Thursday, October 31, 2019

Reliable Assessment Utilization Can Impact Inclusion Rates More Than Knowledge of Mandates


Public Law (PL) 94-142 (1975) mandated a “free and appropriate public education” (FAPE) for students identified with disabling educational conditions. Within this law was the concept of Least Restrictive Environment (LRE), which meant each student is to be individually evaluated and placed on a continuum of options including general education classes, separate classes, separate schools, home, or a hospital setting for part or all day. PL 94-142 certainly was enormously successful in providing students with disabilities access to a public education. However, far too many placement decisions initially foreclosed students to separate facilities, an indication that a largely segregated system, often referred to as a “parallel system,” had been created. PL 94-142’s mechanism of LRE was often being interpreted as a legal and valid option of not placing a student with a disability in a general education classroom. Lipsky and Gartner (1997) and Linton (1998) found reformists, disability rights advocates, activists, and others criticized the LRE mandate as a loophole, which allowed institutions of education to maintain the non-integration of people with disabilities into schools and therefore society at large.
Reviewing mainstreaming beliefs and practices in education dating back to 1975, Lipsky and Gardner (1997) found mainstreaming is based on an assumption that a student with a disability can cope with the academic and social demands of a general education classroom. Specifically, they found mainstreaming was traditionally only “applicable to those students who were considered to be most like normal” (p. 77). By contrast, inclusion signifies that a student with a disability can benefit both academically and socially from the general education classroom, even if goals for students with disabilities were different from typically developing students. Too often mainstreaming and inclusion are used interchangeably in educational literature (Fuchs, 2010). They differ significantly in terms of both definition and philosophy. In a critical commentary on the field of special education, Kauffman (1998) stated, “Inclusion has become virtually meaningless, a catch-word used to give a patina of legitimacy to whatever program people are trying to sell or defend” (p. 246). The p,  eriod following 1997 marked a clear point of change in the field of special education. Requirements increasing accountability using standards-based assessment for all students as stated in the reauthorization of IDEA (1997) stressed increased access to the general education curriculum and inclusion of general educators as members of the Individualized Education Program (IEP) team. These explicit mandates promoted the opportunity for increased inclusion to become firmly established as the foundation for placement decisions. Although requirements for placement within the least restrictive environment had been in special education legislation since 1975, the explicit mandates of IDEA 1997 increased academic expectations, resulting in a shift in policies and practices within education. An effective “inclusion movement” helps ensure educators will, to the greatest extent appropriate, provide access to the general education curriculum in the least restrictive environment (LRE) for students with disabilities.  A greater understanding as to what elements denote effective progress for this inclusion movement may result from a thorough analysis of data available through the U.S. Department of Education (USDE) and state educational agencies (SEA).
Through IDEA (2004) State Performance Plans (SPP) mandates, the USDE required identification, evaluation, and monitoring of each state’s attempts to address concerns related to the inclusion of students with special needs in the least restrictive environment (LRE). States must also collect data on variables that may influence its districts’ practices related to the inclusion of students with special needs in the LRE. Identification of effective progress toward satisfaction of LRE mandates, as identified by SPP Indicator 5 measures, can therefore be further analyzed by determining whether certain variables are more present in those states deemed highly successful. Understanding how to review SPP Indicator 5 data will allow stakeholders to utilize leadership principles described by Stephen Covey (1992) whereby “…good managers will take you through the forest, no matter what.  A leader will climb a tree and may say, ‘This is the wrong forest’.”  
As the result of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA, 2004), each state was required to identify baseline data related to its local educational agencies’ special education programs performance on education-related performance indicators. In addition to other important performance indicators, the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) of the U.S. Department of Education (USDE) evaluated and monitored each state’s attempts to address concerns related to the inclusion of students with special needs in the least restrictive environment (LRE). This data was identified and monitored as SPP Indicator 5. Specifically, this performance indicator addresses the educational placement of children with IEPs aged 6 through 21, based on the percent of the day spent in one of three diverse types of educational environments:
A. Removed from regular class less than 21% of the day;
B. Removed from regular class greater than 60% of the day; or
C. Served in public or private separate schools, residential placements, or homebound or hospital placements.
(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A))
Most states initially collected and identified baseline data by analyzing LRE statistics based on the 2004-2005 fiscal year. Thereafter each state planned to collect and analyze yearly LRE data for SPP Indicator 5.  A sampling of ten initial State Performance Plans (SPP) found there was diversity in the baseline percentages identified for each state’s Indicator 5 results. The five-year progress projections were uniformly modest. For instance, the sampling revealed each of the ten states’ with approved SPP for Indicator 5, part A, established improvement as one-half of one percent (.005) per year. Therefore, it would be ten-years before a 5% increase in inclusion rates would be realized.
If USDE evaluation and monitoring of  state’s Performance Plans for Indicator 5, part A and each state’s Annual Performance Report (APR) remains deficient for pushing increased inclusion rates, then professional development may be the better hope for reform of LRE initiatives.  Research suggested professional development is most effective when teachers engage in instructional inquiry within the context of collaborative professional communities that focus upon instructional improvement and student achievement. Research suggested great value in professional development that ensures teachers support of each other in understanding policies and research that guide effective practices related to inclusive programs (Baker, Gersten, Dimino, & Griffiths, 2004; McLeskey & Waldron, 2004; Vaughn & Coleman, 2004; and Waldron & McLeskey, 2009).  Crucially, research indicated the positive impact of creating and implementing embedded professional development intended to improve instructional practices that lead to improved outcomes for individuals with exceptional learning needs and their families (Beverly, Santos, & Kyger, 2006; Bryant, Linan-Thompson, & Ugel, 2001; Englert & Rozendal, 2004; Monteith, 2000; Powers, Rayner, & Gunter, 2001; Voltz, 2001; and Voltz, Brazil, & Scott, 2003).
  Traditional theorists contend current teacher preparation standards are sufficient for promoting the education for students with special needs in the least restrictive environment (Andrews, Carnine, Coutinho, Edgar, Forness, Fuchs & Fuchs, 2000). By contrast, Reformists or Substantial Re-conceptualists, contend explicit standards are requisite for ensuring inclusive education for students with special needs in the least restrictive environment (Paul & Paul, 1996; Andrews, et. al., 2000). To improve rates of inclusive educational practices, states would benefit from requiring explicit teacher preparation standards related to the effective implementation of LRE mandates rather than merely comprehending the meaning of LRE.  However, understanding the adverse impact of assessment systems upon diverse students and how to effectively monitor and adjust instruction based on assessments FOR learning, may be more powerful for encouraging change. 
Systemic approaches that utilize diverse evaluations allow all stakeholders a better opportunity to make decisions based on holistic data.  Diverse data analysis offers the opportunity to more reliably monitor and adjust plans for student, classroom, and school-wide improvement.  This systemic approach provides an opportunity that is not reliably possible through analysis of a solitary, end-of-year test.  The latter “simply cannot provide sufficient formative information to guide teaching and learning throughout the year (Herman, 2010, p 3).
An embrace of the learning for all mission will be more valuable for promoting LRE initiatives.   A coherent, data-based accountability system is identified as a correlate of Effective Schools Research (Lezotte & Snyder, 2011). More important than understanding the continuum or cascade of services (Deno, 1962; Reynolds, 1970) available to diverse students is the ability to navigate or advocate for an assessment system promoting a coherent network that provides the opportunity to develop, implement, and utilize data-based accountability. The lack of collaborative and deliberate consideration and respect for the student’s present level of academic achievement and functional performance results in problematic decisions that adversely effects the integrity of the placement process.

To cite:
Anderson, C.J. (October 31, 2019) Utilization of assessments options can increase inclusion better 
       than mandate knowledge. [Web log post] Retrieved from http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/

References:

Andrews, J. E., Carnine, D. W., Coutinho, M. J., Edgar, E. B., Forness, S. R., Fuchs, L.,
et al. (2000). Bridging the special education divide. Remedial and Special Education, 21(5), 258-260, 267.
Connor, D. (2007). A (Brief) History of Inclusion in the USA. Supporting Inclusive
            Classrooms: A Resource. NYCTFQIS
Darling-Hammond, L. (2005). Developing professional development schools: Early lessons,
challenge, and promise. In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Professional development schools: Schools for developing a profession (pp. 1-27). New York: Teachers College Press.
Eichenger, J., & Downing, J.E.  (2002). Instruction in the general education environment. 
In J. Downing (Ed.) Including students with severe and multiple disabilities in typical classrooms:  Practical strategies for teachers (2nd ed.).  Baltimore:  Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company.
Elbaum, B.; Vaughn, S.; Hughes, M.T.; Moody, S.W.; Schumm, J.S. (2000).  How
            reading outcomes of students with disabilities are related to instructional grouping
            formats:  A meta-analytic review.  In R. Gersten, E.P. Schiller, S. Vaughn (eds.),
            Contemporary special education research:  Synthesis of the knowledge base on
            critical instructional issues.  (pp. 105-136).   Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. (1995). Inclusive schools movement and the radicalization of
special education reform. In J. M. Kauffman and D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), The inclusion of full inclusion: A comprehensive critique of a current special education bandwagon (pp. 213242). Austin, TX: ProEd.
Lipsky, D. K., & Gartner, A. (1997). Inclusion and school reform: Transforming
 America’s classrooms. Baltimore: Paul Brookes. 
Reynolds, M. C. (1989). An historical perspective: The delivery of special education to
mildly disabled and at-risk students. Remedial and Special Education,10 (6),7-11.
Reynolds, M.C., & Birch, J.W. (1977). Teaching exceptional children in all America’s
 schools. Reston, VA: The Council for Exceptional Children.
Sindelar, P.T., Brownell, M.T., Correa, V., McLeskey, J., Bishop, A., Smith, D.,
Tyler, N., & Waldron, N., (2001). The Center on Personnel Studies in Special Education: Assessing the Quality of Preservice Teacher Preparation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, St. Petersburg, FL.

No comments:

Post a Comment