prepare the students for greater independence after leaving high school. Nonetheless, it requires teachers to develop their practice beyond the walls of the typical classroom into the myriad of other work and community environments.

Contexts and Relationships: Supporting the Transition to Independence.

Creating adult transition programs that honor the tension between the students’ adult identities and their continued need for intensive support increases the possibility that students will successfully venture into the community. In these programs, while the students don’t necessarily graduate from high school, they do matriculate to a new stage in their learning. The transition to the next phase of learning is marked when students “graduate” either by receiving a diploma or a certificate of attainment/attendance, and move to an adult transition program within the school district to develop the skills needed to transition to adulthood. Creating a new learning environment outside of the high-school context rather than a separate space as part of the high-school building provides life-skills’ students with tangible steps toward adulthood. Students are supported in a scaffolded 40

model to learn job skills at the adult transition program site and in the community. For example, the students venture into community to practice necessary out-of-home skills with wraparound support from school personnel, agency support, and families.

It is important to recognize at this stage that it is about the student’s feelings about themselves. As Eccles (1998) reports, “Transition to a facilitative and developmentally-appropriate environment, even at this vulnerable age, should have a positive impact on children’s perceptions of themselves and their educational environment” (p. 92).

Otherwise, as students develop they may feel negatively toward themselves and their experiences, possibly diminishing their motivation towards school and independence, and decreasing their selfesteem (Eccles et al., 1998).

In addition to supporting ongoing learning with regard to skills required for navigating the adult world, adult transition programs must also help students learn how to engage with other people, find meaning, develop interests and build relationships that lead toward an optimal quality of life.

Schalock (2004) developed a QOL (Quality of Life) index, and listed several domains, including interpersonal relations, personal development, physical well-being, and social inclusion (p. 206).

These domains help illustrate how adult transition programs should attend to the students’ developmental complexity and the types of environments that support their overall development.

Adult transition programs need to promote these domains by providing students opportunities to get out in the community and do what typical-age peers may be doing, such as working out at gyms, attending restaurants, and going shopping. These opportunities to interact with the community offer students a better quality of life, and give them the opportunity to choose what they want to do and what they want to eat, giving students control over the quality of their life, thereby enhancing it.

Independence should be encouraged for students in adult transition programs and is an important developmental milestone. Students need to be prepared for various situations and be given opportunities to continue to learn and grow within the situations or settings. Zimmer-Gembeck, Chipuer, Hanisch, Creed & McGregor (2006) explain, “it may be possible to change school structure to better promote autonomy, connection, and feelings of competence among students” (p.929). Adult transition programs can demonstrate this possibility because of its school-based structures combined with the follow-up supports in the real-life settings providing these opportunities for the students. It also prepares students to navigate on their own when they turn 22, and those supports are no longer mandated.

Self-reflection, problem solving, goal setting, self-monitoring and decision-making are a part of the skills associated with building self-determination (Marks, 2008, p. 56). The teachers in adult transition programs need to coordinate sets of activities and environments to promote the student’s self-determination skills. Direct instruction in self-determination helps students gain greater selfconcept skills and increased self-esteem (Campbell Whatley, 2008, p. 142). Students are able to practice self-determination skills in adult transition programs when they are given a place to discuss and process issues at work and in the community setting, and are encouraged to problem solve to determine their own course of action.

Teaching students self-determination skills and self-advocacy is a way to teach students selfempowerment (Marks, 2008). These skills are described as “knowledge of and beliefs that help a person regulate their behavior and be self-sufficient” (Field et al., 1998). Because students play such a key role in decision making and engaging in independent work and life skills in adult transition programs, they develop self-esteem and confidence.

41

Policy Implications There are three very important components to developing meaningful and integrated postsecondary programs for students with intellectual disabilities aged 18-22: First, Building a wraparound, multi-pronged model that teaches students how to integrate into the adult community and creates awareness within the adult community about how to welcome and support students with intellectual disabilities. Next, situating learning and teaching opportunities in multiple contexts is essential in order to support transfer of knowledge and maximize independence. Lastly, it is important to learn from the parent experiences, and equally important to promote parent education to support the difficulties of letting go and the transition to adulthood at home; identifying these characteristics will help school districts design and implement a wraparound approach to transitioning students with intellectual disabilities to adulthood.

Adult Transition Programs are not built in isolation. In fact, many outside factors influence their creation. For example, IDEA paved the way for students with disabilities to access the general curriculum and gain transition skills in a more prescribed and consistent manner. It was reauthored in 1997 because of research that demonstrated poor postsecondary outcomes for students with disabilities (Benz, Lindstrom, & Yovanoff, 2000, p. 509). The mandate required schools to offer a least-restrictive environment for learning, as well as beginning transition services for students at the age of 14. However, these mandates are unfunded, requiring that schools figure out how to educate students with intensive special needs with only those resources already available.

Because of the varied and rich experiences in an inclusion setting, it is best to work on these skills in an environment that offers opportunities to use those skills (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Learning to make choices, problem solve, set goals and advocate for oneself is part of what can be learned in an integrated-learning environment out in the community. These opportunities in the adult transition program offered students the chance to talk about work problems with their peers and adults, set goals at work and in daily living, and advocate for what is working and what is not.

As a result of this case study, the following implications can be used by school districts interested in building postsecondary programs for students with intellectual disabilities: 1.

In the absence of adequate funding, program developers need to think beyond governmental and outdated-funding sources to generate creative solutions to secure necessary resources and supports.

2. Finding ways to curtail costs by utilizing community agencies to support and provide learning and living spaces, and opportunities, shifts the responsibility for student education from the district to the community at large. The current economy impacts program continuation and development, and community resources cannot be overlooked as they are essential to student success.

3. Community and state-stakeholder education is vital. Everyone in the broader community needs to understand the necessity of supporting programs such as these. The benefits are not limited to the students and their families. For example, social capital theory asserts that relationships between students and employers can be transformed into economic capital if the student is hired after graduation or in a similar capacity somewhere else (McElroy et al., 2006). By providing students an opportunity to work within the community, the social capital of the community as a whole grows.

42

4.

Students need to be included in the community by going to the YMCA, restaurants, and to work. These are authentic-inclusionary components and are related to students being better able to transition to adulthood and more likely to obtain employment, live independently and become socially integrated.

Conclusion

Giving students the ability to understand themselves and advocate for themselves gives them power in their own lives and hope for the future. In order to assert control of their lives, students need to develop an understanding of their strengths and limitations, and confidence in their own capabilities (Field et al., 1998). Students in the adult transition programs must learn to communicate their needs to others and develop strategies to help compensate for areas of weakness or disability. Students who learn to self-advocate become empowered and demonstrate higher levels of psychological empowerment, hope and self-control (Morningstar et. al., 2010, p. 87).

Fostering self-determination skills along with the many other individual skills students learn, requires a coordinated set of environments, varied types of instruction and wraparound relational and structural supports for success.

References Benz, M., Lindstrom, L., and Yovanoff, P. (2000). Improving graduation and employment outcomes of students with disabilities: Predictive factors and student perspectives. The Council for Exceptional Children 66(4), 509-529.

Blumberg, R., Carroll, S., & Petroff, J. (2008). Career and community studies: An inclusive liberal arts programme for youth with Intellectual Disabilities. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 12, 621-637.

Burdge, M., Clayton, J., Denham, A., Kearns, J., & Kleinert, H. (2006). A four-step process for accessing the general curriculum for students with significant cognitive disabilities.

Teaching Exceptional Children (May/June 2006).

Campbell-Whately, Gloria D. (2008). Teaching students about their disabilities: Increasing selfdetermination skills and self-concept. International Journal of Special Education, 23, 137144.

Clarke, S., Sloper, P., Moran, N., Cusworth, L., Franklin, A., & Beecham, J. (2011). Multi-agency transition services: greater collaboration needed to meet the priorities of young disabled people with complex needs as they move into adulthood. Journal of Integrated Care 19(5) 30-40.

Cronin, M. (1996). Life skills curricula for students with learning disabilities: A review of the literature. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 53-68.

Cronin, M., Patton, J., & Wood, S. (2007). Life skills instruction (2nd ed). Pro-ed: Austin, TX. Eccles, J., Midgley, C., Wigfield, A., Buchanan, C., Reuman, D., Flanagan, C. & Mac Iver, D. (1993). The impact of stage-environment fit on young adolescence. American Psychologist, 48 (2), 90-101.

Estrada-Hernandez, N., Wadsworth, J., Nietupski, J., Warth, J., & Winslow, A. (2008).

Employment or economic success: the experience of individuals with disabilities in transition from school to work. Journal of Employment Counseling, March 2006, Vol. 45.

Field, S., Martin, J., Miller, R., Ward, M, & Wehmeyer, M. (1998). A practical guide for teaching self-determination. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.

Kohler, P., and Field, S. 2003). Transition-focused education. The Journal of Special Education 31(3), 174-183.

Lave, J. & E. Wenger. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.

43

Levinson, E.M. & Ohler, D.L. (1998). Transition from high school to college for students with learning disabilities: Needs, assessment, & services. High School Journal, 82(1), 62.

Marks, S.U. (2008, September). Self-determination for students with intellectual disabilities and why I want educators to know what it means. Phi Delta Kappan, 55-58.

McMahan, R. & Baer, R. (2001). IDEA Transition policy compliance and best practice: Perceptions of transition stakeholders. Career Development and Transition and Exceptional Individuals, 24 (2).

McElroy, M., Jorna, R. & van Engelen, J. (2006). Rethinking social capital theory: A knowledge management perspective. Journal of Knowledge Management, 10(5).

Morningstar, M., Frey, B., Noonan, P., ng, J., Clavenna-Deane, B., Graves, P., Kellems, R., McCall, Z., Pearson, M., Bjorkman Wade, D., Williams-Diehm, K. (2010). A Preliminary investigation of the relationship of transition preparation and self-determination for students with disabilities in postsecondary educational settings. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 33(2) 80-94.

Schalock, R.L. (2004). The concept of quality of life: What we know and do not know. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 48(3), 203-216.

Zimmer-Gembeck, M., Chipuer, H., Hanisch, M., Creed, P. & McGregor, L. (2006). Relationships at school and stage-environment fit as resources for adolescent engagement and achievement. Journal of Adolescence, 29(6) 911-933.

About the Author Heather Bish, Ed.D., is currently the Director of Education & Faculty Development at the American Women’s College at Bay Path University. Previously, Heather worked in the field of K12 education for fifteen years, first as a special education teacher and later as an administrator.

Heather believes in inclusion and the right of all students to take part in educational opportunities.

Throughout Heather's career, she has advocated for students with special needs and has helped create programs that include students with disabilities. She is passionate about students gaining access to higher education and supports programs, such as Inclusive Concurrent Enrollment (ICE) and College Steps. Heather has become, through her experience of losing her sister to an abduction and murder, an advocate for Victims. She is a founding member of the Molly Bish Foundation and works to promote child safety, victim rights, and law enforcement collaborations. Heather received her B.A. in Social Rehabilitation Services from Assumption College, her M.Ed. from Framingham State University in Special Education, and her Ed.D. in Curriculum Leadership from Northeastern University. Most importantly, Heather is a mother to a daughter who is studying business and the environment at Bryant University.

44

What Parents of Children with Chromosome Variations Feel About Special Education Teacher’s Understanding of Their Children’s Educational Problems Dr. Jay R. Lucker Howard University Dr. Anne T. Molloy Walter Reed National Military Medical Center

Abstract Children with chromosome variations may be enrolled in special education programs. Parents would expect that the special education teachers understand their children’s educational needs.

Yet, many times parents report that their children are misdiagnosed as having Autism Spectrum Disorder or as being cognitively/intellectually impaired. A survey was completed by parents of children with XY chromosome variations. The parents were asked to identify what they feel a variety of special education personnel understand about their children’s educational problems and needs. Findings from the survey identified that parents felt that resource personnel, such as speech-language pathologists, occupational therapists, and special education personnel, such as administrators and teachers, have little understand of their children’s needs. Yet, parents feel that these educators are the ones who spend most of the time with their children in learning situations. The following is a discussion of the survey results with recommendations for what special education teachers can do to learn more about these children and their educational needs.

What Parents of Children with Chromosome Variations Feel About Special Education Teacher’s Understanding of Their Children’s Educational Problems Special education teachers deal with children needing a wide variety of educational support.

Some children have genetic problems such as chromosome variations. One group of children with such problems include those with XY chromosome variations, also known as XY Aneuploidy (www.genetic.org). Parents of these children may work closely with schools and special education personnel to provide appropriate services for their children with such problems. However, in the authors’ experiences regarding children with XY chromosome variations, they have found that parents are concerned that they had to challenge the schools to obtain appropriate services for their children as well as reporting that the special education professionals in their children’s schools did not really understand that their children with these genetic problems are at risk for learning, education, and social/emotional problems.

These concerns led the authors to conduct a survey of parents of children with XY chromosome variations to identify what they felt about special education professionals’ understanding of their children’s problems, focusing on educational issues. Parents identified they typically obtain knowledge about their children’s educational issues from the children’s doctors, as well as from school professionals (special education administrators, special education teachers, reading specialists, and education support professionals, such as speech-language pathologists (SLPs) and occupational therapists (OTs)). The surveys used a progressive three-point scale in which 45

questions posed for each group of professionals were rated as never (0), sometimes (1), most of the time (2). The same seven questions were asked for each group of professionals, with the groups included as: medical professionals (doctors, nurses), special educational professionals (special education teachers, directors/coordinators of special education services, reading specialists, and educational evaluators), school psychologists, and support personnel (SLPs and OTs). Since the same questions were used, results were analyzed based on each question demonstrating which group of professionals were rated the highest to lowest in providing information to parents regarding their understanding of their children’s needs.

Methods Participants Participants in the present research were parents who attending an annual conference on Children with XY Chromosome Variations conducted by the previously named organization, Klinefelter’s Syndrome and Associates, now known as AXYS(https://genetic.org/im-parent-affectedchild/support-groups/). This organization is a parent support group that has professionals involved with the organization to help parents learn about and understand the special needs of their children. One of the authors, JRL, was a professional associate with this organization at the time when the surveys were developed and distributed to parents at the annual meeting. The parent participants came to the annual meeting from various places. The majority, about 90%, were from the U.S. since the meeting is held in the U.S. At the time of collecting the data for this survey, the meeting was held just outside of Los Angeles, CA. The remaining 10% (actually 14 families) were parents who came from outside the U.S. including various countries in South America and Canada along with two families from Europe.

The parents surveyed all had children identified with XY chromosome variations. For the person without such chromosome variation, the person has 46 chromosomes including what are called X and Y chromosomes which are our sex chromosomes. Males, without such variation, have one X and one Y chromosome, while females have two X chromosomes. However, many children are born with a third or more of these sex chromosomes. For example, boys can be born with 47 chromosomes including an extra X chromosome (47, XXY sometimes referred to as Klinefelter syndrome) or with an extra Y chromosome (47, XYY). Girls can be born with an extra X chromosome (47, XXX which is also called Trisomy X). Only those with the 47 chromosome variations are included in this discussion since a very small sample (less than 10) of survey responses were obtained from parents of children with 48 chromosomes (XXYY and XXXY for boys and XXXX for girls).

Of the sample of 126 surveys used for gathering results for this research, 53 (42%) were from parents of boys. Of these 53 boys, 35% had 47, XXY, while 7% had 47, XYY. The remaining 73 (58%) were obtained from parents of girls with 47, XXX. Procedures At the annual conferences, professional associates with the organization make presentations to the parents regarding their specific area of expertise. The first author made a presentation on his expertise regarding auditory and language processing and its impact on educational issues in children with XY chromosome variations. In the context of that presentation, the two authors discussed that it is not known what professionals understand and how they explain things to 46

parents of children with XY chromosome variations, especially regarding the children’s educational needs. Parents at these conferences often express concerns for their children not performing well in school and not being provided with what the parents feel are appropriate educational support services. Parents complain that educators in the schools do not seem to understand the special education needs of their children with XY chromosome variations. This input from parents was noted by the authors who had attended six previous annual conferences.

This concern from parents led to the authors developing the survey and, then, asking parents to complete the survey which had been included in their information packets provided to parents when registering for the conference. The surveys were completed in paper format and collected from parents before they left the conference or were mailed to the authors if not submitted at the conference.

Overview of the Survey Questions The survey included a total of 28 questions with the same 7 questions posed focusing on each of the four groups of professionals: medical, special educators, special education support professionals (SLPs and OTs), and school psychologists. Two questions focused on the specific genetic problems, but most focused on educational issues. The questions focusing on genetic factors asked whether the parents felt that the professional focused in the question understood how XY chromosome variations affected their children. These questions were not included in the present study. The remaining five questions are identified in the results section of this paper.

An example of a survey question included the following. The first question asked whether “the professional” supportively listened to the parents’ concerns about their child. Thus, the question for medical professional read, “How do you feel your medical doctor/nurse listened in a supportive manner when you discussed concerns about your child’s education?” This same question for special education teachers read, “How do you feel your child’s special education teacher, reading specialist, or special education coordinator listened in a supportive manner when you discussed concerns about your child’s education?” Thus, the same wording for questions was used merely substituting the specific profession for whom that section of the survey was focused. Responses were, “None of the time, Sometimes, and Always,” and were rated 0, 1, and 2. Thus, quantitative analyses were performed looking at the mean responses to each question for the four different categories of professionals.

In addition to these survey questions, the parents were provided the ability to add qualitative responses for each question. Thus, both quantitative data and descriptive, qualitative information was available and are discussed below.

Results Since the surveys were completed by parents of children with different types of XY chromosome variations, the first question asked was whether there might be a difference in responses between the surveys completed by parents who have a child with 47, XXY versus parents who have a child with 47, XYY versus parents who have a child with 47, XXX. Since responses were nonparametric, Chi-Square analyses were completed looking at the differences between parent responses from these three groups to determine whether there were any significant findings.

Results of these analyses indicated no differences for any of the questions asked (see Table 1).

47

Table 1 Chi-square analyses for each of the seven survey questions comparing responses from parents for each of the three XY chromosome variation groups. (df = 3) Question Chi-Square value p 1 1.319 0.517 2 2.340 0.310 3 1.732 0.421 4 0.852 0.653 5 1.658 0.437 6 0.540 0.763 7 1.329 0.514 None were Significant, p>0.05

Since Chi-Square analyses indicated there were no significant differences among the three different groups for responses on each question for this survey, results are presented for the whole group.

In addition to concerns regarding differences in responses between the parents of the three groups of children with XY chromosome variations, a question arose regarding the internal consistency between the responses obtained for the same questions for the four different professionals in the survey. To test for internal consistency, Chronbach’s alpha was calculated comparing these four groups. Results indicated a very high level of internal consistency (Chronbach’s alpha = 0.921). Thus, responses were consistent between questions for each of the four groups of questions.

Investigating the responses from parents for each of the five questions related to special education factors, results for the 126 surveys indicated the following. The first question related to special education issues asked parents whether they felt the professional for whom the question was asked listened in a supportive manner to the parents’ concerns about their child’s special educational issues. School psychologists were ranked the highest with a mean value of 1.6. Medical professionals ranked second (mean = 1.5), followed by special education professionals and support professionals equally (mean = 1.4). The second question, related to educational issues, asked whether parents felt the professional involved with the question provided correct information. Mean scores for this question were: 1.3 for medical professionals and school psychologists (equally), followed by 1.2 for SLPs and OTs, with special education professionals rated last at 1.1. The third question related to special education asked if parents felt the professional involved directed parents to further information and resources to better understand their child’s special education needs. Results for this question ranked psychologists first (mean = 1.5), medical doctors and special education professionals equally as second (mean = 1.4), and SLPs/OTs last (mean = 1.0). The fourth question related to special education concerns asked parents to identify whether the professional for whom the question focused provided the best level of educational “care” and concern for their child. Not surprisingly, all school personnel (psychologists, SLPs/OTs, and special education professionals) ranked first 48

(mean = 1.4), with medical professionals ranked last (mean = 1.0). The last question focusing on special educational issues asked whether the parents felt that the professional for whom the question was asked respected the parent’s needs and concerns regarding their child’s special educational issues. For this question, psychologists ranked the highest (mean = 1.6) followed by medical professionals and special education professionals equally (mean = 1.5) and SLPs/OTs last (mean = 1.4). The remaining two questions focused on issues not related to education but looked at the professional’s knowledge regarding XY chromosome variations and are not discussed here.

In reviewing the five questions focusing on special education issues, it was found that of the school personnel, psychologists were ranked highest most often with special education professionals second, and support personnel (SLPs and OTs) consistently ranked below the other educational professionals. It was surprising that parents found medical professionals ranking very high for all questions except the one specifically related to providing a high level of educational support since medical doctors do not provide educational support. Yet, parents felt that medical doctors provided a high level of good information about special education concerns parents had when they discussed such concerns with their medical doctors and nurses.

Qualitative Responses The most outstanding theme identified from input from the parents of these children with XY chromosome variations was that special education professionals and SLPs/OTs really do not understand the special education issues of their children. Parents did feel that school psychologists provided the best input regarding their child’s special education needs, but in every response the parents identified that they had spoken with the school psychologists only after the professional formally evaluated their child. Additionally, parents reported that they often spoke with the special education coordinators before the coordinators met their child and, thus, felt that these coordinators provided little understanding of their children’s possible special education needs because of the children’s XY chromosome variations. As for medical professionals, the parents reported speaking with them only after the professionals met the child. Parents felt that medical doctors focused largely on medical and genetic issues, but also discussed concerns for educational factors that the children might face, and, in many cases, it was the meeting with the medical doctor that led parents to go to the schools to request evaluations of their child’s educational needs because the doctors reported that research has identified many educational problems with these children.

When focusing on information the parents received from the various professionals, the parents felt that special education professionals, SLPs and OTs tended to focus on their specific test results or findings on formal tests or class performance regarding their children but did not investigate or were not concerned about other possible educational concerns for these children.

The parents felt that it was as if the special educational and support personnel had little to no understanding of children with XY chromosome variations and the educational problems found with these children. As for special education support personnel (SLPs and OTs), parents reported that it was often a fight with other special education personnel as well as general education personnel (teachers, school administrators) to have them agree that there was a need to investigate the special educational needs of these children.

49

Conclusions Looking at both the quantitative and qualitative responses on this survey of 126 parents of children with XY chromosome variations the following conclusions are drawn. It appears that parents feel that special education professionals do not recognize or understand the special educational needs of these children. Yet, research has demonstrated that children with these XY chromosome variations typically have a wide variety of educational problems including reading difficulties, language disorders, comprehension problems both in reading and language, and general learning problems (see list of further reading for documentation that supports this statement). Parents reported that their children required special education services and often had to fight with school personnel to get testing completed or school personnel wanted to identify the children as having autism or cognitive/intellectual disabilities rather than specific learning disabilities. However, the children all had medical problems that have been shown to affect their learning and development of educational skills such as reading, writing, and communication.

From the parents’ responses on the surveys, it appears that school psychologists seem to have provided the most consistent information regarding the children’s special education needs.

However, in their qualitative responses, the parents reported that this was so only after the school psychologists had evaluated the children. Thus, the school psychologists typically spoke with the parents only after the professionals had obtained formal assessment information regarding the child’s cognitive/intellectual and educational abilities. Yet, the first step to get schools to investigate possible special education needs of children is to have the special education professionals and support personnel (psychologists, SLPs, OTs) identify that because their children have XY chromosome variations, there is a high likelihood that the children will have special education needs.

In providing input, parents reported they felt that school personnel, especially special education professionals, have little to no understanding of the educational needs of children with XY chromosome variations. Parents reported that they have even provided references to special educational personnel, but question whether these professionals investigate the references or read the information on the websites or in the materials provided by the parents.

In the end, the underlying theme is that there are many children in schools who have XY chromosome variations. For example, 1 in 500 boys are born with 47, XXY (U.S. National Library of Medicine) and 1 in 400 to 500 births are of children born with some XY chromosome variation (www.genetics.org). The research has demonstrated that these children have special education needs (see www.genetics.org). Yet, special education professionals do not really know and identify that such children need to be evaluated to identify their specific special education needs. Attached is a list of professional websites and references regarding children with XY chromosome variations. Many of these discuss the genetic, chromosome factors, but special educators may wish to skip over this medically related information and focus on the specific educational issues discussed. The underlying focus is that special education professionals need to have a better understanding of how children with XY chromosome variations are at high risk for needing special education services so that we can provide appropriate education for all children as is required by IDEA and other special education regulations.

50

For Further Reading Check out the following references to obtain a better understanding of the special education needs of children with XY chromosome variations: www.genetic.org: this is the website of the organization AXYS. This is one of the leading support organization for parents, professionals and people with XY chromosome variations. One aspect of this website is that it includes many professionals who have written about children with XY chromosome variations.

U.S. National Library of Medicine: (https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/klinefeltersyndrome#statistics).

Focus Foundation: (http://thefocusfoundation.org/x-y-chromosome-variations/) National Organization for Rare Disorders or NORD:(https://rarediseases.org/organizations/klinefelter-syndrome-associates/).

Some hospitals throughout the U.S. also provide information about children with these XY variations including information on their educational and developmental issues. Check out: 

Children’s Hospital of Colorado (https://www.childrenscolorado.org/pediatricinnovation/research/neuroscience/x-y-clinic/)



Children’s Hospital and Clinic of Minnesota (https://www.childrensmn.org/educationmaterials/teens/article/13834/klinefeltersyndrome/?gclid=CjwKCAiAvMPRBRBIEiwABuO6qVFgnELVTkXHerHoPdzIAZwIe FUt22GbOOMrXxvxO1RRDbCxKatA4BoC0NAQAvD_BwE)



Emory Nursing from Emory University in Georgia (http://www.nursing.emory.edu/newsand-events/news-release/2016/05/x-y-proclamaiton-group.html)



Children’s Hospital and Clinic of Minnesota (https://www.childrensmn.org/educationmaterials/teens/article/13834/klinefeltersyndrome/?gclid=CjwKCAiAvMPRBRBIEiwABuO6qVFgnELVTkXHerHoPdzIAZwIe FUt22GbOOMrXxvxO1RRDbCxKatA4BoC0NAQAvD_BwE).

51

About the Authors Jay R. Lucker, Ed.D., CCC-A/SLP, FAAA, is a Professor and Director of the Five-Year Accelerated Master’s Degree Program in Speech-Language Pathology, Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Howard University, Washington, DC. He is also an Adjunct Professor in the Department of Clinical Speech-Language Pathology at Rocky Mountain University School of Health Professions. Dr. Lucker is a world renowned expert in auditory processing and language processing disorders. He is widely published on many topics related to these areas.

Anne T. Molloy, Psy. D., Clinical Psychologist, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD and Adjunct Associate Professor in the Department of Psychology, Chicago School of Professional Psychology, Washington, DC. Dr. Molloy specializes working with individuals with disabilities as well as parents and couples.

Drs. Lucker and Molloy have collaborated on a number of studies including research involving children with XY chromosome variations.

52

Principals’ Perspectives on Teacher Preparation: Does Merging Two Programs Make a Difference Regarding the Abilities of New Teachers?

Andrea M. Kent, Ph.D. Rebecca M. Giles, Ph.D. University of South Alabama Abstract In response to an increased demand for teachers to graduate prepared to meet the needs of all students, an undergraduate teacher preparation program in the southeast United States merged the requirements of two programs resulting in candidates’ eligibility for dual certification in both elementary education and collaborative teaching (K-6). A quantitative, descriptive research model was used to examine elementary principals’ perceptions regarding the preparedness of these graduates as new elementary or special education teachers. Compared to previous, single certification programs, 67 % of participants (n=38) revealed that new hires were better prepared to teach in inclusive classrooms, 58% of participants stated that new hires were better prepared to teach general education, and 38% stated that new hires were better prepared to teach special education than previous graduates from programs that were not merged.

Keywords: elementary education, merged curriculum, principals, special education, teacher preparation Principals’ Perspectives on Teacher Preparation: Does Merging Two Programs Make a Difference Regarding the Abilities of New Teachers?

Much research exists on the critical impact of a teacher on student success (Comber & Simpson, 2001; Darling-Hammond, 1998; 2000; Milner, 2008). Teachers empower students or deflate them, improve their achievement levels or contribute to the achievement gap. Today’s classrooms are diverse in a broad sense, including ethnicity, learning capacity, socioeconomic status, and gender (Garcia & Cueller, 2006). The diversity of students results in inclusive classrooms; that is, they contain a wide variety of students with and without diagnosed learning disabilities, and the general education teacher must be committed to meeting the needs of all learners. However, those majoring in teacher education often do not consider the complexities of the population of students that will be part of their classroom. Often, they have idealistic views based on their own school experiences, including an educator that positively impacted their life.

The realities they eventually face in the classroom as they become new teachers is often disheartening and leads to leaving the profession early in their career (Darling-Hammond, 2006).

Many have argued that teachers are not adequately prepared to differentiate instruction for all learners, especially across diversities of race, socio-economic status, languages, culture, and abilities (Blanton & Pugach, 2007; McClanahan, 2008; Ness, 2008). More specifically, in many cases, special education students are now included in the general education classroom, requiring

53

both new and experienced teachers to provide a quality education for all students, meeting the needs of each learner (Sharma, 2012).

Given these levels of complexity, the journey of becoming a teacher must be recognized as a multifaceted process (Cooper & He, 2012). New teachers must be prepared to address diverse learning needs (McClanahan, 2008; Ness, 2008) and also have a deep knowledge of content and pedagogy (Brouck, 2005; Washburn-Moses, 2005). Thus, teacher preparation programs must be redesigned with an emphasis on providing appropriate content integrated with clinical experiences, so candidates graduate prepared to teach the diverse student population represented in any given classroom. In essence, candidates must be challenged to consider their unexamined beliefs regarding the learning abilities of all children and the multi-dimensional aspects of the realities they will face (Carrington & Selva, 2010; Loughran, 2002). Today’s educators must have a repertoire of skills and strategies to effectively teach all children, who inherently represent every type of diversity (Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005). There has been a challenge issued by some teacher educators to conduct focused research on the connection between what preservice teachers learn in their preparation programs and how they apply their learning with students (Clift, 2008; Cochran-Smith & Zeichner, 2005; Wilson, Floden, & FerriniMundy, 2001). On this premise, we collected data to investigate the impact of a redesigned curriculum on graduates’ preparedness as perceived by their employer during their first year(s) as a teacher.

The Role of Coursework in Clinical Programs While many teacher preparation programs have initiated a concerted shift toward clinically based programs, academic content, theory, and pedagogy must be carefully interwoven with meaningful field experiences (NCATE, 2010). As programs are redesigned, teachers must be prepared for the unprecedented responsibilities inherent with educating all students, including those students identified as having special needs. In 2002, the Study of Personnel Needs in Special Education (Carlson, Brauen, Klein, Schroll, & Willig, 2002) reported that while only one third of teachers had received preservice training in collaboration and less than half in adaptations, 96% of classroom teachers teach students with disabilities. Gately and Hammer (2005) emphasized the importance of pedagogy as well as content knowledge in order to effectively differentiate instruction. Fullerton, Ruben, McBride, and Bert (2011b) found that coursework in teacher preparation should focus on differentiation of planning to support differentiated instruction, assessing to determine the strengths and areas of need for all students, a deep knowledge of content, and how to embed accommodations into the planning process.

Darling-Hammond (2006b) states that teacher education programs must offer a curricular coherence that has a clear focus and purpose, with an embedded link to a progression of opportunities for application in a real-world setting.

Coursework for teacher preparation programs generally falls into one of three categories: discrete, integrated, or merged (Blanton & Pugach, 2007). Historically, the discrete model of preparation has been followed by most schools of education, whereby candidates are prepared using a model of either general education or special education. In the last decade, however, this model has come into question. There is doubt as to whether the graduates from discrete programs are fully prepared to meet the needs of all students in inclusive settings (Blanton & Pugach, 2007).

54

Fullerton et al. (2011a) describe an integrated model as having separate general and special education programs with faculty collaborating on course and field requirements so that candidates learn both general and special education curriculum. The integrated model allows candidates to add the special education certification to the general education licensure by meeting minimal additional requirements. The merged program is developed by general and special education faculty as a single program where all candidates receive licensure in both general and special education (Fullerton, et al, 2011a). Griffin and Pugach (2007) report that merged programs are becoming more common at the elementary preparation level.

Curricula in a merged program must be designed to meet the standards of both accrediting agencies and universities, while maintaining a shared vision of program goals (Fullerton et al., 2011a). A scope and sequence of courses with corresponding field experiences is developed to provide candidates the opportunity to develop their knowledge, skills, and dispositions to teach all students (Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005). Continual faculty collaboration is necessary to refine program goals and intended outcomes in such a way that a seamless scaffold for candidate preparation is apparent.

Field Experiences The importance of field experience in teacher education program has been well documented (Anderson & Stillman, 2012; Darling-Hammond, 2006a; Zeichner, 2010). Largely, the success of an internship is dependent upon the dispositions and professional relationship between the mentor teacher, university supervisor, and candidate as related to their attitudes and belief systems regarding teaching (Borko & Mayfield, 1995). In recent research, Le Cornu (2012) argues that the type of mutual learning relationship required for high quality field placements also relies on a solid relationship with a principal. Freeman (2010) notes the important role of the school system-university connection. He states that the school-university partnership must be solid, deep, and real for interns to truly benefit from their field experiences.

Field experiences range from observing to engaging in tasks such as preparing bulletin boards and copying documents as well as providing direct, explicit, and intense work with students in the form of tutoring, teaching small groups, and delivering lessons to the whole class (Capraro, Capraro, Parker, Klum, & Raulerson, 2005). Simply requiring additional field experience hours, however, does not necessarily result in better prepared candidates (Allsopp, DeMarie, AlvarezMcHatton, & Doone, 2006; Korthagen, Loughran, & Russell, 2006; Zeichner, 1980). The amount of learning that takes places during field experiences has been documented as highly contextualized, meaning learning is dependent on the type of school setting, student population, and overall school culture (Ritter, Powell, & Hawley, 2007; TĂŠllez, 2008). Regardless of the type of experience, expectations must be clearly conveyed to both the candidate and the cooperating teacher, and open communication must be maintained throughout the experience (Freeman, 2010).

Field experiences should lead toward the idea that a teacher is a change-agent (Marchel, Shields, & Winter, 2011). That is, a teacher understands and uses this understanding to bring about positive change in circumstances such as the needs, resources, and culture that directly impact how the school operates at the individual, classroom, and school level. Preservice teachers’ field 55

experiences should support this idea as candidates are given the opportunity to see that their actions in the role of a teacher truly make a difference in the lives of children and their communities. Oftentimes, new teachers are placed in schools with students unlike themselves.

As found in a study by Noel (2010), continued effort must be made to ensure that future teachers are taught how to learn about the school community at large, develop a respect for differences, and embrace the opportunity to immerse themselves in a new culture. This finding further supports the need for extended time in schools at the preservice level which allows the candidates to engage in meaningful teaching and learning activities and reflect on their practice (Maynes, Hatt, & Wideman, 2013), while also developing deeper relationships with their mentors (Marchel, Shields, & Winter, 2011).

Classrooms have become increasingly diverse, demanding that new teachers are prepared to meet the needs of all learners (Eisenhardt, Besnoy, & Steele, 2012). Field experiences that immerse preservice teachers in classroom settings that have all types of learners enable them to face the realities of teaching while under the tutelage of a mentor. This sort of field experience has been documented as critical to reform in teacher preparation (National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education, 2010) and an essential component of effective teacher preparation programs (National Research Council, 2010). The structured and systematic field experiences preservice teachers encounter will assist them in becoming prepared for the diverse students they will face as a new teacher (Freeman, 2010).

Preservice and inservice teachers who become overwhelmed with the diversity of instructional demands their students bring often resort to teaching the way they were taught or attempt to meet all students’ needs using a single approach (Faircloth, He, & Higgins, 2011). A better option would be to seek assistance and support through collaboration with colleagues. Collaboration with both general and special education teachers that is structured as part of immersed field experiences can facilitate the notion that teamwork is a key element in successful teaching (Darling-Hammond, 2006a; Fullerton et al., 2011b). Collaboration, however, can be difficult to foster and sustain (Grossman, Wineberg, & Woolworth, 2001). Trust must be cultivated and paired with an investment of time in analyzing, evaluating, and deliberating instructional strategies in effort to meet the needs of students (John-Steiner, 2000; Wenger, 1998).

Preservice teachers generally do not have an in-depth knowledge of students’ academic abilities without opportunities to work in small group and individualized settings (Athanases & Achinstein, 2003). Eisenhardt et al. (2012), who studied 58 preservice teachers working with “struggling” elementary grade students found that, given the opportunity, preservice teachers realized the potential knowing a student on a personal level had for creating a positive impact on the success of their academic learning. Getting to know the students individually also helped the preservice teachers become more keenly aware of the need for differentiating and individualizing their instruction. The role of building relationships and focusing on the whole child were clearly articulated as these candidates worked with challenging students in an academic context.

The reality of teaching does not always match preservice teachers’ preconceived notions regarding the profession (Cooper & He, 2012; Eisenhardt et al., 2012). For example, Cooper and He (2012) found that secondary teacher candidates viewed the teaching style of their cooperating teacher in an authoritative light while viewing themselves as a facilitator some times and 56

authoritative at other times. In addition, this research also revealed that preservice teachers acknowledged their concerns regarding the effectiveness of their teaching and the diverse needs of their students, recognizing their struggles with classroom management. Fullerton et al.

(2011b) found that a merged program allows candidates to actually develop and implement differentiated instruction followed by an examination of the results to inform and plan future instruction.

Overview of Redesigned Program In response to an increased demand for teachers prepared to work in inclusive classrooms, a university undergraduate teacher preparation program in the southeast United States merged the requirements of an elementary program and a special education program, resulting in candidates’ eligibility for dual certification in both elementary education and collaborative teaching (K-6).

This was done without increasing the number of credit hours required to complete a single certification program; thus, the restructured K-6 Teacher Education curriculum leads to dual certification without increasing either the cost or amount of time needed to complete the program.

The curriculum was redesigned through partnership efforts of College administrators and faculty in conjunction with local school district administrators. Merging the program for dual certification included restructuring both curriculum and fieldwork to include all state content and ability standards for general and special education, clinical experiences, and teacher certification tests. The field component includes nearly 1,000 hours to be completed over 3 semesters at a partnering elementary school, splitting the time between general education and special education experiences. The candidates had multiple cooperating teachers as they matriculated through the program, ensuring quality field experiences at all levels. In addition, the school administrators, academic coaches, school counselors, and other faculty embraced the preservice teachers as teacher preparation became more of a team approach and mentoring future teachers became a school-wide effort. Each school was also assigned a university field experience supervisor who engaged in tiered supervision and mentoring of all the students placed at that school, also serving in the role of a liaison between the university and elementary school. Appendix A gives an overview of the course and fieldwork requirements (Kent & Giles, 2013).

The rationale behind merging the curriculum to create the K-6 Teacher Education program was to better prepare elementary teacher candidates to meet the needs of all students. In the surrounding school districts, where the candidates complete their field experiences and often are later employed, there are high percentages of special education students who are included in the general education classroom. Therefore, merging the curriculum was in response to school district feedback that new teachers needed to be prepared for this reality, for academic and behavior management purposes. In this study, the researchers sought to examine the perceptions of principals regarding the preparedness of K-6 Teacher Education graduates as compared to new teacher hires from other programs.

57

Method Participants and Procedures A quantitative, descriptive research model was used to identify and explain elementary administrators’ perceptions regarding the preparedness of graduates from a merged teacher preparation program designed to provide the knowledge, skills, and dispositions required to teach in general education and inclusive elementary classrooms as well as special education classrooms. Survey method, which provides a quantitative or numeric description of trends, attitudes, or opinions of population by studying a sample of that population (Creswell, 2013) was employed.

Participants were 38 elementary principals from the University’s service area. The service area is where the vast majority of the graduates from this program obtain teaching positions and is comprised of four school districts within a large geographic area, including urban, rural, and suburban schools. Participants’ length of experience as principal at his/her current school was evenly distributed across a range of 1 to more than 10 years as follows: 1 to 3 years - 10, 4 to 6 years - 10, 7 to 10 years - 10, and more than 10 years - 8. Participation was voluntary. There were no direct benefits or risks for participating, and no incentives were provided.

Data Collection and Analysis Data were collected through an anonymous, electronic survey specifically designed to accomplish the objectives of this study. The nine-item survey was distributed via Survey MonkeyTM to all elementary and intermediate principals (n=81), meaning those schools that included grades kindergarten through sixth, in the University’s primary service area. The survey contained two demographic items, five teaching effectiveness items, and one open-ended question. The first item identified the length of time that each participant had served as principal at his/her current school. The second item asked if the participant had hired any teachers who graduated from the K-6 Teacher Education program. If the answer was no, the participant did not continue the survey. Each of the five effectiveness items offered three response options—“Better prepared to . . .,” Not as prepared to . . .,” and “No evidence of a significant difference . . .” The final question on the survey asked principals to provide any feedback that they perceived would be beneficial for improving the K-6 Teacher Education program (see Appendix B for a copy of the survey).

While researchers are increasingly using internet instruments for data-collection, web survey response rates are fairly low, even when Internet access is not an issue (Jin, 2011). A metaanalysis based on 45 published and unpublished experimental comparisons between web and other modes (i.e., web, telephone, direct mailing, face-to-face, etc.) showed that web surveys yielded an 11% lower response rate than those of other modes (Manfreda, Bosnjak, Berzelak, Haas, & Vehovar, 2008). This research survey remained open for 32 days and yielded 38 participants for a response rate of 47%, which is noticeably higher (range 18.50-43.50, M=22.20) than response rates of email surveys in the studies reviewed by Manfreda et al. Twenty-seven of the 38 principals who responded had hired a graduate of the K-6 Teacher Education program and were, as a result, eligible to complete the survey. All 27 principals, however, did not respond to all five teaching effectiveness items, thus, accounting for missing data. A lack of response is

58

most likely a result of not having hired a teacher in the comparison group (i.e., inclusion teacher from another university, etc).

Results Eighteen (67%) participants reported that K-6 Teacher Education graduates were better prepared to teach in inclusive classrooms than graduates of the same university who graduated prior to the curriculum being merged. Similarly, 10 (37%) participants reported that K-6 Teacher Education graduates were better prepared to teach in inclusive classrooms than recent graduates of other universities. Only one participant reported that K-6 Teacher Education graduates were not as prepared to teach in inclusive classrooms as previous graduates of the same university. Results for items 3 and 4 are represented in Table 1.

Table 1 K-6 Teacher Education Graduates Preparedness for Teaching in an Inclusive Classroom ________________________________________________________________________ Compared to previous Compared to recent graduates from the graduates from same university other universities ______________________________________________________________________________ Better Prepared

67% (18)

37% (10)

Not as Prepared

4% (1)

0% (0)

No Evidence of Significant Difference 19% (5) 33% (9) ______________________________________________________________________________ Fourteen (58%) participants reported that K-6 Teacher Education graduates were better prepared to teach in general education, non-inclusive classrooms than graduates of the same university who graduated prior to the curriculum being merged. Twelve (50%) participants reported that there was no evidence of a significant difference in the preparedness of K-6 Teacher Education graduates to teach in general education, non-inclusive classrooms than recent graduates from other universities. Results for items 5 and 6 are represented in Table 2.

59

Table 2 K-6 Teacher Education Graduates Preparedness for Teaching in a General Education Classroom ________________________________________________________________________ Compared to previous Compared to recent graduates from the graduates from same university other universities ______________________________________________________________________________ Better Prepared

58% (14)

33% (8)

Not as Prepared

4% (1)

4% (1)

No Evidence of Significant Difference 33% (8) 50% (12) ______________________________________________________________________________ Nine (38%) participants reported that K-6 Teacher Education graduates were better prepared to teach in self-contained, special education classrooms than graduates of the same university who graduated prior to the curriculum being merged. Seven (28%) participants reported that there was no evidence of a significant difference in the preparedness of K-6 Teacher Education graduates to teach in self-contained, special education classrooms than recent graduates from other universities. Results for items 7 and 8 are represented in Table 3.

Table 3 K-6 Teacher Education Graduates Preparedness for Teaching in a Self-Contained Special Education Classroom _______________________________________________________________________ Compared to previous Compared to recent graduates from the graduates from same university other universities ______________________________________________________________________________

Better Prepared

38% (9)

28% (7)

Not as Prepared

4% (1)

4% (1)

No Evidence of Significant Difference 13% (3) 24% (6) ______________________________________________________________________________

60

There were 18 responses to item 9 which was an open-ended question soliciting suggestions for improving the K-6 Teacher Education program. Two responses (“I believe all professionals should have coursework, as well as experience, dealing with special needs students. Please don't stop!” and “I have hired several teachers for special education positions and then later moved them to general education positions. They have done very well in both settings. The dual program gives them a clear understanding of expectations in all areas.”) were categorized as general praise. Of the remaining16 responses, there was a great variety in content, and some offered more than one suggestion for improvement. The most frequently appearing (four times) suggestion for improvement related to increased experiences in completing the extensive paperwork/forms involved in documenting special education services. The need for more substantial instruction and practice preparing and delivering conceptual, inquiry-based lessons related to STEM and Common Core State Standards was noted three times. More emphasis on classroom management and more time in special education settings for students with severe disabilities were both mentioned twice.

Discussion and Implications Results revealed that the principals surveyed perceived K-6 Teacher Education graduates as being more prepared to teach in inclusive classrooms. The additional courses in special education and the significantly increased field experience hours, dividing the hours between general and special education, helped to better equip new educators. Effective teachers must use assessments to determine the strengths and needs of each student, and know the content well enough to individualize their instruction to the extent that all students learn and apply the material at high levels (Caprano et al., 2010). This, however, is much easier said than successfully accomplished.

The findings of this study suggest that graduates of a program that focuses both coursework and field experiences on preparing teachers to meet the needs of all students improves new teachers’ abilities to differentiate instruction. Therefore, the program faculty began to more carefully align theory with opportunity for practice, balancing the time between hours spent in the university classroom and in the field. Careful consideration was also given to the balance between special and general education coursework and field hours.

However, the principals reported only 38% of new teachers were better prepared for selfcontained special education classrooms than the previous program that focused solely on special education. This suggests that the program is more successful in preparing inclusion teachers than self-contained special education teachers. If the purpose it to effectively prepare candidates for a general education, inclusive, or self-contained special education classroom, the program should examine the coursework and fieldwork in effort to strengthen the instruction and field opportunities related to students with low-incident disabilities.

Methods courses should be built upon sound educational theory, laced with the latest research on strategic teaching. The data revealed that a greater emphasis on the knowledge and skills to develop STEM lessons may benefit the K-6 Teacher Education candidates, perhaps indicating a need for increased interdisciplinary instruction within the program. As the program developed, faculty often team-taught science and mathematics, social studies and literacy, and engaged in team-based learning with the students to promote interdisciplinary collaboration. Of a more practical nature, participants expressed a need for a greater emphasis in learning how to complete 61

special education forms and documents, thus, prompting the possibility of increasing candidates’ involvement in the special education documentation process during field experiences. In an effort to help with this and align to local district needs, professional development opportunities were implemented with district led special education teachers to teach candidates the specific forms and processes for completing them.

Effective field experiences should be aligned with research-based best practice taught in method courses to foster meaningful field-based experiences. The findings of Caprano et al. (2010) support our findings that school-university partnerships should include explicit purposes that are clearly explained, understood, and evaluated by all stakeholders; they should also be designed using the gradual release of responsibility model (Pearson & Gallagher, 1983). The Director of Field Services worked directly with field supervisors, program faculty, and school administrators to ensure everyone was committed to adhering to the purposes outlined, and had the capacity within the school to help mentor the candidates as they developed the skills and strategies necessary in becoming a teacher of all students.

As suggested in the findings of Fullerton et al. (2011b), the K-6 Teacher Education program uses exemplary models of instruction as mentor teachers in general and special education classrooms.

These mentor teachers serve as joint supervisors under the guidance of effectual administrators and highly-capable, dedicated university supervisors. This unique team approach to mentoring allows candidates to participate in collaborative efforts from initial preparation, facilitating this same type of collaborative mentality as a new teacher. As supported by Fullerton et al (2011b), at least one administrator who participated in this study recognized and commented on K-6 Teacher Education candidates’ “clear understanding of expectations in all areas,” which is an essential prerequisite for a teacher to successfully differentiate instruction to meet the needs of all students.

As teacher preparation programs are redesigned, it is imperative for considerations to be given to both the idealistic views of preservice teachers and the realities they will face as new teachers.

The inclusive classroom, a classroom that embraces all levels of learners and all learning styles, is part of that reality today. One administrator surveyed commented that “We really have no classes considered non-inclusive.”, while another stated, “In our setting, there is rarely a general education class without special education students.” The K-6 Teacher Education program recognizes the critical need to prepare candidates for this reality.

Fullerton et al. (2011b) found that administrators perceived graduates from a secondary dual certification program as better able to understand struggling learners and adapt the curriculum for each student in ways that general education graduates with the dual training could not.

Similarly, Sharma (2012) found that after a specific course in teaching in an inclusive classroom, preservice teachers had a positive change in attitude, had a more accepting outlook on inclusion, and more confidence regarding their ability to teach in an inclusive setting. As our findings show, designing innovative programs with both coursework and fieldwork focused on meeting the needs of all students is one way to better prepare new teachers for the challenges they will face teaching in extremely diverse classrooms. We believe this finding applies across disciplines and content areas in teacher preparation programs, and institutions of higher education should consider teacher redesign with these tenets in mind.

62

In addition, these findings have implications on the role of the principal in supporting beginning teachers. Research (Brown & Wynn, 2007 & 2009; Moir, 2009; Roberson & Roberson, 2009; Wood, 2005) shows that when principals are cognizant of the challenges that new teachers encounter and are pro-active in providing the necessary supports, the new teachers are more likely to stay in the profession. Administrators’ responses in this research indicate that they are aware of the challenges of teaching in inclusion classrooms. One principal urged the university to continue to provide all teacher candidates with both coursework and field experiences dealing with special needs students. This awareness must link to support. Candidates should transition from preservice preparation programs focused on these issues to effective induction programs for novice teachers (Towers, 2012), since it is often a combination of a quality teacher preparation program coupled with school-based support that sustains and enhances the abilities of a new teacher.

Limitations Data were collected through survey method. The self‑reporting nature of surveys is one limitation of this study. Triangulating the data to include the perceptions of university supervisors, mentor teachers, and the candidates themselves would have further strengthened the study. In addition, the number of participants was low since participation was limited to principals who had hired new teachers who graduated from the K-6 Teacher Education program.

The low number of participants and specific focus of the study limits the generalizability of the findings.

Future Research This study reveals the opportunity for further research at both the preservice and inservice levels.

Teacher preparation programs that embrace the opportunity to merge their programs must be continually part of a program evaluation to ensure the components of the program are preparing graduates to meet the diverse needs of students.

Given the opportunity for graduates in a merged program to become dually certified in special education and general education, it is likely that some graduates will become general education teachers, some will become special education teachers, and many will teach in inclusive classrooms. Research is needed to determine the impact of a merged program on new teachers employed in each of the various positions for which they are certified. Building upon this study, data should be collected and analyzed in relation to the logistics of new teachers’ assignments, including things such as number of students taught, how many students taught have individualized education plans, and the length of time teaching. Consideration should be given to the impact of this data and the total number of new teachers hired on the principal’s perceptions.

An examination of induction programs that include specific efforts to support new teachers that are assigned to teach in inclusive classrooms should also be investigated. In addition, follow-up research after a period of time is needed with graduates from merged programs to learn how they evolve into a more experienced teacher, specifically related to differentiating instruction to meet the needs of all learners. It would be helpful to determine the specific types and level of support provided by various school personnel (i.e. administrator, academic coaches, assigned mentor, 63

etc.), as well as the perceived benefits of this support. Finally, research needs to be conducted on the bridge between preservice preparation programs and inservice induction programs to determine effective elements of both, since they share the common goal of preparing and sustaining teachers as they work with diverse students.

Conclusions Inherent in a constructivist philosophy, teacher preparation is constantly evolving through the transformation of a student teacher to a teacher of students, where there is a shared context for this learning process to occur (Caprano et al., 2010). As found in the work of Burbank et al.

(2012), it is important that coursework and field experiences are linked in such a way that equity, social justice, and multiculturalism are intricately threaded throughout the preparation process with the knowledge and skills needed to teach all learners, including time to reflect and build upon the learning. Like the program of this research, teacher preparation programs must design curriculum in a context to reflect the learners in the classrooms that new teachers will face, including the content, pedagogy, and ability to differentiate instruction. Increasing the special education coursework helped to strengthen the knowledge and pedagogical strategies the new teachers needed to meet the many different facets of the struggling students. Preparation programs must then be linked to the practice of novice teachers. The additional field time and types of experiences reportedly made a difference in level of preparation the new teachers faced as they began their teaching careers.

As the teachers begin their professional careers, how they find the resources they need to meet the needs of all learners and the support that is beneficial to them as a new teacher are elements that will determine their success or demise. While merging elementary and special education curriculums to help prepare new teachers to teach all students is a beginning, the effort to support the new teacher through the induction phase of their career is also critical. Institutions of higher education and school districts must realize that it takes a joint effort for new teachers to be successful in effectively meeting the needs of all learners. While recognizing that this study adds only a small piece to the existing literature on the impact of a redesigned curriculum on the practice of new teachers, it is an initial step toward determining the impact of a robust program on teacher practice, a step closer to linking to student achievement.

References Allsopp, D. H., DeMarie, D., Alvarez-McHatton, P., & Doone, E. (2006). Bridging the gap between theory and practice: Connecting courses with field experiences. Teacher Education Quarterly, 33(1), 19-35.

Anderson, L. M., & Stillman, J. A. (2012). Student teaching’s contribution to preservice teacher development: A review of research focused on the preparation of teachers for urban and high-needs contexts. Review of Educational Research, 83(1), 3–69.

Athanases, S. Z., & Achinstein, B. (2003). Focusing new teachers on individual and low performing students: The centrality of formative assessment in the mentor’s repertoire of practice. Teachers College Record, 105(8), 1486-1520.

64

Blanton, L. P., & Pugach, M. C. (2007, June). Collaborative programs in general and special teacher education: An action guide for higher education and state policy makers.

Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.

Borko, H., & Mayfield, D. (1995). The roles of the mentor teacher and university supervisor in learning to teach. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11, 501-518.

Burbank, M., Ramirez, L., & Bates, A. (2012). Critically reflective thinking in urban teacher education: A comparative case study of two participants' experiences as content area teachers. Professional Educator, 36(2), 1-17.

Brouck, E. C. (2005). Secondary special educators: Perspectives of preservice preparation and satisfaction. Teacher Education and Special Education, 28(2), 125-139.

Brown, K. M., & Wynn, S. R. (2007). Teacher retention issues: How some principals are supporting and keeping new teachers. Journal of School Leadership, 17(6), 664-698.

Brown, K., & Wynn, S. R. (2009). Finding, supporting, and keeping: The role of the principal in teacher retention issues. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 8(1), 37-63.

Caprano, M., Caprano, R. M., & Helfeldt, J. (2010). Do differing types of field experiences make a difference in teacher candidates' perceived level of competence? Teacher Education Quarterly, 37(1), 131-154.

Capraro, R. M., Capraro, M. M., Parker, D., Kulm, G., & Raulerson, T. (2005). The mathematics content knowledge role in developing preservice teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Journal for Research in Childhood Education, 20, 108-124.

Carlson, E., Brauen, M., Klein, S., Schroll, K., & Willig, S. (2002). Study of personnel need in special education. Rockville, MD: Westat Research Corporation. Retrieved from http://education.ufl.edu/spense/files/2013/06/Key-Findings-_Final_.pdf Carrington, F., & Selva, G. (2010). Critical social theory and transformative learning: Evidence in preservice teachers’ service-learning reflection logs. Higher Education Research & Development, 29(1), 45–57.

Clift, R. T. (2008). Rethinking the study of learning to teach. In M. Cochran-Smith, S. FeimanNemser, D. J. McIntyre & K. E. Demers (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (827-834). New York, NY: Routledge.

Cochran-Smith, M., & Zeichner, K. M. (Eds.). (2005). Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association and Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Comber, B., & Simpson, A. (Eds.). (2001). Negotiating critical literacies in classrooms.

Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cooper, J. E., & He, Y. (2012). Journey of "becoming": Secondary teacher candidates' concerns and struggles. Issues in Teacher Education, 21(1), 89-108.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishers.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1998). Teachers and teaching: Testing policy hypotheses from a national commission report. Educational Researcher, 27(1), 5-15.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1), 1-44.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2006a). Constructing 21st century teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3), 300–314.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2006b). Powerful teacher education: Lessons from exemplary programs.

San Francisco: Wiley Jossey-Bass.

65

Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (Eds.) (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should know and be able to do. San Francisco: Wiley Jossey-Bass.

Eisenhardt, S., Besnoy, K., & Steele, E. (2012). Creating dissonance in preservice teachers' field experiences. SRATE Journal, 21(1), 1-10.

Faircloth, B., He, Y., & Higgins, H. (2011). The impact of service-learning-type experiences on preservice teachers' integration of principles of educational psychology. Teaching Educational Psychology, 7(1), 1-26.

Freeman, G. G. (2010). Strategies for successful early field experiences in a teacher education program. SRATE Journal, 19(1), 15-21.

Fullerton, A., Ruben, B. J., McBride, S., & Bert, S. (2011a). Development and design of a merged secondary and special education teacher preparation program. Teacher Education Quarterly, 38(2), 27-44.

Fullerton, A., Ruben, B. J., McBride, S., & Bert, S. (2011b). Evaluation of a merged secondary and special education program. Teacher Education Quarterly, 38(2), 45-60.

Garcia, E. E., & Cuellar, D. (2006). Who are these linguistically and culturally diverse students?

Teachers College Record, 108, 2220-2246.

Gately, S., & Hammer, C. (2005). An exploratory case study of the preparation of secondary teachers to meet special education needs in the general classroom. The Teacher Educator, 40(4), 238-256.

Griffin, C. C., & Pugach, M. C. (2007). Framing the progress of collaborative teacher education.

Focus on Exceptional Children, 39(6), 1-12.

Grossman, P., Wineburg, S., & Woolworth, S. (2001). Toward a theory of teacher community.

Teachers College Press, 103(6), 942–1012.

Jin, L. (2011). Improving response rates in web surveys with default setting: the effects of default on web survey participation and permission. International Journal of Market Research, 53(1), 75–94.

John-Steiner, V. (2000). Creative collaboration. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kent, A. & Giles, R. M. (2013). The influential role of field experiences in a dual certification program. Field Experience Journal, 12, 59-85.

Korthagen, F. A., Loughran, J. J., & Russell, T. (2006). Developing fundamental principles for teacher education programs and practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 10201041.

Le Cornu, R. J. (2012). School coordinators: Leaders of learning in professional experience.

Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37(3), 18-33.

Loughran, J. (2002). Improving teacher education practice through self-study. New York: Routledge Falmer.

Manfreda, K. L., Bosnjak, M., Berzelak, J., Hass, I., & Vehovar, V. (2008). Web surveys versus other survey modes: A meta-analysis comparing response rate. International Journal of Market Research, 50(1), 79–104.

Marchel, C. A., Shields, C., & Winter, L. (2011). Preservice teachers as change agents: Going the extra mile in service-learning experiences. Teaching Educational Psychology, 7(2), 316.

Maynes, N., Hatt, B., & Wideman, R. (2013). Service learning as a practicum experience in a preservice education program. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 43(1), 80-99.

McClanahan, B. (2008). Help! I have kids who can't read in my world history class! Preventing School Failure, 53(2), 105-111.

66

Milner, H. R. (2008). Disrupting deficit notions of difference: Counter narratives of teachers and community in urban education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 61, 1573–1598.

Moir, E. (2009). Accelerating teacher effectiveness: Lessons learned from two decades of new teacher induction. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(2), 14-21.

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2010). Report of the blue ribbon panel on clinical preparation and partnerships for improved student learning. Retrieved from http://www.ncate.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=zzeiB1OoqPk%3d&tabid=715 National Research Council. (2010). Preparing teachers: Building evidence for sound policy.

Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12882 Ness, M. K. (2008). Supporting secondary readers: When teachers provide the "what" not the "how." American Secondary Education, 37(1), 80-95.

Noel, J. (2010). Weaving teacher education into the fabric of urban schools and communities.

Teacher Education Quarterly, 37(3), 9-25.

Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, M. C. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension.

Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 317–344.

Ritter, J. K., Powell, D., & Hawley, T. S. (2007). Takin’ it to the streets: A collaborative selfstudy into social studies field instruction. Social Studies Research and Practice, 2, 341357.

Roberson, S., & Roberson, R. (2009). The role and practice of the principal in developing novice first-year teachers. Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 2(3), 113-118.

Sharma, U. (2012). Changing preservice teachers' beliefs to teach in inclusive classrooms in Victoria, Australia. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37(10), 53-66.

Téllez, K. (2008). What student teachers learn about multicultural education from their cooperating teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(1), 43-58.

Towers, J. (2012). Administrative supports and curricular challenges: New teachers enacting and sustaining inquiry in schools. Canadian Journal of Education, 35(1), 259-278.

Washburn-Moses, L. (2005). Preparing special educators for secondary positions. Action in Teacher Education, 27(3), 26-39.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Wilson, S. M., Floden, R. E., & Ferrini-Mundy, J. (2001). Teacher preparation research: current knowledge, gaps, and recommendations. Washington, DC: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.

Wood, A. L. (2005). The importance of principals: Site administrators’ roles in novice teacher induction. American Secondary Education, 33(2), 39-63.

Zeichner, K. M. (1980). Myths and realities: Field-based experiences in preservice teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 31(6), 45-55.

Zeichner, K. (2010). Rethinking the connections between campus courses and field experiences in college and university-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(12), 89–99.

67

About the Authors Andrea M. Kent, Ph.D., is Dean and Professor of Literacy Education in the College of Education and Professional Studies at the University of South Alabama. Her background as a public-school educator for a decade keeps her focused on the importance of preparing educators to meet the needs of all students. Dr. Kent’s scholarly interests include mentoring and induction, program development and implementation, literacy integration with preservice and inservice teachers, teacher leadership, and meaningful technology integration.

Rebecca M. Giles, Ph.D., is a Professor in the Department of Leadership and Teacher Education at the University of South Alabama in Mobile, AL, where she serves as the coordinator for graduate programs in Early Childhood, Elementary Education, and Teacher Leader. She has spoken and published widely in the areas of early literacy and teacher preparation.

68

Appendix A Overview of the K-6 Teacher Education Program

Tier 1 (18 hours) Pre-Candidacy

Courses Microcomputing Systems in Education Education in a Diverse Society Human Growth and Development Evaluation of Teach and Learning Health and Movement Education Arts in the Elementary Classroom

Field Experience 20 hours

Tier 2 (17 hours) Introductory Methods

K-6 Education Foundations of Reading Instruction Teaching Social Studies Learning and Behavioral Disorders Behavioral Management Classroom Management 1(1 hr.)

Field Experience (1 cr. hr.)

200 hours

Tier 3 (17 hours) Advanced Methods

Teaching Mathematics Teaching Science Teaching Reading Partnerships in Special Education Intellectual and Physical Disabilities Classroom Management 2 (1 hr.)

Field Experience (1 hr.)

250 hours

Tier 4 (12 hours) Student Teaching EEC (6 hrs.)

525 hours Internship Student Teaching Collaborative K-6 (6 hrs.)

Note: Reprinted from “The Influential Role of Field Experiences in a Dual Certification Program,� by AUTHORS, 2013, Field Experience Journal, 12, p. 82. Reprinted with permission.

69

Appendix B Elementary Education 2014 Survey Dear Principal, We are collecting data to determine the impact of programmatic changes made to our elementary education program. In 2012, our K6 Teacher Education Candidates graduated from a program whereby they were prepared to teach both elementary education and collaborative special education in elementary schools. To this end, we would like your feedback on the preparation of our graduates, your new teachers, from the K6 program (2012-2014) as compared to those new teachers that graduated prior to the merging of our curriculum (2011 or before) or from another institution.

This 9 question survey should only take a few minutes to complete, and we greatly value your input. We recognize that it is only together that we make a difference in the lives of children.

Again, thank you for your insight! *1. How long have you been a principal at your current school?

O

13 years

O

O

46 years

710 years

O

More than 10 years

*2. Have you hired a University of South Alabama new teacher since 2012?

O

O

Yes

No

Inclusion classrooms 3. ComparedtoyournewteacherhiresfromUSApriorto2012,doyouthinkthe new teachers hiredfromUSAtoteachinaninclusiveclassroomfrom2012forwardare:

O O O

Better prepared to teach in an inclusive classroom

O

I have not hired an inclusion teacher from USA since 2012

Not as prepared to teach in an inclusive classroom There has been no evidence of a significant difference in teachers prepared at USA prior to or after 2012

Comments (please specify) 4. ComparedtoyournewteacherhiresfromuniversitiesotherthanUSA,doyouthinkthe newteachers hiredfromUSAtoteachinan inclusiveclassroomfrom2012forwardare:

O O O

Better prepared to teach in an inclusive classroom Not as prepared to teach in an inclusive classroom There has been no evidence of a significant difference in teachers prepared at USA prior to or after 2012 70

O

I have not hired an inclusion teacher from another institution since 2012

Comments (please specify) General education non-inclusion 5. ComparedtoyournewteacherhiresfromUSApriorto2012,doyouthinkthe new teachershired fromUSAtoteachinanon-inclusive,generaleducationclassroomfrom 2012 forward are:

O O O

Better prepared to teach in a non-inclusive, general education classroom

O

I have not hired a general education teacher from USA since

Not as prepared to teach in a non-inclusive, general education classroom There has been no evidence of a significant difference in teachers prepared at USA prior to or after 2012

Comments (please specify) 6. ComparedtoyournewteacherhiresfromuniversitiesotherthanUSA,doyouthinkthe newteachers hiredfromUSAtoteachinanon-inclusive,generaleducationclassroom from2012forwardare:

O O O

Better prepared to teach in a non-inclusive, general education classroom

O

I have not hired a general education teacher from another institution since 2012

Not as prepared to teach in a non-inclusive, general education classroom There has been no evidence of a significant difference in teachers prepared at USA prior to or after 2012

Comments (please specify) Self-contained special education classrooms 7. ComparedtoyournewteacherhiresfromUSApriorto2012,doyouthinkthe new teachershired fromUSAtoteachinaself-containedspecialeducationclassroomfrom 2012 forward are:

O O O

Better prepared to teach in a special education classroom

O

I have not hired a self-contained special education teacher from USA since 2012

Not as prepared to teach in an special education classroom There has been no evidence of a significant difference in teachers prepared at USA prior to or after 2012

Comments (please specify) 8. ComparedtoyournewteacherhiresfromuniversitiesotherthanUSA,doyouthinkthe newteachers hiredfromUSAinaspecialeducationclassroomfrom2012forwardare:

O O O

Better prepared to teach in a special education classroom Not as prepared to teach in an special education classroom There has been no evidence of a significant difference in teachers prepared at USA prior to or after 2012 71

O

I have not hired a self-contained special education teacher from another institution since 2012

Comments (please specify) How can we improve our program?

9.

Whatsuggestionsdo youhaveregardingthepreparationprocessforK6Teacher Education majors (seeking certification in both elementary and special education) at USA?

72

Social Benefits of Students with Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (Chronic Fatigue Syndrome) Participating in Recess Matthew D. Lucas, Ed.D., C.A.P.E. Longwood University Amy M. Scott, M.Ed. Buckingham County Primary School Abstract The participation of a student with Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME) in recess can be both challenging and rewarding for both the student and teacher. Recess may be a small part of the school day but its contributions to a child’s social well-being are immense (Kovar et. al., 2012).

To increase the understanding of ME, this paper will define the disorder as well as address its prevalence, causes, and characteristics. It will then provide an explanation of the disorder in regards to special education law and the social benefits of recess to children with ME as well as modifications to increase the recess experience for children with the disorder.

Definition and Prevalence of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME) is an acquired complex disorder characterized by a variety of symptoms and physical findings potentially affecting multiple systems of the body (National Organization for Rare Diseases: Myalgic Encephalomyelitis, 2016). ME is characterized by the National Alliance of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis: Overview (2017) as “. . . a chronic degenerative neuro-immune disease described in medical literature as early as 1935. A child or adult with ME has serious immune and cardiovascular abnormalities, with resulting serious central nervous system consequence due to brain injury” (p.1). ME is also often referred to as Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (Mayo Clinic: Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, p.1, 2017). In terms of prevalence in the United States, about 42/10,000 children were diagnosed with a ME-like disorder (Buchmeier, 2012). Although this number is relatively low, over one in 250 students would show signs of the disorder. Thus, for an elementary school with 500 students, on average, two students would display characteristics of the disorder.

Causes of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis The cause or causes of ME have not been identified. One cause or multiple causes are both possible. It is possible that two or more triggers might work together to cause the illness.

Possible triggers include the following:  Infections: People that acquire ME often begin their illness in a way that is described as similar to acquiring the flu.  Immune System Changes: Acquiring ME may result from a change in the person’s immune system and the way it responds to infection or stress.  Stress Affecting Body Chemistry: Physical or emotional stress affects the hypothalamicpituitary-adrenal axis (HPA axis). The HPA axis controls our body’s reaction to stress

73

 

and regulates many body processes such as the immune response, digestion, energy usage, and mood.

Changes in Energy Production: Preliminary studies found differences between people with ME and healthy people in the way cells in their bodies get their energy.

Possible Genetic Link: Members of the same family sometimes have ME. Scientists have not yet found the exact links (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, 2017).

Characteristics of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis

The importance of diagnosing ME is very important. ME varies from person to person and not one person displays completely the same characteristics. ME has many signs and symptoms in children as noted below.  Fatigue  Loss of memory or concentration  Sore throat  Enlarged lymph nodes in your neck or armpits  Unexplained muscle or joint pain  Headaches  Unrefreshing sleep  Extreme exhaustion lasting more than 24 hours after physical or mental exercise (Mayo Clinic: Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, p.1, 2017).

Special Education: Myalgic Encephalomyelitis The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) states that children who are determined to have disabilities receive special education services if the condition negatively affects the educational performance of the child. One such category, which includes an “umbrella” of disorders, is other health impairments.

Other health impairment means having limited strength, vitality, or alertness, including a heightened alertness to environmental stimuli, that results in limited alertness with respect to the educational environment, that— (i) Is due to chronic or acute health problems such as asthma, attention deficit disorder or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, diabetes, epilepsy, a heart condition, hemophilia, lead poisoning, leukemia, nephritis, rheumatic fever, sickle cell anemia, and Tourette syndrome; and (ii) Adversely affects a child’s educational performance. [§300.8(c)(9)] (CFR §300.7 (a) 9) (IDEA, 2004).

As noted, ME is characterized as displaying serious signs and symptoms. These signs and symptoms can easily affect the education of a child. ME, when it does affect a student’s educational performance, is classified in the Other Health Impairment category of IDEA. 74

Social Benefits of the Recess Setting for Children with Myalgic Encephalomyelitis Simply stated, the benefits of the recess setting are high for all children. In terms of social benefits, the proper organization of recess, including well-organized inclusion can lead to the following:       

All children are able to be part of their community and develop a sense of belonging and become better prepared for life in the community as children and adults.

It provides better opportunities for learning. Children with varying abilities are often better motivated when they learn in classes surrounded by other children.

The expectations of all the children are higher. Successful inclusion attempts to develop an individual’s strengths and gifts.

It allows children to work on individual goals while being with other students their own age.

It encourages the involvement of parents in the education of their children and the activities of their local schools.

It fosters a culture of respect and belonging. It also provides the opportunity to learn about and accept individual differences.

It provides all children with opportunities to develop friendships with one another.

Friendships provide role models and opportunities for growth (New Brunswick Association for Community Living, 2017).

Recess Modifications for Children with Myalgic Encephalomyelitis

To achieve the aforementioned goal of obtaining social benefits often associated with recess, a few procedures should be put into play. The following recommendations should be considered and included only if the teacher and administration are comfortable with their implementation. If possible these activities can be done with other students – for social gains - if the student with the disability is comfortable.      

Allow students to participate at their own level of physical comfort.

Allow students to excuse themselves from the group – with adult supervision – if requested or is determined to be needed.

If appropriate, assign a “buddy” to look out for the student and inform the teacher if the student is uncomfortable or needs a break Allow students to participate in basic stretching.

Allow students to participate in deep breathing. This can reduce stress and anxiety, and promote a sense of well-being.

Allow students to participate in basic yoga (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Treatment, 2017).

Conclusion

The participation of a student with ME in recess can often be both challenging and rewarding for both the student and teacher. The rewards can manifest themselves in the ability of the teacher to 75

guarantee the student’s social gains. This paper has hopefully addressed some basic concerns and solutions to improve the recess setting of students with ME. References Buchmeier, M. (2012). A multicenter blinded analysis indicates no association between chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis and either xenotropic murine leukemia virusRelated virus or polytropic murine leukemia virus. Retrieved December, 20, 2017 from http://mbio.asm.org/content/3/5/e00266-12.short.

Center for Disease Control and Prevention (2017). Myalgic encephalomyelitis: Chronic fatigue syndrome. Retrieved December, 31, 2017 from https://www.cdc.gov/mecfs/about/possible-causes.html Center for Disease Control and Prevention (2017). Myalgic encephalomyelitis: Treatment.

Retrieved December, 31, 2017 from https://www.cdc.gov/me-cfs/treatment/index.html New Brunswick Association for Community Living (2017). Inclusive education and its benefits.

Retrieved December 30, 2017 from https://nbacl.nb.ca/module-pages/inclusive-educationand-its-benefits/ Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Pub. L. No. 108-466. (2004).

Kovar, S., Combs, C., Campbell, K., Napper-Owen, G., & Worrell, V. (2012). Elementary classroom teachers as movement educators (4th Ed.). McGraw-Hill: Boston, MA. Mayo Clinic. (2017) Chronic fatigue syndrome. Retrieved from https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/chronic-fatigue-syndrome/symptoms causes/syc-20360490 on December, 30 2017.

National Alliance of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis. (2017). Overview. Retrieved December, 20, 2017 from http://www.name-us.org National Organization for Rare Diseases (2016). Rare diseases. Retrieved December, 20, 2017 from: https://rarediseases.org/rare-diseases/myalgic-encephalomyelitis/.

About the Authors Dr. Matthew D. Lucas is a professor at Longwood University in Farmville, VA. Dr. Lucas is in his twelfth year in higher education. Prior to this, he served for ten years as an adapted physical education specialist in Fairfax County, Virginia. Dr. Lucas received his Ed.D. in adapted physical education in 2007 from the University of Virginia.

Amy M. Scott, MEd, is currently a special education teacher at Buckingham County Primary School in her ninth year of teaching. Ms. Scott earned her Masters of Education degree in Special Education K-12 (LD, ED, ID) in 2009 from James Madison University. She has experience working in a self-contained classroom with multiple disabilities as well as in a collaborative classroom, co-teaching the general education curriculum.

76

Reliability and Validity of the Self-Advocacy Scale Marcia L. Montague, Ph.D. Patricia S. Lynch, Ph.D. Trey W. Armstrong, Ph.D. Linda G. Castillo, Ph.D. Texas A & M University Abstract This study reports the development and validation of the Self-Advocacy Scale (Lynch, 2011).

Using a sample of 834 high school students across four high schools, psychometric properties of the scale were evaluated. Results showed the Self-Advocacy Scale consists of two factors (Knowledge and Action). Good internal consistency and predictive validity were established and the subscales were positively associated with high school graduation and college enrollment. As the psychometric properties of the Self-Advocacy Scale show that the instrument is reliable and valid, the measure can be used in self-advocacy research and evaluation of interventions.

Keywords: self-advocacy, self-determination, scale validation Author note: This study was partially supported by a grant from the U.S. Department of Education (PR P334A020151) awarded to Patricia S. Lynch and Linda G. Castillo.

Reliability and Validity of the Self-Advocacy Scale Over time, the educational outcomes for young adults with disabilities have been consistently inferior to outcomes for individuals without disabilities. Graduation rates of high school students with disabilities are significantly lower than those of the general population (61.9% compared to 81.4%; Kena et al., 2015). Only 31% of youth with disabilities enroll in postsecondary education courses (Wagner, 2005) compared to recent high school completers as a whole (68%; Kena et al., 2016). Students with disabilities have been less likely to attain a bachelor’s or associate’s degree than students without disabilities (National Center for Education Statistics, 2000). Although this disparity is apparent, research on self-advocacy and self-determination have shown that these skills support transition for students with disabilities.

Research on self-advocacy, a component of self-determination, has shown a positive impact on educational processes associated with school success for students with disabilities such as increased Individualized Education Plan (IEP) participation and engagement in transition activities (Test, Fowler, Brewer, & Wood, 2005). Although self-advocacy is one of the most commonly targeted skills when teaching self-determination to students with disabilities (Algozzine, Browder, Karvonen, Test, & Wood, 2001), few studies examine self-advocacy’s impact on educational outcomes. A possible reason for the limited research on self-advocacy is that there is no empirically established scale available for student self-report. Walick (2017) recently developed and reported on a self-advocacy, teacher-report scale, but a scale that 77

measures self-advocacy, as reported by the student, is still lacking. As such, the purpose of this study was to validate the Self-Advocacy Scale developed by Lynch (2011).

Self-Advocacy Knowing one’s own disability, learning preferences, and needs for accommodations and modifications is a crucial part of self-advocacy (Garner, 2008). Knowledge of such individual information allows for a student to speak up on his/her own behalf and request the supports that he/she needs. Self-advocacy further applies to one’s ability to set goals and make decisions in line with those goals (Kochhar-Bryant, 2003).

Test, Fowler, Wood, Brewer, and Eddy (2005) developed a conceptual framework for selfadvocacy for students with disabilities following a review of the literature and from input provided by stakeholders (adults with disabilities, researchers, parents, teachers, and curriculum developers). Test et al.'s framework for self-advocacy consists of four components: knowledge of self, knowledge of rights, communication, and leadership.

Knowledge of self requires an understanding of personal interests, strengths, preferences, learning style, needs, and disability attributes (Test, Fowler, Wood et al., 2005). In a content review of self-advocacy studies, Test, Fowler, Brewer et al. (2005) found that 75% of intervention studies measured the effect of a self-advocacy intervention on knowledge of self.

Garner (2008) confirms that knowing one’s own disability, learning preferences, and needs for accommodations and modifications is a crucial part of self-advocacy.

Knowledge of rights is a second component of self-advocacy (Test, Fowler, Wood et al., 2005).

This involves knowing rights as a citizen, as a student, and as an individual with a disability. As high school students transition from high school to postsecondary education, the laws that govern protections and provisions for their access change. Prior to graduation, special education services are governed by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), whereas when students enter postsecondary education, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act govern accommodations and equal access to education. Students with disabilities must understand the differences in what is afforded through these federal laws and how those changes might impact the services they receive in terms of their educational rights (Black, 2010).

As IDEA services end upon graduation from high school and ADA takes over in postsecondary education, Child Find is no longer in play. Now, the student must advocate for him- or herself in order to get accommodations needed from the college or university disability services office in order to access learning in an equitable manner (Black, 2010).

Knowledge of self and one’s rights allows the student to speak up on his/her own behalf and request the supports that he/she needs. Students with disabilities will need to be able to articulate needed accommodations in both postsecondary education and employment settings. This articulation of needs allows the student to function as a self-advocate through use of effective communication skills (Black, 2010).

The final component of Test, Fowler, and Wood et al.’s (2005) self-advocacy framework is leadership. They describe leadership to include learning group roles and dynamics, as well as 78

being able to function in a group. An often described leadership role that students with disabilities take on while in high school is participation in and leadership of their own IEP meeting. This role provides an opportunity for the students to practice self-advocacy skill (Black, 2010).

Outcomes Related to Self-Advocacy Research on self-advocacy’s impact on specific academic outcomes is not as frequently reported in the literature (Test, Fowler, Brewer et al., 2005). More often, research on self-advocacy interventions reports on outcomes such as increased confidence to speak up and defend oneself (Dryden, Desmarais, & Arsenault, 2014), increased communication skills (Phillips, 1990), increased help-seeking behaviors (Taylor-Ritzler, Balcazar, Keys, Hayes, Garate-Serafini, & Espino, 2001), and increased engagement in transition activities (Powers, Turner, Westwood, Matuszewski, Wilson, & Phillips, 2001). Although research is limited, studies have shown positive associations between self-advocacy skills and academic skills, educational persistence, and post-secondary participation.

Self-advocacy skills are crucial in terms of academic development (Garner, 2008). That is, positive outcomes in academic skills of students with disabilities can be realized when students gain self-advocacy skills. Craft, Alber, and Heward (1998) found increases in completion and accuracy of academic work following intervention in self-advocacy. Similarly, Hughes, Copeland, Agran, Wehmeyer, Rodi, and Presley (2002) found improvements in writing correct responses following a self-management intervention. Similarly, Moes (1998) found an increase in homework trials completed using a choice-making intervention.

Studies have also shown that self-advocacy skills have a positive relationship with educational persistence (Anctil, Ishikawa, & Tao Scott, 2008). Early development of these skills is essential, as post-secondary institutions typically do not provide this type of training (Barnard-Brak, Schmidt, Wei, Hodges, & Robinson, 2013). In an attempt to develop early self-advocacy skills, Mason, McGahee-Kovac, Johnson, & Stillerman (2002) examined how teaching students skills needed to lead their own IEP meeting impacted self-advocacy abilities. The researchers found that teachers noticed greater student ownership of their education and greater inclination to meet set goals (Mason et al., 2002).

Some research is available which links self-determination skills, of which self-advocacy is a subskill, to higher rates of post-secondary participation. In a study of individuals with disabilities, Wehmeyer and Palmer (2003) found that those with higher self-determination were more likely to have received job training following high school compared with students who demonstrated lower self-determination skills. In another study, Goldberg and colleagues (2003) found that study participants with successful life outcomes utilized a variety of strategies that allowed them to persist in postsecondary education. These individuals persevered in their approach to college enrollment and achievement. The authors described the participants’ actions as utilizing a “spray” approach, whereby the individuals utilized a number of techniques or strategies simultaneously. That is, they changed majors, accepted support from others on campus, found accommodations for their needs, etc. (Goldberg et al, 2003). These actions demonstrate both self-advocacy and self-determination and allowed for continued postsecondary participation.

79

Given the limited research on self-advocacy and its potential to contribute to successful educational outcomes, the purpose of this study was to test the psychometric properties the SelfAdvocacy Scale (Lynch, 2011). Using Test, Fowler, and Wood et al.’s (2005) self-advocacy conceptual framework as a guide, Lynch (2011) developed items that assessed for Knowledge (i.e., knowledge of self and knowledge of rights) and Action (i.e., communication and leadership). Using a confirmatory factor analysis, we examined the fit of the two factors. Next, we examined internal consistency reliability and construct validity. We hypothesized that Knowledge and Action subscale scores would be positively correlated with high school graduation and college enrollment (Predictive Validity). We also hypothesized that students identified by the school as having a disability would have lower self-advocacy scores than nondisabled students (Known-Groups Validity).

Method Initial Item Development In order to evaluate the impact of self-advocacy workshops being conducted as part of a local Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP) project, Lynch (2011) developed a self-advocacy measure. To develop the items, Lynch (2011) utilized Test, Fowler, Wood et al.’s (2005) self-advocacy framework and anecdotal observations of project staff regarding the primary concerns regarding experiences of students with disabilities.

A list of items was generated based on the components included in the conceptual framework and reviewed by staff. Staff felt it was important to keep the number of items to 10 or fewer to ensure students would be willing to complete them as they were part of a larger survey. The components determined by staff to be of greatest concern related to knowledge of rights and action-based skills such as communication and leadership. Items were reviewed by two experts in the special education field as well as project staff. Based on feedback, modifications of the items were made for construct clarity and readability by high school students. Items considered to be duplicative or not strongly tied to the self-advocacy workshops being delivered to students were deleted to reduce the final number of items to 10.

Participants and Procedures Data for this study were taken from the 2011 evaluation of four Texas high schools that participated in GEAR UP project. GEAR UP is a six-year, federally-funded discretionary grant program designed to increase the number of low income students who graduate from high school and enroll in postsecondary education. Institutional review board permission was obtained to conduct the evaluation. Parental consent was required in order to participate in the project. Of the 834 participants, approximately 52% were considered low-income as defined by their eligibility for free or reduced-price meals under the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (2008) National School Lunch Program. A majority of the participants were in 10th grade (n = 772) with the remaining in 9th (n = 57) and 11th grade (n = 5). There was about an even split of boys (n = 401) and girls (n = 433). Most of the participants were Latino (n = 384) with White (n = 256) and African American (n = 177) making up the remaining ethnic composition of the students.

Approximately, three percent of the participants were considered to have a disability with 29 having an IEP.

80

Data from the 2014 evaluation for the project, which consisted of high school graduation and college enrollment information from the National Student Clearinghouse, were also used in this study. Approximately, 74% of the participants graduated from high school and 47% enrolled in college.

Measures Self-Advocacy Scale. The Self-Advocacy Scale (Lynch, 2011) was developed specifically for the GEAR UP project in order to measure progress on student acquisition of self-advocacy skills, via student self-report. The 10-item scale contains two subscales: Knowledge (3 items) and Action (7 items). Participants indicate a response of “yes” or “no” to each item. Items are summed with higher scores indicative of greater self-advocacy skills. See Table 3 for the list of items in the scale.

Educational outcomes. Graduation from high school data were collected from each respective school. College enrollment data were obtained from the National Student Clearinghouse.

Disability status. Information on whether a student was served through IDEA or Section 504 was obtained from each school.

Statistical Analyses Cronbach’s alphas, t-tests, and correlations were carried out in IBM SPSS Statistics v22.00. To determine the impact of missing data on the descriptive statistics, the Missing Values Analysis module in SPSS was utilized employing an expectation-maximization (EM) algorithm to calculate a correlation matrix that was compared to a correlation matrix run with available data.

This EM matrix only slightly differed (.001) from the correlation matrix using only available data. This confirmed that missing data did not overly bias the correlation matrix, and descriptives based on available data were probably unbiased and interpretable. Little’s MCAR test was nonsignificant (χ2(6) = 8.93, p = .18). The confirmatory factor analysis was carried out using Mplus 7 (Muthén & Muthén, 2012).

Results Preliminary Analyses Given that item responses are binary (yes/no), the items do not inherently follow a multivariate normal distribution, and the weighted least squares estimator with a correction for means and variances (WLSMV) was used to accommodate the data. This estimator assumes that the binary scores are an approximation of an underlying multivariate normal distribution.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis The factor structure of the scale was hypothesized a priori as a two-factor scale representing the Knowledge and Action components of self-advocacy. The Knowledge factor is composed of Items 3, 4, and 6. The Action component is composed of Items 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10. Given similar item content among some of the items, residual covariances between items were added to the model between Item 1 and Item 2 and between Item 6 and Item 7.

Fit indices for the data indicate that the two factor structure described above fit the data well with the exception of the significant chi-square test (χ2, p < .001, RMSEA = .06, CFI = .97, TLI = .96, 81

WRMR = 1.19; see Table 1). The two factor structure was tested against the one factor structure composed of all 10 items. Theoretically, the factor structure is tested by constraining the covariance/correlation between factors to equal “1” as opposed to freely estimating it. The chisquare difference test was performed using the DIFFTEST function of Mplus given the WLSMV estimator hand calculation limitation. The chi-square difference test was statistically significant (χ2(1) = 5.07, p < .05). This indicates that the covariance/correlation should be freely estimated and provides evidence for the two factor structure over the one factor structure.

Table 1 Goodness-of-fit Indices for the Two Models and their Comparison Model χ2 df p CFI TLI

RMSEA (90% Confidence Interval) .06 (.05-.07) .06 (.05-.07)

WRMR

1 Factor 131.92 33 p < .001 .97 .96 1.22 2 Factor 127.89 32 p < .001 .97 .96 1.19 1 vs. 2 5.073* 1 p < .05 Factor Note. * chi-square difference test between the 1 and 2 factor model The fit of the one factor structure was similar to the two factor structure (χ2, p < .001, RMSEA = .06, CFI = .97, TLI = .96, WRMR = 1.22). Factor coefficients for the two factor model were all above .4 and statistically significant (p < .001). These coefficients are presented in Table 2.

Table 2 Self-Advocacy Scale Two Factor Standardized Pattern Coefficients Subscale and Self-Advocacy Items Std. Standard Estimate Error Knowledge 3. I am aware of choices I can make about high school .91 .04 classes to take 4. I know my rights as a student in XXXXX ISD .81 .03 6. If I am having trouble at school, I know who to go to .76 .03 Action 1. I was involved in designing my schedule .55 .04 2. I was involved in choosing my classes .60 .05 5. I am comfortable approaching a teacher if I have a .79 .03 concern about his or her class 7. If I am having trouble at school, and I know whom to .79 .03 go to, I feel comfortable doing so 8. If I feel I have been judged unfairly, I am able to .83 .02 approach the correct person to correct the situation 9. I share my opinion on important issues dealing with .78 .03 my education .03 10. If I feel I have not been treated right, I will do .77 something about it

82

Z

p value

25.18

p < .001

26.38 24.00

p < .001 p < .001

12.59 12.24 25.52

p < .001 p < .001 p < .001

27.22

p < .001

35.07

p < .001

26.49

p < .001

24.48

p < .001

An inter-item phi coefficient matrix of the ten self-advocacy items is presented in Table 3.

Table 3 Phi Coefficients for All Self-Advocacy Items Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 .51 .35 .25 .20 .22 .20 .23 .27 2 .42 .29 .21 .24 .20 .19 .24 3 .44 .35 .34 .33 .335 .36 4 .40 .42 .40 .33 .35 5 .37 .47 .36 .41 6 .58 .41 .34 7 .47 .35 8 .44 9 10 Note. n = 831. All phi coefficients are statistically significant at the p < .001 level.

10 .26 .24 .38 .29 .34 .29 .33 .48 .41 -

Predictive Validity The two subscales were calculated by adding up the corresponding item scores yielding Knowledge and Action subscale scores. These scores were correlated with educational outcomes to test the predictive validity of these subscales. Because of the nature of the data of the subscale scores and the outcomes, these correlations represent point-biserial correlations, a special case of Pearson’s product-moment correlation. Knowledge and Action subscales were correlated with whether the student graduated high school and whether they enrolled in college. Results showed that the Action subscale was positively correlated with graduating high school (2011, rpb, 828 = .12, p < .001) and enrolling in college (2011, rpb, 829 = .16, p < .001). The Knowledge subscale was only slightly positively associated with enrolling in college (2011, rpb, 829 = .07, p < .05), but high school graduation was not significantly correlated (2011, rpb, 828 = .06, p = .11).

Contrasted Groups To established known groups validity, independent-sample’s t tests were conducted. Results showed that students who were identified as having a disability differed in scores on the Action subscale (M = 4.58, SD = 1.99) statistically significant (t(829) = 2.71, p < .01) from their nondisabled peers (M = 5.48, SD = 1.87). On the Knowledge subscale, students with a disability (M = 2.12, SD = 1.05) also scored lower to a statistically significant degree (t(829) = 2.29, p < .05) compared to their non-disabled peers (M = 2.48, SD =.86). In terms of practical significance, the difference between the students on the Action subscale scores was moderate (Cohen’s d = .47) and slightly lower than the scores on the Knowledge subscale (Cohen’s d = .38).

Internal Consistency Internal consistency was measured using Cronbach’s alpha for the Action and Knowledge subscales. The Action subscale had a Cronbach’s alpha of .77, and the Knowledge subscale had a Cronbach’s alpha of .66.

83

Discussion As previous research has shown, self-advocacy has been positively associated with skills, such as communication and help-seeking behaviors, which are crucial in academic development for individuals with disabilities (Taylor-Ritzler et al., 2011; Test, Fowler, Brewer et al., 2005).

However, due to the lack of a published valid scale, there has been no research to assess whether self-advocacy has an influence on educational outcomes. As such, the Self-Advocacy Scale (Lynch, 2011) was developed to address this gap.

Results of the present study indicate that the Self-Advocacy Scale has adequate psychometric properties. Using Test, Fowler, Wood et al.’s (2005) self-advocacy conceptual model as a guide, results supported a good fit for the two factor structure. This confirms that self-advocacy consists of (1) knowledge about knowing own disability, learning preferences and needs for accommodation, and (2) action in regards to speaking up and being involved in setting educational goals and making decisions in line with those goals. Internal consistency of the Knowledge and Action subscale items were acceptable with the Action subscale having a higher Cronbach’s alpha than the Knowledge subscale.

Construct validity was also established. For predictive validity, the Action subscale positively predicted high school graduation and college enrollment. However, the Knowledge subscale only predicted college enrollment. In regards to Known-Groups validity, both subscale scores were able to discriminate between students with disabilities from non-disabled students.

There are some limitations to the study that should be noted. First, data used for the study are cross-sectional. As such, we were unable to determine the scale’s stability across time. Further testing for re-test reliability is needed. Another limitation is that the study was limited to one Central Texas school district. Replication of the study is need across other school settings and across various grade levels. A final limitation is the internal consistency of the Knowledge subscale which is fairly low. However, a low alpha value could be due to the low number of items (three). Future study on the Knowledge subscale, including testing additional items, is needed.

In sum, our results provide evidence that the Self-Advocacy Scale is a reliable and valid measure. Because the results support a two-factor structure, future self-advocacy research can examine which component of self-advocacy (knowledge or action) is associated with educational outcomes, thus making it possible to customize interventions. It is our hope that the SelfAdvocacy Scale will provide insight to what works in addressing the needs of students with disabilities in regards to academic success.

References Algozzine, B., Browder, D., Karvonen, M., Test, D., & Wood, W. (2001). Effects of interventions to promote self-determination for individuals with disabilities. Review of Educational Research, 71, 219-277.

84

Anctil, T. M., Ishikawa, M. E., & Tao Scott, A. (2008). Academic identity development through self-determination: Successful college students with learning disabilities. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 31(3), 164-174.

Barnard-Brak, L., Schmidt, M., Wei, T., Hodges, T. & Robinson, E. L. (2013). Providing postsecondary transition services to youth with disabilities: Results of a pilot program.

Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 26(2), 135-144.

Black, J. (2010). Digital transition portfolios for secondary students with disabilities.

Intervention in School and Clinic, 46(2), 118-124. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1053451210374987 Craft, M. A., Alber, S. R., & Heward, W. L. (1998). Teaching elementary students with developmental disabilities to recruit teacher attention in a general education classroom: Effects on teacher praise and academic productivity. Applied Behavior Analysis, 31(3), 399415. doi: http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.library.tamu.edu/10.1901/jaba.1998.31-399 Dryden, E. M., Desmarais, J., & Arsenault, L. (2014). Effectiveness of the IMPACT:Ability program to improve safety and self-advocacy skills in high school students with disabilities.

Journal of School Health, 84(12), 793-801.

Garner, D. B. (2008). Postsecondary education success: Stories of three students with learning disabilities. TEACHING Exceptional Children Plus, 4(4) Article 4. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ967484.pdf Goldberg, R. J., Raskind, M. H., Higgins, E. L., & Herman, K. L. (2003). Predictors of success in individuals with learning disabilities: A qualitative analysis of a 20-year longitudinal study. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(4), 222-236. doi: 10.1111/15405826.00077 Hughes, C., Copeland, S. R., Agran, M., Wehmeyer, M. L., Rodi, M. S., & Presley, J. A. (2002).

Using self-monitoring to improve performance in general education high school classes.

Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 37, 262-272.

Kochhar-Bryant, C. A. (2003). Introduction to Transition. In G. Greene & C. Kochhar-Bryant (Eds.), Pathways to Successful Transition for Youth with Disabilities (p. 35-46). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Education.

Kena, G., Hussar, W., McFarland, J., de Brey, C., Musu-Gillette, L., Wang, X., Dunlop Velez, E. (2016). The Condition of Education 2016 (NCES 2016-144). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC. Kena, G., Musu-Gillette, L., Robinson, J., Wang, X., Rathbun, A., Zhang, J., Wilkinson-Flicker, S., Barmer, A., & Dunlop Velez, E. (2015). The Condition of Education 2015 (NCES 2015144). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC. Lynch, P. L. (2011). Self-advocacy scale. Unpublished instrument.

Mason, C., McGahee-Kovac, M., Johnson, L., & Stillerman, S. (2002). Implementing student-led IEPs: Student participation and student and teacher reactions. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 25(2), 171-192. doi: http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.library.tamu.edu/10.1177/088572880202500206 Moes, D. R. (1998). Integrating choice-making opportunities with teacher-assigned academic tasks to facilitate the performance of children with autism. Journal of the Association of Persons with Severe Handicaps, 23(4), 319-328. doi: http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.library.tamu.edu/10.2511/rpsd.23.4.319

85

Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2012). Mplus user’s guide. Seventh edition. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. (2000). Postsecondary students with disabilities: Enrollment, services, and persistence. Retrieved November, 8, 2017, from the National Center for Education Statistics Website: https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2000/2000092.pdf Phillips, P. (1990). A self-advocacy plan for high school student with learning disabilities: A comparative case analysis of students’, teachers’, and parents’ perceptions of program effects. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23(8), 466-471.

Powers, L., Turner, A., Westwood, D., Matuszewski, J., Wilson, R., & Phillips, A. (2001).

TAKE CHARGE for the future: A controlled field-test of model to promote students’ involvement in transition planning. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 24(1), 89-104. doi: http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.library.tamu.edu/10.1177/088572880102400107 Taylor-Ritzler, T., Balcazar, F. E., Keys, C. B., Hayes, E., Garate-Serafini, T., & Espino, S. R. (2001). Promoting attainment of transition-related goals among low-income ethnic minority students with disabilities. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 24, 147-167. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.library.tamu.edu/10.1177/088572880102400205 Test, D. W., Fowler, C. H., Brewer, D. M., & Wood, W. M. (2005). A content and methodological review of self-advocacy intervention studies. Exceptional Children, 72(1), 101-125.

Test, D. W, Fowler, C. H., Wood, W. M., Brewer, D. M., & Eddy, S. (2005). A conceptual framework of self-advocacy for students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 26(1), 43–54. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.library.tamu.edu/10.1177/07419325050260010601 Wagner, M. (2005). Youth with disabilities leaving secondary school. In Wagner, M., Newman, L., Cameto, R., & Levine, P. Changes over time in the early post school outcomes of youth with disabilities. A report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLST2).

Menlo Park, CA: SRI International for the Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education.

Walick, C. M. (2017). Evaluating the validity and reliability of a student self-advocacy teacher rating scale. Journal of the American Academy of Special Education Professionals. Retrieved November 8, 2017 from: http://www.naset.org/4786.0.html Wehmeyer, M. L., Agran, M., & Hughes, C. (1998). Teaching self-determination skills to students with disabilities: Basic skills for successful transition. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Wehmeyer, M. L., Agran, M., & Hughes, C. (2000). A national survey of teachers’ promotion of self-determination and student-directed learning. The Journal of Special Education, 34(2), 58-68.

Wehmeyer, M. L. & Palmer, S. B. (2003). Adult outcomes for students with cognitive disabilities three years after high school: The impact of self-determination. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 38(2), 131-144.

Wehmeyer, M. L., & Schwartz, M.A. (1997). Self-determination and positive adult outcomes: A follow-up study of youth with mental retardation and learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 63(2), 245-255.

86

About the Authors Dr. Marcia L. Montague is a visiting assistant professor in Special Education at Texas A&M University. Her research interests surround equity in access for individuals with disabilities and at-risk youth. Additionally, Dr. Montague engages in research and service activities centering on supporting the transition to postsecondary education for and the college retention of firstgeneration students.

Dr. Patricia Lynch is a professor emerita in Special Education at Texas A&M University. Her expertise is in secondary special education and the transition from school to adult life for individuals with disabilities. She has taught secondary students with disabilities and worked with teen parents. She co-directed a multi-year project funded by the U.S. Department of Education with a focus on college and career readiness of low-income adolescents.

Dr. Trey W. Armstrong graduated with his doctorate in counseling psychology from Texas A&M University. He is aspiring towards professional licensure as a psychologist. His research interests include methodology, measurement/scale development, and advanced statistical analyses. His passion is to inspire others to develop their statistical acumen through insightoriented learning of modern statistics/methods. Additionally, his research centers around rehabilitation psychology, sensory loss, and individuals with disabilities.

Dr. Linda G. Castillo is a professor of counseling psychology and school counseling at Texas A&M University. Her expertise and research focuses on the influence of the acculturation process on Mexican American mental health and educational disparities; marianismo and Latina mental health; and scale development and validity of cultural constructs. She has successfully lead two multiyear, multimillion dollar grant projects funded by the U.S. Department of Education with a focus on college and career readiness of low-income adolescents. She is a licensed psychologist, an American Psychological Association Fellow, and an Associate Editor for the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

87

Screening for Early Numeracy Skill Development Gena Nelson, Ph.D. Boise State University Allyson J. Kiss, M.A. University of Minnesota

Abstract Research indicates that many students enter kindergarten with a poor understanding of foundational number concepts and these students typically have slower or parallel growth in math throughout elementary school. In order to support the prevention and early intervention of math difficulty, it is important for practitioners to be familiar with the development of numeracy skills and how to screen for students at risk for difficulty. This paper describes early numeracy domains and skills as they relate to kindergarten standards and important considerations for practitioners when selecting an early numeracy screening tool are discussed. This manuscript also provides practitioners with a checklist of considerations that may be used to guide discussions between colleagues around the issue of math screening.

Keywords: math, early numeracy, screening, learning difficulty, assessment Screening for Early Numeracy Skill Development Children who struggle with early numeracy concepts at the beginning of kindergarten continue to perform poorly in math throughout elementary school and have slower growth on math skills compared to higher performing students (Jordan, Kaplan, Ramineni, & Locuniak, 2009; Judge & Watson, 2011; Nelson & Powell, in press). With universal screening, all students are assessed with a brief and efficient measure to determine their current and future level of risk for developing difficulty with a specific construct, such as math. Screening for difficulty early is a necessary to identify students who may be at risk for low achievement in math, or have disabilities. This is because the early identification of difficulties allows practitioners to have a greater impact on early intervention and prevention of later difficulties; however, screening practices in math for younger gradesâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;when children first enter formal schoolingâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;are not always well established or implemented.

Ideally, schools and practitioners should use efficient screening tools to predict student performance and identify students who may be at-risk for difficulties. Practitioners may also use screening data to identify trends in general performance so that they may design instruction for all students. Selecting and using a screening tool can be a complex process, and often times, schools do not have the resources to purchase high-quality screening assessment. In addition, some screening instruments take a long time to administer, which results in more time spent on testing and less time available for instruction and intervention. Practitioners may benefit from screening tools that provide information about what skills a student has and has not mastered, so it is also critical that they consider the developmental trajectory of the content area in which he 88

or she wishes to screen students. In this paper, we first describe what practitioners can expect in terms of the development of early numeracy skills and we then provide questions practitioners may consider when selecting screening tools to assess early numeracy skills.

Development of Early Numeracy Skills Collecting assessment data is only helpful if it is used to inform decision-making. Before selecting and using an early numeracy screening tool, it is important that practitioners understand the developmental trajectory of early numeracy skills and how those skills are aligned to screening tools. This information can support practitioners in using screening data to target instruction and interventions of specific skills across the developmental progression of early numeracy.

Children begin to develop math skills long before they enter formal schooling. For example, young children may recite parts of the number sequence without any real purpose of counting (e.g., they may sing or chant number words with no pattern) and by 4 or 5 years old, most children are able to intentionally count a small set of objects with one-to-one correspondence and accurately determine how many objects are in the set (Berch & Mazzocco, 2008; Wynn, 1990).

Math skills that develop early, often before a child enters school, are examples of informal math skills.

Informal math knowledge is the foundation for the later development of formal math skills; informal math skills are also strong predictors of later formal math abilities (Jordan, Kaplan, Nabors Oláh, & Locuniak, 2006). Formal math skills emerge once students enter school and receive math instruction. Students are able to demonstrate skills such as writing numerals and numerical notation (e.g., the “+” symbol), written and verbal fluency with basic facts, locating a number’s position on a number line, and joining and separating quantities. Earlier math skills serve as the foundation for later math skill development, such as problem solving. Thus, it is critical that practitioners screen for difficulty with formal and informal early numeracy skills with appropriate tools.

Early Numeracy Domains The progression from informal to formal math skills is the typical trajectory for math development; however, an alternative conceptualization of early numeracy skills is to classify skills into domains. The National Council for Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM; 2006) classifies numeracy skills into two domains: Number and Operations. The Common Core State Standards (CCSS; National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010) include math standards in kindergarten for both domains.

The Number domain. The Number domain is the general understanding of the rules and processes of the counting sequence. Tasks that measure a student’s understanding of Number knowledge typically include informal math skills, such as representing, comparing, and ordering whole numbers (NCTM, 2006). Difficulty with early Number domain skills, such as counting, is linked with math difficulty later on, and counting is considered the gateway skill to other early numeracy skills (Jordan et al., 2006).

89

The Operations domain. The Operations domain is the understanding of how sets or quantities can be joined (i.e., composed) and separated (i.e., decomposed; NCTM, 2006). Proficiency in this domain is assessed with tasks such as addition and subtraction, story problems, and composing or decomposing (NRC, 2009; Purpura & Lonigan, 2013). Mastery of skills in the Operations domain allow students to develop fluency in basic arithmetic facts (e.g., 3+2=5), which is essential to solve word problems and more complex computation problems (Fuchs et al., 2010).

Table 1 provides information about different early numeracy skills represented in the Number and Operations domains; examples of these skills are also provided. Understanding the developmental trajectory of these skills can help educators select assessments that screen for numeracy difficulties as well as provide important information on how data can be used to target intervention and instruction. For example, if a student does not know how to count quantities to 10, they would likely have difficulty with composing quantities of 10. In this case, an assessment tool that measures composing skills might not provide educators with much instructional information because the student likely would not be able to answer any questions. Whereas, if that same student was administered a counting or numeral identification measure, they would likely be able to answer some of the problems and educators would better understand where in the trajectory to target instruction. When educators have an understanding of this trajectory they can use that information to help select an appropriate screening tool for their students.

90

Table 1 Examples of Kindergarten Skills and Alignment to CCSS Skill Brief Description Example Subitizing Instant recognition of When a teacher flashes a card quantities (for approximately 1 second) with a 3-dot configuration, the student recognizes the quantity without counting.

Count Count by 1s or another Student counts, “1, 2, 3, 4…”

Sequence quantity in the correct sequence Counting with Count a set of objects When presented with a set of 4 Correspondence without skipping or double- blocks, a student taps or points to counting, giving each object each block once while labeling one and only one label each block, “1, 2, 3, 4.”

CCSS K.CC.5

K.CC.1, 2 K.CC.4a

Cardinality

Understand that the last number in a count sequence represents the total quantity

When there are 3 objects the student counts, “1, 2, 3,” and says, “there are 3.”

K.CC.4b, 5

Comparison

Compare numerals and quantities to identify numbers and quantities that are greater than, less than, and equal to

Understand that 5 blocks are more than 3 blocks and that the numeral 5 represents a larger quantity than the numeral 3.

K.CC.6, 7

Numeral Identification

Identify written numerals by When a student is presented with NAa name a card with the numeral “7,” they are able to say, “seven” when asked, “what number?”

Matching Quantities

Connect numerals, number words, and quantities

A student can match numerals, quantities, and number words when presented with numerals (5), number words (five) and quantities (•••••).

Ordinal Number Words

Understand the correct usage of ordinal words such as, “first, second, fourth.”

When presented with a picture of NAa 4 dogs in a line and asked, “which dog is second in line?,” the student is able to correctly point.

91

K.CC.3

Composing, Decomposing

Understand that numbers are flexible and can be taken apart and put together to make different numbers

Student is able to represent numbers flexible ways, such as breaking apart a group of 7 dots into 3 and 4 dots, 5 and 2 dots, etc.

K.OA.3, 4; K.NBT.1

Number Combinations

Knowledge of basic facts

Student is able to accurately and K.OA.1, quickly identify number 2, 4, 5 combinations, such as partners of 10, doubles, adding 1, etc.

Number Sequence

Understand that each When asked, â&#x20AC;&#x153;what is one K.CC.4c successive number in a more/less than 6?,â&#x20AC;? the student sequence is a quantity that is responds appropriately. one greater Note. The NCTM Curriculum Focal Points also include standards for Geometry and Measurement, with connections to the Focal Points for Data Analysis and Algebra; this table only represents skills included in the Number and Operations domains. CCSS = Common Core State Standards; K.CC = Kindergarten Counting and Cardinality standard. NA = Not applicable. a Not explicitly represented in the kindergarten CCSS.

Selecting an Early Numeracy Screening Tool There are many tools that practitioners can use to screen students for difficulty with early numeracy concepts (Gersten, Clarke, Haymond, & Jordan, 2011; National Center on Intensive Intervention [NCII], 2018; National Center on Response to Intervention [NCRTI], 2017), and each tool has different features. Practitioners can select either a single-skill screening tool or a multi-skill screening tool. A single-skill screening tool measures student understanding of one narrow skill, such as numeral identification, whereas a multi-skill screening tool measures student understanding many early numeracy concepts (e.g., numeral identification, counting, and cardinality). While single-skill screening tools are highly efficient with short administration times compared to multi-skill screening tools, they tend to be less effective at predicting math achievement long-term. There are other factors (e.g., cost, administration time) that practitioners may want to consider when selecting an appropriate early numeracy screening tool. Table 2 lists several important features to consider and includes questions that practitioners may pose to committees or teams charged with selecting the tool (American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Counsel on Measurement in Education, 2014; NCRTI, 2017).

92

Table 2 Questions to Consider when Selecting a Screening Tool Assessment Feature Questions to Consider Technical Adequacy Validity  Are skills measured representative of expected grade level skills?  Are skills measured relevant to instruction?  Are scores related to later math achievement or other measures of math performance?  Are there statistically derived benchmarks for designating risk status?

Reliability  Does the manual provide evidence that the scores are consistent across time, raters, and versions of the assessment?

Norms  Was the tool developed using a sample of students similar to the students you work with (e.g., ethnicity, special education status, language proficiency, socio-economic status)?  Are the norms recent, e.g., within the last 10 years?  Can local norms be developed for your school?

Time & Resources Administration  How long does the tool take to administer?  Can any parts of the tool be group administered?  Is the tool administered by an examiner or in an online format?  Are the administration and scoring directions clear for the examiner?

Cost  What is the cost of the tool per child?  Are there any start-up costs?  Are there costs associated for on-going support?  Do the costs of the tool include a data management or storage system?

Training  Is training available for test administrators?  What is the cost associated with training?  Can training be conducted online?

Instructional Use Early Numeracy  What early numeracy skills are assessed by the tool? Is it a single Skills or multi-skill tool?  Is the tool aligned to national or state initiatives (e.g., NCTM, CCSS)?  Does the tool use a framework similar to instruction (e.g., baseten blocks)?

Reporting  What reports are available for student- and class-level data?  Are reports user friendly? Is it easy to understand what the scores mean?  Are reports available immediately?  Can reports be integrated with other data that your school is already using?

93

We grouped these features into three areas: Technical Adequacy, Time and Resources, and Instructional Use. Technical Adequacy describes how much educators can depend on the results of screening tools to make decisions about students (e.g., placement into intervention).

Specifically, does the tool provide accurate information about important skills that are indicative of later math performance? Time and Resources is another important consideration. For example, a tool might have a lot of evidence of technical adequacy but if the tool is very costly and takes 20 min to administer to each student individually, it might not be the best tool. Lastly, practitioners want to consider Instructional Use. As discussed earlier, it is important to understand early numeracy development so screening data can be used to help inform instruction or intervention. Ideally, tools assess key skills that are aligned to instruction. It is also helpful to educators if the tool can provide clear reports because it helps reduce the time required for interpretation.

Implications for Practitioners Selecting an early numeracy screening tool is a balancing act. Efficient tools with shorter administration time may yield little instructionally relevant information, but more time-intensive tools may provide more information about student abilities. Furthermore, screening tools that are equipped with online administration platforms and data management systems may be costlier than screening tools administered in a paper format but have the benefits of an online reporting system. It is unlikely that one single tool will meet all the screening needs and wants of a school.

Thus, we propose that practitioners consider what features are the most important to meet the needs in the constraints of available resources of their classroom and school. The school team may decide which features of a screening tool are non-negotiable (e.g., the screening tool must be valid and reliable) and which features of the tool are negotiable (e.g., cost). Creating a list of non-negotiable and negotiable screening tool features will allow practitioners to prioritize the needs of the context in which they work.

Finally, although many available screening tools are included in public lists (e.g., NCRTI and NCII screening tools chart) with important information, such as cost and administration time, some publishers defer from submitting their screening tools to be included in online catalogues of available tools. Therefore, practitioners may also consider consulting with other staff such as school psychologists, math interventionists, and instructional coaches when selecting the most appropriate tools for the context in which they teach.

Conclusion In summary, research suggests that early numeracy skills are predictive of later success in math and students who display difficulty with early numeracy skills continue to display difficulty with math concepts (e.g., understanding fractions) in later grades (Nelson & Powell, in press).

Screening for early numeracy skills in kindergarten when many students first enter formal schooling can help identify difficulties early on and help inform interventions and instructional practice. Understanding how early numeracy skills develop can help practitioners better select screeners and most importantly use the data to improve outcomes for students.

94

References American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). AERA, APA, & NCME. Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Berch, D. B., & Mazzocco, M. M. (Eds.) (2008). Why is math so hard for some children?: The nature and origins of mathematical learning difficulties and disabilities. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Fuchs, L. S., Powell, S. R., Seethaler, P. M., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., Cirino, P. T., & Fletcher, J. M. (2010). A framework for remediating number combination deficits. Exceptional Children, 76, 135–156.

Gersten, R., Clarke, B., Haymond, K., & Jordan, N. (2011). Screening for mathematics difficulties in K–3 students. Second edition. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction.

Jordan, N. C., Kaplan, D., Nabors Oláh, L., & Locuniak, M. N. (2006). Number sense growth in kindergarten: A longitudinal investigation of children at risk for mathematics difficulties.

Child Development, 77, 153–175.

Jordan, N. C., Kaplan, D., Ramineni, C., & Locuniak, M. N. (2009). Early math matters: Kindergarten number competence and later mathematics outcomes. Developmental Psychology, 45, 850–867.

Judge, S., & Watson, S. M. (2011). Longitudinal outcomes for mathematics achievement for students with learning disabilities. The Journal of Educational Research, 104, 147–157.

National Center on Intensive Intervention (NCII). Tools Charts. Retrieved April 28, 2018 from http://www.intensiveintervention.org National Center for Response to Intervention (NCRTI). (2017). Screening Tools Chart Rating System. Retrieved June 28, 2017, from http://www.rti4success.org/resources/toolscharts/screening-tools-chart National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2006). Curriculum focal points for prekindergarten through grade 8 mathematics: A quest for coherence. Reston, VA: Author.

Nelson, G., & Powell, S. R. (in press). A systematic review of longitudinal studies of mathematics difficulty. Journal of Learning Disabilities. Advanced online publication. doi:10.1177/0022219417714773 Purpura, D. J., & Lonigan, C. J. (2013). Informal numeracy skills: The structure and relations among numbering, relations, and arithmetic operations in preschool. American Educational Research Journal, 50, 178–209.

Wynn, K. (1990). Children’s understanding of counting. Cognition, 36, 155–193.

95

About the Authors Gena Nelson, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor at Boise State University in the Department of Early and Special Education. Her research interests include long-term outcomes for students with disabilities, math learning disabilities, and how teachers use data in tiered systems to improve student academic outcomes. Email: nels8101@umn.edu Allyson J. Kiss, M.A., is a doctoral candidate in the Educational Psychology program â&#x20AC;&#x201C; School Psychology track at the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities. She recently completed her predoctoral internship in school psychology at Anchorage School District. Her research interests include the early identification of math difficulties and how assessment, intervention, and academic enablers connect to inform data-based decision making. Email: kissx017@umn.edu

96

Comparing Approaches for Students in Special Education Taking Notes on Science Texts Deborah K. Reed, Ph.D. University of Iowa, Iowa Reading Research Center Keely Norris, M.S. Florida State University Abstract Note taking strategies may improve the accessibility of authentic science texts to students in special education, thereby creating more equitable learning opportunities. This experimental study examined the extent to which secondary students with disabilities could learn to take notes on authentic science texts in a split-page or science-specific graphic organizer format. A repeated measures ANOVA indicated both groups of randomly assigned students significantly improved their note quality over five lessons, F(4, 72) = 2.57, p < 0.05, 2partial = .125. The interaction of group assignment was not significant. Implications for inclusive science instruction are discussed.

Keywords: note taking, biology, disciplinary literacy, high school Comparing Approaches for Students in Special Education Taking Notes on Science Texts Success in science courses is considered integral to students’ educational attainment and the well-being of society as a whole (Carnegie Corporation of New York & Institute for Advanced Study, 2009). Researchers and policy makers concur that quality science education is important for all students, including those with disabilities (e.g., Lee & Buxton, 2010; National Science Foundation, 2010). The authors of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS; 2013) summed up the sentiment of many by stating, “When provided with equitable learning opportunities, students from diverse backgrounds are capable of engaging in scientific practices and constructing meaning in both science classrooms and informal settings” (p. 1).

The creation of equitable learning opportunities might include efforts to improve the accessibility of authentic science texts, or passages that are written in natural language and not altered to reduce the vocabulary or sentence structure. These serve a vital role in the processes and products of science learning (Kettler et al., 2012; van den Broek, 2010), but texts that truly are representative of the discipline utilize discourse patterns and highly technical vocabulary that are unfamiliar to students (Seah, Clarke, & Hart, 2014). Correlational analyses have confirmed that reading ability is strongly and positively associated with performance in science classes (Reed, Petscher, & Truckenmiller, 2017; Cromley, 2009). Given that the most common difficulty experienced by students with disabilities is in reading (Cortiella & Horowitz, 2014), there exists a compelling need to identify effective practices to support those with exceptionalities in learning from science texts.

One possible approach is to teach students how to take notes on their reading to support their comprehension of the material. Writing information from course lectures and readings is 97

believed to focus attention, facilitate active learning, and improve recall (Kobayashi, 2005; Williams & Eggert, 2002). Moreover, it provides a product (i.e., the notes) that can be used to check one’s understanding of the material and integrate new information with previously learned content or with background knowledge (Armbruster, 2009). Unfortunately, students— particularly those with disabilities—tend to be poor spontaneous note takers due to difficulties recognizing important content, connecting ideas, paraphrasing the source information, and structuring their notes in a way that supports understanding (Boyle & Forchelli, 2014; Hughes & Suritsky, 1994). However, a synthesis of intervention studies conducted with students who have disabilities found that using note-taking techniques improved the quality and quantity of notes as well as students’ content learning (Boyle & Rivera, 2012). Nevertheless, there is a lack of consensus as to which note-taking format might be most advantageous.

Columnar Notes The use of a columnar format has long been recommended as a means to help students with disabilities record notes in an organized manner that relates subordinate details to the superordinate points (Saski, Spicewood, & Carter, 1983). As developed by Palmatier (1973) and Pauk (1989), this approach was conceptualized using a split-page method in which a standard sheet of notebook paper is divided into a narrower column on the left for recording main ideas and a wider column on the right side of the page for writing facts and other supporting information. Main ideas linked with associated details are recorded next to each other within the appropriate columns proceeding linearly down the page, just as a lecture or text presents information in a linear fashion. The split-page format has been researched with college students enrolled in a remedial reading course (Spires, 1992), a program for individuals with intellectual disabilities (Reed, Hallett, & Rimel, 2016), and listening comprehension courses for those studying English as a foreign language (Tsai & Wu, 2010). However, there is a dearth of research on the use of columnar notes in secondary schools or when taking notes from textbooks.

Boyle and Rivera’s (2012) synthesis of note-taking techniques for school-aged students with disabilities identified no studies meeting their criteria that employed columnar notes. An independent search of the extant literature revealed a single case design study that adapted the format for taking notes from social studies and science textbooks (Horton, Lovitt, & Christensen, 1991). Rather than two columns, middle and high school students with learning disabilities were taught to record information in four columns: the heading of each section of text, a statement of the main idea of each section, special terms and their definitions, and facts associated with the main ideas. Results revealed that improvements on session quizzes were dramatic when students received teacher-directed instruction along with the columnar note format and when taking notes on social studies content. Students experienced an immediate change in their level of performance and maintained that improvement. The authors concluded the format was more difficult to apply to science text, in part, because the content included more graphic sources of information.

The present study extended upon Horton et al.’s research by applying similar note-taking procedures with high school students with disabilities—an under-represented sample in the literature base on columnar notes. Moreover, this study compared the note-taking performance of students’ randomly assigned to learn split-page notes with those assigned to learn a different

98

note-taking format. This allowed for an examination of whether a specific type of note taking better facilitated extracting important information from authentic science texts.

Graphic Organizer Notes Although the spatial arrangement of information recorded in columns reflects how those ideas are linked, it may not lend itself well to recording graphic displays or nonlinear relationships.

Hence, some have suggested using concept maps to take notes (e.g., Berry & Chew, 2008). The use of graphic organizers, such as concept maps and visual displays, has been associated with large effects on factual comprehension of science texts among students with learning disabilities (Dexter, Park, & Hughes, 2011). An example of a graphic organizer created for adolescents who struggled with reading was one that incorporated written, numerical, and graphic information from science texts (Carnine & Carnine, 2004). These were presented as guided notes in which some of the information was provided on the prepared organizers, and students completed any missing information indicated by blank lines or empty boxes.

In contrast, columnar notes have been applied as a general strategy for any content area and with any type of lecture or text; whereas, the graphic organizers described would have to be specially designed for each intended application. Tailoring the organizer may be advantageous for helping students understand the unique features of scientific text such as argumentation, the connection between claims and evidence, precision in the explanations of phenomena, causal relations, scientific language, and the interplay of text and graphics (Cromley, Snyder-Hogan, & LuciwDubas, 2010; Krajcik & Sutherland, 2010; LeĂłn & PeĂąalba, 2002). In an alternating treatments, single case design study of science-specific graphic organizers, juvenile offenders with below average reading abilities performed better on content quizzes when taking notes on authentic science text using the split-page format (Reed, Whalon, Lynn, Miller, & Smith, 2017b). In contrast, students in the study with average reading abilities performed better when taking notes using a science-specific graphic organizer. This was consistent with models of disciplinary literacy hypothesizing that students need to develop a threshold level of reading skills (e.g., discerning main ideas and details) before they can understand the unique aspects of disciplinary texts (Shanahan & Shanahan, 2012).

However, the differences in performance were only seen after students in the Reed, Whalon et al.

(2017) study had adjusted to the use of the two formats. Initially, performance was stronger for whichever treatment they received first, so those with absences or experiencing emotional problems on particular days had fewer data points demonstrating a clear benefit of one treatment over the other. It is unknown whether the results would generalize to students with reading disabilities (see Table 1) or when implemented in a non-correctional setting such as a public high school.

Hence, the present study extended the examination of note-taking formats by employing a sample of students with reading disabilities (primarily identified with learning disabilities [LD]) enrolled in a public high school and participating in the general education science curriculum.

This is the setting where more than 80% of students with LD are taught science (Aud et al., 2012). The population would be subject to the NGSS and would be of concern to those calling for equitable science learning opportunities (NGSS, 2013). Given the difficulties experienced by students with disabilities in this content area (Fleischman, Hopstock, Pelczar, & Shelley, 2010) 99

and with note taking (Boyle & Forchelli, 2014), this exploratory study sought to contribute to special educatorsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; knowledge of how successful students with disabilities might be at learning and applying a graphic organizer or split-page note format when reading science texts.

Purpose and Research Question This experimental study sought to better understand how well students with reading disabilities successfully can learn to take notes using the broadly applicable columnar format or a sciencespecific graphic organizer format. The primary research question was: To what extent do high school students randomly assigned to note-taking interventions (i.e., split-page or graphic organizer) improve their abilities to take notes on authentic science texts? Based on previous research findings (Reed, Whalon et al., 2017), it was hypothesized that the special education students would have more difficulty creating high quality notes when assigned to use the graphic organizer than those assigned to use the columnar format.

Method Participants Four sections of a special education, learning strategies class participated in this repeated measures, randomized group design study. Of the 41 students in the original sample, the data from eight had to be removed because three withdrew from the school and five had incomplete data due to missing more than half the treatment sessions. This attrition rate (20%) is at the suggested upper limit for acceptable rigor in randomized experiments in education (Valentine & McHugh, 2007). Moreover, an equal number of students attrited across the three larger class periods (1, 2, and 4) and from both conditions, and the mean pretest scores (described in the section on measures) were not significantly different before or after removing the results from these eight students. Descriptive data on the final sample of 33 students are provided in Table 1.

Although all four grade levels (9 through 12) were represented, the majority of participants were in Grades 9 and 10 (n = 24). Students were eligible for participation in the study because they had individualized education programs that included reading goals. The majority were identified with LD (n = 21).

Setting The study took place during the fall semester at a Southeastern U.S. high school. Other than one student in period 2 who was homeschooled for her core academic courses, the participants were enrolled in general education classes for 50% or more of their school day, but they were taking the learning strategies class to receive supplemental support from a special educator. Therefore, the learning strategies class was an appropriate setting for teaching note taking and would not have detracted from other substantive instruction occurring in a typical science course.

100

Table 1 Participant Characteristics Characteristics

Split-page (n = 17)

Graphic Organizer (n = 16)

Total (N = 33)

Gender Male 14 10 Female 3 6 Grade 9 5 7 10 4 8 11 7 0 1 1 12 Learning Strategies Period 1 6 5 2 2 8 3 5 0 4 3 4 Disability ASD 4 5 ED 2 0 OHI 1 0 LD 10 11 Race/Ethnicity African American 6 5 Asian 1 1 Hispanic 0 1 White 10 8 Chose not to report 0 1 Note. ASD = autism spectrum disorders; ED = emotional disturbance; OHI = other health impairment; LD = learning disability.

24 9 12 12 7 2 11 10 5 7 9 2 1 21 11 2 1 18 1

Interventionist The treatments were delivered by a research assistant (RA) with two yearsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; experience working in special education classrooms. She participated in delivering the split-page and graphic organizer instruction during a previous study (Reed, Whalon et al., 2017) and followed a skeletal script specific to each condition.

Measures The RA or the classroom teacher of record administered all measures to students during their usual learning strategies class time. Two pretests were used to establish group equivalency prior to the start of the intervention. To ensure accuracy, all tests were scored by two raters, one of whom was blind to the experimental conditions.

Pretest of reading ability. Approximately two weeks before the intervention commenced, the interventionist administered the vocabulary and comprehension subtests of the Gates MacGinitie 101

Reading Test (GMRT; MacGinitie, MacGinitie, Marie, Dreyer, &Hughes, 2000) on two separate days. On the first day of group testing, students had 20 min to complete 45 maze-type vocabulary items. The second day of testing, they had 35 min to read a series of short (3-15 sentences) passages of increasing difficulty and respond to 48 multiple-choice questions targeting literal and inferential understanding. Test developers reported the range in alternate form reliability for Grades 6-12 was 0.74-0.89, and internal consistency reliabilities were above 0.90. Raw scores were converted to national curve equivalent scores, and the two subtests were used to determine the composite score of overall reading ability. The GMRT technical manual does not provide conversions of raw scores to standard scores. Among the score options, national curve equivalents (NCEs) were preferred as a means of interpreting students’ performance across grade levels. NCEs indicate where scores fall along a normal curve with a scale of 1 to 99, having a mean of 50, and a standard deviation of 21.06. NCEs are on an equal-interval scale and, therefore, can be averaged and used for significance testing in establishing baseline equivalency.

Pretest of biology content knowledge. The intervention lessons were built around biology passages on viruses, so the research team developed a 24-item, multiple-choice test to ensure students’ performance on the note-taking tasks could not be attributed to background knowledge of the content. All items were formulated to mirror those on the unit test associated with the curriculum used by the school district, and a doctoral student in science education with an undergraduate degree in biology verified the items were appropriate for the virus content.

Students had an unlimited amount of time to answer all questions.

Note quality. Students’ notes from each intervention session were graded for accuracy, completeness, and quality of information by comparing students’ work to a prepared key of suggested responses. The research team created the keys and the doctoral student in science education who evaluated the test of science content knowledge also verified the keys. Split-page notes were graded holistically with an 8-point rubric (see Figure 1) in which five of the eight criteria were associated with students’ abilities to generate the main idea of each section, two criteria were associated with the significant details recorded for each main idea, and the final criterion was associated with the main idea generated for the entire passage. The graphic organizers were graded quantitatively with a key such that one point was awarded for each correct completion of the eight written or drawn responses required.

Only whole points were allowed for either the split-page or graphic organizer scoring. This was a stringent standard that required students to demonstrate accuracy, completeness, and quality criteria for all information recorded. The approach for scoring notes taken on relatively short passages (average of 927 words) was preferred for two reasons. First, the 8-point metric was consistent across treatment groups, allowing for direct comparisons of the treatment groups while defining quality relative to the specific type of notes. Second, allowing only whole points supported reliability in scoring notes by removing additional judgment calls for partial credit.

Two independent raters evaluated all notes from each group. Interrater reliability was 90% for the split-page scoring and 94% for the graphic organizer scoring. Disagreements centered on variations in the ways students recorded information when compared to the suggested responses on the key. Therefore, all discrepancies were resolved in discussion with a third rater.

102

Score (1 or 0)

Element of Main Idea Statement Names the main topic of the section Names the most important information about the who/what Main idea is paraphrased Main idea is approximately 10 words Main idea is written in a complete sentence Includes significant details Details are succinct Includes a main idea for the entire passage Total Score

__________/8

Notes/Comments Figure 1. Rubric for Evaluating the Quality of Studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Split-page Notes

Intervention Materials The intent of the interventions was to teach students to take notes on unaltered or authentic texts that might be used in high school science classes. The typical progression of science courses for the participants was to take earth space in Grade 9, biology in Grade 10, and one other science course in Grade 11 (e.g., environmental science). Biology was a required course for high school completion and was the only science subject linked to a state-mandated end of course exam that students were required to pass to earn a standard diploma, so biology was chosen as the focus area. The teacher of the learning strategies classes agreed this would be helpful to her students, and she had not previously provided instruction in note-taking strategies.

The research team reviewed the biology curriculum at the school to identify a concept that would not be taught until the spring semester, thus controlling for any effects associated with other instruction the 14 participants currently enrolled in a biology class might be receiving.

Nevertheless, pretest data were analyzed to further confirm the baseline comparability of the two groups (see Results). After deciding to develop lessons on viruses, the team selected five passages from biology textbooks and authentic scientific articles. The texts used for each lesson were an average of 927 words in length with an average Flesch Kincaid grade equivalent readability score of 10.65 and a mean deep cohesion z-score of 0.82 (McNamara, Louwerse, Cai, & Graesser, 2013). Each text was divided into 4-6 sections of similar lengths by using subheadings. These pre-marked sections were to signal students to stop and take notes. The same passages were used for lessons in both the split-page and graphic organizer conditions.

103

Split-page notes. For the split-page condition, a two-column format was used with the narrow, left column designated for recording main ideas of each section and the wider, right column for the details related to each main idea. As in the Horton et al. (1991) study, the students were required to record the main idea as a complete sentence, but unlike the Horton et al. study they were not recopying a stated main idea from the text. This was because the authentic science texts used here more often had implied main ideas, so students were taught to generate a main idea statement in an approximately 10-word sentence by identifying the focus of the section and what was important about it (Vaughn, Roberts, Klinger, & Leroux, 2013). Also aligned with Horton et al. (1991), students were encouraged to use bulleted lists and short phrases to record the details.

The end of each split-page contained a space for writing a main idea of the entire passage.

Graphic organizer. The graphic organizers had several components designed to highlight the unique features of scientific texts (Cromley et al., 2010; Krajcik & Sutherland, 2010; LeĂłn & PeĂąalba, 2002). In one component, students were to define or describe the primary concept addressed in the passage. For another, they were to evaluate three pre-printed statements to explain which did not make sense based on the textual and graphic information in the passage.

For a separate claim, students needed to provide supporting evidence from the text. In a causal structure component, students had to record different effects of a given cause. The last component of the organizer asked that students create a graphic or diagram to represent a concept. Although every organizer included these same components, they were made specific to the topic and ideas of each passage (see sample in Figure 2). Unlike the split-page, the components did not follow a linear structure and may have required the student to return to an element recursively as additional information was encountered in the text.

Figure 2. Sample Graphic Organizer 104

Procedures Within each class period, individual students were randomly assigned to the two treatment groups: split-page or graphic organizer. Students met in their assigned groups with the RA serving as the interventionist. Sessions were held in a separate room once a week, during the usually scheduled learning strategies class. The split-page groups were taught on different days than the graphic organizer groups to prevent contamination. All groups were taught an introductory lesson on an unrelated topic, atoms, to learn their particular note-taking format.

After explaining the templates, the teacher modeled how to stop at the section breaks either to generate main ideas and record details on the split-page or consider what parts of the graphic organizer could be completed. Students also learned how to work with a partner or in a small group of three to alternate turns reading the passage and collaboratively take notes on the template.

Intervention. The week following the modeling lesson, the first of five intervention sessions began. These lessons followed a similar structure and only varied between groups by the notetaking format used. Both the split-page and graphic organizer lessons started with whole-group instruction. The RA posed a question to review the content from the previous lesson, then introduced the virus topic for that week, and pre-taught 5-6 vocabulary words. Finally, she reviewed the parts of the appropriate note-taking format before having students work with their peers. While they worked, the RA monitored the students, offered feedback, and periodically stopped them to ask someone to share with the class what they had recorded on the split-page or graphic organizer. In neither condition did the RA provide direct instruction in the content students were to be learning by reading the passage. Each passage was about viruses, but because the lessons were separated by a week, the topic and content were unique and not intended to build upon specific information from week-to-week. On the days students were not in the intervention, they participated in the usual learning strategies curriculum, which did not include instruction relevant to the experimental content. All notes from the five intervention sessions were collected and scored.

Session length. The learning strategies class was held for a full 50-minute period, but the intervention lessons averaged 37.5 min for the split-page groups (range of 28-43 min) and 36.41 min for the graphic organizer groups (range of 32-45 min). The entire study lasted 8 weeks: two weeks of pretesting, one week of modeling to introduce the note-taking formats, and five weeks of intervention lessons (one per week).

Fidelity All intervention sessions were audio recorded for the purposes of determining fidelity to the treatment protocols. Half the recordings were coded by one rater, and half of those (25% of sessions in each condition) were coded independently by a second rater. Raters used a code sheet developed from the skeletal scripts for each condition. The lessons were evaluated for adherence to the elements of the introduction (reminder of last weekâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s topic, asking and answering the review question, introducing the new topic), vocabulary instruction (pronouncing each word, defining each word, asking students to identify the word), and the note-taking on the passage (having students alternate reading the passage in their pairs or small groups, stopping at the section breaks in the text to share what they recorded, providing prompting according to note 105

taking format). The codes of each rater were compared to determine the extent to which they agreed that the RA had followed the protocols as intended. Fidelity and inter-rater reliability in both conditions were 100% in all coded lessons, which may be attributable to using structured and semi-scripted protocols.

Results Given a significant Kolmogorov-Smirnov test statistic for the GMRT composite (D = .196, p < .01), the nonparametric Mann-Whitney U test was used to establish the baseline equivalence of the split-page and graphic organizer groups’ reading abilities. U is a stringent test that reduces the likelihood of a Type I error in the presence of outliers (Fay & Proschan, 2010), a condition suggested by the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Results indicated there were no statistically significant differences between the medians of the two groups on the GMRT vocabulary (U = 94.00, p = 0.130), GMRT comprehension (U = 132.00, p = 0.885), GMRT composite scores (U = 113.50, p = 0.417), or science content knowledge (U = 132.00, p = 0.884). The groups had comparably low scores on all pretest measures (Table 2).

Table 2 Descriptive Data Measure

Gates Vocabulary NCE Gates Comprehension NCE Gates Composite NCE Biology Content Pretest Raw Score Lesson 1 Note Quality Lesson 2 Note Quality Lesson 3 Note Quality Lesson 4 Note Quality Lesson 5 Note Quality Note. NCE = national curve equivalent.

Split-page Graphic Organizer (n = 17) (n = 16) M (SD) M (SD) 39.59 (15.79) 31.94 (22.05) 31.53 (17.44) 31.19 (17.82) 36.00 (15.91) 29.88 (21.65) 5.29 (2.49) 5.19 (2.29) 4.82 (1.98) 6.06 (2.11) 4.61 (.05) 6.47 (1.36) 5.60 (1.19) 6.78 (1.40) 6.14 (1.31) 6.31 (1.97) 6.21 (1.48) 6.94 (1.44)

Total (N = 33) M (SD) 35.88 (19.18) 31.36 (17.35) 33.03 (18.86) 5.24 (2.36) 5.48 (2.11) 5.57 (1.94) 6.21 (1.42) 6.24 (1.70) 6.60 (1.48)

After ensuring the note quality data met all assumptions, a repeated measures ANOVA was applied to evaluate the improvements in students’ note quality from lesson 1 to 5. There was a significant main effect of time, F(4, 72) = 2.57, p < 0.05, 2partial = .125, which indicates students’ note-taking ability improved over the intervention sessions. Although the average note quality score of the graphic organizer group unexpectedly started higher than the split-page group’s (see Figure 3), the interaction of group assignment was not significant.

106

Average Note Quality Score

8 7 6 5 Graphic Organizer

4 3

Split-page

2 1 0 Lesson 1

Lesson 2

Lesson 3

Lesson 4

Lesson 5

Intrvention Lesson Figure 3. Average Note Quality Scores Across Lessons by Treatment Group Discussion This study investigated whether students with reading disabilities could learn to take notes on authentic science texts, using either a split-page or graphic organizer format. Both groups significantly improved over time. The note quality scores across the five lessons on viruses indicated students assigned to the graphic organizer group successfully learned to write explanations of technical concepts, explain why claims did not make sense, provide supporting evidence for claims, identify the effects in a causal structure, and complete diagrams. Students assigned to the split-page group initially demonstrated slightly lower note quality scores than their counterparts, but with only 5 total lessons they successfully developed more skills to use the format. In keeping with a previous study of split-page notes taken by students with reading disabilities (Horton et al., 1991), students were required to learn how to generate a complete sentence main idea statementâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;a skill that was not necessary for completing the graphic organizers. Moreover, students had to write more total information in the main ideas and details than students in the graphic organizer group had to write on their papers, which may have limited their overall quality scores at first.

The research team had hypothesized that, within this lower reading ability sample, students would do better at taking split-page notes on biology content than those using the graphic organizer to extract important information from authentic science texts. This hypothesis was based on models of disciplinary literacy (Shanahan & Shanahan, 2012) as well as a single case design study comparing the note-taking formats (Reed, Whalon et al., 2017), both of which had suggested a higher threshold of reading ability might be needed to understand the unique features of science texts that the graphic organizer was designed to capture. Nevertheless, findings from the present study are consistent with previous research that demonstrated improved understanding of science texts among students with learning disabilities and reading difficulties 107

when using specially designed graphic organizers as a support (Carnine & Carnine, 2004; Dexter et al., 2011). It is possible that the format of the graphic organizer provided enough explicit guidance for students to understand and connect the information, even when it was distributed across sections of the text. In addition, the graphic organizer could have more closely aligned to the structure of the authentic science text, which incorporated graphic sources of informationâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;a feature noted by Horton et al. (1991) as making columnar notes more difficulty to apply.

Limitations This study investigated the note-taking techniques only with students enrolled in a special education, learning strategies class, so the sample was much smaller than if the study had been conducted with the population in general education biology classes. This limited the ability to detect small differences between the groups or potential differences in the way students with and without disabilities might respond to split-page or graphic organizer note formats. In addition, the participants were not experiencing other aspects of typical science instruction, such as labs or inquiry activities, which may have strengthened studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; abilities to identify and extract the relevant information. Some have argued that science instruction for students with reading disabilities should focus on experiential learning and limit the use of text (e.g., McCarthy, 2005), but others have acknowledged that texts are still important elements of the processes and products of science learning (Kettler et al., 2012; van den Broek, 2010). If students with reading disabilities are to have equal opportunities to engage in scientific practices (NGSS, 2010), they would need to be taught how to make sense of authentic science texts such as by taking notes.

However, more research is needed to determine whether note-taking methods combined with other science pedagogical practices would be powerful enough to close the gap in science achievement between students with and without reading disabilities.

In addition, the intervention investigated here focused on taking notes from print rather than oral lectures, which might add to the challenges experienced by some students. For example, the reliance on reading and writing activities could be expected to alleviate any difficulties with auditory processing or oral comprehension. As that was a not a focus of this study, future research should include measures of these skills to explore any relation between studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; language abilities and their performance in different note-taking formats.

Finally, randomizing at the individual student level did not produce an equitable distribution of grade levels between the treatment groups: There were more eleventh and twelfth graders in the split-page group (n = 8) than in the graphic organizer group (n = 1). Grade was not included in the analyses of for two reasons. First, the total number of upperclassmen was still quite small (9 of the 33 participants). Second, and perhaps more importantly, no significant differences were found between the groups on the pretests, so grade level was not associated with an advantage in note-taking experience, content knowledge, or reading ability. Nevertheless, future studies might employ larger samples to explore grade-level differences in note-taking performance.

Implications for Practice Finding no clear advantage for one note-taking format over the other, teachers might consider planning to use the approach that best meets their instructional goals and the type of text students are asked to read. If trying to teach students to record superordinate ideas in a complete sentence and linked to subordinate details from text organized linearly, the split-page may be more 108

appropriate (Horton et al., 1991). Conversely, if trying to teach students to evaluate claims or link textual information presented in causal structures, science-specific graphic organizers may be more appropriate (Berry & Chew, 2008). However, graphic organizers place greater burdens on the teacher to prepare the materials in advance. This is relevant to interpreting the feasibility of the approach because secondary teachers have been resistant to incorporating literacy strategies that are too time consuming (Moje, 2008).

A previous study found that split-page notes took more time on average (11 min per session) to carryout in class than the graphic organizers (Reed, Whalon et al., 2017), but the difference in mean implementation time between the two groups in the present study was negligible (1 min).

This may have been attributable to the interventionist having more experience delivering the instruction or to implementing it in a non-correctional setting. Nevertheless, it was promising that the time commitment teachers would need to make was more specific to planning than to delivery in class because it suggests lessons could be reused with multiple classes or over multiple years without the need for additional preparation time.

Rather than controlling or lowering the difficulty of the passages, the texts utilized were appropriate for a tenth-grade biology class. These likely were quite challenging for a sample of students in Grades 9-12 with demonstrated low reading ability (i.e., participants had low scores on the standardized test of reading administered at pretest). However, the quality of studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; notes did not suggest that they were unable to understand or extract appropriate information from the texts. The use of authentic texts makes the interventions more feasible options for incorporation into credit-earning biology classes. Further research might elucidate whether including note-taking instruction in high school science courses may be one part of creating equitable learning opportunities to enable students with reading disabilities to engage in scientific practices and construct meaning from science texts as advocated by the NGSS (2013).

More importantly, the note-taking approaches may provide students a tool for accomplishing practices called for in the NGSS such as citing specific textual evidence to support analysis of science texts, attending to the precise details of explanations or descriptions, synthesizing complex information, and gathering relevant information from print and digital sources (National Research Council, 2014).

References Aud, S., Hussar, W., Johnson, F., Kena, G., Roth, E., Manning, E., & Yohn, C. (2012). The condition of education 2012. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education.

Armbruster, B.B. (2009). Taking notes from lectures. In R.F. Flippo & D.C. Caverly (Eds.), Handbook of college reading and study strategy research (pp. 220-248) (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

Berry, J.W., & Chew, S.L., (2008). Improving learning through interventions of studentgenerated questions and concept maps. Teaching of Psychology, 35, 305-312. doi: 10.1080/00986280802373841 Boyle, J.R., & Forchelli, G.A. (2014). Differences in the note-taking skills of students with high achievement, average achievement, and learning disabilities. Learning & Individual Differences, 35, 9-14. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2014.06.002 109

Boyle, J.R., & Rivera, T.Z. (2012). Note-taking techniques for students with disabilities: A systematic review of the research. Learning Disability Quarterly, 35, 131-143. doi: 10.1177/0731948711435794 Carnegie Corporation of New York & Institute for Advanced Study. (2009). The opportunity equation: Transforming mathematics and science education for citizenship and the global economy. New York, NY: Authors.

Carnine, L., & Carnine, D. (2004). The interaction of reading skills and science content knowledge when teaching struggling secondary students. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 20, 203-218. doi: 10.1080/10573560490264134 Cortiella, C., & Horowitz, S.H. (2014). The state of learning disabilities: Facts, trends and emerging issues. New York: National Center for Learning Disabilities. Retrieved from www.ncld.org Cromley, J.G. (2009). Reading achievement and science proficiency: International comparisons from the Programme on International Student Assessment. Reading Psychology, 30, 89118. doi: 10.1080/02702710802274903 Cromley, J.G., Snyder-Hogan, L.E., & Luciw-Dubas, U.A. (2010). Cognitive activities in complex science text and diagrams. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35, 59-74. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2009.10.002 Dexter, D.D., Park, Y.J., & Hughes, C.A. (2011). A meta-analytic review of graphic organizers and science instruction for adolescents with learning disabilities: Implications for the intermediate and secondary science classroom. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 26, 204-213. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5826.2011.00341.x Fay, M.P., & Proschan, M.A. (2010). Wilcoxon-MannWhitney or t-test? On assumptions for hypothesis tests and multiple interpretations of decision rules. Statistics Surveys, 4, 1â&#x20AC;&#x201C;39. doi: 10.1214/09-SS051 Fleischman, H. L., Hopstock, P. J., Pelczar, M. P., & Shelley, B. E. (2010). Highlights from PISA 2009: Performance of US 15-year-old students in reading, mathematics, and science literacy in an international context (NCES 2011-004). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education.

Horton, S.V., Lovitt, T.C., & Christensen, C.C. (1991). Notetaking from textbooks: Effects of a columnar format on three categories of secondary students. Exceptionality, 2, 19-40. doi: 10.1080/09362839109524764 Hughes, C.A., & Suritsky, S.K. (1994). Note-taking skills of university students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27, 20-24. doi: 10.1177/002221949402700105 Kettler, R.J., Dickenson, T.S., Bennett, H.L., Morgan, G.B., Gilmore, J.A., Beddow, P.A., Swaffield, S., Turner, L., Herrera, B., Turner, C., & Palmer, P.W. (2012). Enhancing the accessibility of high school science tests: A multi-state experiment. Exceptional Children, 79, 91-106. doi: 10.1177/001440291207900105 Kobayashi, K. (2005). What limits the encoding effect of note-taking? A meta-analytic examination. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 242â&#x20AC;&#x201C;262. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.10.001 Krajcik, J., & Sutherland, L.M. (2010). Supporting students in developing literacy in science.

Science, 328, 456-459. doi: 10.1126/science.1182593 Lee, O., & Buxton, C.A. (2010). Diversity and equity in science education: Theory, research, and practice. New York: Teachers College Press.

110

León, J.A., & Peñalba, G. (2002). Understanding causality and temporal sequence in scientific discourse. In J. Otero, J.A. León & A.C. Graesser (Eds.), The psychology of science text comprehension (pp. 199-221). Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum.

MacGinitie, W.H., MacGinitie, R.K., Maria, K., Dreyer, L., & Hughes, K.E. (2000). GatesMacGinitie reading tests, 4th edition. Chicago: Riverside Publishing.

McCarthy, C.B. (2005). Effects of thematic-based, hands-on science teaching versus a textbook approach for students with disabilities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 245–263. doi:10.1002/tea.20057 McNamara, D.S., Louwerse, M.M., Cai, Z., & Graesser, A. (2013). Coh-Metrix version 3.0.

Retrieved from: http://cohmetrix.com.

Moje, E.B. (2008). Foregrounding the disciplines in secondary literacy teaching and learning: A call for change. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52, 96-107. doi: 10.1598/JAAL.52.2.1 National Research Council. (2014). Literacy for science: Exploring the intersection of the Next Generation Science Standards and Common Core for ELA standards, a workshop summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Science Foundation. (2010). Preparing the next generation of STEM innovators: Identifying and developing our nation’s human capital. Washington, DC: Author.

Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/publications/2010/nsb1033.pdf Next Generation Science Standards, Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states (Appendix D). Washington, DC: Achieve, Inc. Retrieved from http://www.nextgenscience.org/ Palmatier, R.A. (1973). A notetaking system for learning. Journal of Reading, 17, 36-39.

Pauk, W. (1989). How to study in college (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Co. Reed, D.K., Hallett, A., & Rimel, H. (2016). Note taking instruction for college students with autism spectrum disorder. Exceptionality, 24, 195-212. doi: 10.1080/09362835.2015.1107833 Reed, D.K., Petscher, Y., & Truckenmiller, A.J. (2017). The contribution of general reading ability to science achievement. Reading Research Quarterly, 52, 253-266. doi: 10.1002/rrq.158 Reed, D.K., Whalon, K., Lynn, D., Miller, N., & Smith, K.C. (2017). A comparison of general and content-specific literacy strategies on learning science content. Exceptionality, 25, 77-96. doi: 10.1080/09362835.2016.1196441 Saski, J., Spicewood, P., & Carter, J. (1983). Notetaking formats for learning disabled adolescents. Learning Disability Quarterly, 6, 265-72. doi: 10.2307/1510437 Seah, L., Clarke, D., & Hart, C. (2014). Understanding the language demands on science students from an integrated science and language perspective. International Journal of Science Education, 36, 952-973. doi:10.1080/09500693.2013.832003 Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2012). What is disciplinary literacy and why does it matter?

Topics in Language Disorders, 32, 7-18. doi: 10.1097/TLD.0b013e318244557a Spires, H.A. (1992). Learning from a lecture: Effects of comprehension monitoring. Reading Research and Instruction, 32, 19-30. doi: 10.1080/19388079309558113 Tsai, T.S., & Wu, Y. (2010). Effects of note-taking instruction and note-taking languages on college EFL students’ listening comprehension. New Horizons in Education, 58, 120-132.

111

Valentine &, J.C., McHugh, C.M. (2007). The effects of attrition on baseline comparability in randomized experiments in education: A meta-analysis. Psychological Methods, 12, 268– 282. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.12.3.268 van den Broek, P. (2010). Using texts in science education: Cognitive processes and knowledge representation. Science, 328(5977), 453–456. doi: 10.1126/science.1182594.

Vaughn, S. Roberts, G., Klingner, J.K., & Leroux, A. (2013). Collaborative strategic reading: Findings from experienced implementers. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 6, 137-163. doi: 10.1080/19345747.2012.741661 Williams, R.L., & Eggert, A.C. (2002). Notetaking in college classes: Student patterns and instructional strategies. The Journal of General Education, 51, 173-199. doi: 10.1353/jge.2003.0006 About the Authors Deborah K. Reed (corresponding author) is an associate professor of special education and the director of the Iowa Reading Research Center at the University of Iowa, Iowa City, USA; e-mail deborah-reed@uiowa.edu. Her research interests include appropriate uses of reading data in instructional decision making and providing effective reading instruction and intervention to vulnerable populations.

Keely Norris (formerly Smith) graduated from Florida State University in 2015 with her Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees in Exceptional Students Education. Since graduating, Norris has served as a middle school Special Education teacher in Tallahassee, FL, teaching students with both high incidence and low incidence disabilities. Norris is also the co-founder and coexecutive director of an educational non-profit, North Florida Freedom Schools.

112

Choosing to Become a Special Educator: Investigating Preservice Teachers’ Preferences Linda M. Reeves, Ph.D. Rebecca M. Giles, Ph.D. Todd M. Johnson, Ph.D. University of South Alabama Abstract The chronic shortage of special education teachers continues to impact the quality of education for many students with disabilities. A mixed-method design was used to investigate preservice teachers’ (n=109) interest in primarily teaching students with disabilities before and after initial experiences in a dual elementary and special education program. Although some increase in interest was reported, there was no significant change. Results indicated a significant relationship between preservice teachers’ interest in teaching special education and their comfort working with students with disabilities. Conversely, only one of the bivariate correlations between interest and knowledge of disability (Physical/Health Disabilities) was not significant.

Qualitative data revealed field experience as the most often coded factor regarding participants’ interest in teaching special education. Early experiences with students with disabilities are beneficial to increase preservice teachers’ knowledge of and comfort level regarding disabilities and to provide the opportunity to consider a career in special education.

Choosing to Become a Special Educator: Investigating Preservice Teachers’ Preferences The chronic shortage of special education teachers across all disability categories continues to pose a significant challenge for public schools across all regions of the United States (Montrosse & Young, 2012; Sindelar et al., 2012; Sutcher, Darling-Hammond, & Carver-Thomas, 2016; Zhang, Wang, Losinski, & Katsiyannis, 2013). According to the United States Department of Education (2017), 43 states (86%) reported teacher shortages in special education during the 2016–2017 school year and 46 states (92%) reported anticipated shortages for the 2017–2018 school year. As a result of the inadequate supply of certified special education teachers, many school districts have been left with no alternative but to fill vacant positions with less than fully qualified personnel by issuing emergency teaching certificates to individuals with a bachelor’s degree in any field of study, or by offering financial incentives to general education teachers to accept special education teaching positions (McLeskey, Tyler, & Flippin, 2004; Nougaret, Scruggs, & Mastropieri, 2005; Thorton, Peltier, & Medina, 2007). For example, during the 2002–2003 school year over 49,000 special education positions (12.38%) in the United States were filled with individuals who were not fully certified in special education (McLeskey & Billingsley, 2008). Boe and Cook (2006) reported that the shortage of special educators is 20% to 30% greater than the shortage of certified general education teachers. Consequently, many students with disabilities are receiving services from inadequately trained teachers, which may negatively impact the quality and appropriateness of the education students with disabilities are entitled to receive (Connelly & Graham, 2009; McLeskey, Rosenberg, & Westling, 2012). The shortage of special educators and its damaging impact on schools’ ability to provide appropriate 113

instruction for all students makes preservice teachers’ interest in becoming special educators worthy of investigation.

There is an extensive amount of literature identifying a variety of factors contributing to the shortage of certified special educators (McLeskey et al., 2004). Researchers have primarily investigated the reasons why special educators leave the profession (Billingsley, 2004). Some of the factors reported include poor work environments such as demanding workloads, low salaries, increased stress, and lack of administrative support (Emery & Vandenberg, 2010; Miller, Brownell, & Smith, 1999). Other researchers have linked certain teacher characteristics and qualifications such as a lack of experience or insufficient preparation and training to a greater risk of attrition (Brownell, Sindelar, Bishop, Langley, & Seo, 2003; Katsiyannis, Zhang, & Conroy, 2003). An insufficient supply of individuals interested in becoming special educators has also been identified as a contributing factor for the special education teacher shortage (Boe, Cook & Sunderland, 2008; Zhang et al., 2014).

While the majority of the research thus far has contributed to understanding why special educators leave the profession, there has been limited research examining factors related to understanding why individuals enter the field of special education (Fish & Stephens, 2009; Thornton et al., 2007; Zhang et al., 2014). In one study, Stephens and Fish (2010) interviewed in-service teachers to understand why they decided to major in special education. The most commonly cited reason was having “the desire to serve those in need” (p. 402). Other reasons provided for choosing to enter the field of special education included having a family member or a friend with a disability and the availability of job openings in the area of special education.

Other researchers have concluded that work experiences with individuals with disabilities influence an individual’s interest in becoming a special educator (Zhang et al., 2014). For example, DeSutter and LeMire (2016) surveyed 146 undergraduate preservice teachers at two rural Midwest universities and found that work or volunteer experience involving people with special needs was a significant predictor in choosing special education as a career path.

Understanding the factors that influence individuals to pursue a career in special education may be beneficial in addressing the critical need for more preservice teachers to consider becoming special educators.

The Role of Teacher Preparation Another serious problem contributing to the national shortage of special educators is that teacher preparation programs are not graduating enough special education teachers to fill the need (Boe et al., 2008; Connelly & Graham, 2009). For example, Katsiyannis, Zhang, and Conroy (2003) found that each year colleges and universities are only graduating about half the number of special education teachers required to fill vacant teaching positions.

Preparation of general and special education teachers has historically entailed learning to teach different groups of students using different curricula, methods, and assessment measures (Frattura & Topinka, 2006). Teacher preparation programs typically require that general education majors take an introductory special education course related to students with disabilities, and this may be their only formal exposure to students with disabilities during their teacher preparation (Dransfield, 2014). Although student teachers report that having such a course was useful (Beacham & Rouse, 2011), it may not be sufficient to prepare preservice 114

teachers to effectively address the needs of students with disabilities. In contrast, teacher preparation programs that require a combination of special education coursework aligned with supervised field experiences with students with disabilities seem the most beneficial for increasing preservice teachers’ understating of disabilities and, as a result, their confidence in teaching students with special needs (Leko, Brownell, Sindelar, & Kiely, 2015; Sharma, Shakuta, & Forlonger, 2014). One method for beginning to develop this double knowledge base is the dual certification of educators (Aksamit, 1990; Mainzer, Mainzer, Slavin, & Lowry, 1993). The dual training increases the effectiveness of general and special educators making both more adept at meeting the needs of a diverse student population while also increasing the number of graduates eligible for certification in special education.

Significance and Purpose Given the demand for highly qualified special education teachers, there is also a need to investigate practices teacher preparation programs use in recruiting and preparing sufficient numbers of qualified special education teachers (McLesley & Billingsley, 2008). Findings from research assessing preservice teachers’ perceptions of teaching special education can serve as the impetus for effecting change. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of initial coursework and experiences in special education on preservice teachers’ interest in primarily teaching students with disabilities. More specifically, the following research questions were examined: 1. Is there a significant difference between preservice teachers’ reported level of interest in primarily teaching special education at the beginning and end of their first semester in a general and special education dual certification program?

2. Do preservice teachers [who are] primarily interested in teaching special education report more knowledge of disabilities than preservice teachers who are not interested in primarily teaching special education?

3. Do preservice teachers [who are] primarily interested in teaching special education report greater levels of comfort working with students with disabilities than preservice teachers who are not interested in primarily teaching special education?

4. What factors do preservice teachers enrolled in a general and special education dual certification program identify as making them interested in primarily teaching special education?

Method Participants and Setting The participants consisted of 109 preservice teachers attending a large public university in the southeast United States. The participants included 108 females and one male. Ninety (83%) were White; seventeen (16%) were Black; one was Hispanic, and one was Asian. Most of the participants (94%) were between the ages of 20-25, and the remaining six participants (5%) were over 30 years old.

115

The university is classified by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools as a Level VI institution and by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching as a Doctoral/Research Intensive University. The College of Education, where the participants were enrolled, consists of approximately 1800 students in a variety of undergraduate and graduate programs ranging from bachelors to doctoral level degrees. The participants were all enrolled in the undergraduate K-6 Teacher Education program, the largest program in the college. The 120credit hour dual certification program is designed to prepare teachers for kindergarten through grade six classrooms. Upon satisfactory completion of the program requirements, the teacher candidate earns a Bachelor of Science degree in Education and the option to pursue certification in either Elementary Education (K-6) alone, or a teaching certificate in both Elementary Education (K-6) and Special Education (Collaborative Teaching, K-6).

The participants were selected as a convenience sample of K-6 majors enrolled during the second semester of their third year, typically classified as juniors in terms of hours completed in higher education. Participation was voluntary, and there was no identified risks or benefits for the participants, nor were incentives offered for participation.

Program Information At the time the quantitative phase of the study was completed, the participants were enrolled in the first semester of their introductory methods coursework totaling 15 credit hours. The introductory methods block consisted of three general education courses and two special education courses: Teaching Social Studies (3 credits), Teaching Reading (3 credits), Learning and Behavioral Disorders (3 credits), Partnerships in Special Education (3 credits), and Classroom Management I (1 credit). Each course was offered in a web-blended format combining 75 minutes of instruction twice per week (each course) with additional online requirements for a total of 14 weeks, excluding holiday weeks (i.e., winter or spring break) and two full weeks of field placement. Each course contained field-based assignments that provided opportunities for application of content covered.

The introductory special education course content included information (definitions, characteristics, prevalence, causes, and identification, best teaching practices, collaboration) regarding children with the following disabilities: intellectual disability, learning disability, emotional or behavioral disorders, autism spectrum disorders, communication disorders, deafness and hearing loss, blindness and low vision, physical disabilities, health disabilities, and multiple disabilities. Additional topics included the foundations and history of special education, legal requirements, eligibility process, Individualized Education Programs (IEP), planning of services, and evidence-based practices to meet the needs of students with disabilities in school settings. The course requirements consisted of weekly exams, a final exam, and application projects such as the development of an IEP and an accommodation plan for a struggling student.

Concurrently with coursework, the participants were enrolled in a Field Experience (2 credits) in which they accumulated a total of 175 hours of classroom experience. The hours were divided between both regular and special education elementary classroom settings with a minimum of 75 hours spent exclusively in a self-contained special education classroom setting. The participants were assigned to schools for 7 hours per day, 3 days a week for 8 weeks. In addition, the preservice teachers also completed two full weeks (7 hours, 5 days) over the course of the 116

semester for a total of 10 weeks. Allowing for both university and school district holidays, participants usually spent 25-28 days in field experience.

Field experiences were completed at one of 33 schools in four public school districts located across two southern states. Preservice teachers were assigned to the school in cohorts of three to six depending upon the school’s size and availability of master teachers. The schools were jointly selected by university and school district administrators based on the leadership in the school, the capacity of the school faculty to mentor new teachers, and the presence of students receiving special education services. Each of the participating schools had diverse populations in terms of ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and academic needs.

Each preservice teacher worked with an assigned general education teacher, special education teacher, and university supervisor. The general education and special education teachers played a critical role in guiding the field experience, with the special education teacher often mentoring multiple preservice teachers during the same semester. The teachers and supervisor served as mentors, coaches, and evaluators as they regularly observed, assessed, and conferenced with the preservice teacher informally and formally. Supervisors also served as liaison between school and university faculty.

Procedures Quantitative data were obtained using a pre and post survey collected from two groups of participants over two consecutive semesters (See Appendix A). The paper and pencil survey, developed by the first author, included items measuring preservice teachers’ interest in primarily teaching special education, knowledge of disability categories, and level of comfort working with students with various disabilities. In addition, follow-up qualitative data were collected using a questionnaire to allow participants to elaborate upon, or clarify, results from the quantitative analysis. The questionnaire was completed by a subgroup of the participants during the semester after they completed the survey. Participants were asked to provide a written response to the open-ended question “Was there anything about your coursework or field experience that made you more willing to teach special education? If so, what?”

Design A sequential explanatory, mixed-method design was used to investigate the perceptions of preservice teachers in regards to primarily teaching students with disabilities before and after initial experiences in a dual general and special education program. In this study, as with most sequential explanatory designs, quantitative data were collected and analyzed, followed by the collection and analysis of qualitative data to augment the quantitative results (Hanson, Creswell, Clark, Petska, & Cresswell, 2005). More specifically, the rationale for following up the quantitative investigation of preservice teachers’ reported level of interest in primarily teaching special education with qualitative research, is to achieve what Greene, Caracelli, and Graham (1989) identify as complementarity. Greene et al., (1989) identify the purpose of using mixed methods from the perspective of complementarity to be elaboration, enhancement, illustration, or clarification of the results achieved using one method with the results achieved using the other method.

117

Data Analysis Quantitative data were collected from two groups of participants over the course of two consecutive semesters. Participants from group 1 (n=46) completed the pre and post survey during their spring term, and participants from group 2 completed their pre and post survey during the following fall term (n=63). The paper and pencil survey (see Appendix A) asked participants to indicate their interest in primarily teaching in a special education classroom— using a 3-point scale (1 = yes, 0 = undecided, -1 = no) and to rate their knowledge of and comfort level regarding nine categories of special education disability categories—intellectual disabilities, physical/health disabilities, low incidence/multiple disabilities, learning disabilities, behavior disorders, autism spectrum disorders, communication disorders, deaf and hearing loss, and blind and vision loss—using a 5-point scale ranging from 1-no knowledge or not comfortable to 5-very knowledgeable or very comfortable. The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) was used to analyze quantitative data.

This study employed two different sets of analyses to answer the quantitative research questions (1-3) guiding the study. A paired-samples t-test was conducted to determine whether significant changes occurred in preservice teachers’ interest in primarily teaching in a special education classroom from the beginning to the end of their first semester of enrollment in the dual certification program. Bivariate correlations were computed to examine the relationships between preservice teachers’ interest in teaching in special education classrooms and the preservice teachers’ reported knowledge and comfort.

Because preservice teachers’ perceptions were examined across nine disability categories multiple hypothesis tests were conducted. A total of 20 bivariate correlations were computed to examine relationships between preservice teachers’ interest in teaching in special education classrooms and their knowledge and comfort across all disability categories. When multiple tests are conducted, the risk of Type I error (claiming a significant effect when none exists) increases (Armstrong, 2014).

A well established, but somewhat conservative, method for addressing the problem of increased risk of Type I error caused by multiple hypothesis tests is the Bonferroni correction (Armstrong, 2014; Perneger, 1998). Adjusting the alpha significance level using the Bonferroni correction involves dividing the alpha critical (in most cases α = .05) by the number of hypothesis tests conducted. While adjusting the alpha significance level using the Bonferroni correction does reduce the risk of committing a Type I error on any individual hypothesis test, the method is also criticized for the problems it creates including increasing the risk of Type II error - failing to identify an effect when one does exist (Armstrong, 2014; Perneger, 1998). As advised by Perneger (1998), descriptions of what was done and why, along with discussion of the possible interpretations of each result, are provided to enable the reader to reach a reasonable conclusion.

In this study, a set of 20 hypothesis tests were conducted to examine correlation relationships.

Using the conservative Bonferroni correction, an adjusted alpha level of α = .0025 could be applied to individual tests of significance. Results of individual tests are reported with specific values of alpha included so that each reader may consider the results based on their own desired level of scrutiny (Armstrong, 2014; Perneger, 1998).

118

Group 1 participants who had completed the survey during spring (n=46) were asked to respond to an open-ended follow-up question during their next semester enrolled (fall) to provide more insight into the results of the quantitative data. Thirty-four participants (74%) from the spring term provided a written response to the question: “Was there anything about your coursework or field experience that made you more willing to teach special education? If so, what?”

Responses served as qualitative data in this study. Qualitative data analysis entailed coding factors that contributed to the preservice teachers’ willingness to teach special education. During the initial phase of data analysis, two researchers individually reviewed the responses for significant statements—a few words, phrase or sentence(s) having particular relevance to the research question. Like statements were grouped together and, then, collectively examined for themes. Each response was then coded into five themes/categories and reviewed again for accuracy to determine the total number of responses per category (see Figure 2).

Results The first research question examined preservice teachers’ interest in primarily teaching students in special education classrooms. Preservice teachers’ interest in primarily teaching in special education classrooms was measured both at the beginning and end of their first semester in a dual certification program using a three-point scale (yes = 1; undecided = 0; no = -1). The number of preservice teachers who indicated they were not interested in becoming special educators remained consistent with 30.3% (n=33) indicating no interest at the beginning of the semester and 31.2% (n=34) continuing to indicate no interest at the end of the semester. At the beginning of the semester, 14.7% of the preservice teachers (n=16) indicated being primarily interested in becoming a special educator, and that percentage increased to 24.8% (n=27) at the end of the semester. Conversely, the number of preservice teachers who were undecided about becoming a special educator at the beginning of the semester, decreased from 55% (n=60) to 42.2% (n=46) at the end of the semester. Statistical analysis indicated that at the beginning of their initial special education coursework and field experience, the preservice teachers were somewhat undecided (M = -0.16; SD = 0.66) as to whether they would be interested in primarily teaching students in special education classrooms. Similarly, at the end of the coursework and field experience, the preservice teachers remained undecided (M = -0.07; SD = 0.76) regarding primarily teaching special education. Although some increase in interest was reported, with 11 preservice teachers moving from not interested or undecided to interested in teaching primarily in special education classrooms, results of the paired-samples t-test indicated no significant change (t = 1.34; p = .183).

For the second and third research questions, bivariate correlations were calculated to examine the relationship between preservice teachers’ reported interest in primarily teaching in special education classrooms and the preservice teachers’ knowledge of and comfort working with students of the various disability categories. Bivariate correlations between interest and the composite scores representing overall knowledge and comfort were also calculated. The internal consistency reliabilities of the nine items included in both the composite score for overall knowledge (Chronbach’s alpha = .901) and overall comfort (Chronbach’s alpha = .921) were strong. Results indicated a significant relationship between preservice teachers’ comfort working with students with disabilities and interest in teaching primarily in special education classrooms (see results in Table 1). Bivariate correlations between interest and comfort for each 119

disability category (including overall comfort) achieved some level of significance, with seven out of ten satisfying the conservative Bonferroni corrected alpha criterion of Îą = 0.0025 (results displayed in Table 1). On the contrary, all but one of the bivariate correlations between interest and knowledge of disability categories was not significant. Only the bivariate correlation between knowledge of Physical/Health Disabilities and preservice teachersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; interest in teaching primarily in special education classrooms achieved significance (see Table 1).

Table 1 Bivariate correlations between post-survey data and interest in teaching special education Interest in teaching special education (post-survey) Knowledge (post-survey) Intellectual Disabilities Physical/Health Disabilities Low Incidence/Multiple Disabilities Learning Disabilities Behavior Disorders Autism Spectrum Disorders Communication Disorders Deaf and Hearing Loss Blind and Low Vision

0.09 0.21* 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.15 0.06 0.04 0.07

Overall Knowledge (average score across all disability categories) Comfort (post-survey) Intellectual Disabilities Physical/Health Disabilities Low Incidence/Multiple Disabilities Learning Disabilities Behavior Disorders Autism Spectrum Disorders Communication Disorders Deaf and Hearing Loss Blind and Low Vision

0.12

0.38*** 0.42*** 0.37*** 0.32*** 0.42*** 0.31*** 0.29** 0.25** 0.22*

Overall Comfort (average score across all disability categories) Note. *p< .05. **p< .01. ***p<.0025.

0.423***

For the last research question, participants (n=34) were asked to identify any elements from coursework or field experience that made them more willing to teach special education.

120

Although there was some overlap due to the interconnected nature of several elements, particular words and/or phrases were coded separately each time they were used (see Table 2).

Table 2 Factors Related to Teaching Special Education Theme

Number of responses

Percentage of participant responses (n= 34)

Field Experiences

12

35%

Course Content/Course Instructor

10

29%

6

18%

Reward of contributing to the success or achievement of a student with special needs

6

18%

Special education cooperating teacher

5

15%

Relationship with student(s) with special needs

Participants identified field experiences in general 12 times (35%), course content and/or the course instructors 10 times (29%), relationship with student(s) with special needs 6 times (18%), reward of contributing to the success or achievement of a student with special needs 6 times (18%), and their special education cooperating teacher 5 times (15%) as factors that influenced them to teach in special education.

Sample comments are provided below: 1. “I was not really open to special education because I was never really exposed to it.

During my field experience I was expected to be in a special education environment and found to love it deeply.”

2. “This class along with my field experience changed my heart for special education students. I would not have made this decision if I did not have my experiences in the field.”

3. “After gaining the knowledge in class about specific exceptionalities or even just the basic terminology, I was able to open up more in the special education classroom which made my want for teaching special education increase.”

4. “The classes made the world of special education seem not so intimidating and overwhelming.”

121

5. “I personally do not think I would want to teach special education. However, I do think that my time in the field has helped me better prepare for students with disabilities.”

6. “I had a great special ed cooperating teacher who really opened my eyes to the rewarding nature of special education.”

7. “My field experience in combination with the passion of the course instructor has led me to feel much more comfortable with teaching special education. I was originally afraid of teaching special education because I felt uneducated. Now, I feel knowledgeable of how to differentiate my instruction for various disabilities.”

8. “Before the coursework and field experience, I had not had any exposure to students with disabilities. I never considered what it would be like to teach and be around students with disabilities. I am so thankful that this program requires SPED hours in the field because I now realize how much I enjoyed being with these students.”

Discussion Not surprisingly, quantitative results indicated that preservice teachers’ with a higher level of comfort working with students with disabilities had a greater interest in teaching primarily in special education classrooms. This finding supports other research (Forlin, Earle, Loreman, & Sharma, 2011; Loreman, Earle, Sharma, & Forlin, 2007) citing the need for teacher preparation programs to develop positive sentiments, or increased comfort levels, towards children with disabilities in order to graduate teachers prepared to teach special education.

The only category of disability where increased knowledge was related to preservice teachers’ greater interest in teaching primarily in special education classrooms was Physical/Health Disabilities. This could be attributed to the large amount of information related to the wide variety of disabilities in this category.

In the qualitative phase of the study, participants identified field experience as the most influential factor regarding their interest in teaching special education. These findings corroborate previous support for the view that the quality and amount of field experiences are critical for preparing preservice teachers to meet the needs of all students (Cochran-Smith, 2000; Gentry, 2012; Kent & Giles, 2016). Similarly, Bain and Hasio (2011) found that authentic experiences in classrooms with children with disabilities resulted in preservice teachers’ increased flexibility and patience along with opportunities to examine one’s own belief system about students with disabilities, discover how to work with diverse groups of students, and learn to differentiate their instruction for students with different levels and rates of learning.

Although a significant change in means did not occur between the preservice teachers’ interest in primarily teaching special education from the beginning to the end of their initial coursework and field experience in the dual certification program, some interesting results were obtained. First, findings were consistent with those of DeSutter and LeMire (2016) implying that among preservice teachers who are not interested in teaching special education, initial experiences in special education does not seem to make a substantial impact in their interest in becoming 122

special educators. Results from the current study, however, suggest that for individuals who may be undecided about pursuing a career in special education, introductory coursework and field experience with students with disabilities may have been a positive influence. At the end of the semester, 11 more preservice teachers indicated an interest in teaching special education than at the beginning of coursework and field experience in special education. Although not statistically significant, these results are encouraging and may indicate progress toward filling the current shortage of teachers in the area of special education. It is recommended that further research follow these participants to monitor their interest in becoming special educators as they progress through their program and to determine how many actually accept positions in special education upon graduation.

Another important consideration is that the majority of teacher preparation programs for general educators currently require minimal preparation in the skills needed to effectively educate students with disabilities (U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2009). The quantitative and qualitative findings in this study provide support that field experience with individuals with disabilities has a positive impact on preservice teachers’ interest in becoming special educators.

Teacher preparation programs, therefore, should not only provide early experiences working with students with disabilities to prepare them for inclusive practices, but also to provide preservice teachers the opportunity to consider a career in special education (Zhang et al., 2014).

As in all studies, certain limitations should be acknowledged. Participants were a fairly homogenous, convenience sample of elementary preservice teacher from one university, thus, limiting the generalizability of the findings. Additionally, data were collected through self-report using a researcher developed instrument that was not validated. While participants remained anonymous, the limitations of self-report data have been noted (Sallis & Saelens, 2000).

Participants’ tendency to present a favorable image of themselves, known as socially desirable reporting, could also obscure the relationships between variables (van de Mortel, 2008). The lack of a comparison group is another a limitation in that there is no basis to assess if the results found in this study would be consistent with the results of other teacher preparation programs that do not provide coursework and experiences in both general education and special education practices.

This study identified some factors that may have contributed to preservice teachers’ decision to pursue a career in special education. More research is needed to understand and determine additional factors that contribute to individuals choosing to become special education teachers as well as to identify effective practices for recruiting more individuals interested in teaching special education. Teacher preparation programs need to provide all teachers, regardless of certification area, with the knowledge and skills necessary to meet the diverse needs of all students to facilitate the new and expanded roles of general education teachers regarding inclusive education. Instruction and field experience focused on teaching students with special needs during initial teacher training is beneficial to increase preservice teachers’ knowledge of and comfort level regarding students with disabilities and provides the opportunity to consider a career in special education.

123

References Aksamit, D. L. (1990). Practicing teachers' perceptions of their preservice preparation for mainstreaming. Teacher Education and Special Education, 13(1), 21-29. doi:10.1177/088840649001300104 Armstrong, R. A. (2014). When to use the Bonferroni correction. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, 34, 502-508. doi:10.1111/opo.12131 Bain, C., & Hasio, C. (2011). Authentic learning experience prepares pre-service students to teach art to children with special needs. Art Education, 33-39.

Beacham, N., & Rouse, M. (2011). Student teachers’ attitudes and beliefs about inclusion and inclusive practice. Journal of Research in Special Needs, 12(1), 3-11. doi:10.1111/j.14713802.2010.01194.x Billingsley, B. S. (2004). Special education teacher retention and attrition: A critical analysis of the research literature. The Journal of Special Education, 38(1), 39-55. doi:10.1177/00224669040380010401 Boe, E., & Cook, L. H. (2006). The chronic and increasing shortage of fully certified teachers in special and general education. Exceptional Children, 72(4), 443-460. doi:10.1177/001440290607200404 Boe, E. E., Cook, L. H., & Sunderland, R. J. (2008). Teacher turnover: Examining exit attrition, teacher area transfer, and school migration. Exceptional Children, 75, 7-31. doi:10.1177/001440290807500101 Brownell, M., Sindelar, P., Bishop, A., Langley, L., & Seo, S. (2003). Special education teacher supply and teacher quality: Problems and solutions for states, districts, and schools. In J.L. Dow & R. B. Webb (Eds.), Quality education for Florida’s children: The president’s symposium on teacher quality, retention, and recruitment (pp. 56-61). Gainesville: College of Education, University of Florida.

Cochran-Smith, M. (2000). The future of teacher education: Framing the questions that matter.

Teaching Education, 11(1), 13-24. doi:10.1080/10476210050020327 Connelly, V., & Graham, S. (2009). Student teaching and teacher attrition in special education.

Teacher Education and Special Education, 32(3), 257-269. doi:10.1177/0888406409339472 DeSutter, K. L., & LeMire, S. D. (2016). Exploring the special education versus regular education decisions of future teachers in the rural Midwest. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 35(4), 3-9. doi:10.1177/875687051603500402 Dransfield, D. (2014). The effect of a single introductory special education course on the attitudes of prospective teachers toward inclusion (Doctoral dissertation). Kent, OH: Kent State University. Retrieved from https://etd.ohiolink.edu/!etd.send_file?accession=kent1396354646&disposition=inline Emery, D. W., & Vandenberg, B. (2010). Special education teacher burnout and ACT. International Journal of Special Education, 25(3), 119-131.

Fish, W. W., & Stephens, T. L. (2009). Special education: A career of choice. Remedial and Special Education, 31(5), 400-407. doi:10.1177/0741932509355961 Forlin, C., Earle, C., Loreman, T., & Sharma, U. (2011). The sentiments, attitudes, and concerns about inclusive education revised (SACIE-R) scale for measuring pre-service teachers’ perceptions about inclusion. Exceptionality Education International, 21(3), 50-65.

124

Frattura, E. M., & Topinka, C. (2006). Theoretical underpinnings of separate educational programs: The social justice challenge continues. Education & Urban Society, 38(3), 327-344. doi:10.1177/0013124506287032 Gentry, R. (2012). Clinical experience for teacher candidates: Taking preparation beyond the four walls. Research in Higher Education Journal, 15, 1–13.

Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational evaluation and policy analysis, 11(3), 255-274. doi:10.2307/1163620 Hanson, W. E., Creswell, J. W., Clark, V. L. P., Petska, K. S., & Creswell, J. D. (2005). Mixed methods research designs in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52 (2), 224. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.224 Katsiyannis, A., Zhang, D., & Conroy, M. A. (2003). Availability of special education teachers: Trends and issues. Remedial and special education, 24(4), 246-253. doi:10.1177/07419325030240040701 Kent, A. M., & Giles, R. M. (2016). Dual certification in general and special education: What is the role of field experience in preservice teacher preparation? The Professional Educator, 40(2). Retrieved from http://wp.auburn.edu/educate/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/kent-fall_16.pdf Leko, M. M., Brownell, M. T., Sindelar, P. T., & Kiely, M. T. (2015). Envisioning the future of special education personnel preparation in a standards-based era. Exceptional Children, 85(1), 25-43. doi:10.1177/0014402915598782 Loreman, T., Earle, C., Sharma, U., & Forlin, C. (2007). The development of an instrument for measuring pre-service teachers’ sentiments, attitudes, and concerns about inclusive education. International Journal of Special Education, 22(2), 150-159.

Mainzer, R.W., Mainzer, K.L. Slavin, R.E., & Lowry, E. (1993). What special education teachers should know about cooperative learning. Teacher Education and Special Education, 16(1), 42-50. doi:10.1177/088840649301600107 McLeskey, J., & Billingsley, B. S. (2008). How does the quality and stability of the teaching force influence the research-to-practice gap? A perspective on the teacher shortage in special education. Remedial and Special Education, 29(5), 293-305. doi:10.1177/0741932507312010 McLeskey, J. M., Rosenberg, M. S., & Westling, D. L. (2012). Inclusion: Effective practices for all students. Pearson Higher Ed. McLeskey, J., Tyler, N., & Flippin, S. S. (2004). The supply of and demand for special education teachers: A review of research regarding the nature of the chronic shortage of special education teachers. The Journal of Special Education, 38(1), 5-21. doi:10.1177/00224669040380010201 Miller, M. D., Brownell, M., & Smith, S. W. (1999). Factors that predict teachers staying in, leaving, or transferring from the special education classroom. Exceptional Children, 65, 201–218. doi:10.1177/001440299906500206 Montrosse, B. E., & Young, C. J. (2012). Market demand for special education faculty. Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, 35, 140-153. doi:10.1177/0888406412444763 Nougaret, A. A., Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (2005). Does teacher education produce better special education teachers? Exceptional Children, 71(3), 217-229. doi:10.1177/001440290507100301 125

Perneger, T. V. (1998). What's wrong with Bonferroni adjustments? BMJ, 316, 1236-1238. doi:10.1136/bmj.316.7139.1236 Sallis, J. F., & Saelens, B. E. (2000). Assessment of physical activity by self-report: Status, limitations, and future directions. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 71(2), 1-14. doi:10.1080/02701367.2000.11082780 Sharma, U., Shaukat, S., & Furlonger, B. (2014). Attitudes and self-efficacy of pre-service teachers towards inclusion in Pakistan. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 15(2), 97â&#x20AC;&#x201C;105. doi: 10.1111/1471-3802.12071 Sindelar, P. T., Dewey, J. F., Rosenberg, M. S., Corbett, N. L., Denslow, D., & Lotfinia, B. (2012). Cost effectiveness of alternative route special education teacher preparation.

Exceptional Children, 79(1), 25-42. doi:10.1177/001440291207900102 Stephens, T., & Fish, W. (2010). Motivational factors toward pursuing a career in special education. Education, 130(4), 581-594.

Sutcher, L., Darling-Hammond, L., & Carver-Thomas, D. (2016). A coming crisis in teaching?

Teacher supply, demand, and shortages in the US. Washington, DC: Learning Policy Institute. Available at: https://learningpolicyinstitute. org/sites/default/files/productfiles/A_Coming_Crisis_in_Teaching_REPORT. pdf.

Thornton, B., Peltier, G., & Medina, R. (2007). Reducing the special education teacher shortage.

The Clearing House, 80, 233-238.

U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2009, July). Teacher preparation. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09573.pdf van de Mortel, T. F. (2008). Faking it: Social desirability response bias in self-report research. The Australian Journal of Nursing, 25(4), 40-48.

Zhang, D., Wang, Q., Losinski, M., & Katsiyannis, A. (2013). An Examination of Preservice Teachersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Intentions to Pursue Careers in Special Education. Journal of Teacher Education, 65(2), 156-171. doi:10.1177/0022487113510743

126

About the Authors Linda M. Reeves, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor of Special Education in the College of Education and Professional Studies at the University of South Alabama. She has worked over 25 years as a special education teacher, autism specialist, and behavior specialist. She earned her Ph. D. in Special Education with an emphasis in emotional and behavioral problems at the University of Arizona. Dr. Reeves specializes in the areas of autism, behavior analysis, and positive behavioral support.

Rebecca M. Giles, Ph.D., is a Professor in the Department of Leadership and Teacher Education at the University of South Alabama in Mobile, AL where she coordinates graduate programs in Elementary Education, Early Childhood Education, and Teacher Leader. Her research interests include educating young children, literacy, and teacher preparation.

Todd Johnson, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor of Special Education at the University of South Alabama. Prior to coming to USA, Dr. Johnson was a high school teacher in Fairfax County, VA for nine years, teaching Geometry and Chemistry to students with and without disabilities and overseeing a caseload of students with emotional disabilities. Dr. Johnson earned his Ph.D. in Education from George Mason University, with a focus on Special Education and Research Methods.

127

APPENDIX A PRE-POST SEMESTER SURVEY 1. Are you interested primarily in teaching students in special education classrooms? ___ yes ___ no ___ undecided 2. Rate your current knowledge of the following disabilities: no knowledge

somewhat knowledgeable

no opinion

knowledgeable

very knowledgeable

Intellectual Disabilities Physical/Health Disabilities Low Incidence/Multiple Disabilities Learning Disabilities Behavior Disorders Autism Spectrum Disorders Communication Disorders Deaf and Hearing Loss Blind and Low Vision Giftedness 3. Rate your current comfort level in working with students with the following disabilities: not comfortable

somewhat comfortable

Intellectual Disabilities Physical/Health Disabilities Low Incidence/Multiple Disabilities Learning Disabilities Behavior Disorders Autism Spectrum Disorders Communication Disorders Deaf and Hearing Loss Blind and Low Vision Giftedness

128

no opinion neutral

comfortable

very comfortable

What’s in a Name? One Canadian Province’s Interpretations of Inclusion and Inclusive Education Ken Reimer, Ph.D. University of Winnipeg (Canada)

Abstract There is strong support for inclusion and inclusive education in Canada. While the definitions of ‘inclusion’ and ‘inclusive education’ are essentially similar across Canada, the Province of Manitoba’s Department of Education has some unique perspectives about these terms. Using Levy’s (2010) critical thinking tool, the “Point of Critical Distinction” (PCD), this paper examines the variety of similarities and differences in perceptions of these terms. Specifically, the author compares and contrasts the Manitoba Department of Education’s understanding with other definitions. Based on this analysis, the characteristics of the Manitoba Department of Education’s interpretation of ‘inclusion’ and ‘inclusive education’ are highlighted.

Keywords: inclusion, inclusive education, Canada, Manitoba, province, schools

What’s In a Name? One Canadian Province’s Interpretations of Inclusion and Inclusive Education Internationally, nationally, and provincially, there is strong support for inclusion and inclusive education (Alberta, 2010; British Columbia, 2011; Manitoba, 2006; Newfoundland & Labrador, 2013; Ontario, 2009; UNESCO, 2008). While most Canadian provinces generally share similar interpretations of these terms (Alberta, 2010; British Columbia, 2011; Manitoba, 2006; Newfoundland & Labrador, 2013; Ontario, 2009), there are also some unique perspectives of what the terms ‘inclusion’ and ‘inclusive education’ actually mean. Berry (2011) went so far as to say that, “shared definition and standardized models of inclusion do not exist, and so practical and conceptual confusions continue” (p.628).

In Canada, many provinces have devoted significant time and energy scrutinizing the terms ‘inclusion’ and ‘inclusive education’. The Province of Manitoba’s Department of Education is no exception. A closer examination of the Manitoba Department of Education’s interpretation of inclusion may help to better understand what inclusion and inclusive education really means to the current educator. In order to clarify what the Manitoba Department of Education considers to be inclusive education, the following framework for this article was chosen.

The primary tool used for comparing, contrasting, and critically evaluating the Manitoba Department of Education’s definition of inclusive education with other provincially legislated definitions will be the “point of critical distinction” or PCD from Levy’s (2010) Tools of Critical Thinking. Levy (2010) stated that when comparing any two phenomena, they will initially match in their mutual similarities. At some point, however, there will be a “fork in the road where the 129

phenomena will differ” (p.40). He referred to this juncture as a “point of critical distinction (PCD), before which the phenomena are similar, and after which they are different” (p.40). He further stated that, in order to gain a comprehensive understanding of their relationship, we should examine the variables that appear before the PCD and after the PCD, with “particular attention to the PCD itself” (p.41). For the purposes of this review, similar phenomena between several different interpretations of inclusion and inclusive education will first be highlighted.

Second, the points of critical distinction between the Manitoba Department of Education’s definition and other selected provincial and international definitions will be identified. Third, the five characteristics of the Manitoba Department of Education’s interpretation of inclusive education will be featured.

Similarities First, it is apparent from that many interpretations of inclusive education share the same distinction in that they use the word, ‘all’. The Manitoba Department of Education’s Standards (2006a) is quick to use the word, stating that it is, “committed to fostering inclusion for all people” (p.1), and that inclusion “provide[s] the foundation for a richer future for all of us” (p.1).

The United Nations (2008) also highlights ‘all’, stating that inclusive education referred to providing a, “high-quality education for all learners” (p.5). Crawford (2004) stated that inclusive education should ensure the “fullest possible development of all learners’ human potential” (p.6).

British Columbia Special Education Services: A Manual of Policies, Procedures and Guidelines (2011) states that “Inclusion describes the principle that all students are entitled to equitable access to learning” (p.vi.). Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Education (2013) note that inclusive education “embraces all students”. Ontario’s Ministry of Education (2009) stated that inclusive education is, “Education that is based on the principles of acceptance and inclusion of all students… and all individuals are respected” (p.6). Moran’s (2007) definition describes inclusive education as the “entitlement of all children and young people to quality education” (p.120).

Second, the different interpretations each seem to positively view diversity. The Manitoba Department of Education (2006) states that in inclusive schools, “All students come from diverse backgrounds and want their differences to be respected” (p.5). The United Nations (2008) stated that inclusive education, “welcomes diversity amongst all learners” (p.5). Moran’s (2007) interpretation highlights “diversity” (p.120) as a core value of inclusion, and Crawford (2004) noted that inclusion supports learners with, “their diversity and exceptionalities” (p.6). The Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Education (2013) believes that, “In an inclusive culture, diverse experiences, perspectives and gifts are seen to enrich the school community”.

Third, equitable access to learning is highlighted as an essential component of each interpretation. The Manitoba Department of Education (2006) states that, “an inclusive community provides meaningful involvement and equal access to the benefits of citizenship” (p.

1). Moran’s (2007) definition of inclusion includes, “Embracing educational values of equity” (p.120). The British Columbia Department of Education (2011) notes that, “Inclusion describes the principle that all students are entitled to equitable access to learning” (p.v.). Newfoundland and Labrador’s Department of Education (2013) believes that, “An inclusive culture starts from the premise that everyone in the school – students, educators, administrators, support staff and parents – should feel that they belong, realize their potential, and contribute to the life of the 130

school” (para.7). Ontario’s Department of Education uses the terms “inclusion” and “equity” interchangeably, defining equity as, “A condition or state of fair, inclusive, and respectful treatment of all people. Equity does not mean treating people the same without regard for individual differences” (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2009, p.6). Further, Ontario’s Department defines inclusive education as, “Education that is based on the principles of acceptance and inclusion of all students. Students see themselves reflected in their curriculum, their physical surroundings, and the broader environment, in which diversity is honored and all individuals are respected” (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2009, p.6).

The preceding analysis of different interpretations of inclusion and inclusive education concludes that Manitoba’s interpretation shares the following similarities with other versions.

1. Inclusive education is meant to benefit all children and youth.

2. Diversity among learners is a positive phenomenon that should be honored.

3. Inclusion and equity are invariably linked.

Points of Critical Distinction (PCD) The most significant point of critical distinction (PCD) between the Manitoba Department of Education’s (2006) definition and other interpretations centers around whether or not inclusive education means that all students are taught in the same classroom, and with the same curriculum, as their peers.

The PCD of concise interpretation. Early on, Manitoba’s Standards for Student Services (2006a) expresses the following promise: (The Manitoba Department of Education) is committed to fostering inclusion for all people. Inclusion is a way of thinking and acting that allows every individual to feel accepted, valued and safe. An inclusive community consciously evolves to meet the changing needs of its members. Through recognition and support, an inclusive community provides meaningful involvement and equal community. By working together, we strengthen our capacity to provide the foundation for a richer future for all of us (p.

1).

While this interpretation is eloquently written, it does not seem to take a clear stand as to whether or not inclusive education is synonymous with ‘same class and same curriculum as peers’. One might argue that the Manitoba Department of Education definition is less concise than others.

For example, The Manitoba Department of Education (2006) further asserts that an “inclusive community provides meaningful involvement and equal access to the benefits of citizenship” (p.1), but this statement is somewhat ambiguous. What do the authors mean by the term ‘citizens’? Does this mean that all students are citizens of the country, or the school, or of the neighborhood? Where might one find a specific list of the “benefits” entitled, so that we can accurately ensure that all community members have been fairly treated? Are these benefits protected by law?

131

For this reason, the open-endedness and flexibility of the Manitoba Department of Education’s interpretation of inclusive education more closely resembles the United Nations’ (2008), the Ontario Department of Education (2009), and Moran’s (2007) broad interpretations. For example, the United Nations (2008) states, “Inclusion is still thought of in some countries as an approach to serving children with disabilities within general educational settings. Internationally, however, it is increasingly seen more broadly as a reform that supports and welcomes diversity amongst all learners” (UNESCO, 2008, p. 5).

The Ontario Department of Education’s (2009) definition of inclusive education is equally broad, referring to it as, “Education that is based on the principles of acceptance and inclusion of all students. Students see themselves reflected in their curriculum, their physical surroundings, and the broader environment, in which diversity is honored and all individuals are respected” (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2009, p.6).

Finally, Moran’s (2007) definition could also be labeled as fluid in nature, stating that inclusive education is the “entitlement of all children and young people to quality education, irrespective of their differences, dispositions or disabilities and is about embracing educational values of equity, diversity and social justice” (p.120).

The Manitoba Department of Education’s laws do provide some guidelines for “appropriate programming”. These guidelines are located in Manitoba’s Public Schools Act and in the Education Administration Act. The most significant piece of legislation guiding inclusive special education in Manitoba is the Public Schools Amendment Act (Appropriate Educational Programming), which was proclaimed on October 28, 2005. This act reflects: Manitoba’s commitment to providing all students with appropriate programming that supports student participation in both the academic and social life of schools. The legislation and regulations affirm what many school divisions already practice and clarify for parents and school divisions the obligation to provide appropriate educational programming for each student (Standards for Student Services, 2006a, p. 1).

The Manitoba Department of Education seems to more strongly promote appropriate educational programming as students learning in the same classroom. Manitoba’s Standards for Student Services (2006) dictates that, “School boards are required to provide each resident and enrolled student with adequate school accommodation, and are required to provide access to appropriate educational programming for all students within their schools. Appropriate educational programming for most students is the provincial curriculum (p.3)” Manitoba’s Standards (2006) also states that, “The first and foremost consideration in the placement of all students is the right to attend the designated catchment school for their residence in a regular classroom with their peers or in a program designated by the school board if the school does not provide it” (p.9).

A closer inspection of other interpretations, however, suggests that the Manitoba Department of Education’s language does not mandate that every student be in the regular education classroom regardless of age and grade level. For example, let us review a section of Crawford’s (2004) definition of inclusive education, which Timmons and Wagner (2010) described as ‘robust’ (p.16): 132

Arrangements that ensure that teachers have the instructional and other supports to welcome and include all learners, in all of their diversity and exceptionalities, in the regular classroom, in the neighborhood school with their age peers” (p.6).

In contrast to both the Manitoba Department of Education’s more “open-ended” interpretation and Crawford’s “robust” definition, Newfoundland and Labrador’s Department of Education (2013) interpretation explicitly states their beliefs that inclusion means attending neighborhood schools, but does not necessarily imply that every student needs to be taught in the regular education classroom, but rather: The Department of Education promotes the basic right of all students to attend their neighborhood schools with their peers, and receive appropriate and quality programming in inclusive school environments. Such inclusive education involves much more than just student placement. It embraces all students – not just those with identified exceptionalities – and involves everything that happens within the school community: culture, policies, and practices. For students with exceptionalities, inclusive education does not mean that every student is required or expected to be in the regular classroom 100% of the time. Some students, whether for medical, academic, social or emotional reasons, need to be taken out periodically in order for their needs to be met.

(Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Education, 2013).

Although located on the opposite side of Canada, the British Columbia Department of Education’s operational definition of inclusive education is most similar to Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Education’s (2013) definition. That is, it is careful to differentiate between ‘inclusion’ and ‘integration’. British Columbia’s Manual (2011) states, “Inclusion describes the principle that all students are entitled to equitable access to learning, achievement and the pursuit of excellence in all aspects of their education. The practice of inclusion is not necessarily synonymous with integration and goes beyond placement to include meaningful participation and the promotion of interaction with others” (p. v). Still, the British Columbia Department of Education’s (2011) policy posits that, “Integration is one of the major strategies used to achieve inclusion (p. vi).

Additionally, the British Columbia Department of Education’s Manual (2011) maintains that a school board must ensure that a principal consults with a parent of a child who has special needs regarding the student's placement in a school, but is quick to indicate that the child may not be in a regular education classroom. For example, the British Columbia Department of Education’s Manual (2011) states, “The emphasis on educating students with special needs in neighborhood school classrooms with their age and grade peers, however, does not preclude the appropriate use of resource rooms, self-contained classes, community-based programs, or specialized settings” (pp. 2-3).

The Ontario Department of Education also noted that inclusion did not necessarily mean full integration, stating, “Students with special education needs also have complex and unique educational requirements. While most students with special education needs are integrated into regular classrooms, provincial and demonstration schools offer specialized programs for others” (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2009, pp.14-15). While all provinces come to the same 133

consensus that all students have the right to attend their neighborhood schools, the Manitoba Department of Education’s seems to more strongly promote appropriate educational programming as students learning in the same classroom.

One could draw several different conclusions as to whether the Manitoba Department of Education’s definition is better than the others. Provinces like British Columbia, Ontario, and Newfoundland and Labrador could be credited for attempting to clearly differentiate the term inclusion from integration, thereby providing a more concise interpretation for all stakeholders involved. Although Crawford’s (2004) interpretation would be in opposition of the aforementioned definitions, it is similar in terms of taking a precise stance and reducing “wiggle room”. From a legal perspective, these “black and white” definitions provide schools, school boards, and parents with very specific parameters as to what inclusion is and what it isn’t. In this case, such a conclusion would mean that the Manitoba Department of Education’s definition is far more open to interpretation, might cause confusion, and could be viewed as nebulous. The Manitoba Department of Education’s definition might then be perceived as one that at first glance is emotionally attractive, but ultimately lacks a clear, pragmatic interpretation required to guide educational policy and practice.

An alternative conclusion that one might draw is that Crawford’s (2004) choice to mandate the same classes for all learners, and British Columbia’s and Newfoundland and Labrador’s Departments of Education decision to differentiate inclusion from integration, both are guilty of creating too limiting a definition. That is, Crawford’s (2004) interpretation could be viewed as too rigid because it focuses excessively on the physical “place” (Dyson, 1999, p.49) where the student is placed within the school, and does not allow for the necessary flexibility that children, their families, and teachers feel they require, potentially stifling creative and sophisticated alternatives. For example, Crawford’s interpretation stated that inclusive education must “include all learners, in all of their diversity and exceptionalities, in the regular classroom, in the neighborhood school with their age peers” (p.6). Crawford’s (2004) interpretation is aligned with Idol’s (2006) assertion that, “Inclusion means 100% time placement in general education. There is no such thing as partial inclusion” (p.77).

On the opposite side of the spectrum, the Departments of Education in British Columbia, Ontario, and Newfoundland and Labrador’s may have chosen interpretations that too easily absolve schools of their responsibilities to try and include students into a regular school day, in regular education classrooms, with peers of similar ages and diverse abilities. As a result, schools are simply assigned the much less challenging task of requiring that all students be allowed to attend neighborhood schools, but can still be excluded from some classrooms within that school.

Whatever the conclusion, it is safe to say that these differences in interpretations between them and the Manitoba Department of Education are significant and noteworthy.

There is evidence that parents of students with special needs are not necessarily averse to having options for what constitutes “appropriate programming”. Recently, Manitoba Association for Community Living (MACL) (2009) reviewed inclusive education in Manitoba as part of a global forum on inclusive education, in Salamanca, Spain. This review consisted of a parent survey on inclusive education, profiling four Manitoba schools from elementary, middle, and high school years, and a review by Manitoba Education on progress in inclusive education over the past 10 134

years. Its findings were largely based on a caregiver survey that provided an overview of how 46 parents of elementary, middle-years, and senior high school aged students reported their experiences with the education system. The majority of those who completed the survey were mothers, with some fathers and grandparents completing the survey on behalf of others.

Interestingly, while some respondents to MACL’s (2009) review continued to ask for increased integration and appropriate social skill development, there was still a call to maintain the ability to provide supports in a specialized setting for students who have multiple, complex needs.

Based on the review presented in this paper, the preceding analysis of different interpretations of inclusion and inclusive education concludes that Manitoba’s interpretation possesses the following characteristics.

1. Inclusive education is meant to benefit all children and youth 2. Diversity among learners is a positive phenomenon that should be honored.

3. Inclusion and equity are invariably linked.

4. All students should learn in their neighborhood schools.

5. Appropriate educational programming for all students is emphasized, with the ideal (but not compulsory) choice being that students learn in the same classroom as their same-aged peers.

Inclusion is an exquisite term, but it is also complex and imprecise one. It is apparent from the preceding analysis of Manitoba Education’s interpretation that many of Canada’s provinces have given the concepts of inclusion and its application to education a great deal of thought and attention. While the definitions of ‘inclusion’ and ‘inclusive education’ are similar in many ways across Canada, each province also shares unique perspectives about these terms. It would be interesting if a similar analysis were to take place in the United States. Perhaps this process would ultimately lead to a better understanding of the terms and their applications within our schools.

References Berry, R. (2011): Voices of experience: general education teachers on teaching students with disabilities. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 15(6), 627-648.

British Columbia Ministry of Education. (2009). Individual Education Planning for Students with Special Needs: A Resource Guide for Teachers. Victoria, BC: Author.

British Columbia Ministry of Education. (2011). Special Education Services: A Manual of Policies, Procedures and Guidelines. Victoria, BC: Author.

British Columbia Office of the Auditor General. (2011). Summary Report: Results of Completed Projects. Retrieved August 28, 2012 from www.bcauditor.com Community Living Manitoba (2009). Community Living Manitoba: A Review of Progress Toward Appropriate Education for All. Prepared for the Global Conference on Inclusive Education, University of Salamanca, Spain, October 21-23, 2009.

135

Crawford, C. (2004). Inclusive Education in Canada - Key Issues and Directions for the Future.

Toronto: Roeher Institute.

Dyson, A. (1999). Inclusion and inclusions: Theories and discourses in inclusive education. In World Yearbook of Education 1999: Inclusive education, ed. H. Daniels and P. Garner, 36–53. London: Kogan Page.

Government of Alberta (2010). Education Business Plan 2010-2013. Retrieved March 6, 2013 from http://education.alberta.ca/media/1213923/20100122educationbusinessplan.pdf Idol, L. (2006). Toward inclusion of special education: Students in general education. Remedial and Special Education, 27(2), 77–94 Levy, D. (2010). Tools of Critical Thinking: Metathoughts for Psychology (2nd ed). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press Inc. Manitoba Education, Citizenship and Youth (2006). Appropriate Education Programming in Manitoba: Standards for Student Services. Winnipeg, MB: Author.

Manitoba Education, Citizenship and Youth. (2006a). Appropriate educational programming in Manitoba: A formal dispute resolution process. Winnipeg, MB: Author.

Manitoba Education, Citizenship and Youth. (2006b). Appropriate educational programming: A handbook for student services. Winnipeg, MB: Author.

Moran, A. (2007, June). Embracing inclusive teacher education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 30(2), 119-134. Retrieved January 17, 2013.

Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Education. (2013). Inclusive School Culture.

Retrieved December 23, 2012 from http://www.ed.gov.nl.ca/edu/k12/inclusion.html Office of the Auditor General of Manitoba (2012). Annual Report to the Legislature. Winnipeg, MB: Author.

Office of the Auditor General of British Columbia (2011). Summary Report: Results o Completed Projects. Victoria, BC: Author.

Oluwole, J. (2009). A Principal’s Dilemma: Full Inclusion or Student’s Best Interests?

Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership. 12(1), 12-25.

Ontario Department of Education. (2009). Realizing the Potential of Diversity: Ontario’s Equity and Inclusive Education Policy. Retrieved December 23, 2012 from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/policyfunding/equity.pdf Timmons, V, and Wagner, M. (2010). Inclusive Education Knowledge Exchange Initiative: An Analysis of the Statistics Canada Participation and Activity Limitation Survey. Canadian Council on Learning. Toronto.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (2008). Inclusive education: The way of the future. UNESCO International Conference on Education, November 25–28. Geneva: Author.

136

About the Author Ken Reimer, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor at the University of Winnipeg (Canada). Prior to this, he had a twenty-five year career in Canadaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s public school system. This included positions as a mainstream, special education, and resource teacher, guidance counselor, and school principal in six different schools in two different school divisions. Dr. Reimer holds a PhD in Education from the University of Manitoba. His primary research interests have focused on inclusive special education, school leadership, creativity, educational policy, graduation rates, atrisk learners, and teacher collaboration. He has served as President of the Manitoba Council for Exceptional Children. Dr. Reimer has taught at the University of Winnipeg (Canada), University of Manitoba (Canada), and guest lectured at North-Caucasus Federal University (Russia). He has presented papers at several different provincial, national, and international conference sites.

137

Using the Core-Selective Evaluation Process to Identify a PSW: Integrating Research, Practice, and Policy Edward K. Schultz, Ph.D. Midwestern State University Tammy L. Stephens-Pisecco, Ph.D.

Abstract Much controversy and debate have surrounded the appropriate assessment processes of a specific learning disability (SLD). With the movement away from using discrepancy models, many “third methods” of evaluation have developed. Most models developed surrounded the identification of an individual’s patterns of strengths and weaknesses (PSW). Consequently, the purpose of this article is twofold: 1) discuss the various PSW models available, and 2) introduce the Core-Selective Evaluation Process (C-SEP) model; highlighting the characteristics and benefits of using the model for SLD identification.

Using the Core-Selective Evaluation Process to Identify a PSW: Integrating Research, Practice, and Policy Since the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA) and the subsequent U.S. Department of Education Final Regulations and Commentary regarding implementation of IDEA (34 CFR Parts 300 and 301; Federal Register, 2006), the issue of specific learning disabilities (SLD) identification continues to be a source of much debate. A decade of policy and practice debate, numerous innovative procedures to identify SLD using a pattern of strengths and weaknesses (PSW), response-to-intervention (RTI), and to some degree discrepancy approaches have failed to bring consensus to what is the best method of SLD identification. The following paper will highlight significant points of the debate, briefly describe the various SLD-PSW methods introduced to the field, and propose an alternative SLD-PSW identification process, specifically the Core-Selective Evaluation Process (C-SEP). The C-SEP is designed to comprehensively and efficiently identify SLD and is compatible with all federal and state regulations. It is considered a psychoeducational approach with a particular emphasis on using norm-referenced tests in a manner which reduces overestimating the effects of cognitive deficits on academic performance (Flanagan & Schneider, 2016) and sound professional judgment (Schultz & Stephens, 2009).

School psychologists and educational diagnosticians have traditionally been tasked as the primary data interpreter and decision-maker for SLD evaluations because of their specialized training in psychometrics and cognitive psychology. The identification of any disability does not solely fall upon the school psychologist or educational diagnostician but rather a “group of qualified professionals and the parent(s) of the child.” The ideas presented may broaden the lens in which PSW-SLD identification is viewed by a) considering policy and practice, b) teaching and learning, c) using a variety of assessment tools and strategies, and d) the role of language in identification.

138

Issues Concerning the PSW Debate The best way to operationalize and identify SLD has been debated for decades. Over the course of the last 30 years, the debate has ranged from the effectiveness and utility of the IQachievement discrepancy procedures (Francis, Fletcher, Stuebing, Lyon, Shaywitz, & Shaywitz, 2005; Gresham & Vellutino, 2010) to the role of response-to-intervention (RTI) in the identification process (Buttner & Hasselhorn, 2011; Kavale, Kauffman, Bachmeier, & LeFever, 2008; Kavale & Spaulding, 2008; Lindstrom & Sayeski, 2013). As “third method” approaches have emerged and been enacted at the policy and practice level, the debate on which the PSW model is most effective has been a considerable topic of debate in recent years (Christo, D’Incau, & Ponzuric, 2016; Miller, Jones, & Maricle, 2016; Kranzler, Floyd, Benson, Zaboski, & Thibodaux, 2016; McGill, & Bussse, 2016; Miciak, Fletcher, Stuebing, Vaughn & Tolar, 2014; Stuebing, Fletcher, Branum-Martin, & Francis, 2012). A particular focus of PSW models is presented as a considerable body of literature regarding the limitations of both IQ-achievement and RTI approaches (Lindstrom & Sayeski, 2013) are well documented. In addition, it is the authors’ position that several contemporary SLD-PSW models over-rely on norm-referenced standard scores to create a confirming “discrepancy” to identify the presence of SLD. The role and importance of cognitive assessment remain a critical element of SLD identification and the ideas presented are not to discount the role of cognitive functioning and SLD, nor discredit the methods to understand relationships between cognitive functioning and achievement but rather to better contextualize the role of norm-referenced testing when using PSW models.

It is important to recognize all SLD models and policy related to SLD (i.e. RTI) have no doubt contributed to the reduction of SLD rates with an 18% decline in the SLD category since 2002 (Cortiella & Horowitz, 2014) and had moved the field forward to more accurate diagnosis and treatment of students who have SLD. It is equally important, when discussing various SLD identification models issue, to recognize none of the SLD-PSW identification models in practice have a research base which allows them to be considered the “gold standard” method of identification (Stuebing, Fletcher, Branum-Martin, & Francis, 2012). The primary reason is SLDs involve a complex set of interacting variables including biology, genetics, development, quality of teaching, curriculum demands, state and local policy (Cottrell & Barrett, 2016), cognition, language, social competence, academic behavior, co-morbid disorders (i.e., ADHD), family’s educational history, and other sources of data. Consequently, any method which purports to be the most accurate arguably over-simplifies the construct.

Acknowledging the complexity of the SLD construct, the professional literature discussion regarding SLD-PSW models has been narrowly focused on the cognitive aspects of SLD and formula-based methods (Miller, Maricle, & Jones, 2016; Kranzler, Floyd, Benson, Zaboski, & Thibodaux, 2016; McGill, & Bussse, 2016; Miciak, Fletcher, Stuebing, Vaughn, & Tolar, 2014; Stuebing, Fletcher, Branum-Martin, & Francis, 2012). The body of literature regarding SLD identification fails to acknowledge the complexity of the SLD construct adequately, focusing on cognitive explanations and comparisons of statistical models purporting to “identify” SLD. In addition, the PSW debate has been primarily viewed from a “psychological” perspective (e.g., use psychometrics, cognitive processing, role of school psychologist, etc.) with a focus on the cognitive-achievement aspects of the federal SLD definition with less attention paid to the other salient features of the definition, specifically “in using language” and the “imperfect ability to 139

listen, speak, and think.” Integrating other data sources to support decisions is often mentioned, however rarely discussed in much detail. These data sources are underused in both theory and practice (Kwiatek & Schultz, 2014) Schultz, Simpson, and Lynch (2012) describe the PSW approach as characterized by (a) multiple sources of data collected over time using “a variety of assessment tools and strategies”, (b) data analysis grounded in pattern seeking techniques, (c) having predictive and treatment validity, and (d) evidence-based and logical decision making. An essential feature of the PSW framework is the emphasis on the trustworthiness of the information collected by the multiple data sources and the appropriate weighting, use, and consideration of norm-referenced testing. Additionally, “over time” is emphasized as the majority of students referred for testing have several years’ worth of data identifying patterns and trends in academic behavior resulting in the referral question. Data collected “prior to and as part of” the referral allows the interpretation of similar data under different conditions over time. For example, a construct such as math problem solving can be evaluated over time by examining school history related to the referral question, under testing conditions (i.e., statewide tests), in classroom instructional conditions (e.g., work samples, teacher reports, observation), and grouping arrangements (i.e., large or small group instruction or individualized tutoring). Data collected “prior to” the referral becomes “part of”, when fully integrated and considered, within additional data, primarily performance on norm-referenced tests. When assessment data is used deliberately and carefully analyzed, patterns of academic strengths and weaknesses are easily identified and the primary role of norm-referenced testing becomes to understand the underlying psychological processes (including language) and the relationship with the referral question.

Several SLD identification models described in the professional literature, all have features which make them useful to understand the underlying psychological processes and the relationship with the referral question and will be collectively referred to as PSW-Cognitive Models (PSW-COG). The most prevalent models considered “third method” approaches are the Concordance-Discordance Method (C/DM; Fiorello, Hale, & Snyder, 2006; Hale, Wyckoff, & Fiorella, 2011), the Discrepancy/Consistency Method (D/CM; Naglieri, 1999; Naglieri, 2011), Dehn’s processing Approach (Dehn, 2014), and Cross-Battery Assessment (XBA; Flanagan, Ortiz, & Alfonso, 2007). All three models require a statistical discrepancy to identify a student’s profile of PSWs and to examine the relationship between cognitive weaknesses and achievement areas. Technically sound instruments (i.e., norm-referenced tests) and theory-based (e.g., CHC, PASS) cognitive explanations are used to identify SLD once the exclusionary factors are ruled out (Flanagan, Fiorello, & Ortiz, 2010; McGill & Busse, 2016; Schultz et al., 2012; Stuebing et al., 2012). None of these models presented use an IQ-achievement discrepancy. However, measures contributing to an FSIQ or global cognitive scores are used. An FSIQ score is an aggregate score comprised of an individual’s cognitive PSW. The models identified are utilized by administering several cognitive tests beyond the ones required for an FSIQ. These are then separated into “cognitive strengths” and “cognitive weaknesses” and statistically compared to each other and then to “academic weaknesses” as measured by norm-referenced achievement tests (Flanagan et al., 2010).

Dehn (2014) suggests using an integrated PSW model which purports to address some of the psychometric criticisms and enhance diagnostic accuracy. Dehn’s cognitive processing model 140

uses a cross-battery test selection and analysis approach. The approach differs from the other models mentioned because a profile analysis of the psychological processes is conducted rather than a particular standard score discrepancy cut-off. It requires statistically significant intraindividual weakness with at least one cognitive process in the average range. In addition, language, memory, and attention play a more prominent role in the assessment. Like other models discussed, processing deficits must be related to deficit academic skills. Dehn’s model, as well as the XBA approach, requires the transferring of scores into software programs for statistical comparisons when tests from different batteries are used.

Organizing and analyzing norm-referenced cognitive test data makes logical sense as the relationship between cognition and achievement are well documented. A significant body of empirical evidence exists which support the direct relationship between cognitive processing and academic achievement (Decker, Hale, & Flanagan, 2013; Dehn, 2013; Fiorello & Primerano, 2005; Flanagan et al. 2010; Johnson, Humphrey, Mellard, Woods, & Swanson, 2010). In addition, the SLD definition as historically defined was maintained in the most recent reauthorization of IDEA (Cottrell & Barrett, 2016; Kavale, Spaulding, & Beam, 2009; Mather & Gregg, 2006). The SLD definition has included “basic psychological processing” as a salient component since its inception. The majority of professional organizations (National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities, National Center for Learning Disabilities, Learning Disabilities Association of America, and National Association of School Psychologists) dedicated to issues regarding SLD, assert cognitive assessments are a critical part of a comprehensive evaluation (Lindstrom & Sayeski, 2013). It should be noted all the PSW-COG models described stress the importance of using multiple data sources to confirm the presence of SLD. Fletcher, Lyon, Fuchs, & Barnes (2007) propose an SLD identification model considered the “hybrid” approach and markedly differ from PSW-COG. The “hybrid” approach relies on a robust RTI, low achievement, and adhering to exclusionary requirements for the identification of SLD. While cognitive testing and neuropsychological tests can be administered in the “hybrid” model in a limited fashion, the authors cite the lack of evidence using extensive assessments of cognitive, neuropsychological, or intellectual skills contribution to intervention selection or distinguish SLD from low achievers (Fletcher, Denton, & Francis, 2005). In the “hybrid” approach, “inadequate response” to RTI using curriculum-based measurements (CBM) to measure treatment response is a necessary component for SLD identification and arguably the “heart” of the comprehensive assessment.

The PSW-COG approaches have key differences from the approach described in the “hybrid” approach developed by Fletcher et al. (2007). While all models acknowledge the role of RTI and other pre-referral data, the “hybrid” model makes RTI and CBM the “centerpiece” of the evaluation. The “hybrid” method does not rely solely on RTI data solely; however, RTI is the primary basis of diagnosis. SLD identification models reliant upon RTI are criticized for not satisfying the definition of SLD (Hale, Kaufman, Naglieri, & Kavale, 2006; Ofiesh, 2006), the inability to distinguish SLD from low achievement (Kavale et al., 2008), research on RTI has been too narrowly focused on reading, and the professional and case law confusion regarding RTI (Daves & Walker, 2012). Another major difference of the “hybrid” model is the deemphasis on the use of norm-referenced testing whereas the PSW-COG approaches rely on a 141

minimum number of tests which have to be administered to satisfy the formula requirements of the PSW-COG model. The difference stems partly from the belief that cognitive testing can distinguish true “SLD” from “low achievers” (Fletcher, Denton, & Francis, 2005) and the necessity of using PSW-COG versus directly assessing achievement (Miciak, Taylor, Denton, & Fletcher, 2015).

When all these methods are critically evaluated, it is clear the field has moved significantly forward in the last decade due in large part to the development and refinement of innovative “third method” approaches. While the debate will no doubt continue, it is scientifically healthy to scrutinize current practices and look for ways to further refine practices. The remainder of this article will identify some of the general limitations of the current models and suggest an alternative approach (e.g., Core Selective Evaluation Process [C-SEP]) and provide a rationalization for its use.

Limitations of Current Approaches Many sound educational and psychological practices are inherent in all of the PSW-COG models which include: maintaining the definition of SLD, informing treatment, integrating RTI data, and theory-based assessment. However, several limitations also exist, these include: a) over-reliance on norm-referenced tests, standard scores, and statistical formulas, b) overvaluing the effects of cognitive deficits on academic performance, c) dichotomizing continuous variables, and d) limited weight given to other data sources.

Norm-Referenced Testing Individual norm-referenced tests of cognitive testing (e.g., IQ) and achievement have a long history of use in the identification of SLD. The utility of using these tests to identify SLD has been questioned extensively in the professional literature (Buttner & Hasselhorn, 2011; Fletcher, Coulter, Reschly, & Vaughn, 2004; Francis et al., 2005; Gresham & Velluntino, 2010) and has been questioned at the policy level. The IDEA regulations’ commentary states “the Department does not believe an assessment of psychological or cognitive processing should be required in determining whether a child has an SLD” (2006, p. 46651) and “In many cases, though, assessments of cognitive processes simply add to the testing burden and do not contribute to interventions” (IDEA Regulations’ Commentary, 2006, p. 46651). While the department does not provide empirical citations for these statements, it can be noted some current models require administration of 30 or more subtests according to case studies described in the literature (Fiorello, Hale, & Snyder, 2006; Flanagan & Alfonzo, 2017). In the past decade since these comments and with the decline of the IQ-Achievement, cognitive testing has remained a fundamental component in most states (Hauerwas, Brown, & Scott, 2013; Maki, Floyd, & Roberson, 2015) in some capacity. The opinion of whether assessments of cognitive processes “adds to the testing burden” and “do not contribute to interventions” is not universally shared among professionals as evidenced by the number of PSW-COG described in the professional literature.

Cognitive Assessments and Interventions While the Department posits the use of cognitive assessments does not contribute to interventions, the professional literature does not support this statement. Johnson et al. (2010) conducted a meta-analysis of 32 studies to examine cognitive differences among students with 142

SLD. Results of the meta-analysis reported moderate to large effect sizes of variance between students with SLD compared to non-SLD students. Further, these findings support the use of cognitive assessments in the evaluation of SLD, particularly in working memory, processing speed, executive functioning, and expressive/receptive language. Consequently, some research has indicated that identifying these cognitive deficits may lead to better outcomes. Specifically, Fuchs, Hale, and Kearns (2011) highlight the growing body of intervention research concerning cognitively focused approaches to instruction. In their review, the researchers reported data results from carefully selected cognitive assessments included in the evaluation results in a better selection of interventions and programming. The link between identification and intervention is critical for educators to design instruction for the most difficult to teach students. Research has shown cognitively focused instruction may be a viable option for these students. Kearns and Fuchs (2013) reviewed 36 investigations comparing traditional interventions with cognitively focused instruction. Nearly half (16 of the 36 studies) reported positive effects of cognitive interventions. While more research must be conducted, to dismiss and disregard the emerging research in the link between cognitive processing and intervention is at the expense of students who may fail to respond to traditional approaches and may require specialized instruction based on their unique needs.

The concern of cognitive tests adding to the “testing burden” raises some interesting points. The word “burden” implies a “heavy load” and in the context of using individualized normreferenced tests, administering numerous tests can be “burdensome” if the data is not used to inform diagnosis and intervention. The third method approaches require arguably extensive individualized norm-referenced testing to determine the presence of SLD. As mentioned previously, some models require over 30 individualized subtests (Fiorello, Hale, & Snyder, 2006; Flanagan & Alfonzo, 2017) to identify SLD. Absent of any additional data, administering a greater number of tests may be necessary, however, when other data sources are considered (state assessment, RTI data, classroom, etc.), the argument of “testing burden” is valid. In such cases of over testing students, the validity of the test results should be questioned. The administration of 30+ subtests would result in increased levels of fatigue and frustration in some subjects.

While it is not the authors’ purpose to discount these methods in psychometric design or procedures, but rather to illustrate the volume of tests required to determine whether a student has an SLD. From a purely psychological or clinical perspective evaluating performance may require numerous individualized norm-referenced tests, however from a psycho-educational perspective or to meet educational classification criteria, performance must be evaluated using a “variety of tools and strategies” which may include individualized norm-referenced tests. It is important to note “evaluate and assess” do not mean “test” and simple and complex referral questions can be answered using a more deliberate assessment strategy which includes information from a variety of reliable and valid sources. The C-SEP method uses a practical approach to norm-referenced testing while balancing existing data sources, including RTI, with the complexity of the referral question. A description and rationale of the C-SEP model will now be discussed.

143

Core-Selective Evaluation Process (C-SEP) The C-SEP model is defined as a third-method PSW approach to identify specific learning disabilities (SLD). It is characterized as legally defensible, efficient, precise, and comprehensive by measuring all the salient features of SLD. It utilizes data-driven professional judgment process rooted in contemporary Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory and uses an approach to individualized norm-referenced testing that is conducted in a systematic, purposeful and deliberate manner (Schrank, Stephens-Pisecco, & Schultz, 2017; Schultz & Stephens, 2015; Schultz & Stephens, 2017). C-SEP was conceptualized following the release of major revisions and improvements of individualized norm-referenced cognitive, language, and achievement tests.

With the release of the new robust versions of test batteries, a decade of change of SLD identification, and feedback from the field, the C-SEP was created to provide a viable option for identifying SLD. Organizational Framework The C-SEP method is a PSW approach to SLD identification and assumes its application to reflect current federal policy regarding SLD identification, making it legally defensible. Using a PSW approach that is heavily grounded in CHC, C-SEP measures the most prominent features of the SLD definition (i.e., psychological processes, language, and achievement) and the imperfect ability to “listen, think, and speak.” The C-SEP method uses individualized norm-referenced tests in an integrated manner along with a “variety of assessment tools and strategies” and professional judgment. Exclusionary factors are comprehensively assessed and ruled out as the primary cause of the student’s struggles, and data is collected to ensure the student has had appropriate instruction prior to referral. Such data includes data collected during an RTI process “prior to and as part of” the special education referral.

Since C-SEP is a PSW approach, low-achievement patterns can be established without the use of norm-referenced tests. For example, a student with a history of reading struggles, failing grades in reading, and limited progress when given intensive reading instruction has demonstrated a pattern over time, consequently, a logical prediction based on all the data is that unless something changes the student will continue to struggle in reading. Norm-referenced tests are not used to establish underachievement in C-SEP model, but rather to collect observable and measurable academic behavior samples representing underlying cognition and language. To use C-SEP as a viable model for identifying SLD eligibility, the option of using PSW in the federal regulation will be operationalized. “ the child exhibits a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in performance, achievement, or both, relative to age, State-approved grade level standards or intellectual development consistent with 34 CFR 300.309(a)(2)(i); or the child exhibits a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in performance, achievement, or both, relative to age, State-approved gradelevel standards or intellectual development consistent with 34 CFR 300.309(a)(2)(ii);” PSW Operationalized 1. Data-based documentation showing appropriate instruction prior to and as part of the referral.

Typically accomplished through response-to-intervention (RTI) service delivery, supplemental tutoring, classroom interventions, etc. If a student is making adequate progress when provided 144

targeted instruction, then the student is demonstrating the ability to learn and may not require specialized instruction. If on the other hand, the student is making little or no progress, then the data is considered and integrated within the context of a full and individual evaluation.

2. When provided appropriate instruction, the student does not achieve adequately for the child's age or meet state-approved grade-level standards (IDEA, 2004). Multiple measures and data sources are used in order to determine if the student is achieving or underachieving academically (e.g., Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM), Curriculum-Based Assessment (CBA), state testing, grades, work samples, etc.). Academic underachievement is established using multiple sources of actual achievement data collected over time and under varying conditions.

3. The pattern is evident by significant variance and a learner’s profile must show strengths and weaknesses. In order to differentiate a “strength” from a “weakness,” variance between scores must be established (Evans, Floyd, McGrew, & Leforgee, 2001; Flanagan, Fiorello, & Ortiz, 2010; Floyd, Evans, & McGrew, 2003; Floyd, Meisinger, Gregg, & Keith, 2012; McGrew & Wendling, 2010; Newton & McGrew, 2010). The variation can be statistical when using technically sound instruments and must be meaningful. Variations can have statistical meaning when scores differ by ~1 SD considering confidence intervals of the standard scores.

Professional judgment and integrated data analysis are used to confer clinical or practical significance to the statistical variations. Such patterns are identified and confirmed by using data obtained from norm-referenced tests of cognition, language, and achievement. Integration and consideration of other data beyond norm-referenced scores are necessary for the identification of SLD when using C-SEP. The federal definition of SLD is comprehensively assessed as well as the qualifying areas (e.g., basic reading, math problem solving, oral expression, etc.) and the data is applied to federal, state, and local policy. C-SEP is flexible in its application; individualized testing can be conducted without any conflict with state policy. Testing data is used to identify a student’s profile of scores and confirm actual patterns versus using a “discrepancy score” cut-off.

However, examiners have the option if they deem it useful to analyze data in multiple ways including discrepancy analysis and consistency analysis between constructs. The pattern must be consistent with the federal definition of SLD and include a “disorder in one or more basic psychological processes….” A student who demonstrates a pervasive weakness (i.e., a statistically similar score profile) does not have a “pattern of strength and weakness” as described in 34 CFR 300.309(a)(2)(ii).

C-SEP Procedures The C-SEP approach can be used with a number of norm-referenced test batteries. Statistical precision is strengthened when batteries are co-normed, or a strong relationship exists between instruments. The design of the WJ-IV tests of cognition, language, and achievement, with its conormed batteries and a strong emphasis on a core set of tests for each battery (McGrew, LaForte, & Shrank, 2014), has been statistically validated using C-SEP (see Shrank, Stephens-Pisecco, & Schultz, 2017). Other batteries such as the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children 5th edition (WISC-V) and Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement-3 (KTEA-3) can be used with the CSEP approach (Schultz & Stephens-Pisecco, 2017). Importantly, C-SEP is compatible with federal and state regulations regarding SLD identification (Schultz & Stephens, 2015) as it 145

strictly adheres to the procedural safeguards. The following procedures refer to the normreferenced testing aspects of C-SEP. As a PSW approach, all other data sources are considered with testing as well as the assessment of exclusionary factors in the SLD definition.

Specific Learning Disability Identification The C-SEP model comprehensively assesses academic concerns and all of the other components of the federal definition of SLD (see bold below). C-SEP allows an interpretation that limits the overestimation of the cognitive explanations of SLD (Flanagan & Schneider, 2016). In addition, the impact of the disability on teaching and learning can also be assessed and inform interventions (Schultz & Stephens, 2017). An emphasis on teaching and learning and “an imperfectability to listen, think, and speak.” is a distinguishing characteristic of C-SEP from other “third method” approaches. The following 4-step process is general guidelines for the use of norm-referenced testing within the C-SEP model. The federal SLD definition will be utilized while illustrating the use of C-SEP. …Means a disorder in one or more basic psychological processes, involved in understanding or in using language, either written or spoken, which may manifest itself in an imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or do mathematical calculations….

C-SEP Step 1: Measure Psychological Processes …Means a DISORDER in one or more basic psychological processes, involved in understanding Administer Cognitive Core: Select a core set of tests that measure the broadest range of abilities recommended by the publisher (e.g., Tests 1-7 of the WJ IV COG makes up the Core set of tests).

Cognitive Core Tests Score Average (Yes/No) FSIQ/GIA Index Scores Composite Scores Comprehension Knowledge Fluid Reasoning Short-Term Working Memory Visual Processing Auditory Processing Processing Speed Long-Term Retrieval Other Other

146

Average Cognitive Test Scores? (~>85 SS) YES

NO

If all core scores are average, it is indicative of intact psychological processing, integrate and interpret.

If one or more core scores are < average, additional cognitive testing may be needed determine if a disorder in psychological processes is evident.

Move onto Step 2: Measure Language Administer additional Cognitive test(s) in areas of weakness; integrate and interpret.

147

C-SEP Step 2: Measure Language â&#x20AC;Ś.. or in using LANGUAGE, either written or SPOKEN, and which may manifest itself in an imperfect ability to listen, think, speakâ&#x20AC;Ś.

Administer Core Oral Language Tests: Select a core that broadly measures the CHC factors related to oral expression and listening comprehension (e.g., Tests 1-4 of the WJ IV OL makes up the core set of tests).

Oral Language Core Tests Oral Expression 1

Score

Listening Comprehension 1 Oral Expression 2 Listening Comprehension 2

148

Average (Yes/No)

Average Oral Language Test Scores?

YES NO

If all core scores are average, it is indicative of intact language skills, integrate and interpret.

If one or more core 4 scores are < average, additional language testing may be needed identify a disorder in psychological processes involved in using language is evident. Assessment should be conducted.

Move onto Step 3: Measure Academics*

Administer additional language test(s) may be needed in areas of weakness; integrate and interpret.

149

C-SEP Step 3: Measure Academics â&#x20AC;Ś read, write, spell, or do mathematical calculationsâ&#x20AC;Ś.

Achievement Core 6 Tests Basic Reading Reading Comprehension Reading Fluency Math Calculation Math Problem Solving Written Expression

Score

Average (Yes/No)

*NOTE: The Core 6 Achievement Tests can be utilized for districts that require all academic areas be assessed for an initial referral (not required by all state policies). Other districts may choose to administer only those tests which assess the area of the referral concern.

C-SEP Step 4: Use Integrated Data Analysis Procedures to identify PSWs Integrated data analysis is the analysis of multiple data sets (e.g., norm-referenced test results, RTI data, criterion-referenced test, etc.) which have been gathered. It involves the examination of a chain of evidence by determining the trustworthiness (weight, accuracy) of the data collected, organization, triangulation, and logical cross-validation analysis (Schultz, Simpson, & Lynch, 2012). The data collected is then applied to the respective state rules regulating the identification of SLD using a PSW methodology.

SLD Determination Using C-SEP SLD determination is multifaceted, and the C-SEP model will help assessment teams integrate information obtained from norm-referenced tests with all other information (e.g., exclusionary factors, educational history, other reports, etc.) related to the referral question. The C-SEP approach is driven by professional judgment and does not use rigid cut-off points or a statistical formula as a determinate of SLD. It instead informs decision-making and provides statistical support to consider when making the determinations. As with any model of SLD identification, it is critical that all data collected (i.e., state tests, RTI data, work samples, teacher reports, etc.) is integrated with obtained norm-reference test scores, and results of data collected during appropriate instruction. Analysis of all data should then be considered according to local and state policies.

Distinguishing Features of C-SEP Most methods of SLD identification have similar features and processes when operationalizing the definition of SLD. It is generally agreed a student with SLD is: a) not responding to appropriate traditional and supplemental instruction, b) exhibiting a disorder of basic psychological processes is evident and directly impacts the identified academic area of concern, c) exclusionary factors need to be assessed and ruled out as the primary cause of the studentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s struggles, d) an assessment of SLD should be linked to instructional recommendations, and e) adhere to the Code of Federal Regulations (Flanagan & Alfonso, 2010). The following are important components of the C-SEP model which distinguish it from other models:

150

1. Expressive (Oral Expression) and Receptive Language (Listening Comprehension) are formally tested and considered with every evaluation. These results are compared with cognitive measures, academic measures, and classroom functioning. In addition to providing diagnostic information, language assessment but also provides insight into teaching and learning.

2. Statistical analysis is conducted using actual norms and software/tables from the publisher. Data collected from other batteries can be included in the assessment using integrated data analysis. Task demands analysis is also used in a statistical context. For example, data can be examined when sorted logically such as tasks requiring processing speed, tasks requiring auditory processing, etc. allowing a richer interpretation of the data.

3. Statistical analysis using publisher calculations inform decision-making and professional judgment instead of being the determinate factor of the eligibility decision. It is used to identify or confirm a PSW rather than adhere to an arbitrary cut-off score. Integrated data analysis including pattern seeking techniques is used to make eligibility decisions.

4. All tests administered including the core should be administered in a purposeful and deliberate manner. Testing should only occur to provide new or previously unknown information. Examiner time is dedicated to the interpretation and integrating data instead of test administration.

5. Academic underachievement is determined using multiple sources of actual achievement data (e,g., curriculum-based assessments, assessments based state standards, work samples, classroom data, etc.). Standard scores obtained from norm-referenced testing are used to understand the relationship between cognitive and language constructs.

Standard scores of achievement are interpreted with the understanding of the limitations of norm-referenced achievement measures (i.e., curriculum alignment, item density, score interpretation; Schultz & Stephens, 2017) 6. The C-SEP model requires professional judgment be utilized when making an eligibility decision. All decisions are made by strictly adhering to state and local policy and are supported by a) examining logical relationships (task demands, validity), b) empirical relationships, and c) statistical relationships. Through these multiple lenses, professionals can be confident in their decisions.

7. Local, state, and federal special education policy and assurances are strictly adhered to provide the most comprehensive and appropriate evaluation and outcome.

8. The imperfect ability to listen, think, speak are salient features of the SLD definition and are critical assessment areas when identifying a PSW and the instructional implications of a studentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s profile.

151

Concluding Thoughts and Future Directions The C-SEP approach is an effort to address the concerns surrounding the role of norm-referenced testing and the controversy with current SLD identification methods. The approach, as all SLDPSW models, requires sound professional judgment combined with sound data collection and analysis. The approach recognizes the need for formal measures (i.e., norm-referenced testing) to fully assess all aspects of the SLD construct. However, it balances the need for the practical and policy implication of SLD identification. The issue of the best way to identify SLD will continue as policy changes and lessons are learned.

Current research has failed to locate the “gold standard” (Stuebing, Fletcher, Branum-Martin, & Francis, 2012) of SLD identification. However the National Center For Learning Disabilities (2017) the percentage of students in special education who were identified with SLD decreased 9.3% from 43% in the fall of 2008 to 39% in the fall of 2015. It is logical to assume that several actions regarding SLD identification contributed to the decline in the SLD category including the focus on early intervention (RTI), most states abandoning the discrepancy approach, and the use of “third method approaches.” The overlapping OHI category has increased from 11% to 15% (NCLD, 2017) and has contributed to the decline of SLD but may also be a result of third method approaches that better able to differentiate classifications. Continued research along with the employing innovative approaches (i.e., C-SEP) and improving on existing PSW-COG models will continue to move the field forward.

References Buttner, G., & Hasselhorn, M. (2011). Learning disabilities: Debates on definitions, causes, subtypes, and responses. International Journal of Disability, Development, & Education, 58(1), 75-87.

Christo, C., D’Incau, B., & Ponzuric, J. (2016). Response to McGill and Busse, “When theory trumps science: A critique of the PSW model for SLD identification.” Contemporary School Psychology. Retrieved on 3/1/17 from http://casponline.org/pdfs/publications/casp%20rebuttal%20in%20print.pdf Cortiella, C., & Horowitz, S. (2014). State of Learning Disabilities: Facts, Trends and Emerging Issues. New York: National Center for Learning Disabilities.

Cottrell, J., & Barrett, C. (2016). Defining the undefinable: Operationalization of methods to identify specific learning disabilities among practicing school psychologists. Psychology in the Schools, 53(2), 143-157.

Daves, D. P., & Walker, D. W. (2012). RTI: Court and case law- confusion by design. Learning Disability Quarterly, 35(2), 68-71.

Dehn, M. J. (2014). Enhancing SLD diagnoses through the identification of psychological processing deficits. The Australian Educational and Developmental Psychologist, 30, 119-139.

Dehn, M.J. (2014). Essentials of processing assessment (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Evans, J.J., Floyd, R.G., McGrew, K.S., & Leforgee, M.H. (2001). The relations between measures of Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) Cognitive abilities and reading achievement during achievement during childhood and adolescence. School Psychology Review, 31, 246-262.

152

Evans, J.J., Floyd, R., McGrew, K.S., & Leforgee, M.H. (2001). The relations between measures of Cattell-Horn-Carroll cognitive abilities and reading achievement during childhood and adolescence. School Psychology Review, 31, 246–262.

Fiorello, C.A., Hale, J.B., & Snyder, L.E. (2006). Cognitive hypothesis testing and response to intervention for children with reading problems. Psychology in the Schools, 43 (8), 835853.

Flanagan, D., & Alfonso, V. (2010). Essentials of specific learning disability identification.

Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Flanagan, D., & Alfonso, V. (2017). Essentials of WISC-V Assessment. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Flanagan, D. P., Fiorello, C. A., & Ortiz, S. O. (2010). Enhancing practice through application of Cattell-Horn-Carroll theory and research: A “third method” approach to specific learning disability identification. Psychology in the Schools, 47(7), 739-760.

Flanagan, D.P., & Schneider, J. L. (2016). Cross-Battery Assessment? XBA PSW? A case of mistaken identity: A commentary on Kranzler and colleagues' “Classification agreement analysis of Cross-Battery Assessment in the identification of specific learning disorders in children and youth”, International Journal of School & Educational Psychology, 4(3), 137-145.

Fletcher, J. M., Coulter, W. A., Reschly, D. J., & Vaughn, S. (2004). Alternative Approaches to the Definition and Identification of Learning Disabilities: Some Questions and Answers.

Annals of Dyslexia, 54(2), 304-331.

Fletcher, J. M., Denton, C., & Francis, D. J. (2005). Validity of alternative approaches for the identification of learning disabilities: Operationalizing unexpected underachievement.

Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(6), 545.

Francis, D., Fletcher, J., Stuebing, K., Lyon, G. R., Shaywitz, B., & Shaywitz, S. (2005).

Psychometric approaches to the identification of LD: IQ and achievement scores are not sufficient. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(2), 98-108.

Fuchs, D., Hale, J. B., & Kearns, D. M. (2011). On the Importance of a Cognitive Processing Perspective: An Introduction. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44(2), 99-104.

Gresham, F. M., & Vellutino, F. R. (2010). What is the role of intelligence in the identification of specific learning disabilities? Issues and clarifications. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 25(4), 194-206.

Hale, J. B., Kaufman, A., Naglieri, J. A., & Kavale, K. A. (2006). Implementation of IDEA: Integrating response to intervention and cognitive assessment methods. Psychology in the Schools, 43(7), 753-770.

Hauerwas, L. B., Brown, R., & Scott, A. (2013). Specific learning disability and response to intervention: State-level guidance. Exceptional Children, 80(1), 101-120.

Johnson, E. S., Semmelroth, C., Mellard, D. F., & Hopper, G. (2012). Using RTI within a comprehensive SLD evaluation: A review of a state’s first-year efforts. Learning Disabilities—A Contemporary Journal, 10(2), 1-15.

Kavale, K. A., Kauffman, J. M., Bachmeier, R. J., & LeFever, G. B. (2008). Response-to intervention: Separating the rhetoric of self-congratulation from the reality of specific learning disability identification. Learning Disability Quarterly, 31(3), 135-150.

Kavale, K. A., & Spaulding, L. (2008). Is response-to-intervention good policy for specific learning disability? Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 23(4), 169–179.

153

Kavale, K. A., Spaulding, L. S., & Beam, A. P. (2009). A time to define: Making the specific learning disability definition prescribe specific learning disability. Learning Disability Quarterly, 32(1), 39-48.

Kearns, D. M., & Fuchs, D. (2013). Does cognitively focused instruction strengthen the academic performance of low-achieving students? Exceptional Children, 79(3), 263-290.

Lindstrom, J., & Sayeski, K. (2013). Identifying best practice in a shifting landscape: Making sense of RTI in the context of SLD identification. Exceptionality, 21(1), 5-18.

Mather, N., & Gregg, N. (2006). Specific learning disabilities: Clarifying, not eliminating, a construct. Professional Psychology: Research & Practice, 37(1), 99-106.

Maki, K. E., Floyd, R. G., & Roberson, T. (2015). State Learning Disability Eligibility Criteria: A Comprehensive Review. School Psychology Quarterly, 30(4), 457-469.

Miciak, J., Fletcher, J. M., Stuebing, K. K., Vaughn, S., & Tolar, D. (2014). Patterns of cognitive strengths and weaknesses: Identification rates, agreement, and validity of learning disabilities identification. School Psychology Quarterly, 29(1), 21-37.

Miciak, J., Taylor, W. P., Denton, C. A., & Fletcher, J. M. (2015). The effects of achievement test selection on identification of learning disabilities within a pattern of strengths and weaknesses framework. School Psychology Quarterly, 30(3). 321-334.

McGill, R. J. & Busse, R. T. (2016). When theory trumps science: A critique of the PSW model for SLD identification. Contemporary School Psychology, 21(1), 10-18.

McGill, R. J., Styck, K. M., Palamares, R. S., & Hass, M. R. (2016). Critical issues in specific learning disability identification: What we need to know about the PSW model. Learning Disability Quarterly, 39(3), 159-170.

McGrew, K.S., LaForte, E.M., & Shrank, F.A. (2014). Technical Manual. Woodcock-Johnson IV. Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside.

Miller, D.C., Maricle, D.E., & Jones, A.M. (2016) Comparing three patterns of strengths and weaknesses models for the identification of specific learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 21. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.18666/LDMJ-2016V21-I2-7349 National Center for Learning Disabilities. (2017). The State of Learning disabilities: Understanding the 1 in 5, Retrieved from: https://www.ncld.org/the-state-of-learningdisabilities-understanding-the-1-in-5 Ofiesh, N. (2006). Response-to-intervention and the identification of specific learning disabilities: Why we need comprehensive evaluations as part of the process. Psychology in the Schools, 43(8), 883-888.

Schultz, E.K., & Stephens, T. (2015). Core selective evaluation process: An efficient & comprehensive approach to identify SLD using the WJ-IV. The Dialog, 44, 5-13.

Schultz, E.K., & Stephens-Pisecco, T.L. (2017). Using the Core-Selective Evaluation Process (C-SEP) to identify a pattern of strengths and weaknesses The Dialog, 46, 9-15.

Scott, A. N., Hauerwas, L. B., & Brown, R. D. (2014). State policy and guidance for identifying learning disabilities in culturally and linguistically diverse students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 37(3), 172-185.

Stuebing, K. K., Fletcher, J. M., Branum-Martin, L., & Francis, D. J. (2012). Evaluation of the technical adequacy of three methods of identifying specific learning disabilities based on cognitive discrepancies. School Psychology Review, 41(1), 3-22.

154

About the Authors Edward K. Schultz, Ph.D. is an Associate Professor at Midwestern State University and is a coauthor of C-SEP. Tammy L. Stephens-Pisecco, Ph.D. is a Clinical Account Executive for HMH and a former professor, educational diagnostician, and special education teacher. Dr. Stephens-Pisecco is a co-author of C-SEP.

155

Mobile Technology Devices for Children with Developmental Disabilities: A Systematic Review Julia VanderMolen, Ph.D., CHES Kaitlin Chauv, Student, Pre-Speech Language Pathology Grand Valley State University Abstract The purpose of this review of literature sought to explore the benefits of using mobile technologies as a form of AAC for school-age children with developmental disabilities. The literature search was conducted using four health and education related research databases: PubMed, PychInfo, ERIC and CINAHL. The search terms used were specific to each database and included: augmentative and alternative communication (AAC), communication, communicative disorders, developmental disabilities, and assistive technology OR mobile technology. Research on mobile devices and the applications available could change the current status of AAC interventions. Many of the articles addressed an individualâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s preference to use a mobile device. This literature review stands as an exemplar for the imperative need for exploration of these devices in AAC. Keywords: augmentative and alternative communication (AAC), communication, communicative disorders, developmental disabilities, assistive technology Mobile Technology Devices for Children with Developmental Disabilities: A Systematic Review Developmental disabilities are a group of conditions caused by impairment in physical, learning, language, or behavioral areas. Approximately one in six children in the U.S. have one or more developmental disabilities. (Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 2017). Children born with developmental disabilities can exhibit a structural abnormality such as central nervous system malformation and cerebral atrophy, which can affect the production of speech.

Furthermore, other communication difficulties displayed in individuals with a developmental disability include inadequate velopharyngeal closure (closure of the velum between the nasal and oral cavities) causing problems with nasality, apraxia (i.e., a motor programing speech disorder), and dysarthria (i.e., weakness and incoordination of speech articulators;Roberts, Price, & Malkin, 2007).

While literature informs us on articulation and developmental disabilities, language is much more difficult to characterize for this population. This challenge may be attributed to the level of intellectual disability varying between individuals with a developmental disability. Furthermore, research conducted by Wilkinson and Mcllvan (2013) indicated that speech complications cause difficulties in speech production for the individuals who struggle with communication.

Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) devices provide one avenue to address speech complications of children with a developmental disability.

156

AAC is a field of study which addresses the need to support individuals with a communication disorder. AAC consists of low-technology books or high-technology devices that are used to supplement speech or nonverbal communication (Wilkinson, & Mcllvane, 2013). Recent developments in mobile technology, including the introduction of the Apple iPad TM and other smartphone and tablet devices, have provided important new tools for communication (McNaughton, & Light, 2013). McNaughton & Light (2013) report that the technological revolution has allowed AAC users to implement current technologies to meet their communication needs. The purpose of this review of literature sought to explore the benefits of using mobile technologies as a form of AAC for school-age children with developmental disabilities.

Methods We systematically conducted a review of research literature to synthesize and quantify articles pertaining to the support of mobile technology as a form of AAC for school-aged children with developmental disabilities. Our overall approach was guided by standard methods of conducting systematic reviews (Schlosser, Wendt, Angermeier, & Shetty, 2005). Additionally, we also outlined each step of the review according to the PRISMA 2009 checklist (Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff, & Altman, 2009) as provided in Figure 1.

157

Figure 1. Flow diagram for studies included in the systematic review.

158

Search Strategy The first author and second author conducted the literature search. The following electronic databases and sites searched included PubMed, PychInfo, ERIC and CINAHL. The databases contained peer-reviewed summaries of journal articles and provided a system for clinicians and educators to conduct systematic reviews of selected clinical questions and topics. The search terms used were specific to each database and included: augmentative and alternative communication (AAC), communication, communicative disorders, developmental disabilities, assistive technology, and mobile technology.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria Inclusion and exclusion criteria are critical to the systematic review process as they provide the structure for the quality, type, and years of publication of the literature that is incorporated into a review. This review was limited to peer-reviewed scientific literature published in English between January 2010 and June 2017. Justification for the timeframe of is based on the recommendation established by Cronin, Ryan and Coughlan (2008). Cronin et al. (2008) recommend a maximum time frame of 5-10 years on the age of the works to be included in a systematic review. Moreover, inclusion criteria consisted of articles pertaining to augmentative and alternative communication (AAC), communication, communicative disorders, developmental disabilities, assistive technology OR mobile technology. The review excluded data from conference presentations, conference proceedings, nonâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;peer-reviewed research literature, theses, and dissertations.

Results A total of 15 articles met the inclusion and exclusion criteria and were reviewed for data extraction. Data of interest addressed children with developmental disabilities and complex communication needs. The importance of this review is to examine the current research pertaining to iPads TM and other mobile technology as a form of AAC to support language development of school aged children with developmental disabilities. The outcomes of each study are reported in Table 1. Seven articles are found in General AAC Devices, seven articles in Support for Apple iPads TM, Apple iPods TM, and one article in AAC Applications.

General AAC Devices Na and Wilkinson (2015) conducted a study, which consisted four students with a form of autism or intellectual disability. Children with Down syndrome in particular exhibited limitations in speech production due to a small oral cavity and a large tongue. The communication skills of children with Down syndrome are sufficient enough to get the message across when they are at home. However, everything changes when they enter school. Many children with Down syndrome begin with unaided AAC, which consists of sign language, but then eventually move toward aided AAC. Na and Wilkinson agreed that â&#x20AC;&#x153;aided AAC can not only enhance existing communication modalities, but may help to minimize barriers related to audience and to production difficulties associated with fine motor challengesâ&#x20AC;? (p.115).

Additionally, the study revealed that AAC can help promote communication and minimize disruptions and challenging behaviors. Furthermore, AAC systems are all set up differently, and it is important to match the person with Down syndrome to the correct system.

Wilkinson and Light (2014) described Visual Scene Displays (VSDs) as an AAC display in which language concepts are embedded directly into an image of a naturalistic event such as a 159

child’s birthday party. The purpose of VSDs in language development is language learning in a social setting by the interaction of people, the modeling done and to learn the meaning of specific words from hearing words. Children with Down syndrome, no matter what their level of intellectual functioning, can benefit from AAC and issues of the composition of VSDs are highly relevant. Researchers today know that individuals with developmental disabilities have strengths in pragmatic functioning and a preference towards other individuals (Wilkinson & Light, 2014).

It is thought that individuals with developmental disabilities will demonstrate attraction towards the images with humans on them, like VSDs. “This report found that eye tracking research technologies would appear to offer a window that can help reveal aspects of visual-cognitive processing in a population that is currently largely understudied” (Wilkinson & Light, 2014, p.

142). The effectiveness of eye tracking research and can be a powerful tool to answer questions of theoretical and clinical in populations that can be difficult to test through the traditional ways.

Light and McNaughton (2012), AAC communication allows for enhanced communication, language and literacy outcomes for children with complex communication needs (CCN). Three key points addressed by the authors acknowledge the support of research for AAC, the appropriate intervention of AAC and how it can provide a positive effect on language without inhibition of speech development. Of these are language benefits to turn taking, requesting, commenting, receptive and expressive vocabulary, mean length of utterance, morphology, phonological awareness, and reading and writing. Other evidence shows that intervention with AAC decreases challenging behaviors while increasing compliance and on-task behaviors. Light & McNaughton (2012) stated that mobile technologies are, “relatively inexpensive, readily available, and socially valued, as a result they are readily adopted by individuals with CCN and their families” (p. 36). Access to these technologies span beyond the traditional assistive technology manufacturers (Light & McNaughton, 2012).

Van der Meer, Sigafoos, O’Rielly & Lancioni (2011) addressed the possibility of child preference of using one AAC option or another being a critical variable in selecting AAC variables in a systematic review. “Enabling a child to express his/her preference could also be viewed as one way of promoting self-determination in AAC interventions.” (Van der Meer et al., 2011, p. 1423). The criteria for this study consisted of individuals with developmental disabilities in need of communication intervention and studies that examined preferences between different AAC options. Of these options, the closely examined studies looking at preference between SGD, Picture exchange (PE) systems and manual signing. SGD examples were Tech/Talk 6X8, Mini-messageMate, BIGmack, and the Cyrano communicator, DynaVox and Wolf. Although not included in this list, the iPad would fit in the category of a high-tech SGD. Of the seven studies in this review, participants displayed greater preference to SGD (>55%) compared to PE and unaided signing forms of AAC. In examination of follow-up studies pertaining to generalization with SGD AAC options, 70-75% of individuals displayed correct requesting when generalizing SGD devices to different communicative settings and partners (Van der Meer et al., 2011).

Brady, Thiemann-Bourque, Fleming, and Matthews (2013) explored the development of language in nonverbal preschool aged children who communicate using AAC. These children were diagnosed with developmental disabilities, autism spectrum disorder, or another relatively rare disorder. The researchers recorded the amount of different words the children produced at time one and time two, which was one year later. Four different measures were observed to 160

determine if they could be predictors of language development. These measures were language comprehension, play, nonverbal cognition, and complexity of communication. Adult input at home and at school, along with the amount of augmentative and alternative communication instruction were predicted to help increase language acquisition also. The researchers found that these four measures may predict successful language outcomes for children learning to communicate using AAC. It was also found that only parent input at home affected vocabulary acquisition. This research is useful in order to help predict how well a child will perform when using AAC for communication. If there are certain factors that can help contribute to more successful language development, these factors could then be focused on more in order to aid in language development.

Broberg, Ferm, & Thunberg (2012) studied and evaluated a system called the Responsive Augmentative and Alternative Communication Style (RAACS) Version 2 scale. The RAACS system is used to evaluate the communicative style of parents while they interact with their child using AAC. This included ten statements rated on a three-point scale (0-2) and two additional statements with no guidelines. Thirty-seven parents and 28 children participated in the study.

The children were ages between 12 months and 60 months and were diagnosed with various conditions such as Down syndrome, autism spectrum disorder, cerebral palsy, and unspecified.

Data was collected by parents being filmed individually while playing with their child before the ComAlong intervention. The RAACS Version 1 scale was first developed based on “literature, descriptions of existing scales, recordings of interaction between parents and children with communication difficulties, and the content of the ComAlong course” (Broberg, Ferm & Thunberg, 2012, p. 247). A total of 105 recordings of parent and child interaction from the ComAlong intervention were used to evaluate the RAACS Version 2 scale. Analysis of the scale was calculated by the percentage of exact agreements in relation to inter- and intra-coder reliability. Researchers considered agreements of 80% or above to be acceptable (Broberg, Ferm & Thunberg, 2012, p. 248). Results show that nine out of 12 statements in the RAACS Version 2 scale reached this threshold. The new 9-item scale showed excellent internal consistency and was called the RAACS Version 3 scale. Researchers concluded that this new version can assess the responsive communication styles and strategies parents can use for facilitating AAC with their children (Broberg, Ferm, & Thunberg, 2012).

Lund, Quach, Weissling, McKelvey & Dietz (2017) conducted a qualitative study and interviewed eight speech-language pathologists (SLPs) who were considered AAC clinical specialists or AAC research specialists. Participants received a printed case history from each child that contained information about their “medical and developmental history, vision, hearing, cognition, motor, self-help, and communication skills; educational information; adaptive equipment; social information; and therapeutic history” (Lund et al. 2017, p. 58). One patient was diagnosed with cerebral palsy while the other patient was diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. In addition to receiving case histories for each child, the participants were also presented a video clip of each child from a free-play situation. Researchers interviewed the SLPs during two different times: after they received the case history of each child and after they watched the video clips in order to gain an understanding of the SLP’s clinical decisions. After they have received the case history, the interviewer asked how they would initially assess the child. During the video clip portion, they were asked if they would change anything that they discussed earlier. The results concluded that research and clinical SLPs discussed similar approaches for both children. Furthermore, researchers have found four main themes, which 161

include area of assessment, evaluation preparation, method of assessment, and parent education (Lund et al. 2017). Area of assessment referred to skills that SLPs proposed to in order to assess the child. These things include characteristics of the child with complex communication needs, an AAC that would be most appropriate, and evaluating the child’s primary communication partners. The second main theme, evaluation preparation, talked about preparing materials and information that may interest and engage the child during their evaluation. Method of assessment exclaimed how the SLPs in the study would assess and gather information they talked about during the first theme, area of assessment using different types of tools. Some tools included informal assessment (gathering information through case history, observation, etc.), dynamic assessment (manipulating variables to evaluate the child’s performance), consulting with other professionals, and formal assessment (standardized testing). The final theme, parent education, is about how SLPs would provide information to the parent or family of the child (Lund et al.

2017).

Support for Apple iPads TM, Apple iPodsTM Alliano, Herriger, Koutsoftas, & Barlotta (2012) described AAC as an important aspect of the lives of those with the inability to communicate. Relying on a speech-language pathologist (SLP) to assist with AAC is slowing changing. The new advances in technology are exponential and are changing the face of clinical practice. Alliano et al., (2012) stated as professionals determine the best option for an AAC user, they are a promising, cost-effective, user-friendly way to implement AAC. The new speech and language-oriented apps are allowing for an increase in communication for untrained individuals. One problem with AAC devices is the device abandonment in homes and in classrooms because of operational challenges, and singlepurpose nature of the device. Apple iPads ™ decrease AAC abandonment due to its multifunctional use. Apple iPads TM are an affordable, portable, and socially acceptable form of AAC. Additionally, with the development of mobile applications the evaluations of appropriate applications to fit the needs of an individual with disabilities is essential. Twenty-one applications received a score of “3.5 or higher” out of five on the Apple iTunes Store. When reviewing to see if an application is appropriate, some things that should be kept in mind are the purpose of use, output, speech setting, representation, display, feedback features, rate enhancement, access, required motor competencies, support, and miscellaneous information.

Flores et al., (2012) studied to determine the benefits of using the Apple iPads TM and other mobile technology as a communication device as compared to using the Picture Exchange Communication System (PECS). The researchers observed five elementary school students with varying disabilities during a 15-minute snack time. The children alternated between using an Apple iPads TM as a communication device and the PECS. The communication behavior of the children were recorded for both types of AAC. Through the observation of the five children, the results were mixed. However, the study presented findings to indicate that “there was some increase in communication behaviors with the iPad TM; however, there was no clear pattern across all students. As in other studies, the utility of AAC devices may be based on the individual’s unique skills and preferences” (Flores et al., 2012, p.81) Similarly, a study conducted by McNaughton and Light (2013) examined the potential benefits and challenges associated with using the Apple iPads TM and other mobile technology as a form of AAC. The benefits revealed from the study included: more social acceptance of AAC when using an Apple iPads TM, greater accessibility is presented by the creation of different AAC 162

applications on the Apple iPads TM, and the use of the Apple iPads TM can be used as an AAC device by more individuals with complex communication needs. The researchers discovered disadvantages with using the Apple iPads TM as well as an AAC device. The challenges presented when using mobile technology as an AAC device included: (a) “the focus on communication, not just technology, (b) the development of innovative approaches to AAC assessment and intervention, (c) the ease of access to AAC for all individuals with complex communication needs, and, (d) to maximize AAC solutions to support a wide variety of communication functions” (McNaughton & Light, 2013, p. 110). Overall the study revealed that the use of an Apple iPads TM made it possible for individuals with communication difficulties to communicate on a deeper level compared to what would have been possible with a device specifically created for AAC. Moreover, Van Der Meer et al. (2011) highlighted Apple iPods ™ as speech-generating devices (SGD). The study included three individuals with developmental disabilities. The study used the mobile application Proloquo2Go that is designed to use symbols on the screen as messages to be spoken from the device. Proloquo2Go provides a number of advantages or benefits for individuals with developmental disabilities. A large set of colorful graphic symbols, the high quality of the synthesized voice output, and the relatively low cost. Results exhibited that there is an importance for teachers, parents, and clinicians to gain competence in the operation and programming of these devices to contribute to the effectiveness of their implementation for students with developmental disabilities. Likewise, students with developmental disabilities are likely to require systematic and often intensive instruction before they can be expected to learn how to operate and use the program for engaging in meaningful communicative exchanges. This is evidenced by the progress in acquiring the use of iPod TM based SGD on requesting preferred stimuli that were displayed by two of the three individuals in this study. The other individual was excused prematurely from the study for lack of progress and cooperation. Concluding, this study supported the success that Apple’s Proloqo2Go software on an iPod can have with systematic instructional procedures for individuals with developmental disabilities who also have little to no spoken language (et al., 2011).

Arthanat, Curtain & Knotak (2013) conducted a comparative observation of learning engagement by four students with developmental disabilities using an Apple iPad TM. The students were given time to gain familiarity with the iPad TM within the first week of the week study. An individualized academic test composed of questions was given at three points in the study and videos were taken at each learning session. The results of the study suggested that all of the students were eager to use the Apple iPad ™ and that the Apple iPad ™ did not pose a problem to the students’ behavior. Additionally, the students maintained a consistent pace throughout the majority of the learning sessions. However, all four students were found to have difficulties sustaining their attention throughout the learning session which led to decreased persistence and a need to be verbally, and at times physically, re-directed to the learning task (Arthanat, Curtain & Knotak, 2013, p.211) Wilkinson & Mcllvane (2013) examined which display design of an electronic AAC device allowed children with developmental disabilities and autism spectrum disorder to accurately and quickly identify symbols. The researchers explored whether having symbols arranged according to internal color would be more accurately and quickly identified compared to when the symbols had no arrangement cue. The results of this experiment showed that the children identified the 163

symbols significantly faster when they were grouped together compared to when they were distributed across the display. The researchers determined that the visual-perceptual characteristics of the display could greatly impact the user’s ability to accurately use the device along with increase the speed. This research could impact the way that applications are designed for the Apple iPad TM. In order to make use of the iPad TM more efficient for those with developmental disabilities and autism spectrum disorder, more research should be conducted to determine other factors that can influence the accuracy and speed for the user (Wilkinson & Mcllvane, 2013).

Ahlgrim et al. (2016) conducted a study to examine the effects of a phonic curriculum with systematic instruction and an Apple iPad ™ and how students with developmental disabilities are able to identify phonemes and decoding skills. Thirty-one students from grades kindergarten to 8th grade and sixteen teachers met the inclusion criteria and were recruited to participate in the study. The treatment group was given an intervention called the Early Reading Skills Builder (ESRB). This intervention included a curriculum that was blended with Apple iPad ™ based technology speech using the application GoTalk Now along with systematic instruction. This group was tested by a curriculum where participants were presented three new phonemes and a review of three previous phonemes from the previous level in the form of a story on a one-onone basis with a teacher. The control group received a structured “business-as-usual intervention” (Ahlgrim et al. 2016, p. 91). The control group also used the Apple iPad ™ with the GoTalk Now application, however, the control group was not given phonics instructions from a teacher whereas the ESRB was given a type of phonics instruction from a teacher. Teachers in the control group supplemented these read aloud stories by including images from the Internet, the GoTalk Now application, and photo gallery onto the Apple iPad ™ (Ahlgrim et al. 2016).

Results have shown that there is a statistically significant difference between the treatment group and control group. The treatment group outperformed the control group in phoneme identification and decoding for picture-word-matching (Ahlgrim et al., 2016). The study suggested that the use of AAC has provided the opportunity to integrate phonics instruction through the use of technology. Additionally, with the use of AAC those with developmental disabilities are able to receive immediate feedback as they learn and decode new words. AAC has the potential to increase the chance of being literate. Although the progress may be slow, the advantages outnumber the disadvantages (Ahlgrim et al. 2016).

AAC Applications Douglas, Wojcik, & Thompson (2012) addressed the need for special software applications for AAC that are specific to children with intellectual and developmental disabilities (I/DD). The authors mentioned Cheap Talk 8 and Spring Board Lite as examples of devices for communication intervention in individuals with limited to no speech abilities. Douglas et al., (2012) provided evidence that “Best practices in AAC assessment are clearly consistent with a supports-based approach to educating children with I/DD, because relative strengths and needs are considered in conjunction with environmental characteristics and demands” (p. 60). This is precisely the individualistic approach to be used in designing apps for the smartphones in today’s mainstream world of AAC implementation. The practicality and usefulness of iPads TM and other smart devices to all people, but especially to those with disabilities, is what drives the need for specialized mobile applications. These devices have a range of uses beyond only that of an AAC device. They have the ability to act as a stimulating device through text, sound, picture or video. This array of functions for devices such as the iPad TM, make them more cost-effective.

164

These devices allow for customization in accessibility and a non-stigmatizing effect compared to traditional AAC devices (Douglas et al., 2012). With the advantages, authors additionally noted the numerous apps available with more being added daily to Appleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s virtual application store.

According to Douglas et al., (2012) â&#x20AC;&#x153;Apps have the potential to support students with I/DD to fully benefit from educational opportunities in schoolâ&#x20AC;? (p. 61). It is advantageous that not only do AAC specific apps benefit these individuals with I/DD, but also beyond these, apps designed for the general population can be useful in organizing and planning, giving evidence to the benefit of a multipurpose device such as an iPad TM. The purpose of this particular study was to evaluate the current apps for Apple devices for AAC for students with I/DD. The researchers reviewed 508 apps for their potential benefits and effectiveness in this population of individuals.

Of the apps reviewed, 146 supported communication and language development for children with I/DD in many aspects of everyday life. A key point from the results was the ability to try different apps for the intervention of AAC due to the accessibility and low cost instead of the traditional multi step decision-making process needed in purchasing a costly AAC device (Douglas et al., 2012).

165

Table 1 Table of evidence addressing mobile technology as ACC devices for children with developmental disabilities.

Author/Year

Level of Intervention and Evidence/N Control Group

Outcome Measures

Results

Level of Evidence: VII

Working with educational personnel, including teachers, counselors, and behavioral specialists to promote communication and minimize disruptions through AAC supports.

Show how interprofessional practice can benefit AAC interventions for individuals with DS, with a particular focus on collaboration with professionals in education/counseling, vision science, and motor development.

Visual issues ranging from correction of sensory impairments to evaluation of visual processing warrant consultation and help from OT and PT will allow the system to be well matched to the motor skills.

Examined gaze fixation while individuals viewed photographs with human figures of various sizes and locations in the image, appearing alongside other interesting, and potentially distracting items.

Examining fixations of individuals with intellectual disabilities to humans in scenes when those humans were small, offset, and/or in competition with larger colorful distractors.

Proportions of each participantâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s own fixation time spent on the human figures were similar across all groups, as were the proportions of total fixations made to the human figures.

General AAC Na and Wilkinson, (2015)

N=N/A

Wilkinson & Light, (2014)

Level of Evidence: III N= 18

166

Light, & Level of McNaughton, Evidence: (2012) VII N=N/A

Van der Meer Level of et al. (2011) Evidence III N= 3

Brady et al., (2013)

Level of Evidence: III N= 93

Suggested improvement for AAC designs and apps, identified challenges to improved outcomes for children with CCN.

Describe the current literature around children with complex communication needs to support communication, language and literacy development and further research areas.

Baseline, acquisitiontraining, post training and follow up.

Number of requests per Two thirds of minute for each five individuals minute session benefit from Apple iPod TM based SGD.

Four different measures, language comprehension, play, nonverbal cognition, and complexity of communication, were observed to determine if they influenced language development.

Explore the development of language in nonverbal preschool aged children who communicate using AAC.

167

Various benefits suggested for iPad TM technologies in AAC.

These four measures may predict successful language outcomes for children learning to communicate using AAC. It was also found that only parent input at home affected vocabulary acquisition.

Broberg, Ferm & Thunberg (2012)

Level of Evidence: III

Lund et al.

(2017)

Level of Evidence: V

N= 43 parents, 28 children

N= 8

Parents were Recordings were used filmed and to develop the RAACS instructed to play scale. with their child in order to make the RAACS scale.

The RAACS scale can be used to assess responsive communication style behaviors and parental strategies for using AAC.

SLPs were shown two video clips of each child during a free-play situation. One child was diagnosed with ASD while the other was diagnosed with CP

Researchers conducted an in-depth interview with each participant regarding their approach to AAC assessment

Four major themes emerged from the data.

This includes area of assessment, method of assessment, evaluation preparation, and parent education.

The SLP is able to work with the family to identify the most functional and effective app that will allow the individual to communicate independently in multiple contexts.

The SLP is able to work with the family to identify the most functional and effective app that will allow the individual to communicate independently in multiple contexts.

Support for Apple iPads TM , Apple iPodsTM Alliano et al.

(2012)

Level of Evidence: VI

Testing 11 clinical features in each app.

N= 21 (apps that were compared)

168

Flores et al.

(2012)

Level of Evidence: VI N= 5

McNaughton & Light (2013)

Level of Evidence: VI N=N/A

Van der Meer, et. al., (2011)

Level of Evidence: V

PECS and Apple iPad TM use during “snack time”

The amount of communicative behaviors were observed and recorded for each child during a 15 minute “snack time” while they used either the Apple iPad TM or the PECS.

Analysis of possible advantages and disadvantages of the iPad TM and mobile technologies.

Advantages and The Apple iPad disadvantages of Apple TM made it iPad TM and Mobile possible for technologies people with communication needs to communicate on a deeper level compared to what would have been possible with a device specifically created for AAC.

Systematically review studies on preference of AAC options.

Assessment of preferences between unaided, low-tech and high-tech SGD.

169

Some of the children displayed more communicative behaviors using the Apple iPad TM but there was no distinct pattern across all of the students.

Greater preference to high-tech SGD.

Arthanat, Curtain, & Knotak (2013)

Wilkinson & Mcllvane, (2013)

Level of Evidence: VI

25-minute sessions for 10 weeks, 4 times per week

Observed for differences in initiation, pace, persistence, attention, temperament, and goaldirected behaviors between activities with a computer and Apple iPad TM.

Improved initiation, temperament, pacing and attention with individual variation with use of Apple iPad TM.

Two trials of 16 sessions were conducted. In one session symbols were clustered together according to shared color, in the other session these same symbols were distributed throughout the display.

Examine which display design of an electronic AAC device allowed children with developmental disabilities to more accurately and quickly identify a symbol.

Children identified the symbols significantly faster when they were grouped together compared to when they were distributed across the display.

Treatment group who received the phonics instruction or a N= 31 control group students, who received 22 teachers sight word instruction on the Apple iPad TM.

Measured outcomes based on phoneme identification, blending sounds to identify words, and decoding for picture-word matching.

Students who received the Apple iPad TMbased phonics curriculum outperformed the control students.

N= 4

Level of Evidence: III N= 24

Ahlgrim et al. Level of (2016) Evidence: II

170

AAC Applications Douglas et al. Level of (2012) Evidence: VI

508 applications reviewed on iTunes Appstore.

N=N/A

171

Categorization of applications based on Child-SIS.

146 applications supported communication and language development for children with I/DD in many aspects of everyday life.

Discussion The purpose of this systematic review was to determine the effects of mobile technology as AAC interventions on speech production in children with developmental disabilities. The promising outcomes of this particular systematic review indicate that the use of mobile technology devices with children with developmental disabilities is warranted, and that available evidence indicates that the devices are likely to promote more effect speech or communication. However, the effectiveness of mobile technology devices is no guarantee that children with a developmental disability will be routinely used. Light & McNaughton (2012) deems the need for future research to emerge in order to improve AAC technologies with an increasing demand for a variety of models to meet different needs accordingly. AAC has been researched and is known as an effective intervention method, however there is a need for research into the best forms of AAC, which are better for specific disabilities, and ways to improve AAC mobile technologies and ways to effectively implement them. This can generalize to limitations in applications available as mentioned by Douglas et al. (2012). Additionally, Alliano et al., (2012) also stated that no mobile app will serve all communications needs of a particular client. Limitations also included small sample sizes. Two referenced within this review, Van der Meer et al., (2011) and Arthanat et al. (2013) each had sample sizes under five. The Van der Meer et al., (2011) study consisted for three individuals and Arthanat et al. (2013) four in the pilot study comparing iPads TM and computers with students with developmental disabilities. The authors Na & Wilkinson (2015) and Alliano et al. (2012) did not specify participants in their studies. As far as AAC has come, McNaughton and Light (2012) stated that there is still a large gap between what we know about AAC interventions and what happens in the lives of the children and adults who require AAC. The exclusion criteria for the review also placed limitation to the study. Throughout the articles, pieces pertaining to children specifically were extracted and examined closely. The limited research on mobile technology as a form of AAC also posed as a challenge. The consistent trend in literature is the substantial need for further research in AAC. It has been established that the benefits are significant, however there is little provided regarding how to improve and implement mobile devices as AAC. Furthermore, the Apple iPads TM have limited research on their contribution to AAC technology. Research of these devices and the applications that are available could change the current status of AAC interventions. The preference of which type of AAC is better is still unclear. Many articles stated that it is up to what the client prefers. This literature review stands as an exemplar for the imperative need for exploration of these devices in AAC. Finally, findings showed that large numbers of investigators failed to use evidence-based training procedures. Thus, the basic questions that remain open is the importance of future research regarding the effective use of mobile technology and various procedures applicable to individuals with developmental disabilities and the training or education of professionals and parents.

References Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Browder, D. M., Wood, L., Stanger, C., Preston, A. I., & Kemp-Inman, A. (2016). Systematic instruction of phonics skills using an iPad for students with developmental disabilities who are AAC users. Journal of Special Education, 50(2), 8697. doi: 10.1177/0022466915622140 172

Alliano, A., Herriger, K., Koutsoftas, A. D., & Bartolotta, T. E. (2012). A review of 21 iPad applications for augmentative and alternative communication purposes. Perspectives on Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 21(2), 60. doi:10.1044/aac21.2.60 Alzrayer, N., Banda, D. R., & Koul, R. K. (2014). Use of iPad/iPods with individuals with autism and other developmental disabilities: A meta-analysis of communication interventions. Review Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 1, 179-191.

Arthanat, S., Curtin, C., & Knotak, D. (2013). Comparative observations of learning engagement by students with developmental disabilities using iPad and computer: A pilot study.

Assistive Technology. 25(4), 204-213, doi: 10.1080/10400435.2012.761293.

Brady, N., Thiemann-Bourque, K., Fleming, K., & Matthews, K. (2013). Predicting language outcomes for children learning AAC: Child and environmental factors. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. 56(5), 1595–1612. doi:10.1044/10924388(2013/12-0102) Broberg, M., Ferm, U., & Thunberg, G. (2012). Measuring responsive style in parents who use AAC with their children: Development and evaluation of a new instrument. AAC: Augmentative & Alternative Communication, 28(4), 243-253. doi:10.3109/07434618.2012.740686 Cleland, J., Wood, S., Hardcastle, W., Wishart, J., Timmins, C. (2010). Relationship between speech, oromotor, language and cognitive abilities in children with Down’s syndrome.

International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 45(1), 83–95. doi: 10.3109/13682820902745453 Douglas, K., Wojcik, B., & Thompson, J. (2012). Is there an App for that? Journal of Special Education Technology. 27(2), 59-70.

Flores, M., Musgrove, K., Renner, S., Hinton, V., Strozier, S., Franklin, S., & Hil, D. (2012). A comparison of communication using the Apple iPad and a Picture-based System. AAC: Augmentative and Alternative Communication. 28(2), 74-84, doi:10.3109/07434618.2011.644579 Kagohara, D. M., van der Meer, L., Ramdoss, S., O’Reilly, M. F., Lancioni, G. E., Davis, T. N., Rispoli, M., Lang, R., Marschik, P. B., Sutherland, D., Green, V. A., & Sigafoos, J. (2013). Using iPods and iPads in teaching programs for individuals with developmental disabilities: A systematic review. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 34, 147-156.

Light, J., & McNaughton, D., (2012) Supporting the communication, language, and literacy development of children with complex communication needs: State of the science and future research priorities. Assistive Technology. 24(1), 34-44, doi: 10.1080/10400435.2011.648717.

Light, J., & McNaughton, D. (2012). The changing face of augmentative and alternative communication: past, present, and future challenges. AAC: Augmentative & Alternative Communication, 28(4), 197-204. doi:10.3109/07434618.2012.737024 Lüke, C. (2016). Impact of speech-generating devices on the language development of a child with childhood apraxia of speech: A case study. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 11(1), 80-88.

Lund, S. K., Quach, W., Weissling, K., McKelvey, M., & Dietz, A. (2017). Assessment with children who need augmentative and alternative communication (AAC): Clinical decisions of AAC specialists. Language Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 48(1), 56. doi: 10.1044/2016_LSHSS-15-0086

173

McNaughton, D. & Light, J. (2013). The iPad and mobile technology revolution: Benefits and challenges for individuals who require augmentative and alternative communication.

AAC: Augmentative and Alternative Communication. 29(2): 107–116, doi: 10.3109/07434618.2013.784930 Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D; the PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement.

Annals of Internal Medicine, 151(4), 264–269. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-151-4200908180-00135 Na, J., & Wilkinson, K. (2015). Interprofessional practice in developing an AAC system for children with Down syndrome. (2015). Perspectives on Augmentative & Alternative Communication, 24(3), 114-122 9p. doi:10.1044/aac24.3.114 National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, & Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2015, September 08). Developmental Disabilities. Retrieved June 19, 2017, from https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/developmentaldisabilities/index.html Roberts, J., Price, J., & Malkin, C., (2007). Language and communication development in Down syndrome. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews. 13: 26 – 35. doi: 10.1002/mrdd.20136 Schlosser, R. W., & Wendt. (2008). Effects of augmentative and alternative communication intervention on speech production in children with autism: A systematic review.

American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 17, 212–230.

Still, K., Rehfeldt, R. A., Whelan, R., May, R., & Dymond, S. (2014). Facilitating requesting skills using high-tech augmentative and alternative communication devices with individuals with autism spectrum disorders: A systematic review. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 8, 1184-1199.

Van Der Meer, L., Sigafoos, J., O’Rielly, M., & Lancioni, G. (2011a). Assessing preferences for AAC options in communication interventions for individuals with developmental disabilities: A review of the literature. Research in Developmental Disabilities. 32 14221431. doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2011.02.003 Van Der Meer, L., Kagohara, D., Achmadi, D., Green, V., Herrington, C., Sigafoos, J., O’Rielly, M., Lancioni, G., Lang, R., Rispoli, M. (2011b). Teaching functional use of an iPodbased speech-generating device to individuals with developmental disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology. 26(3.) 1-11.

Wilkinson, K., & Light, J. (2012). Preliminary study of gaze toward humans in photographs by individuals with autism, down syndrome, or other intellectual disabilities: implications for design of visual scene displays. AAC: Augmentative & Alternative Communication, 30(2), 130-146. doi:10.3109/07434618.2014.904434 Wilkinson, K. & Mcllvane, W. (2013). Perceptual factors influence visual search for meaningful symbols in individuals with intellectual disabilities and Down syndrome or autism spectrum disorders. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.

118(5), 353–364, doi:10.1352/1944-7558-118.5.353

174

About the Authors

Dr. Julia VanderMolen is an Assistant Professor of Public Health with Grand Valley State University in Michigan. The contribution of her research is to examine the benefits of assistive technology, UD and UDL. Additionally, Dr. VanderMolenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s recent work has included the benefits of 3D printing for the visually impaired, the concept of universal design and learning and the use of mobile technology to assist individuals with disabilities.

Kaitlin Chauv is a student studying speech-language pathology at Grand Valley State University in Michigan. Her research interests include AAC devices and cognitive disorders.

More specifically, Ms. Chauv most recent field of interest is learning the anatomy of the brain and how it affects communication and cognitive functions.

175

Special Education Personnel: Who is Serving Special Education Students in Ohio?

Patricia Prunty Ed.D. Bowling Green State Universityâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;Firelands College

Abstract This paper examines special education interventionists and paraprofessionals serving students with disabilities in Ohio. While it raises the question, what is an adequate number to serve students on Individualized Educational Plans (IEPs) in primarily inclusionary settings? Service models for special education in Ohio have progressed to a more inclusionary model. Ninety-five percent of children with disabilities in the United States are in the general education classroom setting during a school day (Easily, 2016). Almost eight of ten learners with disabilities are educated with their peers for more than 80% of the school day in 2015-2016 (ODE, 2017).

Schools are struggling to close the gap, remediate, and teach grade level standards to students with disabilities. School funding has remained stagnant and schools struggle to provide resources and supports to students with disabilities. This research will explore special education providersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; caseloads ratios in Ohio.

Special Education Personnel: Who is Serving Special Education Students in Ohio?

Students in Ohio The state of Ohio in the 2015-2016 school year served almost 1.7 million learners in public K-12 schools (ODE, 2017). Fifteen percent of the learners in Ohio are students identified with a disability and on an IEP. This data does not include students with 504 plans or learners in the (Response to Intervention) RTI process (ODE, 2017). According to Bureau of Labor and Statistics in 2017, there were 137, 260 teachers employed in Ohio during the 2015-2016 school year, and 20,150 were special education teachers serving kindergarten to grade 12 (United States Department of Labor Bureau of Labor & Statistics, 2017). The push for more inclusionary classes has changed the educational landscape in Ohio. In an inclusionary environment, special education providers are asked to perform different duties than twenty years ago. This change raises questions on both funding and caseloads for special education providers.

In 2013, The Ohio Department of Education published a Caseload Ratio Study: Final Report to ODE to explore special education staffing and personnel issues. The report collected data from eighteen Local Education Associations (LEAs) throughout the state using several data collection instruments. Intervention specialists were to keep two logs for one workweek. The first log was a time study worksheet to denote time spent on tasks during the workweek. The second log was a Workload Duty Log based on the ten categories of workload categories in Ohio Operating Standards 3301-51-09. The intervention specialist would complete an online survey that included information on the two self-reporting journal logs recorded the prior week. More than 70% of all intervention specialist surveyed worked beyond their contracted workweek. The

176

average overtime hours were between six and seven hours a week. Some LEAs have contracted extra pay, fewer duties, or plans to combat the overtime.

The researchers compared caseloads and special education waivers from ODE. Seventy-nine percent of reporting LEAs were out of compliance regarding age ranges per instructional period or maximum caseload ratios, but only 33% of them received the necessary waiver from ODE (Carlin, Watt, Fallow, Carlin & Vakil, 2013). Waivers were needed by service providers to exceed the maximum caseload ratios, but only 21% of these LEAs received a waiver to exceed caseloads (Carlin et al, 2013).

This research brought to light many issues in caseloads in Ohio. In 2016, Sue Zake, the Director of the Office of Exceptional Children in the Ohio Department of Education, issued ODE-OEC MEMO #2016-2 defining the terms workload, caseload, serve, and case management. This memo concluded, if a provider cannot perform all the workload duties and meet the direct/service/specially designed instruction needs of your assigned children, then you must reduce the caseload or workload. This is regardless of the maximum numbers outlined in the Ohio Operating Standards for the Education of Children with Disabilities (OAC3301-51-09(I) (Zake, 2016). OAC3301-51-09 specifically spells out Least Restrictive Education (LRE) while section I mandates service provider workload determination for delivery of services. For example, OAC3301-51-09- I2a states, an intervention specialist shall serve no more than sixteen children at the elementary, middle, or junior high school levels, or no more than twenty-four children at the high school level with intellectual disabilities (Ohio Administrative Code, 2017).

This memo attempts to address workload issues for providers for students with disabilities.

Ohio’s weighted state funding for special education is complex. The funding basis for Ohio’s current six-weight, cost-based, special education funding system, which provides educational services for Ohio’s students with disabilities, is unchanged (Burley, 2014). The state has retained a solid model for funding special education; it has not fully funded its own system (Burley, 2014). There have been many funding changes in the state of Ohio in the last decade, including all day kindergarten, smaller classroom sizes in K-3 and graduation requirements. These and other changes did not alter special education funding in Ohio. When comparing FY 2006 to FY 2014, there are no substantive structural differences in special education funding policies (Burley, 2014). The Executive Director, Margaret Burley, of the Ohio Coalition for Children with Disabilities concluded her financial study on special education funding stating, the state of Ohio is not fully funding its own six-weight, cost-based special education funding formula (2014). The lack of funding changes for students with disabilities, including inflationary increases, forces school districts to find ways to cut spending to serve students or incur more of the costs for educating special education students in Ohio.

Special Education Services Models The foundation of inclusion policies and services models originated with the passage of PL 94142 in 1975 and PL 99-457 in 1986. Special education laws and policies continued to evolve in legal context such as (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) IDEA in 1990 and changes in 1997 and the reauthorization of IDEA in 2004.

177

Historically, special education units were based upon grouping children with similar disabilities together for educational purposes. The question of appropriate placement for students with disabilities has been discussed in schools and courts. In Ohio prior to 1945, students with low incidence IEP’s were provided services and districts were reimbursed per student. However, in the 1945-1946 school year, units began to emerge with unit funding. Laws were still permissive and did not require districts to develop special education units (ODE, 1986).

From the beginning of special services being offered in Ohio, the state’s philosophy was to separate handicapped children from regular classes and peers (ODE, 1986)1 . LRE was part of PL-94-142, which required students used to be placed in settings with children that were not disabled. Funding for special education services from the federal and state governments was still on a unit basis. Today state funding is based on per pupil formula, but Ohio’s laws sets caseload limits for special education teachers based upon age and disability category of the learners.

Federal laws have defined disability categories, and states used these categories to set legal expectations of special education placements and services. IDEA does not require all students with an IEP be placed in an inclusionary setting. IDEA builds upon older legislation that does require students with disabilities places in Least Restrictive Environments (LRE). School districts must educate students with disabilities in the regular classroom with appropriate aids and supports with their nondisabled peers (Wright’s Law, 2015). Therefore, the Reauthorization of IDEA in 2004 encouraged inclusionary practices based on LRE. In 2017, Morningstar, Kurth and Johnson published an article entitled, Examining National Trends in Educational Placements for Students with Students with Significant Disabilities. This research concluded that in the last decade, students with cognitive disabilities have steadily increased access to general education settings and for the majority of their day (Morningstar, Kurth & Johnson, 2017). By contrast their research also states learners with multiple disabilities access to the general education classroom has made little progress in the last decade (Morningstar, Kurth, & Johnson, 2017).

Inclusionary Services with Intervention Specialists The United States Department of Education has not defined the term inclusion or inclusionary practices. Each State’s Education Departments determines policies and state laws to regulate and interpret federal laws including ideas such as inclusion.

As inclusionary practices moved forward, the services needed for children with disabilities changed in the school settings. As the special education population became more ingrained in the general education classroom, the role of the interventionist also changed. Often in general education classroom the interventionist would assist English Language Learners (ELL) students, at risk students, and provide more intensive supports for all struggling students. This changing role of the special educator also changed the time and energy devoted to learners on an IEP. The focus on serving the special education student changed to assisting the learner with grade level standards, and shifted away from remediation.

1

People first language was not used, because the wording reflects the wording in Federal Law PL 94-142.

178

There are educational issues with this shifting inclusionary focus when discussing students with a disability. The focus of service changed to accommodations or modifications that would allow the learner to stay with his/her peers in the general education classroom and moved away from the need of remediation and meeting the individual needs of the learner. Stuart Woodcock and Ian Hardy in 2017 published a study on professional development for teachers in inclusionary settings. More than half of the special education interventionists believed an inclusive classroom is an effective way to teach all students (Woodcock & Hardy, 2017). According to this research, appropriate tools, training, classroom sizes, and personnel are required to meet the needs of all learners in inclusionary settings. Due to service models and instructional strategies shifting, IEPs also continued to rapidly change with the emphasis more on access to the general education classroom, and less on meeting individual academic, social, emotional, and physical goals of the learner. Woodcock and Hardy’s study concluded the complexity surrounding inclusion are often downplayed and focused on students with disabilities in the general education classroom, a less concern on engaging these students academically in the general education classroom (Woodcock & Hardy, 2017).

Special educators are now working in co-taught classrooms, and often work with many more students than their assigned case load. The case load still requires all the state and federal paperwork for students with disabilities be completed by the special educator. The special educator or interventionist is required to collaborate and work with a general education teacher.

Planning time is crucial for co-taught inclusionary classrooms. This time requirements means that identified special education students are not receiving instructional supports from the special education interventionist, and paraprofessionals are providing more academic and behavioral supports.

It is conceivable that special education teachers spend less time with students with disabilities due to other professional responsibilities. Vannest, Hagan-Burke, Parker & Soares studied inclusion in 24 schools across nine districts in Texas and published their research in 2011.

Twenty percent of inclusionary special education teachers’ time was spent on academic instruction. When direct academic instruction was added with instructional supports in the general education classroom the teachers’ time on academics was a total of 37% (Vannest et al, 2011). Behavior management and paperwork resulted in over a quarter of the special education teacher’s time. The role of the special education teacher continues to become more focused on managerial tasks and less on high quality instruction. Suter and Griangeco’s study on Service Delivery in Inclusionary Schools determined changes need to be made in practices that are compatible with inclusion. Too many special educators report caseloads that make it difficult for them to apply their knowledge and skills for the benefit of students with disabilities (Suter & Giangreco, 2009).

For both the general classroom educator and the special education interventionist, professional development rapidly took the form of learning about inclusion. Waitloller and Artiles reported that professional development for inclusion took on three distinct topics: ability differences, curriculum adaptations and learning participation for all learners (2013). The special education teacher’s role changed as rapidly as that of the general education professional. The premise of sharing students in the same classroom moved classrooms away from a more traditional teaching 179

style and model. Personnel that never worked together before began to co-teach and share students, materials, behavior management, and embrace a new philosophy of education. This transition to an inclusionary model met some resistance from many educational leaders and staff.

The premise from the general education teacher held professional mastery of content, and the interventionist was trained in differentiation and scaffolding would create a dynamic combination in the classroom. This educational pairing demanded more time for professional planning and curriculum development. However, many interventionists work with several or many general education teachers, and a need for more staff arose in schools.

Paraprofessionals in Special Education Some students need an adult with them throughout the course of the day for behavioral, emotional, social, and academic supports. Other students on an IEP were grouped together to attend general education classes, so that a paraprofessional or special education interventionist could be with them in the general education class. Currently, there are no federal regulations on how many special education students can be grouped together in a general education classroom.

For some classrooms, these numbers become quite large. In fact, the special education students may outnumber the general education students due to limited staffing issues.

Reliance on paraprofessional or educational assistants to provide adequate supports for students with disabilities has become more prevalent in Ohio and in the United States as a whole. Seventy four percent of instruction is provided by paraprofessionals for students with moderate or severe intellectual disabilities (Suter & Giangreco, 2009). Paraprofessionals were often sent with special education learners to assist the general education teacher. Paraprofessionals do not have the same educational training and background of interventionists, and a new classroom dynamic emerged. The paraprofessional became more of a caretaker and an assistant in the classroom.

The general education teacher becomes responsible for all parts of the educational lesson, including the scaffolding and differentiation pieces to meet the needs of special education and atrisk learners. This educational movement allowed the students with disabilities to remain in the general education classroom, but without intensive instructional supports. Remediation and meeting the individual goals of the child were less of the focus, and the focus continued to shift for a student to stay in the general education classroom with peers.

Research Aims Special Education Providers 1. How many special education teachers and/or paraprofessionals serve special education students in selected counties and school districts in Ohio?

A. What are the ratios of special educators to students with disabilities, paraprofessionals to students with disabilities, and special education teams to students with disabilities?

B. What staffing ratios are present in selected counties and districts in Ohio among educational professionals?

2. How has the number of special education professionals changed in the past twenty years?

180

Research Methods The Ohio Department of Education supplies educational data to the public. The researcher accessed the ODE CUPP (District Profile Report) report for 2015-2016. According to ODE, the CUPP Report contains data for fifty variables (ODE, 2017). The most current data is on the 2015-2016 school year. The researcher used data, such as demographic of students on an IEP, disadvantaged students, total daily average membership, and per pupil expenditure.

The researcher selected five counties in northern Ohio located between Toledo and Cleveland, which included thirty school districts. The data for one school district in the five counties was not available on the ODE CUPP Report. The researcher also used state data compared to the information from these twenty-nine public school districts to state data, to ensure data collected was proportional to the 608 public school districts in Ohio (ODE, 2017).

The researcher also used public information on district web pages and profiles to collect data on staff numbers. For districts that staff data was not available online, the researcher contacted an administrator in the district for the data. This data is currently collected by the ODE through Educational Management Information System (EMIS) reported by each individual district to the Ohio Department of Education and accessible public records.

Data & Results The following table displays data gathered from Ohio Department of Educationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s CUPP Report for 2015-2016 school year. In chart one the researcher gathered data for each district and was compiled by county. A comparison of state data points and county data points were collected.

The researcher noted the number of schools in each county represented in the data including the mean of percentage of disadvantaged students, students with disabilities, per pupil expenditure of the districts in each county. The number of students with disabilities was calculated by adding the total from the districts in each county. For mean and range were also calculated for the combined five counties in northern Ohio. The mean of the counties is used for comparison with state data. The range displays the wide variation in disadvantaged students, students with disabilities and per pupil expenditures.

In Table 2 the researcher gathered data for personnel through public records of staff in districts and counties for the 2015-2016 school year. The data gathered was for general education teachers, special education teachers, and paraprofessionals and classroom assistants. The researcher also gathered state data for the 2015-2016 school year from the United States Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics.

To calculate the caseload for special education interventionists, the researcher divided the number of students with disabilities by the number of special education teachers in each county.

To determine the caseload of special education teams, the special education teachers and paraprofessionals, the special education teams were added together and divided by the number of students with disabilities for each county. The next data point is the percentage of special education teachers to general education teaching staff in the district and was tabulated by dividing the number of special education teachers by all teaching staff of the districts in the 181

county. The last data point is the comparison of special education teachers to paraprofessionals and was calculated by dividing the number of special educators by paraprofessionals to determine the percentage.

Table 1 Five County Student Demographic Data ______________________________________________________________________________ County Public school Districts in county

Total Average membership

% of disadvantaged students(mean)

% of students #of SWD Per pupil with students expenditure disabilities disabilities (mean) (total) _____________________________________________________________________________________

Erie

6

11,520

Huron

7

9,058

45.6%

Ottawa

5

6,252

34%

Sandusky 5

10,718

Seneca

5

Mean

5.6

Range of districts

53.4%

13.3% 14%

1624

$11,192

1268

$10,433

13.6%

856

$12,153

46.6%

13.5%

1461

$10,229

5,275

32.2%

13.6%

778

$10,758

8565

42.3%

13.6%

76.1%

11.3%

5987

$10,758 $11,011

Ohio 608 2848 47.8% 14.27% 246,224 $11,164 ____________________________________________________________________________________

Note. From Ohio Department of Education Cupp Report: FY2016 District profile report.

182

Table 2 School District by County Staff Data __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ County

General Ed teachers

Special Ed teachers

Para-Pro

Caseload per special ed teacher

Caseload per para-pro

Caseload per special ed team

% teaching staff special ed teachers

% of teaching staff special ed teachers to para-pros _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Erie 557 67 67 24.2 24.2 12.2 10.7% 50% Huron

449

87

87

14.6

15.3

7.5

16.2%

51%

Sandusky

497

89

88

16.4

16.6

8.3

15%

50%

Seneca

292

51

44

17.7

8.2

14.9%

54%

15.3

Ottawa 293 33 35 25.9 24.5 12.6 10% 49% ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Total

2,088

327

317

Mean

418

65.4

63.4

19.3

19.7

9.8

13.4%

51%

20,150

35,250

12.2

7.0

5.4

8%

36%

State

137,260

Note. From Ohio Department of Education Cupp Report: FY2016 District profile report & Ohio Department of Education EMIS reports FY 2016.

183

Table 3 Historical Date of Educational Professions in Ohio ______________________________________________________________________________ Ohio Professionals

2016

2010

General Education Teachers (K-12)

137, 260

113,420

136,980

125,530

Special Education Teachers (K-12)

20,150

21,410

23,150

20,440

Paraprofessionals

35,250

37,470

31,090

12, 670

Ohio Students

1,795,339

1,774,538

1,811,708

1,823,232

Students with Disabilities

246, 224

283,768

248,698

201,551

14.3%

15.9%

13.7%

% of Students With disabilities

2005

1997

11%

Note. From Ohio Department of Education Enrollment Data (2017).

Table 3 describes the historical data of Ohio educational professionals. The table also contains historical data of Ohio students and students with disabilities from the Ohio Department of Education Enrollment Data (ODE, 2017). The enrollment data started for the 1996-1997 school year, and the researcher used this as a data collection point. The data points are not evenly distributed, but still demonstrated the trends in employment and enrollment data.

The researcher compared data of the number on general education teachers, special education interventionists, and paraprofessionals or teaching assistants in each district. These numbers would be used to account for data of education teacher caseloads, ratio of special education paraprofessionals serving students with disabilities and data such as FTE (full time equivalency) receiving special education services. FTE refers to the full-time student count in the Ohio EMIS report, used for funding at state and local levels. Special education students denoted in EMIS with category of disability (ODE, 2017). The researcherâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s count did not consider related services such as speech language therapists, physical or occupational therapists/assistants, or low incidence consultant service providers.

Analysis of Data Research Question #1 1. How many special education teachers and/or paraprofessionals serve special education students in selected school districts and counties in Ohio?

184

A. What are the ratios of special educators to students with disabilities, paraprofessionals to students with disabilities, and special education teams to students with disabilities?

B. What staffing ratios are present in Ohio counties and school districts among educational professionals?

The US Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics reported in 2015-2016 that 20,150 special educators and 35,250 classroom assistants employed in Ohio schools (US Department of Labor Bureau, 2017). The five districts in the five counties employed 2088 general education teachers, 327 special education teachers and 317 paraprofessionals. The state ratio of special education students per special educator is 12.2. The mean of the districts in the five counties studied was a ratio of 19.3 students with disabilities for each special education teacher. This varied greatly from county to county with highest ratio of students with disabilities to special educators calculated as 25.9.

There are some limitations with this number. Students that are served by a speech therapist only are also counted in this number of students with disabilities. As well as other students that a special education interventionist, serves such as students in Response to Intervention (RTI) process or 504 students, are not counted in this ratio.

The current ratio of paraprofessional to special education students in Ohio was also calculated.

The National Bureau of Labor Statistics reports in 2015-2016, there were 20,150 special educators and 35,250 classroom assistants employed in Ohio (US Department of Labor Bureau, 2017). The five northern Ohio counties employed 317 paraprofessionals. According to the ODE CUPP report for the 2015-2016 year, there were 246, 224 on IEPs in the state of Ohio (ODE, 2017). This is a ratio of seven students per paraprofessional or classroom assistant. The ratio in the five selected counties was 19.7 for students with disabilities to paraprofessional. The highest countyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ratio was 25.2 students per paraprofessional. This data may be skewed, because there are often teacher assistants hired in a school district that may not be serving special education students, but these paraprofessionals are counted in the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The United States Bureau of Labor Statistics has a category for library assistants, but not does not define other roles of a paraprofessional in a school. The current ratio of special education to special education students in school districts in Ohio was formulated at seven students per paraprofessional.

The National Labor Statistics reports that in 2015-2016, there were 20,150 special educators and 35, 250 classroom assistants employed in Ohio (United States Bureau of Labor, 2017).

According to the ODE CUPP report for the 2015-2016 year, there were 246, 224 on IEPs in the state of Ohio (ODE, 2017). The state ratio consists of five students per special education team of special education teacher and paraprofessional or classroom assistant. The mean of the five counties caseload ratio of students with disabilities to special education team was 9.8, and the highest ratio for a county was 12.6.

Research Question #2 What staffing ratios are present in Ohio among educational professionals?

185

The National Labor Statistics reports that in 2015-2016, there were 20,150 special educators and 137,260 general education teachers employed in Ohio (US Department of Labor Bureau, 2017).

This makes a state ratio of 12.8% of all teachers are special education teachers. The districts in the five counties’ mean was tabulated at 13.4% of all teachers are special education teachers.

The ratio of special education teachers to paraprofessionals in districts in Ohio was formulated from this data. The National Labor Statistics reports in 2015-2016 counted 20,150 special educators and 35,250 paraprofessionals employed in Ohio (United States Department of Labor Bureau, 2017). In Ohio, 36% of the special education team is comprised of special educators, or a ratio of .57 special education teacher for every paraprofessional. The districts in the five northern Ohio counties was tabulated at a ratio of more than one paraprofessional for every special education teacher.

Special education teachers on average supervised and monitored at least one paraprofessional.

According to United States Department of Education the national average is close to one special education paraprofessional per special educator (NCES, 2017). The National Center for Educational Statistics determined that 12% of all employees in public schools are teaching assistants, and 43% of all employees were teachers (NCES, 2017). The employment of instructional assistants or paraprofessionals has risen in Ohio and nationally (NCES, 2017).

The employment of teachers has remained steady in the past almost twenty years. According to the National Labor Statistics, the employment of special educators has stayed almost constant, while the employment of paraprofessionals has nearly tripled. The percentage of students placed on IEPs has steadily risen in the past twenty years with 40,000 more students with disabilities in Ohio; however, the population of Ohio’s schools has declined by 280,000 learners.

Conclusion Determining the caseloads of special education professionals both interventionists and paraprofessionals should be simply mathematical calculations of ratios. The review of educational research and the data comprising inclusionary caseloads is a complex educational issue. This study attempted to review Ohio data and closer look at data in twenty-nine districts.

This study analyzed data from school districts in five local counties. These five Ohio counties were in located in northern Ohio between Cleveland and Toledo. The Total Daily Average Membership of these schools ranged from 322 to 4410 (ODE CUPP Report, 2017). The percentage of disadvantaged students in this area was 39% compared to the state’s average of 49.9% (ODE, 2017). The percentage of students with disabilities in these five counties was 13.1% compared to 15.3% state average (ODE, 2017). The per pupil expenditure in this geographical area was $10,166 compared to the state average $10,346 (ODE, 2017). These data points determined if this area of Ohio was a good sampling and representative of district data in the state.

The trend of special education students serviced by more paraprofessionals is evident in the national, state and local data. Accurately reflecting these configurations is a monumental task due to excess of service arrangement and configurations. The data supports the premise that more schools are using paraprofessionals or teaching assistants to meet the needs of at risk 186

students, English Language Learners, and students with disabilities. Financially, monies for special education has not increased in Ohio, and the need for more special education providers continues to rise. To meet the educational needs of students with disabilities, more paraprofessionals are being hired. These students need more intensive instruction and support systems, and yet receive educational supports from school personnel with little training in behavioral, social/emotional/ and academic interventions.

Implications Special education teacher roles have morphed with inclusion. The co-teaching model requires special educators to spend a great deal of time planning with core teachers. Depending on the school district, the interventionist may be in one or many general education classrooms serving students with disabilities. In these five northern Ohio counties, the average caseload was 15.7 students per special education teacher. In the 2015-2016 school year, the state of Ohio served more than quarter million students on IEPs with 20,150 special education teachers creating a caseload of 12.7 students per special education teacher according to the 2017 ODE CUPP Report and U.S. Department of Education’s data. This ratio may be inflated due to students on speech only IEPs, some have other services provided by the special education teacher and some do not other services except for speech. However, the ratio does not reflect that many schools have interventionists also read tests and modify for students on 504 plans. The national average in 2015 was 1.5% of national student population were on 504 plans (The Advocacy Institute, 2016).

Special educators are required to supervise, train, and evaluate paraprofessionals. Special educators are assigned roles in the RTI process for struggling students. These roles vary from district to district, but typically require more meetings, student assessments, and intervention paperwork. Fisher and Pleasants reported that paraprofessionals are trained on the job by special education teachers (Fisher & Pleasants, 2011). Special education interventionists are spending less time teaching academic content or providing academic supports for students due to the changing professional requirements on the special education teacher. Vannest’s research concluded only 37% of an interventionist’s work day was providing direct instruction or instructional supports for students with disabilities (Vannest et al, 2011).

Several lawsuits have raised the question whether paraprofessionals are qualified to provide intensive instruction as required on the IEP. With the responsibility of providing appropriate instruction falling to the special education instructor. No Child Left Behind requires specially designed instruction for students on IEPs from a highly qualified teacher. However, recent studies such as Suter & Giangreco’s report that nearly three-fourths of instruction and instructional supports provided by paraprofessionals. According to (20U.S.C. 6319(g)) in No Child Left Behind legislation the duties and responsibilities of the paraprofessional are limited.

A paraprofessional may not provide any instruction to a student, unless the paraprofessional is working under the direct supervision of a teacher. (Wright’s Law, 2015). No Child Left Behind also defined the qualifications of paraprofessionals. A paraprofessional must complete at least two years of study at an institution of higher education; or obtained an associate’s (or higher) degree and met a rigorous standard of quality and can demonstrate, through a formal state or local academic assessment with the knowledge of, and the ability to assist in instructing, reading, writing, and mathematics as appropriate. (20 U.S.C. § 6319(c)) (Wright’s Law, 2015).

187

Recently the Ohio Senate has heard testimony from special education service providers on professional shortages to meet the needs of the special education population. Testimony was heard in May 2017 from Ann Brennan, Executive Director of Ohio School Psychologists Association. A concerted effort to address related service provider shortages is necessary to assure all students with disabilities have access to high-quality related service providers. As shortages in school psychologists, behavior specialists, special education teachers, speech language therapists continue in our state, more paraprofessionals both qualified and unqualified will be hired to provide services for our special education learners (Brennan, 2017).

Limitations There are limitations related to using public data from school websites and ODE data. The ODE CUPP Report is based on EMIS data. EMIS data on special education students can fluctuate during a school year. Students on speech only IEPs are not differentiated in the IEP count on the ODE CUPP report. The data in the ODE CUPP report is a snapshot of special education, but not comprehensive data. The count of paraprofessionals may also fluctuate during the year as well.

The professional data on school websites may also vary during a school year. It is difficult to get an exact count of special caseload for special education students for various reasons such as students who move, students that are tested and placed during the school year.

The greatest limitation in this type of data gathering is the quickly changing landscape in educational services. Educational programming, service models, classroom and student configurations for serving special education students shifts and changes in both individual buildings and districts. A caseload ratio provides a snapshot of special education personnel in districts. The caseload of a special educator fluctuates with changing enrollment, newly identified students, and the changing needs of students with disabilities.

There are several ways to define if these caseload ratios are acceptable. The state of Ohio’s Office of Exceptional Children in the Ohio Department of Education has defined compliance for years with unit ratios. The workload for providers of services to students with disabilities is outlined by Ohio Administrative Code (3301-51-09(l)). However, Ohio’s Director of the Office of Exceptional Children, Sue Zake’s memo entitled Service Provider Ratio and Workload Clarification defined workload and caseload for special education providers. Your district must always consider the specific needs of your student population. If a provider cannot provide all workload duties and meet the direct service/specially designed instruction needs for assigned children, then the caseload/ workload must be reduced. This is regardless of the maximum numbers outlined in the Operating Standards for the Education of Children with Disabilities (OAC 3301-51-09(l)) (Zake, 2017). This memo strongly urged school district administrators to examine and document the specially designed instruction providers for children with disabilities in Ohio’s schools.

Further Study To provide meaningful professional development and instruction for pre-service teachers, data needs to be formulated on the duties of both special education teachers and paraprofessionals.

The researcher suggests further exploration of the duties and responsibilities of special education teachers and paraprofessionals in Ohio. Listed are several questions to be explored further.

Have the roles of these providers changed with practices that are more inclusionary? Are special 188

education teachers taking on more supervisory roles, and paraprofessionals providing more direct instruction for students with disabilities? Lastly, what funding would be needed to appropriately serve students with disabilities?

The caseload Ratio Study Final Report for The Ohio Department of Education concluded, in order to be effective at providing services and interventions, a balance must be found between the amount of time to provide services/interventions and the time needed to complete workload duties during the workweek (Carlin et al, 2013). Ohioâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s EMIS data concludes that the numbers of students with disabilities in Ohio continues to rise. The Ohio employment data on special educators remains steady, and the employment of paraprofessionals has tripled. Districts are struggling financially with providing services, and the result is more paraprofessionals instead of special education teachers serving students with disabilities. These figures also suggest that the roles for special education providers is continuing to change when delivering services to special needs students.

References The Advocacy Institute (2016). Public school students overall and those served solely under Section 504. Retrieved from http://www.advocacyinstitute.org/resources/Overall.504StudentsCRDC2012.pdf Biggs, E. E., Gilson, C. B., & Carter, E. W. (2016). Accomplishing More Together. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 41(4), 256-272. doi:10.1177/1540796916665604 Brennan, A. (2017). Written testimony Am. Sub. HB 49 to the Senate Finance Primary and Secondary Education Subcommittee. Retrieved from: prod.lis.state.oh.us/...ed...ed.../ospasenatetestimony5-17-17.doc Burley, M. (2014). Special education funding update-Ohio coalition for education for children with disabilities (pp. 1-15, Rep.). Marion, OH: OCECD. doi:https://www.ocecd.org/Downloads/OCECD%20Sp%20Ed%20Funding%20UpdateFinal%205%202014.pdf Carlin, C., Watt, L., Fallow, W., Carlin, E., & Vakil, S. (2013). Caseload ratio study: Final report to the Ohio Department of Education (pp. 1-233, Rep.). Columbus, OH: ODE. doi:https://education.ohio.gov/getattachment/Topics/Special-Education/WorkloadCalculator/Caseload-Ratio-Study-Report.pdf.aspx Deardorff, P., Glasenapp, G., Schalock, M., & Udell, T. (2007). TAPS: An Innovative Professional Development Program for Paraeducators Working in Early Childhood Special Education. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 26(3), 3-15. doi:10.1177/875687050702600302 Downing, J. E., Ryndak, D. L., & Clark, D. (2000). Paraeducators in inclusive classrooms. Remedial and Special Education, 21(3), 171-181. doi:10.1177/074193250002100308 Fisher, M., & Pleasants, S. L. (2011). Roles, responsibilities, and concerns of paraeducators. Remedial and Special Education, 33(5), 287-297. doi:10.1177/0741932510397762 Etscheidt, S. (2005). Paraprofessional services for students with disabilities: A legal analysis of issues. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 30(2), 60-80. doi:10.2511/rpsd.30.2.60 189

Giangreco, M. F., & Broer, S. M. (2005). Questionable utilization of paraprofessionals in inclusive schools. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 20(1), 10-26. doi:10.1177/10883576050200010201 Giangreco, M. F., Suter, J. C., & Hurley, S. M. (2011). Revisiting personnel utilization in inclusion-oriented schools. The Journal of Special Education, 47(2), 121-132. doi:10.1177/0022466911419015 Heasley, S. (2016). Report: inclusion on rise in nation’s schools. Retrieved from https://www.disabilityscoop.com/2016/02/02/report-inclusion-rise/21862/ Morningstar, M. E., Kurth, J. A., & Johnson, P. E. (2017). Examining national trends in educational placements for students with significant disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 38(1), 3-12. doi: 10.1177/0741932516678327 National Center for Education Statistics. (2017). The condition for education: Teacher and pupil teacher ratios Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_clr.asp Ohio Department of Education (1986). History of special education in Ohio, 1803-1985.

Worthington, OH, Ohio Department of Education.

Ohio Department of Education (2017). ODE-OEC MEMO #2016-2: Service provider ratio and workload clarification. Retrieved from: https://education.ohio.gov/getattachment/Topics/Special-Education/Service-Provider Ratio-and-Workload-Calculation/2016-2-3-ODE-OEC-Memo-2016-2-Service-ProviderRatio-and-Workload-Clarification.pdf.aspx Ohio Department of Education (2017). FY2016 district profile report. Retrieved from http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Finance-and-Funding/School-Payment-Reports/DistrictProfile-Reports/FY2016-District-Profile-Report Suter, J. C., & Giangreco, M. F. (2008). Numbers that count. The Journal of Special Education, 43(2), 81-93. doi:10.1177/0022466907313353 United States Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics (2016). May 2016 state occupational employment and wage estimates Ohio. Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_oh.htm Vannest, K. J., Hagan-Burke, S., Parker, R. I., & Soares, D. A. (2011). Special education teacher time use in four types of programs. The Journal of Educational Research, 104(4), 219-230. doi:10.1080/00220671003709898 Waitoller, F. R., & Artiles, A. J. (2013). A decade of professional development research for inclusive education: A critical review and notes for a research program. Review of Educational Research, 83(3), 319-356. doi:10.3102/0034654313483905 Woodcock, S., & Hardy, I. (2017). Probing and problematizing teacher professional development for inclusion. International Journal of Educational Research, 83(2) 43-54. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2017.02.008 Wright’s Law (2015). Inclusion, least restrictive environment (LRE), mainstreaming.

Retrieved from http://www.wrightslaw.com/info/lre.index.htm Wright’s Law (2015). Aides-v-Paraprofessionals-v-Highly Qualified Teachers. Retrieved from: http://www.wrightslaw.com/aides-v-paraprofessionals-v-highly-qualified-teachers/ Zigmond, N. (2003). Where should students with disabilities receive special education Services? The Journal of Special Education, 37(3), 193-199. doi:10.1177/00224669030370030901

190

About the Author Patricia (Trisha) Prunty, Ed.D., is an Associate Professor at Bowling Green State University Firelands Campus. Dr. Prunty spent 32 years teaching and working in public school settings primarily working with students with disabilities, before becoming a professor at BGSU. Dr. Prunty currently is conducting a follow up study to further understand the roles of special education teachers and paraprofessionals. Trisha Prunty is a local school board member and serves on Ohio Department of Education advisory boards such as SAPEC (State Advisory Panel for Exceptional Children). Dr. Prunty is married to her husband, Scott, an adapted physical educator, and mother to seven amazing children.

191

Author Guidelines and Publishing Process

AUTHOR GUIDELINES SPECIAL EDUCATION RESEARCH, POLICY & PRACTICE welcome manuscript submissions at any time. Authors are completely responsible for the factual accuracy of their contributions. Authors are responsible for obtaining permission to quote lengthy excerpts from previously-published articles.

Authors will be notified of the receipt of their manuscripts within seven (7) business days of their receipt by the Chief Editor and can expect to receive the recommendation of the review process within 90 days.

All submissions must have a cover letter indicating that the manuscript has not been published, or is not being considered for publication anywhere else, in whole or in substantial part. On the cover letter it will be noted to the authors to be sure to include their name, address, email address, and phone number.

Typescript should conform to the following: 

           

Method of Manuscript Submission: Send Manuscripts should be submitted electronically with the words " Submission to SPECIAL EDUCATION RESEARCH, POLICY & PRACTICE" in the subject line Language: English Document: Microsoft Word Font: Times New Roman or Arial Size of Font: 12 Point Page Limit: None Margins: 1” on all sides Title of paper: Top of page Capitals, bold, and centered Author(s) Name: Centered under title of paper Format: Manuscripts should follow the guidelines of the most recent edition of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association Figures and Tables: All should be integrated in the typescript Abstract: An abstract of no more than 150 words should accompany each submission References: Insert all references cited in the paper submitted on a Reference Page

PUBLISHING PROCESS The following are the steps through which a submitted article moves from initial submission to actual publication in SPECIAL EDUCATION RESEARCH, POLICY & PRACTICE. 1. The article is submitted in Word format by the author(s) to the Editor, Dr. George Giuliani, at George.A.Giuliani@hofstra.edu 192

2. The Editor then sends an email to the author stating that the article has been received and a final answer will be given within 90 days of receipt.

3. The article is then placed in an online folder that holds all articles up for review.

4. The article is then removed of all author names, affiliations, etc. so that when it is sent out for review, it is a blind review and no peer reviewers have any indication who wrote the article or from what university it was submitted.

5. An email is then sent by the Editor to all members of the Editorial Board with a request to review an article. Only the title of the article is given.

6. Peer reviewers then email the Editor as to their interest in reviewing the specific article. A minimum of three (3) blind reviewers is selected. An email to each blind reviewer is then sent reviewing the peer review process.

7. The peer reviewers have 60 days from receipt to return a recommendation to the Editor.

8. Once all of the reviews have been obtained, the Editor determines whether to:    

Accept, with or without editorial revisions Invite the authors to revise their manuscript to address specific concerns before a final decision is reached Reject, but indicate to the authors that further work might justify a resubmission Reject outright, typically on grounds of specialist interest, lack of novelty, insufficient conceptual advance or major technical and/or interpretational problems

9. An email with the decision (and rationale for it) is then sent to the author(s).

10. Before publication, the article is then passed through three functions: copy editing (grammar, references), proofing (typographical errors, spelling errors), and layout (creating a Microsoft Word and PDF version of the article).

193

Copyright and Reprint Rights SPECIAL EDUCATION RESEARCH, POLICY & PRACTICE is published by Hofstra University.

SPECIAL EDUCATION RESEARCH, POLICY & PRACTICE retains copyright of all original materials, however, the author(s) retains the right to use, after publication in the journal, all or part of the contribution in a modified form as part of any subsequent publication.

If the author(s) use the materials in a subsequent publication, whether in whole or part, SPECIAL EDUCATION RESEARCH, POLICY & PRACTICE must be acknowledged as the original publisher of the article.

All other requests for use or re-publication in whole or part, should be addressed to the Editor of SPECIAL EDUCATION RESEARCH, POLICY & PRACTICE.

194