Special Education Leadership

Transcription

1 OPROFIT ORG. U.S. POSTAGE PAID PERMIT O. 116 Journal of Volume 25, umber 2 September 2012 Osigian Office Centre 101 Katelyn Circle, Suite E Warner Robins, GA Subscribe to the Journal of Special Education Leadership Special Education Leadership The Journal of the Council of Administrators of Special Education A Division of the Council for Exceptional Children Photocopy and mail to: CASE Osigian Office Centre 101 Katelyn Circle, Suite E Warner Robins, GA If you are already a member of CASE, you will automatically receive the Journal of Special Education Leadership as part of your membership. However, you can subscribe if you are not a member of CASE. Subscription otes: The Journal of Special Education Leadership is published by the Council of Administrators of Special Education. Copy requests should be made to CASE at the address above. Single copies may be purchased. Orders in multiples of 10 per issue can be purchased at a reduced rate. Call CASE for membership information: (478) Or visit our website at Yes, I want to subscribe to the Journal of Special Education Leadership! Single Issue: $25 Full Subscription: $40 (includes two journals) Institution/Library Subscription: $60 (includes two journals) Payment Information: Check/Money Order (payable to CASE, in U.S. dollars) Please bill my credit card: MasterCard VISA Card umber Exp. Date Cardholder Signature Ship to: ame Address Phone Articles Letter from the Editor Mary Lynn Boscardin, Ph.D., Editor Effective Practices in High Performing Districts Serving Students in Special Education M. Huberman, M.A., M. avo, M.A., and T. Parrish, Ed.D. Leading the Way to Appropriate Selection, Implementation, and Evaluation of the Read-Aloud Accommodation M. L. Thurlow, Ph.D., S. S. Lazarus, Ph.D., and J. R. Hodgson, M. A. A Case Study of Team-Initiated Problem Solving Addressing Student Behavior in One Elementary School A. W. Todd, M.S., R. H. Horner, Ph.D., D. Berry, M.S., C. Sanders, M.S., M. Bugni, B.A., A. Currier, M.S.,. Potts, J. S. ewton, Ph.D., R. Algozzine, Ph.D., and K. Algozzine, M.S. Managing Autism: Knowledge and Training in Autism Spectrum Disorders Among Special Education Administrators in Texas H. Hughes, Ph.D., B. H. Combes, Ph.D., and S. Shukla Metha, Ph.D. Section 504 for Special Education Leaders: Persisting and Emerging Issues P. A. Zirkel, Ph.D., LL.M. Case in Point: Lessons from the Cheshire Cat D. Tinberg, Sp.A. Author Guidelines

2 ISS Editorial Board Editor Dr. Mary Lynn Boscardin University of Massachusetts Amherst Assistant to the Editor Mr. Robert Storey University of Massachusetts Amherst Board of Associate Editors Dr. Jean Crockett University of Florida Gainesville, FL Dr. Susan Hasazi University of Vermont Burlington, VT Ms. Charlene Green Clark County School District Las Vegas, V Dr. William Hickey Avon Public Schools Avon, CT Review Board Dr. Bonnie Billingsley Virginia Tech Blacksburg, VA Dr. Kenneth M. Bird Westside Community Schools Omaha, E Dr. Rachel Brown-Chidsey University of Southern Maine Gorham, ME Dr. Leonard C. Burrello Indiana University Bloomington, I Dr. James C. Chalfant University of Arizona Tucson, AZ Mr. James W. Chapple Ashland University Elyria, OH Dr. Gary Collings ISEAS Carmel, I Dr. Pia Durkin Brown University Providence, RI Dr. William East ASDSE Washington, DC Mr. Cal Evans Jordan County Public Schools Sandy, UT Dr. Susan Faircloth Pennsylvania State University University Park, PA Dr. Elise Frattura University of Wisconsin Milwaukee, WI Dr. Preston Green, III Pennsylvania State University University Park, PA Dr. Thomas Hehir Harvard University Cambridge, MA Dr. Robert Henderson University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, IL Dr. Dawn L. Hunter Chapman University Orange, CA Dr. Shirley R. McBride McBride Management, Ltd. Victoria, BC Dr. Harold McGrady The University of Ohio Athens, OH Dr. Jonathan McIntire Orange County Public Schools Orlando, FL Dr. Margaret J. McLaughlin University of Maryland College Park, MD Dr. James McLeskey University of Florida Gainesville, FL Dr. Judy Montgomery Chapman University Orange, CA Dr. Festus Obiakor University of Wisconsin Milwaukee, WI Dr. Tom Parrish American Institutes For Research Palo Alto, CA Dr. Barbara Pazey University of Texas at Austin Dr. Margaret Pysh University of Arizona Tucson, AZ Dr. David P. Riley The Urban Special Education Leadership Collaborative ewton, MA Dr. Sharon Raimonde State University of ew York Buffalo, Y Dr. Kenneth E. Schneider Orange County Public Schools Orlando, FL Dr. Stan Shaw University of Connecticut Storrs, CT Dr. Katherine Shepherd University of Vermont Montpelier, VT Dr. James Shriner University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, IL Dr. Thomas M. Skrtic University of Kansas Lawrence, KS Dr. William Swan University of Georgia Athens, GA Dr. George Theoharis Syracuse University Syracuse, Y Dr. Martha Thurlow ational Center on Educational Outcomes, University of Minnesota Minneapolis, M Dr. Edward Lee Vargas Hacienda La Puente Unified School District City of Industry, CA Dr. Deborah A. Verstegen University of evada Las Vegas, V Dr. Christine Walther-Thomas University of Kansas Lawrence, KS Dr. Wilfred Wienke University of Central Florida Orlando, FL Lakeland, FL Dr. Jim Yates University of Texas at Austin Dr. Mitchell Yell University of South Carolina Columbia, SC CASE Executive Committee Dr. Laurie VanderPloeg, President Dr. Mary Lynn Boscardin, President Elect Dr. Mary V. Kealy, Past President Ms. Laural Jackson, Secretary Mr. Tom Adams, Finance Committee Chair Ms. Sheila Bailey, CASE Units Representative Ms. Emilie Anderson, Membership Chair Ms. Christina Lebo, Policy and Legislation Chair Dr. Michel Miller O eal, Journal Editor Mr. Gary Myrah, Professional Development Chair Dr. Gina Scala, Research Liaison Dr. Pamela Howard, Publications and Products Review Chair Dr. Luann Purcell, Executive Director Ms. Robin S. Smith, Administrative Assistant The Editorial Mission The primary goal of the Journal of Special Education Leadership is to provide both practicing administrators and researchers of special education administration and policy with relevant tools and sources of information based on recent advances in administrative theory, research, and practice. The Journal of Special Education Leadership is a journal dedicated to issues in special education administration, leadership, and policy. It is refereed journal that directly supports CASE s main objectives, which are to foster research, learning, teaching, and practice in the field of special education administration and to encourage the extension of special education administration knowledge to other fields. Articles for the Journal of Special Education Leadership should enhance knowledge about the process of managing special education service delivery systems, as well as reflect on significant techniques, trends, and issues growing out of research on special education. Preference will be given to articles that have a broad appeal, wide applicability, and immediate usefulness to administrators, other practitioners, and researchers.

3 Journal of Special Education Leadership Volume 25, umber 2 Subscriptions The Journal of Special Education Leadership is published by the Council of Administrators of Special Education. Copy requests should be made to CASE, Osigian Office Centre, 101 Katelyn Circle, Suite E, Warner Robins, GA Single copies may be purchased. Orders in multiples of 10 per issue can be purchased at a reduced rate. Members receive a copy of the Journal of Special Education Leadership as part of their membership fee. See back cover for subscription form. Advertising The Journal of Special Education Leadership will offer advertising for employment opportunities, conference announcements, and those wishing to market educational and administrative publications, products, materials, and services. Please contact the editor for advertising rates. Permissions The Journal of Special Education Leadership allows copies to be reproduced for nonprofit purposes without permission or charge by the publisher. For information on permission to quote, reprint, or translate material, please write or the editor. Dr. Mary Lynn Boscardin, Editor Journal of Special Education Leadership 175 Hills South School of Education University of Massachusetts Amherst, MA [email protected] Copyright The Journal of Special Education Leadership, a journal for professionals in the field of special education administration, is published by the Council of Administrators of Special Education to foster the general advancement of research, learning, teaching, and practice in the field of special education administration. The Council of Administrators of Special Education retains literary property rights on copyrighted articles. Any signed article is the personal expression of the author; likewise, any advertisement is the responsibility of the advertiser. either necessarily carries CASE endorsement unless specifically set forth by adopted resolution. Copies of the articles in this journal may be reproduced for nonprofit distribution without permission from the publisher.

4 A Letter From the Editor ational professional standards provide a solid foundation for identifying the roles and responsibilities of leaders of special education, however, federal and state mandates continue to contribute to making the work of leaders of special education more complex. These additional complexities create an unrealistic expectation that any one leader of special education would possess all the expert knowledge or specialized skills necessary to address all situations. To succeed in these challenging times requires leaders to draw for a myriad of evidencebased leadership practices in order to maintain oversight and accountability while opening possibilities and opportunities for providing effective instruction to learners with disabilities from diverse backgrounds. This issue of the journal examines how leadership might begin to help address some of the challenges associated with providing the services and programs needed to meet the needs of students with disabilities and their families. Huberman, avo, and Parrish take the long view considering the costs related to the adoption of effective practices in high performing districts serving students in special education. Articles then follow that consider more discrete aspects of effective practices. Thurlow, Lazarus, and Hodgson investigate leaders9 roles in the evaluation and implementation of a reading accommodation. Todd, Horner, Berry, Sanders, Bugni, Currier, Potts, ewton, Algozzine, and Algozzine examine team-initiated problem-solving in relationship to student behavior. Hughes, Coombs, and Metha explore administrative approaches to managing autism. Zirkel then provides a broader frame by revisiting persisting and emerging Section 504 issues as they affect the administration of special education. Tinberg, emphasizes intentionality of planning, fidelity of implementation, and ongoing, targeted professional development in her as she reflects on each article s relationship to the continued challenges faced by leaders of special education. Before closing, the last issue, 26(1), under my editorship will go to press this spring. We extend a warm welcome to Dr. Michel Miller O9eal who has accepted the appointment as editor by the President of CASE. Dr. O9eal will be providing JSEL a new home at Drexel University as she gradually assumes editorial responsibilities throughout this year. We appreciate the patience of the readership during this time of transition. We know Dr. O9eal will be equally committed to maintaining the high quality and regard JSEL has come to enjoy. CASE is very appreciative of the time, effort, and excellent contributions made to this issue of JSEL by this cadre of authors. The collection of articles in this issue of JSEL highlights the attention and work required to promote, support, and develop leaders and administrators of special education who are invested in improving the educational outcomes of students with disabilities. On behalf of the CASE Executive Committee, we hope you enjoy this issue of JSEL. Mary Lynn Boscardin, Ph.D., Editor in transition to President-Elect of CASE [email protected] 58 Journal of Special Education Leadership 25(2) September 2012

5 Effective Practices in High Performing Districts Serving Students in Special Education Mette Huberman, M.A. American Institutes for Research Matt avo, M.A. Sanger Unified School District Tom Parrish, Ed.D. American Institutes for Research Through a rigorous selection process based on special education performance over four years, this study identified eight unified districts in California that showed unusually strong academic performance for their special education population compared to similar districts in the state. Researchers conducted interviews with these districts special education directors to identify the policies and practices they credited for their districts success. Ultimately, the study team selected four districts to profile. Descriptions of all four districts, with a special emphasis on one of the districts Sanger Unified are included in this article. The main themes that emerged across the districts are consistent with the research and literature on effective practices that lead to improved student achievement for students in special education: inclusion and access to the core curriculum (four districts), collaboration between special education and general education teachers (four districts), continuous assessment and use of Response to Intervention (RtI) (three districts), targeted professional development (three districts), and use of Explicit Direct Instruction (EDI) (two districts). The authors believe that these districts can serve as models for others struggling to improve the performance of students in special education. Introduction Improved academic outcomes have been an important emphasis for special education policy over the past decade. The 2001 reauthorization of the ESEA, the o Child Left Behind Act (CLB), specifies that schools be held accountable for the adequate yearly progress (AYP) of all students, requiring the disaggregation and reporting of data for specific subgroups, including students with disabilities. Failure to meet AYP for students in special education can result in an entire school or school district being placed in In eed of Improvement status. More recently, the federal Blueprint for Reform (U.S. Department of Education, 2010) states that the Administration s ESEA reauthorization proposal will increase support for improved outcomes of students with disabilities (p. 20). In California, 84% of school districts with sufficient students with disabilities to count for accountability purposes failed to make AYP for specifically due, at least in part, to the academic performance of their students in special education. The purpose of this study is to identify districts that are beating these daunting odds. Sanger Unified, which is profiled in this article, enrolls students in poverty at a much higher rate than the state average (76 vs. 50%). Sanger also actively attempts to serve students outside special education when appropriate, classifying only 8% of its students in special education, compared to the statewide average of 10% (and a national average of 13%). Yet Sanger s students in special education show much higher academic proficiency on statewide tests than similar districts (and the statewide district average), and Sanger continues to make AYP. Given the challenges faced by California districts in making AYP, it is important to identify districts like Sanger across the state, to analyze what they are doing, and to consider whether their strategies might work for students in special education statewide. To identify such districts, researchers used a rigorous selection process based on special education Journal of Special Education Leadership 25(2) September

6 Effective Practices in High Performing Districts academic performance from the to school years showing higher-than-predicted academic success for their students in special education. The study employed a four-year span for these analyses to identify districts whose exceptional performance had been sustained over time. Subsequently, researchers conducted in-depth phone interviews with the special education directors in eight districts to learn about the policies and practices they had put in place that they attributed their success to. From these eight, four districts were selected with clear, well-articulated strategies to feature in this article. The experiences of these districts are relevant to district, county, and state practitioners and policy makers because they provide specific examples of what has worked. Because of the focus on higherpoverty districts in this article, these findings may be of particular interest to other high need districts in California and across the country. Study Background In 2001, in Education Finance in the ew Millennium, Chaikind and Fowler (2001) predicted that the future of special education would focus on questions regarding the best outcomes for students with disabilities. However, while the 1997 IDEA amendments required states to establish performance goals for students with disabilities, some critics have argued that these changes did not go far enough in fully establishing a results-oriented process (Wolf & Hassal, 2001). In 2002, the President s Commission on Excellence in Special Education recommended that special education should focus on the outcomes achieved by each child and not on process, litigation, regulation, and confrontation (p. 8). The preamble to this report states, The ultimate test of the value of special education is that, once identified, children close the achievement gap with their peers (President s Commission, 2002, p. 4). The intended purpose of CLB is to ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education and reach, at a minimum, proficiency on challenging state academic achievement standards and state academic assessments (CLB, 2001, ). These provisions emphasize that the expected educational outcomes for students with disabilities, or for any other subgroup, are the same as for all students. 60 Given the challenges that students in special education face, some may expect low performance. However, at least one study by Hanushek, Kain, and Rivkin (2002) shows that the average special education program boosts mathematics and reading achievement of special education students, particularly those classified as learning disabled or emotionally disturbed, while not detracting from [the experience of] regular education students (p. 584). Analyses of key student and district characteristics and academic achievement of students identified for special education in California show that while some districts are achieving relatively impressive outcomes, many are not. Large variation is found across districts in the percentage of students with disabilities scoring proficient in English language arts (ELA) from 0 to 60% across California districts in the school year. The high end of this range shows that low performance for students in special education need not be a given. This variation is illustrated in Figure 1. Each district in California is represented by a circle; the circle s size is based on district enrollment. The figure maps the percentage of students in special education scoring proficient and above against the percentage of students identified as being in special education by district. Although there is a slight positive correlation between performance and the percentage of students in special education, there is relatively high variation in performance across the range of percentages of students identified. Some of the variation shown above is negatively related to district poverty (defined as the percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch), as indicated by the number of high-poverty districts (in blue) in the lower ranges of performance. However, relatively high performers are also found among these high-poverty districts. This illustrates that while the poverty of its students is beyond district control, other factors are not, such as where and how students are served. Figure 2 plots ELA proficiency against the percentage of students in special education spending 80% or more of their time in general education classrooms. Overall, a positive correlation can be observed; however, there is a great deal of variation. This may indicate that when students in special education are included in general education classes with appropriate supports, they do better than predicted, but that increased general education placements may Journal of Special Education Leadership 25(2) September 2012

7 Effective Practices in High Performing Districts Figure 1. Percentage of students in special education in unified school districts meeting proficiency in English language arts, as a function of the percentage of students identified for special education in these districts, (each district is represented by a circle proportional to its size and grouped by poverty quartile). Source: The California Standardized Testing (STAR) Program. also lead to poorer than predicted performance when such placements are not well implemented. This article seeks to better understand the policies and practices implemented by districts that have special education performance that is substantially higher than predicted. It grows out of prior work done through the California Comprehensive Center at WestEd identifying highperforming, high-need schools. 1 The study also draws upon previous research that has examined effective practices leading to improved student achievement for students in special education (e.g., Cortiella & Burnette, 2008; McLaughlin & The Center for Policy Research, 1997). A study by the Donahue Institute at the University of Massachusetts (2004) is especially relevant to the current study. The purpose of the study was to identify district- and school-level practices supporting achievement among elementary and middle school students with special needs in urban public schools. Achievement data were used to identify urban districts with promising ELA and mathematics achievement among students with special needs. The research team visited 10 schools in five districts and interviewed over 140 school personnel and a small number of parents of students with special needs. From these data collection efforts, the researchers identified 11 practices that supported success with students in special education: An emphasis on curriculum alignment with curriculum frameworks; Effective systems to support curriculum alignment; Emphasis on inclusion and access to the curriculum; Culture and practices that support high standards and student achievement; A well-disciplined academic and social environment; Use of student assessment data to inform decisionmaking; Unified practice supported by targeted professional development; 1 Examples of high-performing, high-need school profiles from this prior work can be found at: htdocs/smu/ideas/schools.htm. Journal of Special Education Leadership 25(2) September

8 Effective Practices in High Performing Districts Figure 2. Percentage of students in special education in unified school districts meeting proficiency in English language arts, as a function of the percentage of these students spending 80% or more of their time in general education classrooms, (each district is represented by a circle proportional to its size and grouped by poverty quartile). Source: The California Standardized Testing (STAR) Program and California Special Education Management Information System (CASEMIS) data. Access to resources to support key initiatives; Effective staff recruitment, retention, and deployment; Flexible leaders and staff who work effectively in a dynamic environment; and Effective leadership. All of these practices, with the exception of emphasis on inclusion and access to the curriculum, are similar to the practices emphasized in the effective schools literature for general education (e.g., Fuller, Loeb, Arshan, Chen, & Yi, 2007; Perez et al., 2007; Parrish, Perez, Merickel, & Linquanti, 2006; Darling-Hammond, 1996; Levine & Lezotte, 1990). This overlap suggests that to improve academic results for students in special education, practices similar to those implemented for general education students, with an additional emphasis on inclusionary practices, may be effective. In the Donahue study, all of the case study districts expressed a commitment to inclusion and noted various ways in which they sought to be inclusive. A common strategy was the use of flexible groupings that integrated special needs students into 62 general education classrooms throughout the school day. However, no two districts implemented the same inclusion strategies, with practices ranging from full inclusion of all students identified for special education (with dual certification of all regular and special education teachers), to a more modest level of inclusion in which resource teachers supported students with disabilities in the general education classroom. District Selection for the Current Study Districts were selected for this study based on higherthan-predicted achievement for students with disabilities on statewide performance measures. Publicly available data from the California Academic Performance Index (API), AYP, California Standards Tests (CST), and California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) databases as well as district demographic data for ethnicity, poverty, the proportion of English learners (ELs), and the proportion of students with Journal of Special Education Leadership 25(2) September 2012

9 disability were included in these analyses, which included data from the through school years. 2 Researchers ran regressions on standardized CST and CAHSEE mathematics and ELA mean scale scores for the students-with-disabilities subgroup population, controlling for the district s percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch; percentage of African American, Asian, and Hispanic students; 3 percentage of ELs; percentage of students with disabilities; and percentage of students within the various disability classifications (e.g., mental retardation, autism). 4 Thedifferencebetweentheactualandthe predictedstandardizedcstandcahsee mathematics and ELA scale scores were averaged for students with disabilities to produce districtlevel measures, by year, from through Then, these measures were averaged across the four years for each district to obtain a single academic performance measure for students with disabilities that would reflect sustained performance. Among 286 unified districts, these academic performance measures ranged from about 1.50 at the top to 1.00 at the bottom. The authors were seeking districts where the students in special education performed considerably better than predictedanddidsoconsistentlyovertime. Because this was a comparative analysis, it was important to control for the grade range of students served. Thus, our analysis was limited to unified school districts, which serve over 70% of California s students. To select districts to interview, small districts (those at or below the 30th percentile in terms of unified district enrollment) were screened out to ensure that the selected districts would not simply reflect circumstances associated with unusually small size. In addition, only districts serving a percentage of students with disabilities within one standard deviation of the state average for unified districts were selected. Last, only districts that were at or Effective Practices in High Performing Districts above the state average proficiency level on CST ELA and mathematics for students with disabilities and above the predicted academic performance for students with disabilities as estimated by our regression analysis were included. After applying these criteria, the remaining districts were ranked based on their above-predicted performance, as described above. Ultimately, researchers selected 8 districts from the top 20 to interview. These districts academic performance measures ranged from 0.98 to Because of our interest in interviewing districts with high levels of poverty, the authors first selected the 4 districts in the top 20 whose percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch exceeded the state average, which is 50%. To also gain an understanding of how the practices reported by higher-poverty districts might compare with those with lower poverty, the remaining four districts were selected from among those that had 10% or more of their students eligible for free or reducedprice lunch. District Interviews and Analysis Between May and July 2010, researchers interviewed the special education directors from the eight selected districts to obtain descriptions of the policies and practices they considered most effective in improving and sustaining special education achievement in their districts. During a one-hour phone interview, instructional and management practices associated with the high performance of their students with disabilities were discussed. To guide the discussion, a semi-structured interview protocol was used that included questions related to the effective practices described above. Discussion was not limited to these practices; respondents were asked to initially describe the three most important factors that they attributed to special education performance in their districts without any suggestion of the literature cited above. 2 Scores on the California Modified Assessment (CMA) or the California Alternate Performance Assessment (CAPA) were not considered, as the majority of students in special education take the CST with or without accommodations. 3 Research has shown that racial minorities (e.g., African American students) are disproportionally identified for special education and that the achievement gap between minority and nonminority students found in general education also exist in special education (e.g., Skiba et al., 2008). Thus, we control for these and other demographic factors to ensure that these factors do not influence analysis results. 4 ote that student achievement data and student demographic data were included for all four years ( However, the disability classification data were only available for two years (2007 and 2008). Thus, the 2007 disability data were used for both 2006 and 2007 and the 2008 disability data were used for both 2008 and 2009 as controls in the regressions. Journal of Special Education Leadership 25(2) September

10 Effective Practices in High Performing Districts Table 1: District demographics, Source: The California Standardized Testing (STAR) Program When analyzing these interview data instances were sought where well-articulated strategies had been developed and implemented by the district for the explicit purpose of improving the education outcomes of its students in special education. Conversely, the authors sought to avoid instances where it appeared that external factors were affecting the observed high performance. Through this process, the initial eight districts were narrowed to four districts whose strategies seemed fully developed, could be clearly described, and would therefore be of potential interest to other districts. Sites were excluded with issues such as not meeting special education proficiency targets as well as those with possible issues with the types of students being identified for special education (e.g., one district respondent commented on the over-identification of ELs into special education). Once initial profiles were created for the remaining four districts, the respondents provided feedback regarding completeness and accuracy. District Backgrounds Listed alphabetically, the four districts featured in this article are Kerman, Sanger, Upland, and Val Verde. As shown in Table 1, the districts are located in either the southern part of the state (Upland and Val Verde) or in the Central Valley (Kerman and Sanger), and range in size from about 4400 to students. Three districts have a state-average percentage of students in special education (10%), while Sanger is below average at 8 percent. They have diverse student populations; three of the four districts (Kerman, Sanger, and Val Verde) have above-state-average student poverty, while Upland is slightly below the state average. Similarly, three districts have percentages of ELs above the state average, with one below. Table 2 shows the performance of each district s special education population on the CST. As shown, all four districts performed either at or above the state average in both mathematics and ELA and above districts with similar poverty levels in both subjects. Table 2: Percentages of students in special education proficient or above in mathematics and English language arts (ELA) on the California Standards Test, by district, compared with the state average and to districts with similar poverty levels, Source: The California Standardized Testing (STAR) Program 64 Journal of Special Education Leadership 25(2) September 2012

11 Overall, all the districts scored higher in mathematics than in ELA; Sanger s mathematics score (49% proficient) was much higher than both the state average (33%) and that of similar districts (28%). District Profiles Strategies implemented in the Kerman, Upland, and Val Verde districts will briefly be described; this information is based on one-hour interviews conducted with each special education director. Then, a more detailed description of the approach used in Sanger Unified is provided, based both on our interview and on an in-depth write-up provided by the director of pupil personnel services for the district; Sanger provides a striking example of the success a district can attain with special education students. After the district descriptions, the overarching strategies across the four districts are summarized and implications from the study are discussed. District Profile 1: Kerman Unified School District Located in Fresno County, Kerman Unified enrolls approximately 4400 students. Over three quarters (78%) of its students are eligible for free or reducedprice lunch, and almost one third (30%) are English learners. In the school year, 40% of Kerman s students in special education taking the CST scored proficient or above in mathematics; 37% scored proficient or above in ELA. The statewide averages for students in special education were 33 and 32%, and 28 and 26% in districts with comparable proportions of students in poverty (see Table 2). Robert Postler, Kerman s coordinator of special education, shared three factors he credited for the district s success: An inclusion philosophy, with support from resource teachers; Use of specific instructional and intervention strategies, including Read 180; Explicit Direct Instruction (EDI), supported by professional development; and Response to Intervention (RtI) strategies; and An emphasis on professional learning communities (PLCs), with collaboration between general and special education teachers. Mr. Postler described Kerman s inclusion philosophy as follows: It is my belief and the district s Effective Practices in High Performing Districts belief that special education is considered not to be a separate entity; [special education students] have the same rights and privileges as general education kids. At the elementary and middle schools, the district strives for full inclusion; most students identified for special education are fully integrated, with support from resource teachers. At the high school, students in special education receive support from four resource teachers within or outside general education classrooms depending on student needs. The district uses Read 180, a comprehensive intervention for students below grade level, for a large number of students with disabilities at the elementary and middle school levels. Mr. Postler cited the intervention as resulting in significant success. Specific teachers who are trained in the program work 90 minutes per day with students, who rotate among three stations: small group work with the teacher, computer work at the student s level, and individual reading. In addition, Kerman has utilized Explicit Direct Instruction (EDI) for the past four years, supported by ongoing staff development. EDI focuses on the use of (a) instructional grouping (using flexible skill grouping as opposed to tracking ), (b) increased instructional time (increasing academic learning time the time students are successfully engaged), and (c) continuous assessment (providing ongoing inprogram assessments to inform instructional practice). EDI is mostly used at the K 8 level, with weekly monitoring by school and district administrators to ensure consistent implementation.... The district uses Read 180, a comprehensive intervention for students below grade level, for a large number of students with disabilities at the elementary and middle school levels...resulting in significant success. Over the past year, the district formally implemented RtI through an implementation plan and staff training tailored to district needs. The district has also recently purchased Read Well, a reading intervention program for K 3, as well as DIBELS (Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills) Online, an assessment program that measures Journal of Special Education Leadership 25(2) September

12 Effective Practices in High Performing Districts students early literacy skills in five areas: phonemic awareness, alphabetic principle, accuracy and fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. Finally, Kerman has emphasized the use of PLCs for several years, specifically including collaboration between general and special education teachers. Mr. Postler sees the district s efforts to fully incorporate students with disabilities into the core curriculum, and the programs and strategies described above, as the keys to their impressive academic success. District Profile 2: Upland Unified School District Upland Unified in San Bernardino County enrolls students, with 40% eligible for free or reduced-price lunch and 14% English learners (slightly below the statewide averages of 50% and 20%). In the school year, Upland s students in special education taking the CST scored above average in mathematics (40 vs. 33%) and English language arts (39 vs. 32%) compared with the state as a whole, and also scored higher than districts with comparable percentages of students in poverty (see Table 2). Upland s director of student services, Lori Thompson, cited three primary factors that have contributed to the district s success with its special education population: A blended program developed using curriculum mapping and common assessments, Collaboration and co-teaching, and Professional development (e.g., Guided Language Acquisition Design [GLAD] strategies). Special education in Upland continues to evolve, and is moving toward a blended program in which students and teachers associated with special education are integrated into general education, particularly at the junior high and high school levels. Five years ago, the district started de-tracking its high school. To allow all students to be on the same academic track, general and special education teachers developed common curriculum and assessments in all departments. All students now take college prep courses in mathematics, ELA, social science, and other subjects. Instead of being in a separate class, students identified for special education take college prep classes and receive specialized academic instruction from special 66 education teachers when needed. At the middle school level, students in special education get access to the core curriculum in classes where general and special education teachers work collaboratively.... In addition to collaborating and co-teaching when blending instruction, teachers engage in formalized transition planning for students in special education moving into junior high and high school. At the elementary level, while still using resource and special day class teachers, the district is implementing more blended instruction particularly in social studies and science, because these subjects are easier to blend than mathematics and ELA. Upland used to cluster special day classes at just a few schools, with a lot of busing. However, given the high cost of busing students and the goal of having them attend their neighborhood schools, they have now distributed their special day classes more evenly across the district. This makes blended instruction more viable because students in special education are no longer concentrated at a few school sites. In addition to collaborating and co-teaching when blending instruction, teachers engage in formalized transition planning for students in special education moving into junior high and high school. Sending and receiving teachers meet to discuss the students making these transitions. The goal is to maximize the degree to which they can be in blended classes and fully exposed to the core curriculum, with the levels of support needed to make them successful. Upland has emphasized professional development for teachers in meeting the needs of all learners. For instance, the district has coached teachers on GLAD (Guided Language Acquisition Design) strategies, which focus on literacy and visual strategies for learning seen as useful for students in special education. District Profile 3: Val Verde Unified District Val Verde Unified, located in Riverside County, is a relatively large district, with an enrollment of approximately students. About three quarters (74%) of the district s students are eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, and more than one quarter (26%) are ELs. In the school year, 37% of Val Journal of Special Education Leadership 25(2) September 2012

13 Verde s students in special education taking the CST scored proficient or above in mathematics; 33% scored proficient or above in ELA. The statewide averages for students in special education were 33 and 32%, and 28 and 26% in districts with comparable proportions of students in poverty (see Table 2). Val Verde s special education director, Vicki Butler, along with the middle and high school program specialist, Christine Counts, and the elementary school instructional coach, Jeff Mossa, credited these factors for Val Verde s strong performance with its students in special education: Equitable access to the core curriculum and assessments, Professional development for special education teachers, and Collaborative teaching and teamwork. First, the district explained that the students in special education are performing well partly because all students in the district are performing well. The philosophy in the district is that special education is not separate from general education; it is treated as part of the whole. Also, special education is deliberately located in the curriculum and instruction department as opposed to under student services to avoid silos and bridge the gap between general and special education. To this end, Val Verde uses a flexible model for students in special education; students are integrated into general education as much as possible, but also receive specialized academic instruction depending on their needs and Individualized Education Program goals. As Ms. Butler pointed out, These models are better than the old model that we used to have, where we separated kids out and isolated them. These are more entwined with the regular education program. The team also noted that through the use of RtI strategies, they have been able to identify and provide services for at-risk students to keep their special education population from increasing beyond 10%. Another important factor identified by the Val Verde team is their professional development for special education teachers. Two years ago, the district received a Special Education Teacher Professional Development Grant as part of the Reading First project. Special education teachers were trained in the ELA core curriculum (Houghton Mifflin), which is usually only offered to general education teachers. This training allowed special education teachers to Effective Practices in High Performing Districts better understand and use the core curriculum s different components and supplements. Teachers were also given training related to the district s writing program (Step Up to Writing), as well as training on GLAD strategies, co-teaching, and data analysis supports.... through the use of RtI strategies, they have been able to identify and provide services for at-risk students to keep their special education population from increasing beyond 10%. At the elementary level, Val Verde emphasizes collaborative teaching and teamwork through learning centers. The learning center is a place where students are taught through small group or targeted individualized instruction in a general education setting. Also, there is a special education teacher on each elementary school leadership team to ensure that special education is fully integrated with general education. In addition, each elementary school has an instructional coach who facilitates data meetings. At the middle and high school levels, there is a special education team that works with grade level teams. Students with disabilities are fully included in general education classes, with either instructional assistant or special education teacher assistance in their classes. There are also Basic Classes, which are smaller and designed for students with more intensive needs. ext year, the district will add instructional coaches to its secondary programs as well. According to Mr. Mossa, We have built the capacity of our special education teachers to have them bring value to the general education classroom for the special and general education students. District Profile 4: Sanger Unified School District Sanger Unified is in the heart of California s Central Valley, where the child poverty rate is two to three times the national average. Despite these demographic challenges, the district has made great academic strides. In 2004, seven of the district s schools were designated as Program Improvement (PI) sites under CLB. Today, four are State Distinguished Schools, and two have been recognized as ational Blue Ribbon Schools. In addition, Sanger Journal of Special Education Leadership 25(2) September

14 Effective Practices in High Performing Districts Unified employees have received local and national recognition, such as the ational Superintendent of the Year Award, the Bell Award for Outstanding School Leadership, and Fresno County Administrator and Teacher of the Year awards. The practices in Sanger have reduced the percentage of students requiring special education services to 8%, as compared to the statewide average of 10% and the nationwide average of over 13%. Despite the fact that its special education programs are serving students with the most severe needs, Sanger s students in special education perform substantially better than the state average and better than other districts with similar demographics. In the school year, 49% of Sanger s students in special education taking the CST scored proficient or above in mathematics and 38% did so in ELA, compared to 33 and 32% for students in special education statewide, and 28 and 26% in districts with comparable levels of students in poverty (see Table 2). According to the district, in the school year, Sanger was in a struggle with the teachers union, the school board, and the superintendent, and was at a point of total dysfunction. By 2004, Sanger had hit rock bottom, with substantial refocus long overdue. Ultimately, Sanger was able to turn the corner by adopting an approach focused on Response to Intervention (RtI), Professional Learning Communities (PLCs), and Explicit Direct Instruction (EDI). Sanger successfully implemented these components through a change in the administrative philosophy to one of loose/tight leadership. Loose/Tight Leadership. The tight component of this new approach to district governance was the message that all schools had to meet clearly established targets, which required the cooperation of all administrators and staff. The loose part of the model allowed each individual school to structure how to meet these expectations which methods they would use to implement these district-wide practices and objectives.... The loose part of the model allowed each individual school to structure how to meet expectations Implementation of RTI. Creation of this loose/tight leadership model led to all schools implementing 68 their own RtI approach. At each school, the general and special education staff joined together to implement the RtI approach and ensure its success. RtI allowed Sanger schools to begin addressing its special education needs and general education challenges. Challenges to the implementation of RtI included a large percentage of English learners and students qualifying for special services. Combined with everdecreasing budgets, district service providers were stretched to deal with the needs of an ever-increasing special population of students who were already far behind benchmark goals. In addition, general education and special education were not communicating to meet the unique needs of students across the district. RtI was pivotal in creating a connection with general education teachers as they needed special education support to meet the needs of students receiving additional interventions. Being proactive about addressing the needs of these students gave teachers a greater sense of purpose, and more ownership of and control over student outcomes. RtI provided the strategies to address these challenges and brought school site teams together for a common purpose. Professional Learning Communities. PLCs have played an important role in implementing the change needed to challenge students in their learning. Using the loose/tight approach, the district s charge to schools was to involve all levels of staff in PLC training, beginning with administrators and extending to school site teams. The tight component meant that all schools were required to implement PLCs, replacing more traditional staff meetings. The loose component meant that their approach to forming PLCs could vary as long as the school was benefitting from implementation. As a result of this training, the district focused on four key questions, all focused on student learning: 1. What do we want students to learn? 2. How do we know they learned it? 3. How will we respond when learning does not take place? 4. What do we do for those who already know it? The question What do we want students to learn? led to commonly agreed upon standards and objectives. How will we know they learned it? resulted in common assessments for every grade level team, bringing consistency to their instruction. Journal of Special Education Leadership 25(2) September 2012

15 Asking How will we respond when learning does not take place? led to common pacing guides, sharing and building lesson plans, and a flow of expertise and advice among staff regarding how to configure classes for better learning opportunities. The question of How will we respond for those who already know it? led to strategies to deepen understanding, expand rigor, and develop preassessments to differentiate instruction.... in Sanger they [school psychologists] function as quasi-vice principals, serving on leadership teams, conducting walkthroughs, dealing with student behavior issues, and serving as the backbone of the RtI process. School psychologists are part of the PLCs as well. Sanger uses psychologists differently from most districts. While school psychologists are often used almost exclusively to conduct special education assessments (to determine whether students qualify for service), in Sanger they function as quasi-vice principals, serving on leadership teams, conducting walkthroughs, dealing with student behavior issues, and serving as the backbone of the RtI process. Explicit Direct Instruction. When EDI began in Sanger, it started as a pilot project with Del Rey Elementary, one of the lowest-performing schools in the district. In partnership with a company called DataWorks, the district created structured EDI lessons that were highly correlated to state standards. After this, Del Rey experienced an increase in the state s API from 532 in 2002 to 818 in 2010, and became one of the most notable and frequently visited schools in the district. Beginning in 2004, all special education and general education teachers in the district were trained in EDI, which provided the framework for explicit skill development and conceptual understanding. Teachers replaced conversations about how students don t get it with discussions about what part of the lesson they didn t get. This allowed special and general educators to communicate with each other to meet the needs of all students. Conversations became focused on specific EDI components such as concept development, skill development, learning objectives, and guided practice. Once general education teachers identified the area(s) the student did not understand, the special education teacher could provide assistance regarding the best approach to learning, which led to greater inclusion of students with disabilities and a higher degree of collaboration between special and general education teachers. This shift created an interdependent relationship between special and general education; this relationship was necessary to fluidly react to students needs. The interconnection enabled all stakeholders to speak a common language, develop common outcomes, enhance common practices, and articulate common goals. The implementation of EDI, PLCs, and RtI moved all schools out of PI status and increased all schools API and AYP scores. In addition, the initiatives increased district administrator knowledge of student needs and increased the use of data by teachers to diagnose and meet the needs of individual students within the district, school, and grade level teams. In short, the combination of Sanger s commitment to fully include as many children as possible in the general education setting, its RtI approach to meet students exceptional needs outside special education through the use of EDI strategies, and collaboration through PLC teams have been a recipe for success. Overall District Themes Examining themes across all four of these districts, the following strategies emerged in support of special education performance: Inclusion and access to the core curriculum (four districts), Collaboration between special education and general education teachers (four districts), Continuous assessment and use of RtI (three districts), Targeted professional development (three Effective Practices in High Performing Districts districts), and Use of Explicit Direct Instruction (two districts). Inclusion and access to the core curriculum was the strategy most strongly credited by all four districts as having contributed to special education performance. However, as in the Donahue Institute study, inclusion efforts take different forms across these districts. In Kerman and Sanger, the strategy is to fully integrate as many students identified for special education as possible, with proper support from resource teachers depending on student needs. Upland, on the other hand, is moving toward a Journal of Special Education Leadership 25(2) September

16 Effective Practices in High Performing Districts blended program which started with the detracking of its high school and providing students in special education more access to college prep courses at the high school level and to the core curriculum at the middle and elementary levels. Similarly, Val Verde uses a flexible model in which students with disabilities are integrated into general education as much as possible but also receive specialized academic instruction when needed.... Teachers replaced conversations about how students don t get it with discussions about what part of the lesson they didn t get. All four districts indicated that, for inclusion to work, general and special education teachers need to collaborate. This strategy was consistently mentionedasawaytoimprovespecialeducation performance as well. In two of the districts (Kerman and Sanger), the collaboration takes place through PLCs, where special and general education teachers discuss student needs and plan instruction together. In Sanger, school psychologists are also part of the PLCs. In Upland and Val Verde, collaboration takes the form of blended instruction, transition planning, use of learning centers, and special education teacher participation on leadership teams to ensure integration of general and special education. Kerman, Sanger, and Val Verde cited continuous use of student assessment data and RtI strategies as a way to respond to student needs and limit the number of students referred to special education. Kerman, Upland, and Val Verde provide targeted professional development to meet the needs of all learners, emphasizing particular strategies (e.g., EDI, GLAD) or training special education teachers to better understand and use the core curriculum. Finally, Kerman and Sanger both use EDI as a way to structure lesson content and increase student engagement through the use of flexible groupings and ongoing assessments. Study Implications Education researchers, practitioners, and policymakers should give greater consideration to the 70 substantial variation observed in the academic results for students with disabilities in school districts across the state. Some districts are producing much higher educational outcomes for their students in special education. Given the magnitude of spending on special education services and all that is at stake for these children, a better understanding of what these districts are doing that might inform others should be gained. This study has begun this process. Through a rigorous selection process, a number of districts were found that substantially and consistently outperformed similar districts on state performance measures. The main themes that emerged across these districts are consistent with the research and literature on effective practices for students in special education: inclusion and access to the core curriculum (four districts), collaboration between special education and general education teachers (four districts), continuous assessment and use of RtI (three districts); targeted professional development (three districts), and use of EDI (two districts). All four districts were very clear about the need for students in special education to gain full access to the curriculum, which will only occur through strong general and special education collaboration. Districts emphasized the importance of creating a learning community unified in the belief that all children can learn. Aside from this overall philosophy, though, each district reported developing specific strategies that were unique. Further exploration could occur through more in depth data collection (including site visits to districts and schools) to document through interviews and observations how successful special education outcomes are produced at different sites. For example, on-site observations could document how professional development for and collaboration between general and special education teachers occur. Also, this study only examined performance on the California Standards Test (CST), which is the statewide assessment; one could explore the performance of students taking the California Modified Assessment (CMA) and the California Alternate Performance Assessment (CAPA) to understand best practices for the students in special education taking these assessments. For now, however, the authors believe these unified, diverse districts, and others like them, can Journal of Special Education Leadership 25(2) September 2012

17 serve as lighthouses for other districts struggling to fully incorporate their special education population and to give these students the best possible chance to succeed academically. Author ote This study was conducted as part of the California Comprehensive Center (CA CC) at WestEd, one of the 16 regional centers charged with building state capacity to implement the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, improve student achievement, and close achievement gaps. References Chaikind, S., & Fowler, W.J. (Eds.). (2001). Education finance in the new millennium. (Annual Yearbook of the American Education Finance Association). Larchmont, Y: Eye on Education. Cortiella, C., & Burnette, J. (2008). Challenging change: How schools and districts are improving the performance of special education students. ew York: ational Center for Learning Disabilities. Darling-Hammond, L. (1996). Restructuring schools for high performance. In S. Fuhrman, & J. O Day (Eds.), Rewards and reform (pp ). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Donahue Institute, The University of Massachusetts. (2004, October). A study of MCAS achievement and promising practices in urban special education. Hadley, MA: Author. Fuller, B., Loeb, S., Arshan,., Chen, A., & Yi, S. (2007). California principals resources: Acquisition, deployment, and barriers. Berkeley, CA: Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE). Hanushek, E.A., Kain, J.F., & Rivkin, S.G. (2002). Inferring program effects for special populations: Does special education raise achievement for students with disabilities? Review of Economics and Statistics, 84(4), Levine, D.U., & Lezotte, L.W. (1990). Unusually effective schools: A review and analysis of research and practice. Madison, WI: ational Center for Effective Schools Research and Development. McLaughlin, M.J., & The Center for Policy Research on the Impact of General and Special Education Reform. (1997, March). Reform for all? General and special education reforms in five local school districts. Washington, DC: Special Education Programs (ED/OSERS). CLB (o Chld Left Behind) Act of 2001, Pub. L. o , 1 115, Stat (2002). Parrish, T., Perez, M., Merickel, A., & Linquanti, R. (2006). Effects of the implementation of Proposition 227 on the education of English learners, K 12. Findings from a fiveyear evaluation: Final report. Palo Alto, CA: American Institutes for Research and WestEd. Perez, M., Anand, P., Speroni, C., Parrish, T., Esra, P., Socias, M., & Gubbins, P. (2007). Successful California schools in the context of educational adequacy. Palo Alto, CA: American Institutes for Research. President s Commission on Excellence in Special Education. (2002, July). A new era: Revitalizing special education for children and their families. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, A ew Era: Revitalizing Special Education for Children and Their Families, Washington, DC, Skiba, R.J., Simmons, A.B., Ritter, S., Gibb, A.C., Rausch, M.K., Cuadrado, J., & Chung, C.-G. (2008). Achieving Equity in Special Education: History, Status, and Current Challenges. Exceptional Children, 74(3), U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development. (2010). ESEA Blueprint for Reform. Washington, DC: Author. Wolf, P.J., & Hassal, B.C. (2001). Effectiveness and accountability (part 1): The compliance model. In C. Finn, Jr., A. Rotherham, & C. Hokanson, Jr. (Eds.), Rethinking special education for a new century (pp ). Washington, DC: Progressive Policy Institute and Fordham Foundation. About the Authors Effective Practices in High Performing Districts Mette Huberman, M.A., is a senior research analyst for the American Institutes for Research, 2800 Campus Drive, Suite 200, San Mateo, CA [email protected]. Matt avo, M.S., is the director of Pupil Personnel Services for the Sanger Unified School District, 1905 Seventh Street, Sanger CA [email protected]. Tom Parrish, Ed.D., is a managing research scientist for the American Institutes for Research, 2800 Campus Drive, Suite 200, San Mateo, CA [email protected]. Journal of Special Education Leadership 25(2) September

18 Leading the Way to Appropriate Selection, Implementation, and Evaluation of the Read-Aloud Accommodation Martha L. Thurlow, Ph.D., Sheryl S. Lazarus, Ph.D., and Jennifer R. Hodgson, M.A. University of Minnesota The read-aloud accommodation is one of the most frequently used accommodations. Many educators need training to more confidently select, implement, and evaluate the use of the readaloud accommodation. Planning by special education leaders can help ensure that test day goes smoothly for students who need the read-aloud accommodation. Reading skills are a challenge for many students with disabilities, yet so much of education is dependent on those skills. These skills are particularly important for students to have access to the curriculum and to be able to participate in state assessments of mathematics and reading. Special education leaders can support the selection, implementation, and evaluation of the read-aloud accommodation. By doing so, the validity of student results is likely to be improved beyond what it would be if attention had not been paid to this accommodation. Why Do Leaders eed to Care About the Read-Aloud Accommodation? Understanding mathematics texts and assessments is likely to be a major problem for students who have disabilities in the area of reading. Similar challenges exist for texts and assessments in the area of reading, although the challenges there are more complex. Of particular concern for reading assessments is the fact that these assessments often rely on the student s ability to decode the text, even when the targeted construct is to understand the text and not to demonstrate decoding skills. Some students with disabilities may need accommodations to prevent reading challenges from inhibiting academic success. The read-aloud accommodation is a primary accommodation used to provide access to the curriculum and to assessments. Read aloud refers to a variety of approaches to having curricular materials or assessments read to the student by someone (human reader) or something else (audio tape or speech-to-text software on a computer). Despite its popularity, this accommodation is not always the most appropriate accommodation, especially if it is provided to students who do not really need it or if the implementation of the accommodation is inappropriate.... Read aloud refers to a variety of approaches to having curricular materials or assessments read to the student by someone (human reader) or something else (audio tape or speech-to-text software on a computer). The read-aloud accommodation is sometimes defined in terms of what is read to the student. For The preparation of this article was funded with partial support from the Multi-state GSEG Toward a Defensible AA-MAS, a project supported by General Supervision Enhancement Grants (H373X070021) from the Research to Practice Division, Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education. Opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Department of Education or Offices within it. 72 Journal of Special Education Leadership 25(2) September 2012

19 example, a common practice is to read directions aloud. Although a frequently occurring practice in the classroom, it is often considered to be an accommodation during large-scale assessments (Christensen, Braam, Scullin, & Thurlow, 2011). Read aloud also can refer to reading test item stems and sometimes answer choices. This is allowed somewhat less frequently than the reading of directions. Finally, read aloud can refer to the reading of test items themselves, which in some cases might include the passages in reading assessments. Thus, a simple term such as read-aloud accommodation has a variety of meanings. It also has many complexities that need to be thought about as decisions are made about accommodations in the classroom and during large-scale assessments and as the accommodation is implemented. Leaders can provide important support to ensure that decisions and implementation are appropriate and that systematic evaluation of the accommodation occurs. Current Practice and Challenges in Accommodations Decision Making It is now recognized that students may have a variety of physical, sensory, or cognitive challenges that prevent them from showing what they know and can do on assessments (Bolt & Roach, 2009). When used for assessments, accommodations remove obstacles immaterial to what the test is intended to measure (Thurlow, Lazarus, & Christensen, 2008, p. 17). Accepted practice is for assigned accommodations to be based on the student s individual needs (Thurlow, Elliott, & Ysseldyke, 2003), with data collected during instruction and assessment to ensure that the accommodation is working as intended (Elliott & Thurlow, 2006). Still, there are many challenges associated with accommodations, especially the read-aloud accommodation. Challenges associated with making decisions about accommodations are exacerbated by limited or contradictory research findings. The read-aloud is an example of an accommodation that has gathered mixed empirical support. Weston (2002) found that the read-aloud accommodation benefited students with disabilities more than students Read Aloud Accommodation without disabilities. Similarly, Helwig, Rozek- Tedesco, and Tindal (2002) found that when there washighlinguisticcomplexityinmathitems, students with disabilities were more likely to benefit from a read-aloud accommodation than were students without disabilities. Other studies (e.g., Elbaum, 2007) have shown that the read-aloud accommodation benefited students without disabilities more than it benefited students with disabilities. Focus Group Data on Using the Read Aloud Accommodation for Math Assessments There is limited evidence to guide the use of the read-aloud accommodation in practice, including its use for mathematics assessments (Tindal & Anderson, 2011). In an attempt to better understand the use of the read-aloud accommodation in practice and how decisions are made about various aspects of providing the accommodation, we conducted focus groups with test administrators in a Midwestern state. This state is one of the 37 states in the United States that allows use of the readaloud accommodation for mathematics assessments without restrictions (Christensen et al., 2011). In the focus groups, we targeted the use of the read-aloud accommodation for mathematics assessments by asking four questions: 1. What are appropriate practices in administration of the read-aloud accommodation? 2. How does the read-aloud accommodation benefit students? 3. What differences exist in the use of the readaloud accommodation in math versus other content areas (e.g., reading, science)? 4. What differences exist between the read-aloud accommodation and other accommodations for students? Twelve educators who administered the readaloud accommodation on statewide mathematics assessments participated in the focus groups. Ten participants were special educators and two were district-level special education administrators. Some of the participants had administered the read-aloud accommodation for other content areas (e.g., reading, science) as well as for mathematics. Journal of Special Education Leadership 25(2) September

20 Read Aloud Accommodation We highlight here the themes that emerged from the focus group conversations. They address considerations for selecting the read-aloud accommodation in math and for how to plan for the successful use of the read-aloud accommodation on mathematics assessments. We conclude by identifying some ways in which special education leaders can support the appropriate use of the readaloud accommodation in mathematics. A complete summary of our focus group research and related findings are detailed in a forthcoming report (see Hodgson, Lazarus, Price, Altman, & Thurlow, 2012) that may be accessed on the ational Center on Educational Outcomes website ( Considerations for Using Read Aloud for Mathematics Assessments Our focus group discussions provided insight into how the read-aloud accommodation is selected for students. According to the educators who participated in the focus groups, students who were identified as needing the read-aloud accommodation shared several common characteristics. Both reading and behavioral difficulties were frequently mentioned. The educators also indicated that it was often challenging to use data appropriately to make decisions about the use of the read-aloud accommodation for math and that there were inconsistencies in the use of the read aloud across instruction and assessment. Characteristics and eeds of Students Who May Find This Accommodation Useful The read-aloud accommodation is intended to prevent the student s decoding skills from interfering with showing what he or she knows and is able to do (Thurlow, Moen, Lekwa, & Scullin, 2010). Given the intended purpose of the read-aloud accommodation, it is often assumed that students with limited reading skills, including some students with learning disabilities, would benefit from the read-aloud accommodation. This is consistent with the literature, which notes that reading classroom tests aloud is a commonly used accommodation for students with learning disabilities (ewman, 2006) and the finding that oral presentation and response is one of the five most commonly used testing accommodations for students with learning disabilities (Lindstrom, 2010) Student needs are barriers to learning that prevent the student from accessing classroom instruction or demonstrating knowledge on assessments. Educators who participated in the focus groups also reported that the read-aloud accommodation was effective for students with certain characteristics and needs. They noted that students who appeared to benefit from the read-aloud accommodation shared common characteristics, including poor reading skills, difficulty attending to academic tasks, and high anxiety. Students with poor reading skills were reported to have difficulties with mathematics terminology. One educator explained that students who were unable to decode some math terms (e.g., quotient, perpendicular) were more likely to guess on test items than they would if they were provided the read-aloud accommodation.... students who appeared to benefit from the readaloud accommodation shared common characteristics, including poor reading skills, difficulty attending to academic tasks, and high anxiety. Students who had difficulty attending to academic tasks also were reported to benefit from the read-aloud accommodation. The focus group participants suggested that the read-aloud accommodation may have promoted appropriate pacing of test content for these students. They noted that students who were provided the read-aloud accommodation were less likely to rush through the test. The educators said that physical proximity of the student and test administrator when the read-aloud accommodation was delivered was another important factor and that the read-aloud accommodation promoted the student s on-task behavior. Further, teachers reported that they considered highly anxious students, or those described as easily frustrated, as possible candidates for the read-aloud accommodation. Educators noted that when in a small group, highly anxious students appeared more confident compared with when they were in a large group test setting. Although Individualized Education Program (IEP) teams often consider the read-aloud Journal of Special Education Leadership 25(2) September 2012

21 accommodation for students with learning disabilities, there is a consistent recommendation in the literature that the student s disability category should not be used to determine his or her accommodations (Shriner & Ganguly, 2007). The student s individual characteristics and needs should drive the selection of appropriate accommodations. Student characteristics may include learning styles, academic strengths and weaknesses, classroom performance, and educational history. Student needs are barriers to learning that prevent the student from accessing classroom instruction or demonstrating knowledge on assessments. For example, a student may have an academic weakness in reading, which in turn may prevent the student from demonstrating his or her knowledge on tests that have significant reading demands. Using Data to Inform the Selection of Accommodations Comments made by focus group teachers revealed little awareness of appropriate selection procedures for accommodations. As noted by the focus group participants, educators are sometimes unsure whether an accommodation is appropriate. For example, teachers debated whether the read-aloud accommodation in math should be limited to students with reading disabilities or whether it should be available for all students with specific reading skill deficits (e.g., decoding, fluency). Confusion about appropriate selection criteria may result in accommodations that are ineffective or that even interfere with the performance of some students. Teachers also often need direction about the types of data that should be collected to inform accommodations decisions. The educators in our focus groups talked about using reading assessments to determine each student s eligibility for the readaloud accommodation in math. Still, there appeared to be inconsistencies in how assessment data were used to make decisions and whether scores on a basic reading assessment were the best (or only) way to determine whether the read aloud was appropriate. Training is needed to demystify the process. Decision-making guides, including accommodations manuals, are a good first step for helping educators make appropriate decisions. A next step is to assist teachers in using data to inform the selection of accommodations. Using evidence to support the selection of accommodations will help to ensure optimal outcomes for students. Relationship Between Instructional and Assessment Accommodations The read-aloud accommodation should be used consistently across instruction and assessment, as long as its use does not interfere with the construct that the test is intended to measure. For state tests, accommodations policies would indicate which accommodations are appropriate to use. According to teachers in our focus groups, the read-aloud accommodation was provided more often to students during assessment than during instruction. Teachers reported that the read-aloud accommodation was frequently documented on student s IEPs to ensure it would be available whenever it was requested for statewide testing. It was a concern that some teachers described the read-aloud accommodation as a safety net, despite the fact that the student may not know how to use the read-aloud accommodation appropriately and that it may not work as intended if the student has no previous experience with its use. IEP teams should plan for the administration of accommodations across instruction and assessment, rather than selecting accommodations for assessment only. Accommodations are unlikely to be effective on test day if the student has not had prior experience using the accommodation (Lindstrom, 2010). IEP teams should select accommodations for assessment based on whether the accommodation has been used previously and whether it has been demonstrated to help the student access classroom instruction (Altman et al., 2010; Lazarus, Thompson, & Thurlow, 2006). Some state policies require accommodations to be in place prior to assessment (Thurlow, 2007). Involving the Student Read Aloud Accommodation Students should provide input into the selection of accommodations, either during their participation in an IEP team meeting or by communicating with teachers and other educators who attend the IEP meeting. Students can provide insight into what helps them learn. Building self-advocacy skills is important and may lead to better accommodations decisions (Thurlow et al., 2003). Self-advocacy skills may be particularly important for students who have a read-aloud Journal of Special Education Leadership 25(2) September

22 Read Aloud Accommodation accommodation or for students for whom it is assumed that they would benefit from the read-aloud accommodation. Teachers in our focus groups reported that the read-aloud accommodation was often documented on students IEPs to ensure that the accommodation would be available if needed. Yet students on test day do not always receive the accommodations that are on their IEP (ational Center on Educational Outcomes, 2003). Teachers should help students build self-advocacy skills, given that some students may need to independently request the read-aloud accommodation. Students who have had limited experience with the read-aloud accommodation, or who have had little practice selfadvocating for the accommodations that they need, may have difficulty requesting the accommodation. Self-advocacy for accommodations is most common at the high school level. Self-advocacy skills for older students may be helpful for requesting accommodations on state tests, as well as college entrance tests. Although, based on what the focus group participants told us, self-advocacy skills were clearly important for older students, it was noted that younger students would also benefit from building their self-advocacy skills. Teachers may need to support younger students in building self-advocacy skills. One way to promote self-advocacy skills is to help the student express his or her needs and preferences, especially when confronted by authority figures (e.g., teachers, parents; Thompson, Morse, Sharpe, & Hall, 2005; Thurlow et al., 2003). It was suggested by focus group participants that students should practice preparing themselves for test day and that teachers and the student should jointly monitor the student s success. In addition, teachers in our focus groups frequently monitored students during the test for signs of fatigue and frustration. Students with both the read-aloud accommodation and the breaks as needed accommodation were permitted to leave the testing situation as necessary. Students could be taught to self-monitor for anxiety or frustration; self-monitoring of needs is another component of self-advocacy. Planning for Successful Use of Read- Aloud Accommodations Administering the read-aloud accommodation for state and district assessments can be fraught with 76 difficulties. Some of the difficulties include, but are not limited to, scheduling, providing adequate space during testing, and appropriately training all administrators to ensure the validity of test results. Difficulties presented by the read-aloud accommodation may be reduced through foresight and planning. Logistics and Test Day Provision of the read-aloud accommodation can create some logistical challenges. Additional classroom space may be needed for small-group administration. Teachers and other test administrators may be stretched very thin when many students need the read-aloud accommodation. Advance planning can lead to a more successful test day. There should be careful documentation of which students should receive the read-aloud accommodation. Testing rooms and test administrators who will deliver the read aloud should be identified in advance. Sometimes things do not go smoothly on test day. Some students may not get accommodations they need; others may receive accommodations that are not on their IEP. According to the focus group participants, assessment accommodation recommendations in student IEPs were based on individual student needs, but sometimes the individualization and variation in accommodations disappeared during testing sessions.... It was suggested by focus group participants that students should practice preparing themselves for test day and that teachers and the student should jointly monitor the student s success. Accommodation choices sometimes seem to meet institutional needs more than student needs. For example, sometimes if one student in a room needs to have the assessment directions read aloud, every student in that room receives the accommodation whether or not it is needed. Also, all students in a given location often tend to receive the same bundle of accommodations regardless of whether a particular accommodation was contained in any given student s IEP (Altman et al., 2010; Lazarus et al., 2006; ational Center on Educational Outcomes, Journal of Special Education Leadership 25(2) September 2012

23 2003). It is inappropriate to fail to provide accommodations on a student s IEP or to provide accommodations not on the student s IEP. Planning Ahead and Documentation Can Minimize the Problems on Test Day Planning is important to determining small groups of students to receive the read-aloud administration. Focus group participants said that it worked well when students were grouped together based on the students ability to progress through the test at a similar rate. Students who progressed through the test slowly in comparison with peers were seen as possibly interfering with their peers ability to show what they knew. Similarly, students who progressed more quickly than their peers were viewed as possibly becoming bored or restless during testing and thus unlikely to perform to the best of their ability. Small groups require competent test administrators. It was noted that school staffing was often stretched thin on test day and that in some places, on some occasions, volunteers administered the read-aloud accommodation. Many states have policies that prohibit this practice, but even when officially allowed, it is problematic because volunteers lack the knowledge and training to appropriately administer the read-aloud accommodation. Some students receive the read aloud and additional accommodations. A common additional accommodation for students using the read-aloud accommodation is an alternative test setting or breaks as needed. Focus group teachers reported some confusion about documenting multiple accommodations for students. Alternative setting was particularly difficult for them given that a separate setting was assumed for many students receiving the read-aloud accommodation. Training for Test Administrators Educators and other IEP team members need training to make good decisions about the read-aloud accommodation. As technology improves and more testing shifts to computer-based testing, the readaloud accommodation is often provided by screen readers and text-to-speech software. Teachers need to understand how to help students learn how to use Read Aloud Accommodation read-aloud technology for instruction and assessment (ational Center on Educational Outcomes, 2011). The read-aloud accommodation often is still administered by a human reader. The use of readers introduces human variability into the testing situation. The test administrator who provides the read-aloud accommodation should have prior training and knowledge to help ensure that the accommodation is administered appropriately and with consistency and standardization to the extent possible. Focus group participants also reported that administrators providing the read-aloud accommodation should have content area knowledge relevant to the test being administered. Focus group participants reported that educators received training from various sources, including state or district personnel who, in turn, had been trained by the state. Inconsistencies in the provision of training can result in nonstandard administration practices, possibly impairing the validity of test results. According to one educator, The consistency seems to be lacking, even from school to school, school district to school district, on how things are presented to the student. It is unethical for test administrators to coach students during testing or give clues in any way. Content should not be changed or paraphrased, and additional information should not be provided.... reviewing the test materials prior to administration helped to ensure speech quality and accuracy. School leaders also should ensure that teachers know how mathematical terms are to be pronounced for the assessment so that they can use the same terminology during instruction. For example, the numerical expression 605,788 might be read six zero five comma seven eight eight during testing to ensure that the read-aloud accommodation does not interfere with the target skill assessed. Students should be exposed to such practices during instruction so that it is familiar on test day. Pronunciation practices required by state guidelines sometimes can seem onerous, but using different pronunciation across instruction and assessment can have detrimental effects on students performance. In the focus group discussions, one teacher said that when the language changes between Journal of Special Education Leadership 25(2) September

24 Read Aloud Accommodation instruction and assessment, We re pulling the carpet out from under them. Focus group participants noted that in their state, guidelines for the read-aloud accommodation indicated that the test administrators should have good English pronunciation and be familiar with the test vocabulary and terms. When discussing the read-aloud accommodation for mathematics assessment, focus group participants slipped into a discussion of using the read aloud for reading instruction. They indicated that the readaloud accommodation is often provided to students during instruction. Because this is done, they noted that some students might not have had adequate opportunity to practice reading passages similar to those on the statewide reading assessment. They also noted that some reading strategies taught to struggling readers, such as re-reading the passage and reading questions before the passage, are not possible on the reading assessment. One participant said, We teach them skills on how to be good readers and how to read for information, and then this thing doesn t test that at all. Security Considerations When provided by a human, someone other than the student also needs to see the test. An example of a test security measure that may make it more difficult to provide appropriate accessibility is the policy to not allow test administrators to see the test prior to administration. Yet some focus group participants said that reviewing the test materials prior to administration helped to ensure speech quality and accuracy. Participants also said that it prevented the use of speech that would potentially invalidate test results. For example, some pronunciations of numerals or numerical expressions might interfere with the target skill assessed. By reviewing the test materials prior to administration, the likelihood that the read-aloud accommodation would interfere with test validity was reduced. Many state policies that address test security include information about the provision of the readaloud accommodation as well as about accommodations in general. Some of these do a good job of balancing security needs and the needs of test administrators who are providing accommodations, whereas others have restrictions that may be problematic. Test security policies and procedures are needed to help ensure the integrity and validity of a test. 78 Cheating on tests and other security breaches are important concerns, and school leaders need to use appropriate procedures to help ensure test security. Still, it is vital that there be careful consideration of how possible test security measures may affect accessibility for students with disabilities who may require special access features during testing, including the use of accommodations. Suggestions for Leaders Focus group participants were eager to share their experiences with the read-aloud accommodation as well as their thoughts about how it could be improved. In some cases, their suggestions crept beyond mathematics instruction and assessments and into the realm of reading assessments. To some extent, the perspective was that if a student needed a read-aloud accommodation, the student needed that accommodation regardless of the content area. Provide and Support Training for Educators and Students Focus group participants comments reflected existing research findings on the need for training at the state and local levels to help educators make appropriate decisions about the read-aloud accommodation. In addition, comments suggested the need for more than occasional training. Leaders can provide support to educators by encouraging discussions about accommodations at staff meetings and in the lounge, to reinforce suggestions that are made during training. Training that is provided should help to ensure that educators look beyond the student s disability category when identifying students who may need a read-aloud accommodation for mathematics instruction and assessments. It should also discourage educators from using the read aloud as a safety net for students on test day. Educators should plan for the appropriate use of the readaloud accommodation across instruction and assessment. The use of data to make decisions about the readaloud accommodation is critical because the use of the read-aloud accommodation can actually interfere with the performance of students who do not need or want it. Thus, providing training and reinforcing that training is something that leaders should be doing Journal of Special Education Leadership 25(2) September 2012

25 frequently. Suggestions for ways to collect data and identifying mentors to work with educators on collecting and interpreting data are important roles that a leader can play. An extremely important aspect of training is a focus on ensuring that the read-aloud accommodation is administered in the same way to every student who receives it. Careful attention should be paid to the desired pronunciation of terms, particularly symbols and numbers. Further, educators who are not administering the read aloud during assessments should also be aware of the way that terms will be pronounced during the assessment so that they can reinforce those pronunciations during classroom instruction. It is important that students have experience with the way things will be presented during a read-aloud accommodation. Leaders can ensure that all staff members are aware of these pronunciations. Help Educators to Understand When Accommodations Interfere With the Construct Being Measured Although discussing the use of the read-aloud accommodation for mathematics assessments, focus group participants could not help but make comments on the use of the read aloud for reading assessments. This desire to address reading as well as mathematics should be an alert to leaders about the need for continued attention to the idea that an accommodation can interfere with accurate measurement of some skills. Further, attention should be given to the idea that an accommodation that might be appropriate during instruction (a reading accommodation for working on the comprehension of passages) may not be appropriate for an assessment designed to measure both decoding and comprehension skills. Manage the Logistics of Testing to Ensure Appropriate Use of the Read- Aloud Accommodation Logistical issues appeared to cause numerous challenges and push educators to engage in less-than-best practices in the use of the read-aloud accommodation. For example, providing the accommodation to groups of students that include some students who do not need the accommodation is definitely not good practice and is likely to cause those students not needing the accommodation to demonstrate lower performance than they would have otherwise. Strategies for managing logistics have been identified (Bolt & Roach, 2009; Thurlow et al., 2003). These include gathering information before test day on which students need the read aloud, which classes they are in, and how many people are needed to provide the read-aloud accommodation. These are all activities that fall to educational leaders. With this information in hand, testing locations and school personnel can be scheduled ahead of time to ensure that all students who need the accommodation receive it and that all students who do not need the accommodation do not receive it. Protect Security but Advocate for Accessibility Leaders are also critical in ensuring that the security of assessments is protected. At the same time, leaders should be advocating for ways to balance accessibility and security. This may mean working at the state level on policies that guide both security and accessibility. Leaders may need to push for allowing individuals who administer the read-aloud accommodation to view test materials prior to test day. Ultimately, the goal is to promote positive outcomes for students, which means both having a truly accessible assessment and having an assessment that is secure. References Read Aloud Accommodation Altman, J.R., Cormier, D.C., Lazarus, S.S., Thurlow, M.L., Holbrook, M., Byers, M., & Pence,. (2010). Accommodations: Results of a survey of Alabama special education teachers (Synthesis Report 81). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, ational Center on Educational Outcomes. Bolt, S.E., & Roach, A.T. (2009). Inclusive assessment and accountability: A guide to accommodations for students with diverse needs. ew York: Guilford Press. Christensen, L.L., Braam, M., Scullin, S., & Thurlow, M.L. (2011) state policies on assessment participation and accommodations for students with disabilities (Synthesis Report 83). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, ational Center on Educational Outcomes. Elbaum, B. (2007). Effects of an oral testing accommodation on the mathematics performance of secondary students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 40, Journal of Special Education Leadership 25(2) September

26 Read Aloud Accommodation Elliott, J.L., & Thurlow, M.L. (2006). Improving test performance of students with disabilities on district and state assessments. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Helwig, R., Rozek-Tedesco, M.A., & Tindal, G. (2002). An oral versus a standard administration of a large-scale mathematics test. Journal of Special Education, 36(1), Hodgson, J.R., Lazarus, S.S., Price, L.M., Altman, J.R., & Thurlow, M.L. (2012). Test administrators perspectives on the use of the read aloud accommodation in math on state tests for accountability (Technical Report 67). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, ational Center on Educational Outcomes. Lazarus, S.S., Thompson, S.J., & Thurlow, M.L. (2006). How students access accommodations in assessment and instruction: Results of a survey of special education teachers (EPRRI Issue Brief Seven). College Park, MD: Educational Policy Reform Research Institute. Lindstrom, J.H. (2010). Mathematics assessment accommodations: Implications of differential boost for students with learning disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic, 46(1), ational Center on Educational Outcomes. (2003). Rhode Island assessment accommodation study: Research summary. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, ational Center on Educational Outcomes, Retrieved from RhodeIsland.htm. ational Center on Educational Outcomes. (2011). Don t forget accommodations! Five questions to ask when moving to technology-based assessments (CEO Brief 1). Minneapolis, M: Author. ewman, L. (2006). Facts from LTS2: General education participation and academic performance of students with learning disabilities. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Retrieved from nlts2_fact_sheet_2006_07.pdf. Shriner, J.G., & Ganguly, R. (2007). Assessment and accommodation issues under the o Child Left Behind Act and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 32(4), Thompson, S.J., Morse, A.B., Sharpe, M., & Hall, S. (2005). Accommodations manual: How to select, administer, and evaluate use of accommodations for instruction and assessment of students with disabilities. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers. Retrieved from accommodationsmanual.doc. Thurlow, M.L. (2007). State policies and accommodations: Issues and implications. In C. Cahalan-Laitusis, & L. Cook (Eds.), Accommodating students with disabilities on state assessments: What works? (pp ). Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children. Thurlow, M.L., Elliott, J.L., & Ysseldyke, J.E. (2003). Testing students with disabilities: Practical strategies for complying with district and state requirements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Thurlow, M.L., Lazarus, S.S., & Christensen, L.L. (2008). Role of assessment accommodations in accountability. Perspectives on Language and Literacy, 34(4), Thurlow, M.L., Moen, R.E., Lekwa, A.J., & Scullin, S.B. (2010). Examination of a reading pen as a partial auditory accommodation for reading assessment. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment. Tindal, G., & Anderson, D. (2011). Validity evidence for making decisions about accommodated and modified large-scale tests. In S. Elliot, R. Kettler, P. Beddow, & A. Kurz (Eds.), Handbook of accessible achievement tests for all students: Bridging the gaps between research, practice, and policy (pp ). ew York: Springer. Weston, T.J. (2002). The validity of oral accommodation in testing. ational Assessment of Educational Progress Validity Studies Panel. Retrieved ovember 30, 2011, from About the Authors Martha L. Thurlow, Ph.D., is a senior research associate and the director of the ational Center on Educational Outcomes, 207 Pattee Hall, 150 Pillsbury Dr. SE, Minneapolis, M [email protected]. Sheryl S. Lazarus, Ph.D., is a senior research associate for the ational Center on Educational Outcomes, 207 Pattee Hall, 150 Pillsbury Dr. SE, Minneapolis, M [email protected]. Jennifer R. Hodgson, M.A., is a graduate research associate at the ational Center on Educational Outcomes, 207 Pattee Hall, 150 Pillsbury Dr. SE, Minneapolis, M [email protected]. 80 Journal of Special Education Leadership 25(2) September 2012

27 A Case Study of Team-Initiated Problem Solving Addressing Student Behavior in One Elementary School Anne W. Todd, M.S., and Robert H. Horner, Ph.D. University of Oregon, Eugene Dorothy Berry, M.S., Carol Sanders, M.S., Michelle Bugni, B.A., Allison Currier, M.S., and icky Potts Oregon City School District, Oregon J. Stephen ewton, Ph.D. University of Oregon, Eugene Bob Algozzine, Ph.D., and Kate Algozzine, M.S. University of orth Carolina, Charlotte Team-Initiated Problem Solving (TIPS) is an approach for organizing school team meetings to improve identification of targeted problems, use of data in the development of solutions, and development of implemented action plans. TIPS has been demonstrated in single-case and randomized controlled trial studies to improve the effectiveness of teams to both define academic and social problems in their schools, and to build practical solutions. This case study describes the experience of one elementary school team in their use of the TIPS approach, and the extent to which interventions developed by the team resulted in benefits for students. The major findings were that not only was the team effective at identifying academic and social problems and building solutions, but clear documentation was provided of improvement in student outcomes. The team used TIPS effectively, and there were measurable benefits for students. This case study has direct implications for how schools can improve team effectiveness, and the results suggest specific directions for future research focused on how teams can better use data to build action plans that benefit students. The ational Center for Educational Statistics lists over public schools in the United States. In each of these schools one or more teams of educators typically meets to address challenges and build solutions that will improve the quality of education in the school. Assuming that each school has at least one team that meets at least monthly during the academic year, and that, on average, there are five people on a team, this translates into a national investment of hours of meetings and hours of personnel time annually. The focus of this paper is on identifying procedures for maximizing the value of this investment. There is a compelling and consistent set of recommendations for how school teams should solve educational problems (Bransford & Stein, 1984; Carroll & Johnson, 1990; D Zurilla, ezu, & Maydeu- Olivares, 2004; Gilbert, 1978; Huber, 1980; Jorgensen, Scheier, & Fautsko, 1981; ewton, Horner, Algozzine, Todd, & Algozzine, 2009; Tropman, 1996; Ysseldyke & Algozzine, 2006). A key feature of this process is the use of data to identify and solve problems (Alonzo, Ketterlin-Geller, & Tindal, 2007; Deno, 1985, 1989, 2005; White, 1985). Two messages from this literature are (a) the recommended steps for databased problem solving remain impressively consistent across time, context, and authors, and (b) there is evidence that actual problem-solving practices in schools leave room for improvement (Burns, Peters & oell, 2008; Sanetti & Kratochwill, 2009). As Tilly (2008) points out, the basic problemsolving method is logical, easy to understand, and something people do every day (p ). We Journal of Special Education Leadership 25(2) September

28 TIPS Case Study need ways to use this method more consistently in schools. Team-Initiated Problem Solving (TIPS) is a model developed in to make basic problem-solving procedures more accessible to school teams (ewton, Horner et al., 2009; ewton, Todd, Algozzine, Horner, & Algozzine, 2009). The TIPS model includes (a) access to useful school data (academic and/or behavioral), (b) a six-hour professional development workshop for the school team, and (c) two post-training coached team meetings. The TIPS training involves team orientation to core meeting foundations and problem-solving practices including: 1. The roles, scheduling, and recording format (i.e., foundations) for an effective meeting; 2. The process for defining academic and/or behavior problems with precision; 3. The development of intervention solutions that draw from research-validated strategies, yet are tailored to fit local context and needs; and 4. Implementation, evaluation, and adaption of the action plans. The full professional development protocol is defined in the TIPS Training Manual (ewton, Todd, Algozzine et al., 2009). The impact of the TIPS training process has been assessed descriptively (ewton, Algozzine, Algozzine, Horner, & Todd, 2011), within a single-case experimental design (Todd et al., 2011), and most recently, in a randomized control trial (ewton, Horner, Algozzine, Todd, & Algozzine, 2012). The consistent findings from these studies were that teams who received training were effective at (a) using data to identify and solve problems, and (b) building practical action plans for implementing their solutions. At this writing, over 160 schools in Oregon and orth Carolina have been trained and are implementing TIPS procedures.... teams of educators typically meet to address challenges and build solutions translating into a national investment of hours of meetings and hours of personnel time annually. The purpose of the present study was to address the extent to which TIPS procedures lead to valued change in student outcomes. Three descriptive research questions were examined: (a) One year after receiving TIPS training, was the case study school 82 team still using TIPS procedures with fidelity? (b) Was the team successful in defining and implementing solutions to identified problems? and (c) Were the solutions perceived as effective in producing valued change in student behavior? Method We used a case study design following the American Psychological Association designation of case study as reports of case materials obtained while working with an individual, a group, a community, or an organization (APA, 2011 p. 11), to document critical features of TIPS implementation and use. The school, team, and measures are described in the following sections. Participating School J. M. Elementary School (a pseudonym) is one of 12 schools in a district (nine elementary, two middle, and one high school) in the Pacific orthwest. The district had a leadership team committed to districtwide implementation and evaluation of school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports (SWPBIS). District-wide support included access to a coach, before, during, and after meetings, and opportunities to attend county and statewide professional development activities. The school served students in grades K 5, with a total enrollment of 555 students at the time of the study. Ten percent of students were receiving special education support, 3% were English Language Learners, and 89% were from Caucasian families. Eighteen percent of students qualified for free or reduced lunch. SWPBIS had been in place for the past seven years and the level of implementation was high as measured by the School-wide Evaluation Tool (SET: Sugai, Lewis-Palmer, Todd & Horner, 2001; Horner et al., 2004: SET Total scores , 89%, , 95%, , 95%, , 99%) and the Benchmarks of Quality (BoQ: Childs, Kincaid & George, 2010: BoQ Total Scores , 92%, , 95%, , 79%). The school had a five-year history of using the School-Wide Information System (SWIS: May, et al., 2010) for entering discipline data. The team had also documented high fidelity in their use of Team Initiated Problem Solving, both one year before the study was conducted and at the time of the study. Journal of Special Education Leadership 25(2) September 2012

29 o assessment of fidelity was obtained in the intervening interval. The Team The SWPBIS Team for J. M. Elementary had five members, including the principal, instructional assistant, and three teachers (K, third grade, and fourth/fifth grades). The principal had been on the team for 7 years, and other team members averaged team tenure of 3 years (range, 2 5 years). As a function of annual planning, the team had scheduled eight meetings for the school year. The 60-minute meetings occurred the first Thursday of each month in the school library, with Internet access. All team members attended all meetings as indicated in meeting minutes anddirectobservation (see below). The team had received TIPS Team Training a full calendar year prior to initiation of data collection for this case study. Following their TIPS training the team had documented criterionlevel fidelity of TIPS implementation (ewton, Horner et al., 2012). Measurement Use of TIPS. To determine if the team was implementing TIPS an external observer used the Direct Observation, Recording, and Analysis (DORA: ewton, Todd, Horner, Algozzine, & Algozzine, 2009; Algozzine, ewton, Horner, Todd, & Algozzine, 2012) fidelity measure during each of four meetings (ovember, 2010, January, 2011, February, 2011, April, 2011). The DORA produces a Foundation score calculated as the percentage of 12 structural elements deemed important for conducting effective and efficient meetings (e.g., meeting starts on time; previous meeting minutes are available; agenda is available; team members serve as Facilitator, Minute Taker, and Data Analyst; quantitative data are available for decision making), and a Thoroughness of problem solving score, which is calculated as the average of core problem solving elements (e.g., defining problems with precision, collecting and using quantitative data, defining a comprehensive solution, and building an action plan to implement the solution). DORA has been demonstrated to produce both reliable and valid indices of team behavior (ewton, Horner et al., 2011) and the psychometric properties of DORA are available in Algozzine et al. (2012). Implementing TIPS Solutions. To determine if solutions developed from the TIPS process were implemented as proposed, a trained observer used the Plan Implementation Measure (PIM: ewton, Todd, Horner, Algozzine, & Algozzine, 2011) during the April, 2011 meeting. The PIM generates a percentage score based on the elements of action plans for problem solutions developed in the prior meeting that are perceived by the team to be implemented with good or excellent fidelity. The PIM also produces an Impact score based on the number of problems in which the action plan resulted in change in student behavior at a level that met or exceeded the TIPS goal for that problem. arrative. Given the exploratory nature of the current study, the external observer also collected narrative documentation at each meeting associated with how the team (a) identified and defined problems, (b) built action plans to address these problems, (c) determined if action plans had been implemented, and (d) decided if action plans had produced desired outcomes. These data provided additional support for evidence gathered with other measures. Interobserver Agreement. During the April meeting, DORA and PIM data were collected independently by two observers, and occurrence-only agreement was calculated using item-by-item comparisons as defined for each instrument. Observers were doctoral students or research assistants at the University of Oregon, and had met a $85% interobserver agreement (IOA) criterion on both DORA and PIM prior to the onset of the study. The DORA Foundations IOA was 100% and the PIM IOA was 98%. To assess the accuracy of narrative information, members of the team reviewed the summaries for the four team meetings and verified that the descriptions of the meeting content and process were accurate. (ote: Copies of DORA, PIM, and related scoring protocols are available from the second author.) Results TIPS Case Study The focus of this case study was on examining three questions: Was the school using the TIPS procedures with fidelity a year after training? Were the solutions developed through the TIPS process implemented by the school personnel? And if solutions were implemented, was there evidence that students benefited? Outcomes of our analyses are presented in the following sections. Journal of Special Education Leadership 25(2) September

30 TIPS Case Study TIPS Implementation Fidelity Direct observation of team procedures was collected via DORA at each of the four meetings (ovember, January, February, and April). DORA Foundation scores assess the extent to which the basic structure of the meetings occurred with predictability, efficiency, and focus. Foundation scores for the four meetings were 92%, 100%, 100%, and 100% respectively. These data indicate high fidelity with meeting foundation procedures. DORA also provides an index of the Thoroughness of the problem-solving process used by teams. A Thoroughness score is generated by assessing how the team defines and addresses each new problem. Four new problems were identified during the observed meetings: Three in the ovember meeting and one new problem at the January meeting. The meetings in which new problems were identified produced DORA Thoroughness scores of 80% and 83% respectively. Together, the DORA Foundation and Thoroughness data met the 80% fidelity criterion recommended for criterion level implementation of the TIPS model (ewton, Todd, Algozzine et al., 2009). Together the TIPS fidelity data indicate that J. M. Elementary School team members were continuing to use TIPS procedures with high fidelity during the school year. Problems were identified with precision. Data were used to identify problems and build solutions. Solutions were defined within formal action plans, and action plans included formal targets or criteria for success. Implementation and Impact of Solutions Within the TIPS model, a problem is defined as a difference between the observed students academic or social behavior and desired student behavior. A solution is an action plan for modifying the learning environment to improve student behavior. The assumption behind holding team meetings is that the collective problem solving done by a group of professionals with a common commitment to student outcomes and detailed knowledge of the school will produce action plans that are efficient, effective, and contextually appropriate (ewton, Horner, et al., 2009). The central assumption within the TIPS model is that helping a team use data to define school problems with precision and build action plans with clarity, will improve the likelihood that action plans will be implemented as expected, and produce practical benefits for students a problem is defined as a difference between the observed students academic or social behavior and desired student behavior. The PIM data collected during the April meeting produced a 98% implementation score, indicating excellent assessment by the team of both action plan fidelity and documentation of student impact for that meeting. To examine if these data accurately reflected the broader operation of the decision-making process, we followed the team during the academic year as they addressed four identified problems. These four were the full set of problems selected by the team for problem solving during team meetings. Problems 1 through 3 were initially identified during the October team meeting (e.g., before the first observed meeting), and Problem 4 was identified during the January meeting. For each problem we present (a) the problem definition, (b) the data used to confirm and refine the problem, (c) the action plan proposed as a solution, (d) the team s assessment of action plan implementation, and (e) the team s perception and supporting data assessing the implementation of the plan on student behavior. Problem 1: Fifth Grade Classroom Disruption and Disrespect. The first problem was identified in October and reviewed at the ovember meeting: A large number of fifth graders are engaging in disruption and disrespect (name calling, talking out, pushing and shoving) during class, and the behavior appears to be maintained by peer attention. Minutes from the October meeting indicate that the team data analyst used SWIS to examine problem behavior location, grade, and custom reports. The data indicated that 20 instances of classroom problem behavior had been entered (a rate of 0.60 per school day) from the five classrooms with fourth and fifth graders. The problem behavior was most likely at 9:15, 11:00, 11:30 and 12:45 (times when students were in class). Disruption and disrespect were identified for 11 different students (14% of fifth graders), and 3 of these students accounted for over 40% of the total office discipline referrals for the school during the defined period.... A solution is an action plan for modifying the learning environment to improve student behavior. Journal of Special Education Leadership 25(2) September 2012

31 The solution defined by the team led to an action plan with two elements: (a) reteach the stop signal routine used as part of the ongoing bully prevention intervention (cf. Ross & Horner, 2009; Ross, Horner & Stiller, 2008), and (b) goal setting with the fifth grade team to earn predictable social time. The defined goal for this action plan was to reduce fifth grade classroom disruption and disrespect to no more than 0.30 events per school day (a reduction of 50%). At the second observed meeting (January), the team reviewed the progress around implementation and impact related to Problem One. The data analyst reported that the rate of disruption and disrespect in fifth grade classrooms had not decreased, and in fact had increased to 1.26 events per school day. The team facilitator turned the discussion to the question of fidelity with which the proposed solution had been implemented. Team consensus was that the plan developed in ovember had not been used. The school calendar had not been consistent during the holidays, and efforts to implement a new district math curriculum had led to the erratic use of eight substitute teachers over the prior six weeks. A decision was made to add a faculty orientation to the solution elements and plan for more consistent scheduling in fifth grade classrooms. During the next meeting of the team in February, team members reported effective implementation of the faculty orientation, and good fidelity of implementation of the proposed solution. The data analyst reported that the rate of fifth grade classroom office discipline referrals had reduced to 0.47 events per school day. The team chose to continue rather than modify their action plan. At the April team meeting the team facilitator again asked the team to assess if the school personnel were implementing the action plan with fidelity, and the perception of the team was again that implementation was occurring with good fidelity. The data analyst reported that office discipline referrals in fifth grade classrooms had decreased to 0.24 events per day. The defined goal had been met, and the fifth grade teachers reported satisfaction (though not delight) with student behavior. Problem 2: Student A s Disruptive Behavior. A second problem defined by the team during the October meeting and evaluated at the ovember meeting was the high rate of disruptive classroom behavior for Student A. The team data analyst used the SWIS individual student report in October to confirm that Student A had six office discipline referrals over TIPS Case Study the prior 16 school days (0.37 ODRs per school day), and his rate of problem behavior was increasing since the start of the school year. The problem definition read, Student A is engaging in disrespectful and disruptive behavior (talking to peers) in the classroom during an array of activities, but especially during second period, and the staff were not confident in the function maintaining his behavior. The action plan for Student A s problem had two elements: (a) conduct a functional behavioral assessment to define the maintaining function, and (b) enroll Student A in the Tier II, Check-in/ Checkout (CICO: Crone, Hawken & Horner, 2010) support system already available in the school. The goal for this plan was set at 80% of CICO points, and reduction in rate of ODRs by 50%. The CICO program focuses on developing self-management skills, and teaches students to recruit teacher attention appropriately. Once again, assessment of fidelity and impact at the January meeting indicated no improvement in Student A s behavior and perceived poor fidelity of CICO implementation attributed in large part to the extensive use of substitute teachers who had not been trained in use of CICO. During the February meeting the team reported that Student A was now actively engaged in CICO, the intervention was perceived to be implemented with fidelity, and his behavior during class had improved (January rate ODRs per school day, February rate indicated 0.05 ODRs per school day). With his increased engagement in academics, however, there was a shift in the focus of his behavior support from reducing disruption to increasing assignment completion. The team chose to modify the action plan to increase the monitoring and reward of assignment completion while retaining the elements of the plan that were perceived as assisting Student A to behave successfully. The team facilitator revisited these decisions during the April meeting and team assessment was that the action plan was being implemented with good fidelity, and that both the rate of disruption and increased level of task completion exhibited by Student A were at acceptable levels (ODR rate of 0.10 per school day for April). Team perception was that rate and intensity of problem behavior had decreased, and likelihood of assignment completion had improved. Problem 3: Student B s Disruptive Behavior. A second student was identified in October as a less Journal of Special Education Leadership 25(2) September

32 TIPS Case Study intense behavior support challenge, but someone who was in danger of building emerging problem behavior patterns. The team s data analyst noted that Student B had been referred to the office repeatedly for minor problem behavior most often from classroom activities scheduled just before and just after lunch. There was lack of confidence in the maintaining consequence for his behavior, and either escape from difficult work, or peer attention could be implicated. In addition, consideration was given to medical variables that may have been contributing to his emerging problem behavior. The team chose to withhold development of a formal behavior support plan pending information from a physician s visit, and ongoing monitoring of his pattern of problem behavior. At the ovember team meeting the medical concerns had been addressed, and both team perception and SWIS custom report data indicated that with one exception following winter break, Student B was behaving well. The team chose to have the data analyst continue to monitor Student B s data for the remainder of the year, but his results remained within acceptable levels and did not warrant further team action. Problem Four: Student C s Physical Aggression. During the February team meeting the administrator informed the team that due to concerns raised by his teacher, a behavior support plan for Student C had been developed and implemented outside the team meeting process. The data analyst confirmed that the student had five incidences of minor office discipline referral events, and the team identified the problem as: Student C engages in physical contact, disrespect, and disruption in nonclassroom settings with peers, and the behavior is maintained by peer attention. The defined solution for this problem led to an action plan with three elements: (a) allow Student C to choose a recess partner before going to the playground, (b) a reward program in which Lego time with peers was earned through respectful behavior, and (c) participation in the Check-in/Check-out (CICO) program with a goal of averaging 80% of daily CICO points each week.... As a field, we have been less diligent than needed in defining the procedures by which educators can efficiently and effectively meet and problem solve. 86 The team facilitator asked for assessment of action plan implementation and effect at the April team meeting. Team members rated the implementation of the action plan as good and reported significant satisfaction with the Student C s responsiveness to the support received. Defining, teaching, and acknowledging appropriate behavior was perceived to not only improve Student C s behavior in nonclassroom settings, but also improve the quality of his interaction with peers. Student C ended the academic year with only two additional minor office discipline referrals and achieved the CICO goal (80% of daily CICO points). Minutes from the May team meeting (not observed), however, indicate that during the last month of school Student C s CICO points dipped below the 80% goal level, and a decision was made to extend his support via participation in CICO when he reentered school the following fall. Summary Together, the results indicate that the faculty at J. M. Elementary were continuing to use the TIPS process with fidelity. Student problems were being identified, solutions were being developed and implemented, and data were being used to both monitor and adapt action plans. Discussion Schools are more than static settings where knowledge is disseminated to ever-engaged learners. Successful schools are continually assessing and adapting to the needs of the specific children in their care. As a field, we have been less diligent than needed in defining the procedures by which educators can efficiently and effectively meet and problem solve. The TIPS model offers integration of procedures long advocated for improving team problem solving (Bransford & Stein, 1984; Deno, 1985; ewton, Todd, Algozzine, et al., 2009; Tilly, 2008). Experimental evidence demonstrates that TIPS training is functionally related to change in how teams collect and use data for decision-making (ewton, Horner, et al., 2012; Todd et al., 2011), but to date there is insufficient evidence that these changes in team problem-solving process result in practical changes in what actually happens during the school day, or improvement in student outcomes. Journal of Special Education Leadership 25(2) September 2012

33 The present data provide an encouraging view of school-based decision making. The J. M. Elementary team met, used data, made decisions, and documented logical improvement in the quality of behavior support in their school. The case study design prevents any assertion that improved student outcomes were related to team action plans, or that the quality of team action planning/implementation was related to use of TIPS procedures. The collection of external direct observation data and the coupling of the narrative information with DORA, PIM, and SWIS outcomes do, however, lend credence to the assertion that student behavior improved. These results provide valid encouragement to examine the elements of team-based problem solving more carefully. And the team of J. M. Elementary ended the school year with valid cause for satisfaction. Implications of this study extend to a need for (a) more rigorous and extended analyses of the patterns between team problem solving, school-wide implementation, and student outcomes like those observed at J. M. Elementary; (b) validation of measures of team operation (DORA) and team follow though (PIM); and (c) systematic analysis of the efficiency with which school teams can acquire and use effective problem-solving procedures. Efforts are currently underway to examine the impact of TIPS training on student outcomes within a formal, randomized controlled trial. The methods for trial were informed by the results from the present case study. Our data also suggest that state, district, and school plans for professional development may be well served to include investment in (a) teaching school teams to use well-documented team problem solving procedures and (b) establishing the data systems that make student academic and behavioral information readily available for decision making at the local school level. School administrators are encouraged to use these descriptive results to consider (a) the team meeting protocols used in their schools, (b) the quality and specificity of data available to teams, (c) the extent to which teams produce practical action plans to address perceived problems, and most importantly, (d) the extent to which data are used to assess if team-based solutions result in valued benefits for students. Schooling is an ongoing process of professional improvement. Every school needs to be assessing and enhancing how well current academic and behavior supports meet the needs of families, students, community, and faculty. Establishing a practical process for team-based problem solving is a key element of this process. Author ote Preparation of this manuscript was supported by Grant R324A from the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors, and no official endorsement should be inferred. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Robert H. Horner. References TIPS Case Study Algozzine, B., ewton, J.S., Horner, R., Todd, A.W., & Algozzine, K.M. (2012). Development and technical adequacy of a team decision making assessment tool. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 30, Alonzo, J., Ketterlin-Geller, L.R., & Tindal, G. (2007). Curriculum-based measurement in reading and math: Providing rigorous outcomes to support learning. In L. Florian (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of special education (pp ). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Bransford, J.D., & Stein, B.S. (1984). The IDEAL problem solver: A guide for improving thinking, learning, and creativity. ew York: W.H. Freeman and Company. Burns, M.K., Peters, R., & oell, G.H. (2008). Using performance feedback to enhance implementation fidelity of the problem-solving team process. Journal of School Psychology, 46, Carroll, J.S., & Johnson, E.J. (1990). Decision research: A field guide. ewbury Park, CA: Sage. Childs, K.E., Kincaid, D.K., & George, H.P. (2010). A model for statewide evaluation of a universal positive behavior support initiative. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 12, Crone, D., Hawken, L., & Horner, R. (2010). Responding to problem behavior in schools: The behavior education program (2nd ed.). The Guilford Practical Intervention in the School Series. ew York: Guilford Press. Deno, S.L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, Journal of Special Education Leadership 25(2) September

34 TIPS Case Study Deno, S.L. (1989). Curriculum-based measurement and alternative special education services: A fundamental and direct relationship. In M.R. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children (pp. 1 17). ew York: Guilford. Deno, S.L. (2005). Problem-solving assessment. In R. Brown-Chidsey (Ed.), Assessment for intervention: A problem-solving approach (pp ). ew York: Guilford. D Zurilla, T.J., ezu, A.M., & Maydeu-Olivares, A. (2004). Social problem solving: Theory and assessment. In E.C. Chang, T.J. D Zurilla, & L.J. Sanna (Eds.), Social Problem Solving: Theory, research and training (pp ). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Gilbert, T.F. (1978). Human competence: Engineering worthy performance. ew York: McGraw-Hill. Horner, R.H., Todd, A.W., Lewis-Palmer, T., Irvin, L.K., Sugai, G., & Boland, J.B. (2004). The school-wide evaluation tool (SET): A research instrument for assessing school-wide positive behavior support. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 6, Huber, G.P. (1980). Managerial decision making. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman and Company. Jorgensen, J.D., Scheier, I.H., & Fautsko, T.F. (1981). Solving problems in meetings. Chicago, IL: elson-hall. May, S., Ard, W., Todd, A.W., Horner, R.H., Glasgow, A., Sugai, G., & Sprague, J. (2010). School-wide information system (Version 4.4) [Computer application]. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon, Educational and Community Supports. ewton, J.S., Algozzine, R., Algozzine, K., Horner, R., & Todd, A.W. (2011). Building local capacity for training and coaching data-based problem solving with positive behavior intervention and support teams. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 27, ewton, J.S., Horner, R., Algozzine, B., Todd, A.W., & Algozzine, K.M. (2009). Using a problem-solving model to enhance data-based decision making in schools. In W. Sailor, G. Dunlap, G. Sugai, & R. Horner (Eds.), Handbook of positive behavior support (pp ). ew York: Springer. ewton, J.S., Horner, R., Algozzine, B., Todd, A.W., & Algozzine, K.M. (2012). A randomized wait-list controlled analysis of team-initiated problem solving. Journal of School Psychology, 50, ewton, J.S., Todd, A.W., Algozzine, K.M., Horner, R., & Algozzine, B. (2009). Team-initiated problem solving training manual. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon, Educational and Community Supports. ewton, J.S., Todd, A.W., Horner, R., Algozzine, B., & Algozzine, K.M. (2009). Direct observation, recording, and analysis: DORA. Unpublished instrument. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon, Educational and Community Support. 88 ewton, J.S., Todd, A.W., Horner, R., Algozzine, B., & Algozzine, K.M. (2011). The Plan Implementation Measure (PIM). Unpublished manuscript. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon, Educational and Community Supports. Ross, S., & Horner, R. (2009). Bully prevention in positive behavior support. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42, Ross,S.,Horner,R.,&Stiller,B.(2009).Bully prevention in Positive Behavior Support. Curriculum manual developed for intervention implementation. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon, Educational and Community Supports, Retrieved September 3, 2012 from Sanetti, L., & Kratochwill, T. (2009). Toward developing a science of treatment integrity: Introduction to the special series. School Psychology Review, 38, Sugai, G., Lewis-Palmer, T., Todd, A.W., & Horner, R.H. (2001). School-wide Evaluation Tool Set (SET). Eugene, OR: University of Oregon, Educational and Community Supports. Tilly, W.D. (2008). The evolution of school psychology to a science-based practice: Problem solving and the threetiered model. In J. Grimes, & A. Thomas (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V (pp ). Bethesda, MD: ational Association of School Psychologists. Todd, A.W., Horner, R., ewton, J.S., Algozzine, B., Algozzine, K., & Frank, J. (2011). The effects of using team-initiated problem solving on practices of schoolwide behavior support teams. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 27, Todd, A.W., ewton, J.S., Horner, R., Algozzine, B., & Algozzine, K.M. (2009). Direct observation, recording and analysis (DORA) training manual. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon, Educational and Community Supports. Tropman, J.E. (1996). Making meetings work: Achieving high quality group discussions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. White, O.R. (1985). Decisions, decisions. B.C. Journal of Special Education, 9, Ysseldyke, J., & Algozzine, B. (2006). Effective assessment for students with special needs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. About the Authors Anne W. Todd, M.S., 1235 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR [email protected]. Robert H. Horner, Ph.D., Educational and Community Support, 1235 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR [email protected]. Dorothy Berry, M.S., Oregon City School District, th St., Oregon City, OR [email protected]. Journal of Special Education Leadership 25(2) September 2012

35 Carol Sanders, M.S., Oregon City School District, th St., Oregon City, OR Michelle Bugni, B.A., Oregon City School District, th St., Oregon City, OR Allison Currier, M.S., the Oregon City School District, th St., Oregon City, OR icky Potts, is a graduate of the District WorkKeys Program: 2 Year College Equivalent, Oregon City TIPS Case Study School District, th St., Oregon City, OR [email protected]. J. Stephen ewton, Ph.D., 1235 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR [email protected]. Bob Algozzine, Ph.D., University of orth Carolina, BRIC/EDLD/COED, Charlotte, C [email protected]. Kate Algozzine, M.S., University of orth Carolina, BRIC/EDLD/COED, Charlotte, C [email protected]. Journal of Special Education Leadership 25(2) September

36 Managing Autism: Knowledge and Training in Autism Spectrum Disorders Among Special Education Administrators in Texas Heather Hughes, Ph.D., Bertina H. Combes, Ph.D., and Smita Shukla Metha, Ph.D. University of orth Texas The number of children with ASDs quadrupled between and , from 93,000 to 378,000. More children with ASDs are being served in public school systems. Due process hearings and cases involving students with ASDs represent the most rapidly growing area of litigation in special education. Special education administrators knowledge of ASDs will impact what types of instruction, resources, and related services are made available to address this growing need. Autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) represent a neurobiological condition characterized by complex and pervasive manifestations affecting communication, socialization, and adaptive behaviors. The number of children identified with ASDs has continued to rise at alarming rates over the past decade (Fombonne, 2005). According to national reports, the number of students with ASDs served in schools has increased by more than 500% (United States Government Accountability Office, 2005). This trend is also supported by evidence from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reporting about one in 88 children identified with ASDs (CDC, 2012). Data collected from the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), U.S. Department of Education reflect this increase from nearly children with ASDs reported in 2002, to children in 2010 (Data Accountability Center, n.d.). Questions remain regarding the dramatic increase in prevalence rates.thereisevidencetosuggesttheincrease may be due in part to heightened awareness, refined diagnostic practices, development of standardized assessment tools, and environmental factors (Croen, Grether, Hoogstrate, & Selvin, 2002; Fombonne, 2001).... According to national reports, the number of students with ASDs served in schools has increased by more than 500% (United States Government Accountability Office, 2005). While there is no known cure for ASDs, a body of research has emerged in recent history documenting the impact of these conditions on many aspects of the affected person s life (Hume, Bellini, & Pratt, 2005; ational Autism Center [AC], 2009; ational Research Council [RC] 2001). As such, there is growing urgency to identify evidence-based practices for improving outcomes by addressing needs across multiple domains (Koegel, Koegel, & Mcerney, 2001; RC, 2001; Wolery, Barton, & Hine, 2005). As more children with ASDs enter the public school system, a wide array of school personnel and related service providers must be adequately prepared with the knowledge and skills to meet the complex needs of learners with ASDs, engineer components for effective instruction, and implement interventions with precision and fidelity. According to Simpson, McKee, Teeter, and Beytien (2007), Indeed there is a general consensus that 90 Journal of Special Education Leadership 25(2) September 2012

37 only by qualified professionals using effective methods in an approved fashion will optimal student outcomes be achieved (p. 203). Although all stakeholders hold responsibility for achieving positive student outcomes, the special education administrators play a vital and unique role in the public school setting. Special Education Administrators and ASDs The role of special education administrators (which may include directors, executive directors, and coordinators) is to ensure appropriate instruction, plan for the provisions of special education and related services, and allocate resources (Thompson & O Brian, 2007). Because the educational needs of learners with ASDs are so complex, knowledge of the disorder within these contexts is essential for several reasons. First, special education administrators are responsible for ensuring students with disabilities receive a free, appropriate education designed to meet their individual needs. Second, administrators must have knowledge of student needs in order to allocate the resources necessary to realize positive outcomes. Additionally, special education administrators must be able to represent district and student interests in issues involving litigation. School districts and parents frequently litigate what constitutes a free, appropriate public education (FAPE) for children with ASDs. In fact, Zirkel (2002) reports that due process hearings and cases involving students with ASDs represent the most rapidly growing area of litigation in special education. As more children with ASDs are served in the public school system, special education administrators knowledge of ASDs will impact what types of instruction, resources, and related services are made available for developing academic and functional skills. It therefore becomes necessary for special education administrators to have knowledge and training about ASDs to ensure a free and appropriate education for this expanding heterogeneous population. In addition, knowledge is a precursor for complex decision-making, often necessary for a diagnosis of ASDs. Although several studies have examined the knowledge and training of ASDs among professionals in the school environment and community (Heidgerken, Geffken, Modi, & Frakey, 2005; Schwartz & Drager, 2008), a literature search of electronic databases (ERIC, ESBSCO, PsychLit) failed to produce studies that specifically investigated the knowledge of ASDs among special education administrators. The current study investigated special education administrators self-reported (a) general knowledge of characteristics of ASDs, (b) knowledge of educational programming associated with learners with ASDs, and (c) training and professional development needs for serving students with ASDs. The following research questions guided the study: 1. What general knowledge do special education administrators have concerning autism spectrum disorders and what is their knowledge of educational programming? 2. What educational training and professional development experiences do special education administrators receive in autism spectrum disorders? 3. What are the training needs of special education administrators in autism spectrum disorders? Methods Data were collected by means of a web-based questionnaire. Survey methodology was utilized as it is useful in describing the characteristics of a large population (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2007). Further, distribution of the instrument in an online format allowed for access to individuals in distant locations who may have otherwise been difficult to contact, and automated data collection which reduces researcher time and effort (Dillman, 2009). The target population ( 5 475) consisted of special education administrators in Texas who were presented with the survey of 54 carefully constructed items within five sections. The survey platform used for collecting and organizing the data was QualtricsH. Instrumentation Managing Autism The five-section survey was developed to investigate knowledge and training in ASDs among special education administrators. Section I, Demographic Information, asked participants about district enrollment, number of students meeting IDEIA eligibility for ASDs, and dispute and resolution activities. Section II, Professional Background and Training, sought to determine training experiences of participants, exposure to learners with ASDs, and identified knowledge in key areas. Items in this Journal of Special Education Leadership 25(2) September

38 Managing Autism section were derived from competencies identified by the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) for special education administrators (Council for Exceptional Children, 2008). Section III, Understanding Regarding ASDs, consisted of 24 true/false items designed to gain insight into the general knowledge special education administrators had regarding ASDs. Items were adapted from a commonly used survey developed by Stone (1987) to assess autism knowledge. Items queried eligibility criteria, characteristics of individuals with autism, current myths regarding autism, instructional strategies, evidence-based practices, and false claims surrounding issues of autism. Section IV, Knowledge of Educational Programming, investigated expertise related to educational considerations for learners with ASDs. These considerations are mandated by Texas Commissioner of Education rules (TAC (e), Content of the IEP). Section V, Professional Development eeds, asked respondents to rate their individual needs for professional development on topics derived from CEC (2008) knowledge domains. Each topic was rated as L if there is a Limited need for information, M if there is a Moderate need for information, or S if there is a Significant need for information. For the purpose of this study, knowledge regarding ASDs was measured by responses to items in Sections III (Understanding Regarding ASDs) and IV (Knowledge of Educational Programming) against a discrete set of criteria for which there was only one correct response. As previously mentioned, items in Section III were based upon Stone s (1987) Autism Survey. The survey has been widely used (Heidgerken et al., 2005) and evaluated for reliability and validity (Campbell, Reichle, & Van Bourgondien, 1996; Ray & Mehta, 2010). Campbell, et al. (1996) found the Autism Survey to be stable across time and the total score to be internally consistent. Ray and Mehta (2010) recently updated items from the original survey to reflect current terminology in autism and person-first language. Additionally, based on a review of literature, items were added in their research that reflected current issues in ASDs (e.g., childhood immunizations cause autism). Items in Section IV also were measured against a discrete set of criteria with one correct response. Thirteen items in this section were presented in a multiple-choice format. These items were created directly from Texas 92 State rules regarding specific program components that must be considered as part of the Individualized Education Program (IEP) for students with ASDs, as mandated by Texas Commissioner Rules (TAC (e), Content of the IEP). Seven experts in ASDs assisted with establishing content validity of the survey. The experts responded to the instrument s ability to assess knowledge about ASDs and to the organization and structure of the survey platform. In accordance with guidelines suggested by Dillman (2009), a small pilot study was conducted. Participants in the pilot study were ASDs administrators, specifically the Texas education service center ASDs consultants representing the 20 educational regions across the state. The pilot study allowed the researchers to identify problems with the survey and to reflect implementation procedures. Feedback from the experts and pilot study resulted in changes being made to terminology used to describe the population of students with ASDs and to how the questions were presented on the survey platform. Participants onprobability sampling in the form of convenience sampling was utilized to recruit participants for the study. Participants were special education administrators representing local education agencies across Texas. All participants were current members of the Texas Council of Administrators of Special Education (TCASE). Based upon the inclusion criterion of TCASE membership and current tenure as a special education administrator, the sample size for this cross section of the population was 475 subjects. Data Collection Procedures A modified Dillman s (2009) approach was used to distribute the survey with three points of contact. The survey was launched to the target population to begin the study. Special education administrators received a direct explaining the research. The notification included an introductory statement with a direct link to the survey. Upon accessing the survey, respondents provided informed and voluntary consent for participation. Two and three weeks after the initial request, follow-up messages were sent to remind the administrator of the survey and to seek their assistance with the research efforts. Of the 139 participants who activated the link, 106 responses were recorded, representing a 24% response rate Journal of Special Education Leadership 25(2) September 2012

39 of the special education administrators surveyed ( 5 106). Data Analysis Procedures Initial inspection of data for item responses was conducted within QualtricsH as frequency data displayed as percentages. Qualtrics was selected because this software supported the design of the study by allowing the survey to be created, distributed, and compiled through a web-based platform (Qualtrics Labs, Inc., 2012). For in-depth analysis, data were imported into SPSS 11.5 statistical software package (IBM, 2012). The SPSS allowed for the translation of raw data into a transformed data set which enabled statistical analysis of the defined variables. Represented in the sample were school districts and shared service arrangements with student populations of various sizes. All of the respondents indicated they served students identified with ASDs. Demographics of Participants Related to ASDs Demographic data including educational training and professional development experiences were gathered. Three participants did not respond to the demographic section of the survey, resulting in a sample size of 103 ( 5 103). As shown in Table 1, all participants held advanced training above a bachelor s degree. A majority of the special education administrators held a master s degree (n 5 79), and approximately one-fourth of the participants held a doctoral degree (n 5 24). Additional administrator certification was held by most participants. More than half of the participants held certification as an educational diagnostician, and 13% (n 5 13) held licensure as a licensed specialist in school psychology. Another 9% (n 5 9) were speech/language pathologists, one respondent was a board certified behavior analyst. Total years of experience as a special education administrator, was fairly evenly distributed among the sample. The majority of the participants also reported special education teaching experience. Of those with special education teaching experience, 65% (n 5 68) of the sample had taught students with ASDs. In spite of the small sample size, diversity among respondents was evident. Specifically, all 20 regions across the State of Texas were represented. Demographic data also captured districts and shared service arrangements with varied student population size. General Knowledge of Special Education Administrators Managing Autism Results indicated that special education administrators varied in their general knowledge of ASDs eligibility criteria, characteristics, myths, instructional strategies, evidence-based practices, and false claims surrounding issues of ASDs. Although impairment in social interaction is a required feature for eligibility, 20% (n 5 21) of the participants did not agree. Similarly, stereotyped and repetitive behaviors are required for eligibility, yet 60% (n 5 64) of participants reported these diagnostic features were not necessary for meeting autism eligibility. Impairment of communication skills is another critical feature required for autism eligibility, and 20% (n 5 21) of respondents disagreed with this statement. In contrast, all of the participants understood that self-injurious behaviors were not required for eligibility.... Impairment of communication skills is another critical feature required for autism eligibility, and 20% (n 5 21) of respondents disagreed with this statement. Knowledge of Educational Programming Section IV of the survey investigated special education administrators knowledge of educational programming for learners with ASDs. Responses to the questions posed in this section revealed that most special education administrators knew that for a student with autism who is eligible for special education and related services, all eleven strategies should be included in the Individualized Education Program. Most special education administrators also knew that peer-reviewed, research-based practices for students with autism include Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA). In contrast, special education administrators appeared to have less knowledge that determining the need for Extended School Year (ESY) Journal of Special Education Leadership 25(2) September

40 Managing Autism Table 1: District and respondent background information, umber Percentage District District enrollment, Students with autism Legal disputes related to autism Yes o Respondent Highest degree earned Master s Doctorate Administrator certification Yes o Administration experience 5-Jan Jun ov Special education teaching 11 experience Autism teaching experience Yes o Table 1. Continued. umber Percentage Professional certificates/ 1 licensures Board Certified Behavior 1 13 Analyst (BCBA) Licensed Specialist in School Psychology (LSSP) Educational Diagnostician 58 9 Speech/Language Pathologist (SLP) 9 ote. Three participants did not respond to the demographic section of the instrument. services for students with autism should be based upon student need, as reported by 63% (n 5 67) of the respondents. Professional Development eeds Special education administrators were asked to rate their individual need for professional development in ten areas related to educating learners with ASDs using a 3-point Likert scale. Professional development for school staff serving learners with ASD was the area for professional development perceived by administrators as the greatest need. Increasing access to the general curriculum for learners with ASDs was another topic of perceived significant need. Topics for which professional development was perceived as less critical were Assessing learners with ASDs and eligibility determination and Characteristics of ASDs. Moderate to significant needs were reported by at least one-third of the participants across all professional development topics. Discussion The purpose of this study was to investigate general ASDs knowledge, ASDs programming knowledge, and training and experiences of special education administrators, and to determine if any of these factors predicted litigation. This section discusses the interpretations of these findings in relation to the specific research questions: (1) What general knowledge do special education administrators have concerning ASDs, and what is their knowledge Journal of Special Education Leadership 25(2) September 2012

41 of program components? (2) What educational training and professional development experiences do special education administrators receive in ASDs? and (3) What are the training needs of special education administrators in ASDs? This section also addresses the extent to which findings can impact current practices and ASDs litigation and includes recommendations for future research. Contributions of the Study to the Current Literature Previous studies investigating preparation and professional development of special education administrators are limited to but a few (Arick & Krug, 1993; Crockett, Becker, & Quinn, 2009; Stile & Pettibone, 1980). Researchers also have explored knowledge and training in ASDs among professional groups other than special education administrators (Chown, 2009; Preece & Jordan, 2007). This study was conducted to fill the gapinexistingresearchspecificallyexamining knowledge and training in ASDs among special education administrators. The following discussion addresses the knowledge and training in ASDs among special education administrators. General Knowledge in ASDs The first objective of this study was to examine general ASDs knowledge among special education administrators and knowledge of educational programming. Administrators must ensure appropriate instruction, plan for the provision of services, and allocate the resources necessary to deliver a free, appropriate public education (Thompson & O Brian, 2007). Because the educational needs of learners with ASDs are complex, knowledge in these domains is relevant for informed decision making to occur (AC, 2009; RC, 2001; Simpson, 2005; Volkmar, Lord, Bailey, Schultz, & Klin, 2004). General ASDs Knowledge. As illustrated by the results, special education administrators were most knowledgeable regarding the general characteristics of ASDs. Some participants continued to endorse current myths regarding ASDs such as, Most children with ASDs have an intellectual disability. This is relevant because misperceptions of this nature could limit learner access to the general curriculum. Special education administrators demonstrated the greatest variability on questions related to ASDs eligibility. These results are consistent with prior research that ambiguity and diagnostic uncertainty exist regarding ASDs eligibility (Fombonne, 2001; Tidmarsh & Volkmar, 2003). One could surmise that administrators should have knowledge of eligibility criteria for ASDs, given the propensity for litigation (Etscheidt, 2003; Zirkel, 2002). A possible explanation is that special education administrators are not directly involved in the assessment process, and therefore possess more general than explicit knowledge. Even though more than half of the participants in this survey were also educational diagnosticians or Licensed Specialists in School Psychology, formal training programs for these specializations do not require coursework specific to ASDs assessment or eligibility. Training and experience in ASDs assessment is a separate pursuit rather than a standard component of formal certification and licensure in Texas.... Even though more than half of the participants in this survey were also educational diagnosticians or Licensed Specialists in School Psychology, formal training programs for these specializations do not require coursework specific to ASDs assessment or eligibility. Knowledge of Educational Programming. Questions investigating knowledge in this domain were relevant because issues related to ASDs programming represent the largest and most expensive area of litigation (Etscheidt, 2003; Yell, Katsiyannis, Ryan, & McDuffie, 2008; Zirkel & Gischlar, 2006). Results in this area indicated that in general, special education administrators are knowledgeable regarding most of the strategies that must be considered as part of the IEP (TAC (e), Content of the IEP). Few participants demonstrated knowledge for all of the strategies inclusively. Less knowledge was demonstrated on items related to communication strategies, the gold standard for research-based practices, and understanding of considerations for extended educational programming. Results may suggest continued research-to-practice gaps, and highlight the need for continued efforts to address this challenge. Training eeds Managing Autism Another objective of this research was to identify the training needs in ASDs as reported by special Journal of Special Education Leadership 25(2) September

42 Managing Autism education administrators. Professional development topics derived from CEC knowledge domains were the basis for these topics (CEC, 2008). Special education administrators perceived the most significant professional development needs related to Best practices for learners with ASDs followed by Educational programming for learners with ASDs. Other areas of need were Increasing access to the general curriculum for learners with ASDs, and Professional development for school staff serving learners with ASDs. These results are consistent with current research identifying professional development needs in ASDs (AC, 2009; RC, 2001; Simpson, 2005). Implications for Practice The findings of this study can be utilized to support activities in several areas. First, there is a need to examine the professional development needs identified by special education administrators related to ASDs. Although recent research has explored training experiences of special education directors (Crockett et al., 2009), topic-specific training tailored to meet administrator needs is lacking. Engineering professional development experiences to meet the perceived needs of the special education administrator may increase capacity for decision making and potentially reduce the research-to-practice gap that currently exists, such as knowledge and implementation of research-based interventions. Current literature has focused on the training needs of school personnel other than special education administrators (AC, 2009; RC, 2001; Simpson, 2005). The Council for Administrators of Special Education (CASE), the leading authority for professional development in special education, could use findings from this research to design training for many school leaders or feature sessions at future conferences. It is unrealistic to expect special education administrators to possess comprehensive knowledge in all areas of disability; however, as these results indicate, there is a need for special education administrators to gain access to training topics related to ASDs. This can be accomplished through a variety of venues, such as on-line learning modules, university coursework, and state and national conferences. The most recent annual conference of the Council for Exceptional Children included strands of over 80 sessions and workshops related to ASDs and developmental disabilities. 96 Limitations of the Study Several limitations exist within the design of the current study and must be considered when interpreting these results. The most significant limitation of the study was the use of convenience sampling to recruit participants. Convenience sampling was utilized because of the availability of the sample. This sampling technique was useful for the purpose of obtaining general information and for examining particular qualities of the participants consistent with the research questions (Castillo, 2009). Sampling by this technique, however, may result in sampling bias because some members of the population have no chance of being sampled. Consequently, the extent to which the convenience sample actually represents the entire population cannot be known. In fact, respondents completing the survey all held advanced degrees and reported extensive special education training. Such a high level of formal training may not be a true representation of all school leaders. Additionally, level of training may be a characteristic that affects participation in survey research. It is possible that individuals with extensive training are more willing to demonstrate perceived knowledge than those with less training and experience. In spite of the small sample size, diversity was evident. Specifically, all 20 regions across the State of Texas were represented. Demographic data also captured districts and shared service arrangements with varied student population size. This study only surveyed special education administrators in Texas. Credentialing and training avenues in one state may notbecomparabletootherssogeneralizationof findings to states or regions outside of Texas is limited. Finally, several studies have examined ASDs knowledge among professionals; however knowledge of ASDs has not been quantified. Research has yet to identify how much training or experience an individual must possess in order to be considered knowledgeable. Recommendations for Future Research Extending this line of research to include participants across the region and country would provide a broader view of professional development needs specific to special education administrators and ASDs. Journal of Special Education Leadership 25(2) September 2012

43 Future research to refine the survey instrument for cross-disciplinary use would increase its utility for exploring ASDs knowledge and training needs among professionals across settings. Another area for further inquiry would be investigating the professional development preferences of special education administrators on perceived topics of need by exploring various training avenues, such as webinars, online courses, distance learning, web-based modules, and on-site training. Author ote Preparation of this manuscript was supported by Grant #H325DO from the Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education. The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors, and no official endorsement should be inferred. References Arick, J.R., & Krug, D.A. (1993). Special education administrators in the United States: Perceptions on policy and personnel issues. The Journal of Special Education, 27(3), Campbell, D.G., Reichle,.C., & Van Bourgondien, M.E. (1996). The autism survey: An evaluation of reliability and validity. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 26, Castillo, J.J. (2009). Convenience Sampling. Retrieved September 24, 2010 from Experiment Resources: convenience-sampling.html. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2012). Autism spectrum disorders. Retrieved September 5, 2012 from html. Chown,. (2009). Do you have any difficulties that I may not be aware of? A study of autism awareness and understanding in the UK police service. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 12, Council for Exceptional Children (CEC). (2008). What every special educator must know: Ethics, standards, and guidelines (6th ed.). Arlington, VA: Author. Crockett, J.B., Becker, M.K., & Quinn, D. (2009). Reviewing the knowledge base of special education leadership and administration from Journal of Special Education Leadership, 22, Croen, A., Grether, J.K., Hoogstrate, J., & Selvin, S. (2002). Descriptive epidemiology of autism in California s population: Who is at risk? Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 32, Managing Autism Data Accountability Center (n.d.) Individuals with disabilities education act (IDEA) data. Retrieved September 5, 2012 from arc_toc9.asp#partbcc. Dillman, D.A. (2009). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method (3rd ed.). ew York: Wiley. Etscheidt, S. (2003). An analysis of legal hearings and cases related to individualized education programs for children with autism. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 28(2), Fombonne, E. (2001). Is there an epidemic of autism? American Academy of Pediatrics, 107(2), Fombonne, E. (2005). Epidemiology of autistic disorder and pervasive developmental disorders. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 6, 3 8. Gall, M.D., Gall, J.P., & Borg, W.R. (2007). Educational research: An introduction (8th ed.). ew York: Allyn & Bacon. Heidgerken, A.D., Geffken, G., Modi, A., & Frakey, L. (2005). A survey of autism knowledge in a health care setting. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 35, Hume, K., Bellini, S., & Pratt, C. (2005). The usage and perceived outcomes of early intervention and early childhood programs for young children with autism spectrum disorders. Topics in Early Childhood Education, 25(4), IBM. (2012). SPSS regression. Retrieved October 5, 2012 from spss/products/statistics/regression. Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of U.S.C et seq. Koegel, R.L., Koegel, L.K., & Mcerney, E.K. (2001). Pivotal areas in intervention for autism. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 30(1), ational Autism Center (AC). (2009). ational standards report: The national standards project addressing the need for evidence-based practice guidelines for autism spectrum disorders. Randolph, MA: Author. ational Research Council (RC). (2001). Educating students with autism. Washington, DC: ational Academies Press. Preece, D., & Jordan, R. (2007). Social workers understanding of autistic spectrum disorders: An exploratory investigation. British Journal of Social Work, 37, Qualtrics Labs, Inc. (2012). Survey research suite. Retrieved October 5, 2012 from university/researchsuite. Ray, J., & Mehta, S. (2010). Knowledge of speech-language pathologists regarding autism. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Educational Psychology, University of orth Texas, Denton, Texas. Schwartz, H., & Drager, K.D. (2008). Training and knowledge in autism among speech-language Journal of Special Education Leadership 25(2) September

44 Managing Autism pathologists: A survey. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 39, Simpson, R.L. (2005). Evidence-based practices and students with autism spectrum disorders. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 20(3), Simpson, R.L., McKee, M., Teeter, D., & Beytien, A. (2007). Evidence-based methods for children and youth with autism spectrum disorders: Stakeholder issues and perspectives. Exceptionality, 15(4), Stile, S.W., & Pettibone, T.J. (1980). Training and certification of administrators in special education. Exceptional Children, 46(7), Stone, W.L. (1987). Cross-disciplinary perspectives on autism. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 12(4), Texas Administrative Code, (e). (2007). Content of the Individualized Education Program. Retrieved October 5, 2012 from state.tx.us/rules/tac/chapter089/ ch089aa.html. Thompson, J.R., & O Brian, M. (2007). Many hats and a delicate balance: The lives and times of today s special education directors. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 20, Tidmarsh, L., & Volkmar, F.R. (2003). Diagnosis and epidemiology of autism spectrum disorders. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 48(8), United States Government Accountability Office. (2005). Special education: Children with autism (GAO report number GAO-5-220). Washington, DC. Volkmar, F.R., Lord, C., Bailey, A., Schultz, R.T., & Klin, A. (2004). Autism and pervasive developmental disorders. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45(1), Wolery, M., Barton, E., & Hine, J.F. (2005). Evolution of applied behavior analysis in the treatment of individuals with autism. Exceptionality, 13(1), Yell, M.L., Katsiyannis, A., Ryan, J.B., & McDuffie, K. (2008). Recovery of expert fees in due process hearings. Intervention in School and Clinic, 44(2), Zirkel, P.A. (2002). The autism case law: Administrative and judicial rulings. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 17(2), Zirkel, P.A., & Gischlar, K.L. (2006). Due process hearings under the IDEA: A longitudinal frequency analysis. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 21, About the Authors Heather L. Hughes, Ph.D., is the Associate Executive Director of the University of orth Texas Autism Center, 1155 Union Circle #311335, Denton, Texas [email protected]. Bertina Combes, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor at the University of orth Texas in the Department of Educational Psychology, 1155 Union Circle #311335, Denton, Texas Bertina.Combes@ unt.edu. Smita Shukla Mehta, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor at the University of orth Texas in the Department of Educational Psychology, 1155 Union Circle #311335, Denton, Texas [email protected]. 98 Journal of Special Education Leadership 25(2) September 2012

45 Section 504 for Special Education Leaders: Persisting and Emerging Issues Perry A. Zirkel, Ph.D., LL.M. Lehigh University Special education leaders need to be aware of long-standing general regulatory requirements under 1504 for which school districts are often vulnerable. Special education leaders also have to keep current on recent legal developments for 1504-only students, including the effects of the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act on not only eligibility but also entitlement. Most directly within their area of responsibility, special education leaders can no longer treat 1504 as solely or even primarily within the province of general education; recent court decisions illustrate the emerging advantages of 1504 as an additional or additional source of legal claims for double-covered, or students with IEPs under the IDEA. Among the various other differences among the three federal disability laws affecting K 12 schools (e.g., Zirkel, 2012), the definition of disability under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (1504; 2011) and its sister statute, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA; 2011), is broader than that under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA; 2011). The IDEA definition requires meeting the criteria of one or more of a specified set of impairments, such as autism or other health impairment, and having a resulting need for special education. In contrast, the 1504 definition consists of three essential elements: (a) any physical or mental impairment (without a restricted list) that (b) substantially limits (c) one or more major life activities (with specified examples that extend beyond learning, such as walking or breathing). The recent developments include not only the ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA; 2011), which went into effect on January 1, 2009 and which expressly extends to 1504, but also an emerging line of court decisions that illustrate additional or alternate claims that extend within and beyond the coverage of the IDEA. The common conception is that 1504 is the legal responsibility of general education, not special education. This conception is only partly correct. Indeed, the policy or practice of using educational need as an essential eligibility criterion for 1504 plans (e.g., Catoosa County School District, 2011; orth Royalton City School District, 2009) or otherwise considering 1504 the exclusive legal responsibility of the local education agency s special education division contributed to this compensating conception. The problem, however, is that this compensation was an overcorrection. First, continuing legal developments confirm the overlap between the broader definition of disability under 1504, resulting in not only exclusive coverage of students with 1504 plans (i.e., 1504-only students ) but also additional coverage of students with IDEA individualized education programs (IEPs; i.e., double-covered students ). Second, and more significantly, recent legal developments not only expand the scope of 1504-only students but also reveal the alternative and additional legal claims of double-covered students. Primarily responsible for students in the second category and at least its intersection with the first category, special education leaders need to be legally literate about these continuing and recent developments. The next three parts of this article distill for special education leaders the persistent and emerging legal developments under 1504 that apply successively to (a) all students, (b) those who are Journal of Special Education Leadership 25(2) September

46 Section 504 for Special Education Leaders Table 1: Checklist of major general district requirements under Section Do you have a designated (and effective) 504 coordinator? 2. Do you have an appropriate grievance procedure for disability-related issues, including those concerning students, employees, and facilities? 3. Do you have readily available 1504-customized procedural safeguards notice that is duly issued to the child s parents? 4. Do you have a timely procedure for providing an impartial hearing for student 1504 issues upon parental request? Yes o 1504-only, and (c) those who are double covered. More specifically, Part I canvasses the legal lessons under 1504 that apply to both general and special education students, thus being of import to special education leaders. Part II reviews the recently revised eligibility and resulting entitlement standards for 1504-only students, including the interaction with the IDEA. Finally, Part III traces the emerging legal developments under 1504 for double-covered students (i.e., those with IEPs), who can no longer be solely viewed through the lens of the IDEA. General Requirements Unchanged requirements of 1504 and the ADA sometimes cause compliance problems for school districts because of the failure to maintain appropriate policies and practices. As listed in the checklist in Table 1, three leading examples stand out for both school districts and their special education leaders. For the sake of simplicity, 1504 in this context also refers to the ADA because both laws apply hand-in-hand to public schools; elaborating the major difference, which is that the ADA extends to private, secular schools that do not receive federal financial assistance, is not within the scope of this article Coordinator First, 1504 (and the ADA) require each district to have a designated coordinator. For all but the largest school districts, designating the coordinator as responsible for both 1504 and the ADA makes sense because of their largely concurrent coverage. The large districts may find it efficient to divide responsibilities for student, employee, and/or facility issues under these sister statutes. Regardless of district size, designating not only an overall coordinator at the central office but also building-level coordinators is 100 practically effective although not strictly required. At the central office level, the superintendent should think twice before appointing the district s special education director as the 1504/ADA coordinator; it is the opposite of a reward for effectively addressing the challenging responsibilities under the IDEA, and it gives the wrong symbolic message to regular education personnel of the primary child-find and implementation issues for 1504-only students. Similarly, at the school level, appointing the new counselor or a staff member without the requisite knowledge of the applicable legal requirements and school standing for effective implementation is legally permissible but practically imprudent. Grievance Procedure Second, each district needs a grievance procedure for disability issues whether from students, parents, employees, or visitors. Both the 1504 regulations (1104.7[b], 2011) and the ADA regulations (2011, [b]) require such a procedure, at least if the district has at least 15 employees or 50 employees, respectively. Because of a lack of continuing compliance, parents or other individuals have had a high rate of success in Office for Civil Rights (OCR) complaints concerning this requirement (Zirkel, 1997). The required grievance procedure need not be complicated or impartial, with the aforementioned regulations flexibly requiring that the procedure incorporate appropriate due process standards and be prompt and equitable. The typical procedure has three levels, starting with an informal complaint to the 1504/ADA coordinator and ending with a semiformal appeal to a higher-level, central office administrator (e.g., Zirkel, 2011). Impartial Hearing Third, make sure that the district has a procedural safeguards notice that at least meets the minimum Journal of Special Education Leadership 25(2) September 2012

47 requirements of 1504 ( ), which includes, for example, the rights to an evaluation and an impartial hearing and which is issued to the parents upon the district s identification, evaluation, refusal to provide an evaluation, educational placement, denial of educational placement, or any significant change in educational placement. The most problematic required element in the vast majority of states is implementing the parent s right to an impartial hearing; the reason is that only a few states provide the IDEA impartial hearing officers with jurisdiction for students 1504 claims (Zirkel, 2012), thus leaving the school district because it is the recipient of federal financial assistance (1104.1) entirely responsible for prompt implementation. It is not unusual for school districts to confuse the grievance procedure requirement with this separable impartial hearing requirement (e.g., Leon County School District, 2007; Talbot County School District, 2008). Compounding the possible is that this impartial-hearing requirement applies to not only 1504-only but also double-covered students Only Students Eligibility Issues The ADAAA and OCR s policy interpretations of it warrant revisions of district policies with regard to not only eligibility but also services for 1504-only students. For eligibility, as explained elsewhere in more detail (e.g., Zirkel, 2009), the ADAAA revisions include (a) expanding the specified illustrative major life activities to extend to not only subareas of learning, such as reading and concentration, but also various health-related areas, such as eating and bowel functions; (b) requiring determination of the substantially limiting connection between the impairment and the major life activity without in contrast to the previously applicable with mitigating measures, including not only medication but various other examples, such as learned behavioral or adaptive neurological modifications; and (c) requiring determination of substantial limitation for major life activities that are episodic or in remission when active. The direct result will be significantly more students as compared with the pre-adaaa national average of approximately 1% (Holler & Zirkel, 2008) in the 1504-only category. Section 504 for Special Education Leaders... It is not unusual for school districts to confuse the grievance procedure requirement with this separable impartial hearing requirement (e.g., Leon County School District, 2007; Talbot County School District, 2008). Other, emerging results warrant careful attention. At least two concern eligibility. First, the less-thanbright boundaries of the ADAAA pose potential problems for school districts. For example, determining whether attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder substantially limits concentration presents a major evaluation challenge, which is compounded if the parents have consented to and the student is taking, medication. Similarly, determining eligibility for students with food allergies and those with individual health plans is of increased significance and difficulty based on not only the expanded list of major life activities and the reversed role of mitigating measures but also, the aforementioned new rule for impairments that are episodic or in remission (e.g., Zirkel, 2012). Responding with broad identification is not the simple answer for several reasons. First, 1504 is an unfunded mandate; unlike the IDEA, the federal (and state) government provides no financial support for implementation of the procedural and substantive requirements. Second, providing formal 1504 protection for students who do not meet the eligibility criteria poses ethical and equitable issues of effectively creating false-positives and also expands legal vulnerability for overidentification or to the extent of disproportionately identifying students with high socioeconomic status (e.g., Rado, 2012) underidentification of racial/ethnic minority students. Third, broad overidentification of 1504-only students increases exposure for child-find cases under the IDEA. More specifically, in some of these cases, the parents may successfully argue that the identification of disability under 1504 shows that district personnel had reason to suspect eligibility under the IDEA but short-changed the student by not providing the requisite safeguards, including notice and an evaluation, under the IDEA. Finally, overidentification increases the transaction costs of legalization; for the same reason that the parent may want a piece of paper under 1504 to guarantee their child s legal rights, the school district has the Journal of Special Education Leadership 25(2) September

48 Section 504 for Special Education Leaders extended legal obligation to comply with the various formal requirements, including meetings, forms, and the enforcement procedures including not only impartial hearings but also the OCR complaint process under For students who have impairments that do not substantially limit a major life activity, why not provide commonsense, individualized accommodations, such as preferential seating, differentiated instruction, or nursing services, just as a matter of effective general education? A residual part of this problem remains for accommodations on high-stakes tests, but the tradeoffs for overuse of 1504 for this purpose include (a) the tightening up by the private and governmental testing authorities of their documentation and standards for test accommodations; (b) the underlying problems that extended time masks rather than resolves, such reading fluency with comprehension or test anxiety; and (c) the overlapping problem of increased demands in postsecondary education and employment that such band-aid solutions leave unaddressed. Entitlement Issues In any event, for students deemed eligible in this expanded 1504-only category, the resulting entitlement or protection poses three major issues for school districts. First, many districts make the basic legal mistake of treating the consolation prize of 1504 as entitling the student to only accommodations, not services. Instead, the 1504 regulations entitle the qualified student with a disability to free appropriate public education (FAPE), defined as special or regular education and related aids and services ( ). Assuming that the district fulfills the special education alternative via IDEA eligibility, that is, as a double-covered student under one of the recognized classification, such as other health impairment, this regulation entitles the 1504-only student to regular education and related aids and services, such as needed specialized equipment (e.g., FM tuners) or services (e.g., occupational or physical therapy). The only limitation, beyond the threshold issue of whether such aids or services are necessary as a result of the child s disability, is the substantive standard under According to OCR, citing this same FAPE regulation, the standard is commensurate opportunity, that is, whether the district s proposed FAPE is designed to meet the [child s] individual educational needs as adequately as the needs of 102 [the child s nondisabled peers] ( ). However, according to the majority of the courts, the applicable substantive standard is reasonable accommodation (e.g., R.K. v. Board of Education, 2010; S.S. v. Central Whitesboro School District, 2012). Second, many school districts, perceiving 1504 too generally as IDEA lite, do not have policies and procedures that align with the discipline protections of 1504-only students, which in some situations exceed those that the IDEA provides. For example, 1504 requires reevaluation upon a disciplinary change in placement ( [a]). Similarly, 1504 does not include the 45-day interim alternate placements that the IDEA provides (Zirkel, 2008). Third and specific to the newly eligible 1504-only students as a result of the ADAAA, is this issue: What is the child s entitlement to FAPE if the impairment substantially limits one or more major life activities only without mitigating measures or, for conditions that are episodic or in remission, at the active time? In its recently issued policy statement, OCR (2012) provided this related question and answer: Q11: What must a school district do for a student who has a disability but does not need any [FAPE]? A: If, as a result of a properly conducted evaluation, the school district determines that the student does not need special education or related services, the district is not required to provide aids or services. But the school district must still conduct an evaluation before making a determination. Further, the student is still a person with a disability, and so is protected by Section 504 s general nondiscrimination prohibitions and [the ADA s] statutory and regulatory requirements. Thus, in some but depending on a defensible determination certainly not all of the mitigation, episodic, and remission situations under the ADAAA, it appears that the child may be technically eligible, meaning that the entitlement is limited to procedural safeguards, such as notice, evaluation, and protections against discriminatory discipline, retaliation, or harassment. Moreover, OCR clarified that depending on the fact-dependent case-by-case analysis, the child may be entitled to a reasonable modification of policies, practices, or procedures (OCR, 2012, Q10). Further clarification not only depends on future legal developments but also pertains under the overlapping recent legal developments for double-covered students. Journal of Special Education Leadership 25(2) September 2012

49 ... the 1504 regulations entitle the qualified student with a disability to free appropriate public education (FAPE), defined as special or regular education and related aids and services ( ). Conversely, 1504 presents the potential for district liability for children with health-based impairments that substantially limit a major life activity other than learning, thus unlike the IDEA not having special education needs. For example, in Taylor v. Altoona Area School District (2007/2010), the federal court dismissed the IDEA, constitutional, and based on governmental immunity negligence claims of the parents of a child with severe asthma who died in school allegedly because of the failure of the district to implement reasonable precautions for his safety; however, the court rejected dismissal of their 1504 claim for money damages. Finally, albeit only secondarily, special education leaders need to be aware that for students whom parents voluntarily rather than unilaterally or via IEP teams place in private schools, 1504 (and the ADA) directly applies to the private, including parochial, schools that receive federal financial assistance (e.g., Russo v. Diocese of Greenburg, 2010), and the ADA extends this nondiscrimination obligation to secular private schools that do not meet this financial-assistance criterion (e.g., Franchi v. ew Hampton School, 2009). Double-Covered Students In recent years, the attorneys for students with IDEA IEPs have creatively used 1504 as a source of alternative or additional claims in litigation. Thus, the resulting new developments under 1504 for doublecovered students have arisen in courts rather than in Congress. These developments, which have arisen in suits on behalf of double-covered students but apply more generally to 1504-only students, fit in two general categories. Scope Extension The first category, which is of more direct and immediate significance to special education leaders, concerns the scope of liability or obligations. As a primary example, in cases arising with double-covered Section 504 for Special Education Leaders students, courts have agreed that money damages are not available under the IDEA (e.g., A.W. v. Jersey City Public Schools, 2007) but are available under 1504 at least upon proof of the school district s deliberate indifference (e.g., Chambers v. School District, 2009/ 2011). Two related examples respectively address the standard and length of district liability for money damages. First is the aforementioned issue of the standard, or measuring stick, for the school district s 1504 obligations. In a recent case, the parents after obtaining FAPE services costing the district approximately $ per year for each of their two daughters with autism as the result of an IDEA impartial hearing sought money damages under After a denial of the district s motion for dismissal, the inth Circuit appeared to accept, in combination with deliberate indifference, both of the aforementioned competing standards reasonable accommodation and, alternatively, commensurate opportunity (Mark H. v. Hamamoto, 2010). Similarly, in some cases, the parents have invoked 1504 to extend the length of liability, or the statute of limitations, beyond the uniform 2-year period under the IDEA. Because the 1504 legislation does not specify a limitations period, the courts usually resort to using state law by analogy, thus causing variance from one jurisdiction to another and a significant advantage in some cases for the plaintiff-parents. For example, in Bishop v. Children s Center for Developmental Enrichment (2010), which arose in Ohio, the Sixth Circuit held that the statute of limitations for the parents 1504 claim was, based on the analogous state law, 2 years but that this period did not start running, under Ohio law, until the child reached the age of majority. Thus, the parents IDEA claim expired, but their 1504 claim was still viable.... Special education leaders need to keep current on both the persisting and emerging issues under 1504 that apply in both general and special education. In contrast, at least according to one recent court decision, one potentially troublesome extension, which is at the intersection of the IDEA and 1504, has hit a dead end. More specifically, what if the parent of a child with an IEP under the IDEA not only revokes consent in writing which the December 2008 Journal of Special Education Leadership 25(2) September

50 Section 504 for Special Education Leaders amendments to the IDEA regulations require the district to issue a procedural safeguards notice and to exit the child, with no recourse to a due process hearing but also in the same written notification insists that the child continue to receive special education under 1504? In Lamkin v. Lone Jack C-6 School District (2012), the court ruled that the district need not abide by the second part of the parent s letter. The court found persuasive a 16-year-old OCR policy interpretation (Letter to McKethan, 1996). This policy letter reasoned that because the 1504 FAPE regulation, which does include special education ( [b][1]), provides that one means of compliance is by offering an IEP under the IDEA ( [b][2], the district had fulfilled its obligation under both the IDEA and Thus, by revoking the IDEA IEP, the parent had also revoked FAPE under Claim Extension In recent years, parents of special education students have further extended the vulnerability of school districts by advancing claims often with notable success under 1504 (and the ADA) for disabilitybased bullying and harassment (e.g., K.R. v. School District, 2010; Preston v. Hilton Central School District, 2012), retaliation (M.M.R.-Z. v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 2008), facilities accessibility (e.g., Luciano v. East Central Board of Cooperative Educational Services, 2012; Celeste v. East Meadow Union Free School District, 2010), and service animals (e.g., C.C. v. Cypress School District, 2011). Even more creatively, parent attorneys have used 1504 to challenge common school district policies under theories of associational discrimination (e.g., S.M. v. School District, 2011), misidentification (e.g., Durrell v. Lower Merion School District, 2011), IEP-team private placements (e.g., C.D. v. ew York City Department of Education, 2009), disciplinary changes in placement (e.g., M.G. v. Crisfield School District (2008), and constructive exclusion (e.g., Bess v. Kanawha School District Board of Education, 2009). Adjudicative Advantages Finally, in addition to multiple avenues for complaint filing (Zirkel & McGuire, 2010), parent attorneys have discovered or uncovered advantages under 1504 in adjudication on behalf of double-covered students that increases the costs and odds of litigation, thus indirectly but notably affecting the budgetary resources for special education leaders. The leading 104 example is the oft-considerable cost of expert witnesses in impartial hearings and court proceedings. Under the IDEA, the Supreme Court has held that prevailing parents may not recover these costs (Arlington Central School District Board of Education v. Murphy, 2006). However, the lower courts have ruled that expert witness fees are available to parents under 1504 (e.g., L.T. v. Mansfield School District, 2009). Another example of a potential differential advantage of 1504 in comparison to the IDEA is the plaintiff-parents right to a jury trial (e.g., K.I. v. Montgomery Public Schools, 2010). Similarly, most of the carefully crafted limitations under the IDEA for attorneys fees are absent in the corresponding 1504 provision (1794a). Conclusion Special education leaders can no longer afford to consider 1504 as a light version of the IDEA that is solely or even primarily of concern to their general education colleagues. ew developments in Congress and in the courts have changed the proverbial playing field. Special education leaders need to keep current on both the persisting and emerging issues under 1504 that apply in both general and special education. These developments include general compliance requirements, such as impartial hearings; the consequences of the ADAAA in terms of not only expanded eligibility but also differential entitlement; and the complicated but potentially costly new litigation developments under Developing a carefully coordinated system that addresses the needs of students under the IDEA, under 1504, and via response to intervention, differentiated instruction, and other commonsense individualized responses beyond these two overlapping laws is in the interest of all students. References Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). 42 U.S.C et seq. (2011). Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act (ADAAA). 42 U.S.C (2011). Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) regulations. 28 C.F.R et seq. (2011). Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Murphy, 548 U.S. 291 (2006). A.W. v. Jersey City Pub. Sch., 486 F.3d 791 (3d Cir. 2007). Journal of Special Education Leadership 25(2) September 2012

51 Bess v. Kanawha Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 53 IDELR " 71 (S.D. W.Va. 2009). Bishop v. Children s Ctr. for Developmental Enrichment, 618 F.3d 533 (6th Cir. 2010). Catoosa Cnty. (GA) Sch. Dist., 57 IDELR " 141 (OCR 2011). C.C. v. Cypress Sch. Dist., 56 IDELR " 295 (C.D. Cal. 2011). C.D. v. ew York City Dep t of Educ. 52 IDELR " 8 (S.D..Y. 2009). Celeste v. E. Meadow Union Free Sch. Dist., 373 F. App x 85 (2d Cir. 2010). Chambers v. Sch. Dist., 587 F.3d 176 (3d Cir. 2009), on remand, 827 F. Supp. 2d 409 (E.D. Pa. 2011). Durrell v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 57 IDELR " 10 (E.D. Pa. 2011). Franchi v. ew Hampton Sch., 656 F. Supp. 2d 252 (D..H. 2009). Holler, R., & Zirkel, P.A. (2008). Section 504 and public schools: A national survey concerning Section 504- only students. ASSP Bulletin, 92(1), Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). 20 U.S.C et seq. (2011) K.I. v. Montgomery Pub. Sch., 54 IDELR " 12 (M.D. Ala. 2010). K.R. v. Sch. Dist., 373 F. App x 204 (3d Cir. 2010). Lamkin v. Lone Jack C-6 Sch. Dist., 58 IDELR " 197 (W.D. Mo. 2012). Leon Cnty. (FL) Sch. Dist., 50 IDELR " 172 (OCR 2007). Letter to McKethan, 25 IDELR 295 (OCR 1996). L.T. v. Mansfield Sch. Dist., 53 IDELR " 7 (D..J. 2009). Luciano v. E. Cent. Bd. of Coop. Educ. Serv., 59 IDELR " 37 (D. Colo. 2012). Mark H. v. Hamamoto, 6203 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2010). M.G. v. Crisfield Sch. Dist., 547 F. Supp. 2d 399 (D..J. 2008). M.M.R.-Z. v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 528 F.3d 9 (1st Cir. 2008).. Royalton (OH) City Sch. Dist., 52 IDELR " 203 (OCR 2009). Office for Civil Rights. (2012). Questions and Answers on the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 for Students With Disabilities Attending Public Elementary and Secondary Schools. Retrieved from gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/dcl-504faq html. Preston v. Hilton Cent. Sch. Dist., F. Supp. 2d (W.D..Y. 2012). Rado, D. (2012, June 6). Select students use program to get extra help: U.S. civil rights law helps privileges often students more. Chicago Tribune,1,Retrieved fromhttp:// articles.chicagotribune.com/ /news/ct-metaccommodations-folo _1_disabled-studentstime-or-other-accommodations-poorest-schools. R.K. v. Bd. of Educ., 755 F. Supp. 2d 900 (E.D. Ky. 2010). Russo v. Diocese of Greensburg, 55 IDELR " 98 (W.D. Pa. 2010). Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. 29 U.S.C (2), 794, and 794a (2011). Section 504 regulations, 34 C.F.R et seq. (2011) S.M. v. Sch. Dist. of Upper Dublin, 57 IDELR " 96 (E.D. Pa. 2011). S.S. v. Cent. Whitesboro Sch. Dist., 58 IDELR " 99 (.D..Y. 2012). Talbot Cnty. (MD) Sch. Dist., 52 IDELR " 205 (OCR 2008). Taylor v. Altoona Area Sch. Dist., 513 F. Supp. 2d 540 (W.D. Pa. 2007), further proceedings, 737 F. Supp. 2d 474 (W.D. Pa. 2010). Zirkel, P.A. (1997). Section 504 and public school students: An empirical overview. West s Education Law Reporter, 120, Zirkel, P.A. (2012). An updated comparison of the IDEA and Section 504/ADA. West s Education Law Reporter, 282, Zirkel, P.A. (2008). Suspensions and expulsions under Section 504: A comparative overview. West s Education Law Reporter, 226, Zirkel, P.A. (2009). The ADAA and its effect on Section 504 students. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 22, 3 8. Zirkel, P.A. (2011). Section 504, the ADA and the schools. Horsham, PA: LRP Publications. Zirkel, P. (2012). Section 504 eligibility and students on individual health plans. West s Education Law Reporter, 276, Zirkel, P.A. (2012). Impartial hearings for public school students under Section 504: A state-by-state survey. West s Education Law Reporter, 279, Zirkel, P.A., & McGuire, B.L. (2010). A roadmap to legal dispute resolution for students with disabilities. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 23, About the Author Section 504 for Special Education Leaders Perry A. Zirkel, Ph.D., LL.M., University Professor of Education and Law at Lehigh University, 111 Research Drive, Bethlehem, PA [email protected]. Journal of Special Education Leadership 25(2) September

52 CASE I POIT: Lessons From the Cheshire Cat Donna Tinberg, Sp.A. ovi Community School District, Michigan f you don t know where you re going, any road Iwill take you there. This oft-cited but notquite-accurate quote is from the Lewis Carroll s classic children s tale, Alice in Wonderland. In Carroll s altered reality, the conversation between the disoriented Alice and the mysterious Cheshire Cat actually went like this: Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here? That depends a good deal on where you want to get to, said the Cat. I don t much care where said Alice. Then it doesn t matter which way you go, said the Cat. so long as I get SOMEWHERE, Alice added as an explanation. Oh, you re sure to do that, said the Cat, if you only walk long enough. While the actual exchange differs somewhat from the popular quote, the underlying message still applies to the work of special education leaders strivingtoachievemorepositiveoutcomesfor students with disabilities. If we seek to arrive at a place that assures true equity of opportunity and excellence in outcomes for students with IEPs, the road that we take must be selected soberly and deliberately. Data must serve as the bedrock for identification of strategies; strategies must be chosen with the specific target population in mind. Staff members must be supported in the work that is ahead of them. Without intentionality of planning, fidelity of implementation, and ongoing, targeted professional development, the journey toward improved outcomes for our students will indeed be long, and the final destination may turn out to be a somewhere that we had not anticipated at all. 106 The various articles in the current issue of JSEL focus our attention on the critical nature of intentional planning, fidelity of implementation, and targeted professional development relative to achieving improved outcomes for students with IEPs. Getting to any desired destination requires all of those. While special education administrators may not have sole responsibility for all the policies, procedures, and practices that govern a school district, with an increased emphasis on AYP for all students and a heightened focus on disaggregation of subgroup data, it s clear that the special education administrator must take an increasing role in oversight, planning and support for district-level initiatives directed at increasing the achievement of all students, bringing to those initiatives the voice of students with disabilities. Without intentionality of planning, fidelity of implementation, and ongoing, targeted professional development, the journey toward improved outcomes for our students will indeed be long For instance, in this issue Huberman s research highlights four school districts whose performance data for students in special education show unusually strong academic achievement, describing those districts as beating the daunting odds that have long been associated with special education outcomes. Interviews with special education administrators in those districts reflect a diversity of specific practices which converge around four main themes consistent with the body of research on effective schools and in particular, effective practices that support the success of special education students. The emerging themes include 1) inclusion and access to the core curriculum, 2) collaboration between general education and special education teachers, 3) continuous assessment within a Response Journal of Special Education Leadership 25(2) September 2012

53 to Intervention model, and 4) use of Explicit Direct Instruction. While each of the four school districts operationalizes these themes in its own unique way, common practices emerge which seem to have significantimpactondrivingstudentachievement. First, directors in each of the four districts speak to the notion of intentional planning based on existing student performance data. This is followed by clear, well-articulated strategies implemented in a consistent manner. Finally, targeted professional development supports the implementation of those strategies, and ensures that they are delivered with fidelity and data are gathered and analyzed relative to effectiveness with students. It is with this laserlike focus and intentionality that four districts are beating the odds and supporting students with IEPs inmovingtowardthesamerigoroustargetsastheir general education peers. These districts provide a model for others, showing that while specific strategies may vary, with purposeful action, consistent implementation practices and proper ongoing support, a difference can be made.... Data must serve as the bedrock for identification of strategies; strategies must be chosen with the specific target population in mind. Similarly, the case study related to Team- Initiated Problem Solving ( TIPS ) applies the same principles of advance planning, fidelity of implementation, and targeted professional development to the traditional pre-referral or student study team process. This study suggests that the effectiveness of student problem-solving teams can be enhanced, and behavioral outcomes for students are demonstrated to improve, when teams are trained to consistently use a specific, welldocumented problem-solving process and that process is implemented with fidelity. Underpinning that process should be data systems which make student academic and behavioral information readily available for decision-making at the local level. The results of this study provide a road map for special education and school leaders who wish to improve outcomes for students through the use of data-driven, collaborative problem-solving teams. The results of the TIPS case study form a basis for reflecting on district practices and considering the Case in Point extent to which local teams use data to produce action plans that are assessed in terms of benefit to students. The study of the Read Aloud Accommodation conducted by the ational Center on Educational Outcomes focuses on one of the most frequently used and widely accepted accommodations used in special education. While reading aloud is commonly used to provide access to the general curriculum and associated assessments, there is not always shared understanding of what practices the accommodation should actually entail, the population or academic content for which it is most appropriate, and the impact that it may have on outcomes for students. In fact, the study points out that inappropriate use of the read aloud accommodation may actually have a negative impact if used incorrectly or with the wrong type of student (or as we learned from Alice and the Cheshire Cat, getting us somewhere but perhaps not the place where we had hoped to be.) This again highlights the need for special education leaders to establish policies and procedures which emphasize intentional, data-informed planning and decisionmaking, implementation that considers the integrity of the accommodation relative to the construct being measured, and training for staff to assure that accommodations are selected on an individualized basis and administered in a consistent manner in order to support integrity of outcomes. Without those components, the Read Aloud accommodation risks being used in appropriately and taking students to an undesirable destination. inappropriate use of the read aloud accommodation may actually have a negative impact if used incorrectly or with the wrong type of student Special education administrators knowledge of ASD eligibility criteria, characteristics, beliefs and myths, and evidence-based practice was the subject of Hughes research. Since knowledge is a precursor to decision-making, their degree of knowledge about ASD has significant potential to impact how special education administrators lead departments and districts relative to this unique and growing population. Lack of information can also cloud decisions around programming, training needs of staff, and district-level expectations around instructional practices. Furthermore, misperceptions couldleadunintentionallydownapathof costly litigation, again resulting in arrival at a Journal of Special Education Leadership 25(2) September

54 Case in Point less-than-desirable final destination. The knowledge base of the special education administrator has implications for how intentionally decisions are made, whether strategies are implemented with fidelity, and how staff are or are not supported. Zirkel revisits some familiar-but-perhapsforgotten requirements of Section 504 and highlights changes to the ADA/504 which are of import for special education leaders. He cautions that lack of attention to or awareness of these issues can increase a district s vulnerability to due process complaints under IDEA, a strong motivator if there ever was one to heed the Cheshire Cat s lesson about ending up at an unanticipated destination. Zirkel makes it clear that from a litigation perspective ADA, Section 504 and IDEA are increasing linked, with an emerging line of court decisions continuing to solidify this linkage. ot only has the scope of 504-only students expanded, but there is the potential for additional legal action relative to students who are doublecovered by both Section 504 and IDEA. According to Zirkel, special education leaders, while not always designated as having primary responsibility for Section 504 in their districts, must be legally literate regarding recent developments in the courts in order to provide effective leadership and insight at the district level. Intentional planning will need to occur in order to assure that district policies and procedures reflect this new reality, that the procedures are implemented with fidelity by staff, and that the responsible staff members receive targeted professional development in order to make good decisions that will put the district in the most defensible legal position relative to Section 504 and IDEA.... Most any road will not take us there; special education leaders must play a key role in assuring that our travels are deliberate, our path is efficient and direct, and our destination is realized. Since the 1997 IDEA regulations were promulgated, the destination for students with IEPs has become incontrovertibly clear. We can no longer wander through Wonderland on an arbitrary journey to Alice s somewhere. Instead, we have embarked on a challenging voyage toward equitable outcomes for the students we serve. We will not reach our destination through good fortune or haphazard planning. We must behave with intent, using available data to select with precision the tools that will be needed to make the trip. We must implement with fidelity, assuring that everyone in the system proceeds with the same consistent vision and in the same consistent manner relative to whatever tools and processes are selected. We must provide targeted professional development, supporting our staff in developing the knowledge, skills and dispositions that will allow them to move forward in unison and persevere in striving toward the final destination. Most any road will not take us there; special education leaders must play a key role in assuring that our travels are deliberate, our path is efficient and direct, and our destination is realized. About the Author Donna Tinberg, Sp.A., is the Director of Student Services, ovi Community School District, MI. [email protected]. 108 Journal of Special Education Leadership 25(2) September 2012

55 AUTHOR GUIDELIES: Journal of Special Education Leadership Author Submission Guidelines The Journal of the Council for Administrators of Special Education A Division of the Council for Exceptional Children Michel Miller, Ph.D., Editor The Editorial Mission The primary goal of Journal of Special Education Leadership is to provide both practicing administrators and researchers of special education administration and policy with relevant tools and sources of information based on recent advances in administrative theory, research, and practice. Journal of Special Education Leadership is a journal dedicated to issues in special education administration, leadership, and policy issues. Journal of Special Education Leadership is a refereed journal that directly supports CASE s main objectives, which are to foster research, learning, teaching, and practice in the field of special education administration and to encourage the extension of special education administration knowledge to other fields. Articles for Journal of Special Education Leadership should enhance knowledge about the process of managing special education service delivery systems, as well as reflect on techniques, trends, and issues growing out of research on special education that is significant. Preference will be given to articles that have a broad appeal, wide applicability, and immediate usefulness to administrators, other practitioners, and researchers. Manuscript Guidelines And Editorial Policies Journal of Special Education Leadership, published by the Council for Administrators of Special Education, seeks articles that capture an administrator s attention by providing useful information that stimulates new ways of thinking about managing and leading. Only articles that have been validated and accompanied by accepted theory, research, or practice are sought. Journal of Special Education Leadership s goals are: 1. To provide fresh ideas and perspectives grounded in recent advances in administrative theory and research, on contemporary issues that administrators must face. 2. To become a primary source of useful ideas for those who seek to educate present and future administrators of special education programs. 3. To become a forum through which practicing administrators of special education programs can challenge the meaningfulness of translations of administrative theory and research. Contributors for each issue will include practicing administrators, researchers, policymakers, or others interested in special education administration. The purpose of this arrangement is to encourage interaction among individuals within those roles in developing articles. Interactions may include any of the following: a jointly authored manuscript, an interview preceded or followed by commentary written by the interviewer, and a follow-up article that is specifically linked to the theory and/or research article that provides examples from the field and implications for administrators in similar situations. A typical article might begin with either a brief case illustrating the primary theme, or posing certain questions and issues that special education Journal of Special Education Leadership 25(2) September

56 administrators need to address. A typical article will also satisfy the academic reader who seeks more than just opinions and wants to see a serious effort at connecting ideas to accepted theory and research. With respect to style and format, manuscripts should: { Be accompanied by a letter signed by the author(s), { Have a separate title page that identifies the authors (the names(s) of the author(s) should not appear anywhere on the manuscript, except on the title page), { Be written in clear, straightforward language, avoiding jargon and technical terms, { Conform to APA format (see Appendix B of APA Publication Manual, 5th edition, 2001), particularly: Entire manuscript is double spaced, with margins. All pages are numbered in sequence, starting with the title page. All references in text are listed and in complete agreement with text citations. All author identification information, including professional title and affiliation, address, and phone number, is on the title page only. Cover letter states the manuscript is original, not previously published, and not under consideration elsewhere. { Include at the beginning an Executive Overview of in lieu of an abstract consisting of 3 5 bulleted major points made in the article, { Use subheadings but not the traditional ones such as Introduction ; use, instead, The Future Challenge or Do Seamless Delivery Systems have a Future? { For the purpose of documentation, cite notes in the body of the paper using superscript note numbers, { Include a biographical sketch of each author that includes name, title, place of employment address, and address. { Be double-spaced and no more than pages in length, including figures. When questions arise regardingissuesofgrammarorstyle,authorsshould refer to the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, 6 th edition, Authors are encouraged to get feedback from colleagues and practitioners on early drafts. A paper can be improved dramatically when knowledgeable reviewers are asked for reactions in advance of submission. Journal of Special Education Leadership is published two times per year. The issues vary with some being thematic. Each issue includes 4 5 articles and 1 2 administrative commentaries. 110 Review Process Selection of manuscripts for publication is based on a blind peer review process. However, all manuscripts are screened first by the editor. Those manuscripts that do not meet the manuscript requirements, or that are not consistent with the purpose of the journal, are not forwarded for peer review. The author is either notified that the manuscript is not acceptable for Journal of Special Education Leadership, or is requested to make changes in the manuscript so that it meets requirements. Copies of the manuscript are not returned to the author in either case. Manuscripts that are consistent with the purpose of the journal are sent out electronically for peer review. Reviewers will not know the identity of the author. Based on the blind reviews, the Journal of Special Education Leadership editor will communicate the results of that review to the author. The decision that is communicated to the author will be one of the following: { Acceptable, with routine editing { Acceptable, with revisions indicated by editor { Unacceptable When a decision is made that a manuscript is unacceptable for Journal of Special Education Leadership, it may be recommended that it be sent to a journal of one of the CEC Divisions. This recommendation does not mean that the manuscript would be automatically accepted by a Division journal; the manuscript would have to go through the review process again. Author Responsibilities Following Publication Acceptance After a manuscript is accepted for publication in Journal of Special Education Leadership, the author is responsible for completing, the following: { Obtaining publication clearance, if needed, for a manuscript first presented at a professional meeting, { Acknowledging the funding agency for supported research. { Including the following information for each author: q ame q Terminal/last Degree q Position/Title Journal of Special Education Leadership 25(2) September 2012

57 q Institution q Full Mailing Address q Address { Verifying the authenticity of all quoted material and citations and for obtaining permission from the originalsourceforquotesinexcessof150wordsorfor tables or figures reproduced from published works. { Preparing camera-ready copies of all figures included in the article. { Assigning literary rights to CASE by signing a Copyright transfer Agreement. { ing a revised/edited manuscript in Word to Journal of Special Education Leadership s Editorial Office. { Sending an exact copy of the manuscript to the Editorial Office on a CD-Rom with the document saved in Microsoft Word via if is not a possibility. Author Checklist Before sending a manuscript for review, please complete the Author Checklist below. This will help ensure that your manuscript is not screened out or returned before review. { Manuscript is consistent with the purpose of the journal. { Manuscript is no longer than pages total. { Manuscript conforms to APA format (see APA Publication Manual, 6 th edition, 2010). { Cover letter states that the manuscript is original and not previously published, all authors have given consent to submit the manuscript to the Journal of Special Education Leadership, and the manuscript is not under consideration elsewhere { The cover letter also indicates if the data from this manuscript are part of a larger study or if any part of the data has been included in another manuscript. The cover letter must provide a full explanation if either of these situations exist. If all of these items are met, submit your material via to [email protected]. If you are unable to your material you may send a disk or CD with 2 hard copies to: Dr. Michel Miller, Editor Journal of Special Education Leadership Drexel University 3141 Chestnut Street Korman 216 Philadelphia, PA Acknowledgment of receipt of your manuscript will be sent to you within 2 weeks. Review of your manuscript will occur within 8 weeks. Subscriptions Journal of Special Education Leadership is published by the Council of Administrators of Special Education. Copy requests should be made to CASE, Osigian Office Centre, 101 Katelyn Circle, Suite E, Warner Robins, GA Single copies may be purchased. Orders in multiples of 10 per issue can be purchased at a reduced rate. Members receive a copy of Journal of Special Education Leadership as part of their membership fee. Subscription form is found on the back cover of the journal. Advertising Journal of Special Education Leadership will offer advertising for employment opportunities, conference announcements, and those wishing to market educational and administrative publications, products, materials, and services. Please contact the editor for advertising rates. Copyright The Journal of Special Education Leadership, a journal for professionals in the field of special education administration, is published by the Council of Administrators of Special Education to foster the general advancement of research, learning, teaching, and practice in the field of special education administration. The Council of Administrators of Special Education retains literary property rights on copyrighted articles. Any signed article is the personal expression of the author; likewise, any advertisement is the responsibility of the advertiser. either necessarily carries CASE endorsement unless specifically set forth by adopted resolution. Copies of the articles in this journal may be reproduced for nonprofit distribution without permission from the publisher. Permissions Journal of Special Education Leadership allows copies to be reproduced for nonprofit purposes without permission or charge by the publisher. For information on permission to quote, reprint, or translate material, please write or the editor. September 10, 2012 Journal of Special Education Leadership 25(2) September

58 OTES 112