Outcomes for Students With Severe Disabilities Can, Must Improve - On Special Education - Education Week

Outcomes for Students With Severe Disabilities Can, Must Improve - On Special Education - Education Week

New Research finds that Educational Inequities for Individuals diagnosed with Intellectual Disabilities continue...

 Did you know:

The 30^th Report to Congress found that overall, 60% of students with disabilities spend 80% or more of their day in general education. However, ...

• 16% of students with intellectual disabilities spend 80% of their day in general education. 
• The majority (48%) spend less than 40% of their time in general education. 

 National Transition data found:

•  43% of students with intellectual disabilities who have exited High School are working in sheltered workshops. 
• Paid work while in HS is the #1 predictor of employment
• Unpaid experiences while in HS had no influence on post high school outcomes. 
• Students having a method of communication is a predictor of postschool employment success.  

Looks like we all still have A LONG way to go folks!  

If you love them, set them free....

...or so the saying goes.  I think it's meant to be applied to humans, but today I am applying it to my proposal.  It is off to my committee for final review before D-DAY on the 24th-  It is freeing and scary all at the same time.

The funny thing is that I am continuing to work, obsessively I might add, on the document.  As I've been told before from a great colleague/friend, "the writing process is never complete" and "a manuscript is never done".  So, although my document feels far from "done" I had to, in the interest of moving to the next phase of doctoral work- data collection, set it free.

Wish me luck faithful readers !!!!!

Dissertation Draft: Take 5- The adrenaline is running high

As I round the corner to turn in my proposal draft by 12:00 today I can feel the adrenaline surge through my body.  It is something I desperately need right now, adrenaline that is, because I've felt a lull in my commitment to this thing lately.  A typical feeling I'm told, but de-motivating none the less.  Thus, I share this rush with you if only to document, for your future endeavors as doc. students (should you be the ones reading this) that in the final hours, when all hope seems to have left you, YOU CAN DO THIS and YOU WILL DO THIS!!!  Just as I will complete my proposal by the deadline, so will you, because our bodies are amazing and give us a natural surge of energy precisely when needed.  And remember, due to the new addition of baby Emily to our family, I'm doing this on an average of 4 hours of BROKEN sleep a night- I have a 3 month old at home and love every minute of it, but as can be expected, she is taking a toll on my sleep!!

POWER THROUGH UNPLUGGED- YOU CAN DO THIS!

Dissertation Draft: Take 4- The Executive Summary

Here it is folks:

With the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB, 2002) and the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA, 2004), the inclusion of students with disabilities in general education classrooms has become more prevalent within our public schools (DuFour & Eaker, 1998; Mcleskey et al., 2010).  Collectively these laws have been the impetus toward inclusive school reform that has not only increased the number of students with disabilities receiving special education supports in general education classrooms, but also significantly shifted the capacities demanded of both special education and general education teachers and leaders.

The literature on school reform is replete with research results indicating a history of failed school reforms if instructional capacity does not substantially change. Elmore’s (1992) mixed method work in the 1990’s and Fullan’s (2011) more recent international mixed methods work on school reform found that if reform efforts do not build the capacity of teachers and systems to change instruction in the classroom, the positive qualitative (socialization and parent satisfaction) and quantitative (test scores, behavior referrals and graduation rates) outcomes of reform, if any exist at all, will fail to sustain past a few years.

Evans (1996) writes about school change, or educational reform, explaining that the key factor in educational reform is its meaning to those who must implement it: teachers and administrators.  Further, historical research found teachers’ expertise and knowledge and their individual capacity to translate reform policies into practice as critical to the sustainability and effectiveness of school change (Tyack and Cuban, 1995).  Thus, it is critical to understand school change, or reform, from the inside out through the lived experiences of the teachers and administrators themselves. Surprisingly, research that examines a school’s capacity for initiating and sustaining inclusive education through the eyes of the actors themselves is limited to date (see for example- ADD EXAMPLES- DO I HAVE ANY??).  Therefore, research that examines how school leaders, defined as teacher leaders and the administrative team who are involved in initiating an inclusive education reform, perceive their own and the school’s capacity to include all students with disabilities in age-appropriate general education classrooms and curriculum is needed.

Accordingly, systems change for inclusive education, as one type of school reform, and the school capacity knowledge base, together comprise the foundation for this study. Capacity is understood as the potential of material, a product, person or group to fulfill a function if it is used in a particular way (Newman, King and Young, 2000). Thus, explain Newman, King and Young, school capacity is the collective potential of the group, the school’s full staff, to fulfill its function. Viewed this way, school capacity is best understood as a multi-dimensional organizational framework for examining how a school collectively utilizes their resources to effectively initiate and sustain systemic educational innovations.  When applied to systemic inclusive education reform, it is a frame to guide the understanding of a school’s process and ability to initiate and sustain quality inclusive education.

Current research on inclusive education tells us of the increased rates at which students with disabilities are educated in general education environments, as well as the positive outcomes associated with such placement.  Mcleskey et. al. (2004,2010)’s research results, as well as the Annual Report To Congress in 2008, both show quantitative increases in the number of students with disabilities who spend most (80% or more of their school day) with peers who do not have disability labels.  Further, researchers have documented the positive results of inclusive education since the early 1980’s. Qualitatively, positive social gains associated with inclusive education such as increased language skills (CITATION), feelings of membership in the greater school community (CITATION) and an expanded peer group (CITATION) abounds in the literature.  And more recently the national longitudinal study of post school outcomes found both graduation rates and the percentage of students with disabilities who are gainfully employed post high school to be positively related to inclusive versus segregated education placements (CITATION).

Study Purpose and Rationale

Current research on inclusion focuses on student outcomes and the procedural change process rather than on the contexts, capacities, and capabilities of schools and education leaders who are implementing it.  Thus, empirical research that examines how schools have moved toward inclusion and built the capacity for sustaining these models is limited to date.  Limited also, is the voice of those who are implementing inclusion as a reform.  Therefore, the purpose of this study is to give voice to school leaders and teacher leaders by qualitatively examining the process by which a school moves towards inclusion and builds capacity to implement and sustain an effective inclusive education reform. Specifically, this study seeks to (1) explore how school leaders perceive their own capacity in initiating and implementing inclusive education reform; (2) explore how their capacity to improve and implement inclusive practice is aligned with the school capacity literature; and (3) explore how leaders perceive the school’s capacity to include all student sin age-appropriate general education classrooms.

Study Overview

            The qualitative research tradition to answer how and why questions, and the epistemological perspective of constructivism, assuming that knowledge is situated in a particular context or locale, is multi-voiced and is constructed and shared through the interactions and interpretations people have with themselves and one another underpins this research (LeCompte and Schensul, 1999; Denzin and Lincoln, 2005). Case study methodology as described by Yin (2009) will be used to make meaning of the multiple voices represented in the study and weave them into an integral whole. The unit of analysis for this study will be the school with school leaders as the sub units.  School leaders are defined as (1) teacher leaders, those being the first to implement inclusive education in their classrooms, and (2) the school’s administrative team.  Yin (2009) tells us that case study research is an in-depth examination of one particular case within one particular locale, or specific context, to deeply understand a social phenomenon.  This case study will be used to uncover and give voice to the multiple perspectives and meanings that school leaders place on their capacities to initiate and sustain an effective inclusive education model.

One goal of a case study is to test a pre-developed theory or framework.  Thus, propositions derived from the literature are the driving force behind the design (Yin, 2009; Hocutt & Fowler, 2009). The literature that will serve as a guide to the research propositions in this study includes the inclusive education and school capacity literature detailed below. The critical case rationale, based upon the criterion detailed in the literature review, will be used for purposive sampling to select (Bogdan & Biklen, 2005; Merriam, 2009; Yin, 2009) one school and six or more leaders within that school. Six participants were determined as the minimum sample size based on Yin’s (2009) recommendation for six participants to drive theory testing. The following sources of evidence for theory testing were used: a researcher reflexive journal to address bias (Denzin and Lincoln, 2005); a study data base to build internal reliability (Yin, 2009); two to three one hour semi-structured interviews per participant following a protocol and Spradley’s (1980) three step interview guidelines; a minimum of two informal participant observations with accompanying field notes occurring on the same day as each interview (Carspecken, 1996); two years of preexisting case study data including twelve leader interviews and twelve informal participant observation field notes; and a case study protocol consisting of a research design overview, guiding questions, data collection procedures and an outline for reporting results (Hocutt and Fowler, 2009; Yin, 2009).

All data points will be analyzed using both deductive and inductive analysis following pattern-matching logic (Anfara et al., 2002; Merriam, 2009; Yin, 2009).  Initially, raw codes will be assigned to segments of texts and repeated patterns will be organized/cataloged around each of the seven dimensions (principal leadership, district support, human/staff, organizational, structural and material/technical) of school capacity. The search for negative cases that refute the school capacity and inclusive education frameworks will be employed during the final stage of analysis (Yin, 2009; Anfara et al., 2002). The triangulation of findings (Bogdan & Biklen, 2005) by converging all participants’ interview data, observation data and reflexive journal data around each proposition and participant member checking will occur before any final conclusions are drawn.

Research Questions and Methodology

            Three research questions guide this study and have been addressed in the analysis phase:

1.     How do school leaders perceive their own capacity in initiating and implementing inclusive education reform?

2.     How do school leaders perceive the school’s capacity to include all students in age-appropriate general education classrooms?

3.     How do the school leaders’ perceptions of their own capacity, and that of the schools, to improve and implement inclusive practice align with the school capacity literature?

While federal laws and past research has pushed for inclusive education reform, they have failed to address a school’s capability and capacity to engage in such reform.  Thus, this study will provide school leaders with a more comprehensive understanding of capacity building for systemic inclusive education reform. The findings from this case study can inform educational leaders, both teacher leaders and administrators, with detailed information about the types of human and material resources, as well as the organizational and structural conditions that promote sustainable inclusive education.  Educational leaders can draw upon the results of this work to be more strategic and purposeful when implementing inclusive education reform initiatives.