admin
Fri, 02/09/2024 - 19:58
Edited Text
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
ESTABLISHING EFFECTIVE SUPPORTS ACROSS CLASSROOMS THAT
ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO HIGH QUALITY INSTRUCTION
A Doctoral Capstone Project
Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies and Research
Department of Education
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Education
David Michael Muench
California University of Pennsylvania
August 4, 2022
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
California University of Pennsylvania
School of Graduate Studies and Research
Department of Education
We hereby approve the capstone of
David Michael Muench
Candidate for the Degree of Doctor of Education
ii
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
iii
Dedication
This work is dedicated to my wife Tracey and my children Jason, Katey, Justin,
and Brett. I am eternally grateful for your love and patience through this journey and
always. You extended to me such grace during this period of time where my moments
with you all have been so very limited. I love you very much and can’t thank you enough
for the continued support that is given to me. Here is to the next chapter! All my love,
all my life!
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
iv
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the efforts of many people that helped make this project a
reality for me. First, my staff at Independence Middle School who have worked tirelessly
with me over the past 16 ½ years and on this project. I am eternally grateful for your
professionalism, expertise, and utmost care for the students at Bethel Park. We have
worked so hard together to educate students with special education needs, and of course
all our students. You are all a tribute to the profession! I am proud to work with you.
I would also like to thank Dr. James Walsh, an outstanding superintendent who
always puts the needs of others before himself. When I first approached Dr. Walsh about
being my external chair it was very early in our professional relationship. Dr. Walsh
didn’t hesitate to want to support me in this endeavor. I have witnessed many times his
selflessness and dedication to the school community. It has been an education in and of
itself to work with this professional. Thank you so very much for taking the time to make
this piece a reality in my life.
Lastly, I would like to thank Dr. Kevin Lordon, my committee chair, for his
dedicated support to my success. Whether it was touching base on a zoom meeting, late
phone calls, email after email, or meetings at Panera, Dr. Lordon was always willing to
support the students under his care. It has been a pleasure to work with you on this
journey!
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
Table of Contents
Dedication
iii
Acknowledgements
iv
List of Tables
viii
Abstract
x
CHAPTER I. Capstone Project Background
1
Introduction
1
Background
2
Capstone Focus
3
Reflection
4
Research Questions
5
Expected Outcomes
6
Fiscal Implications
6
Summary
8
CHAPTER II. Review of Literature
9
The Evolution of Special Education
9
Chapter 14 Special Education Services and Programs
19
Educational Evaluation
20
Individualized Education Plan Design
26
Continuum of Support
39
Instructional Practices
47
Assessment Practices with Students with Disabilities
51
Literature Review Summary
57
v
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
CHAPTER III. Methodology
59
Purpose
60
Research Questions
61
Setting and Participants
62
Research Plan
70
Research Design, Methods, and Data Collection
74
Research Question Number 1
74
Research Question Number 2
76
Research Question Number 3
78
Internal Review Board Process
80
Ethical Considerations
81
Validity
81
Summary
87
CHAPTER IV. Data Analysis and Results
90
Participant Description
91
Data Analysis
93
Results
94
Research Question Number 1
94
Language Arts Staff Beliefs
100
Math Staff Beliefs
103
Reading Staff Beliefs
105
Special Education Staff Beliefs
106
Research Question Number 2
109
vi
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
Research Question Number 3
119
Interpretation of Data for Research Question Number 1
125
Interpretation of Data for Research Question Number 2
131
Interpretation of Data for Research Question Number 3
135
Discussion
138
Summary
140
CHAPTER V. Conclusions and Recommendations
142
Conclusions
143
Research Question Number 1
143
Research Question Number 2
148
Research Question Number 3
152
Limitations
156
Recommendations for Future Research
158
Summary
159
References
162
APPENDIX A. IRB Letter of Approval
171
APPENDIX B. Informed Consent
172
APPENDIX C. Likert Survey
175
APPENDIX D. Semi-Structured Interview #1
180
APPENDIX E. Semi-Structured Interview #2
183
APPENDIX F. Abridged Qualitative Feedback Interview #1
185
vii
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
List of Tables
Table 1. Independence Middle School Demographic Data
66
Table 2. Research Data Collection Timeline
73
Table 3. Staff Participation Demographic
92
Table 4. Number of Students by Subject
93
Table 5. Staff Perceptions of the Importance of SDIs in their
96
Classrooms
Table 6. Language Arts Staff Perceptions of the
98
Importance of SDIs
Table 7. Reading Staff Perceptions of the Importance of SDIs
98
Table 8. Math Staff Perceptions of the Importance of SDIs
99
Table 9. Special Education Staff Perceptions of the
99
Importance of SDIs
Table 10. Language Arts Performance Results
110
Table 11. Language Arts Teacher Perceptions for
111
Staff with the Highest Growth
Table 12. Top 5 Most Commonly Valued Supports for
112
High Achieving LA Staff
Table 13. Math Performance Results
112
Table 14. Math Teacher Perceptions for Staff with the
113
Highest Growth
Table 15. Math Most Common Supports Rated
114
Agree or Strongly Agree
Table 16. Reading Performance Results
114
viii
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
Table 17. Reading Teacher Perceptions for
116
Staff with the Highest Growth
Table 18. Reading Most Common Supports Rated as
117
Agree or Strongly Agree
Table 19. Special Education Performance Results
118
Table 20. Special Education Teacher Perceptions for
119
Staff with the Highest Growth
Table 21. Student Movement Throughout the Year
120
Table 22. Supports Rated as Strongly Agree for
137
Staff with Student Movement
Table 23. Supports Rated as Strongly Agree and
Agree for Staff with Student Movement
137
ix
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
x
Abstract
A central component of special education is the concept of Least Restrictive Environment
(LRE), meaning a student’s right to have access to the regular education classroom and
curriculum as the starting conversation for placement. The purpose of this study is to
examine IEP specially designed instruction implementation and teacher perceptions of
their effect on student achievement that results in success in the LRE where high quality
educational opportunities exist. This research project looks to answer three questions.
What are teachers’ perceptions about student supports outlined in a student’s IEP and
how are those supports implemented in their classrooms? What relationship, if any, is
there between teacher perceptions/implementation of student supports and student
achievement? What movement from regular education classes to more restrictive pullout classes occur over the course of a year and is there any correlation to perception and
implementation of student supports? Through a mixed methods approach that collects
teacher perception data, qualitative feedback, standardized achievement data, and
schedule changes throughout the year, the researcher used the data to find common trends
in student achievement and value systems with supports implementation. There is
evidence that teachers who show the greatest gains with their students often have similar
value systems regarding supports put in place in their classrooms. There are also
differences in how various content teachers view supports in their classroom. The results
of the study are meant to inform us as educators to try and replicate practices that yield
better results.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
1
Chapter I
Capstone Project Background
The evolution of special education practices, regulations, and laws in the United
States have furthered the cause of educating students with disabilities across the nation
since the 1970’s. As with all evolution and progress there are many moments of learning
through both success and failure. The concept of Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) is
a central mindset in that evolution. While the need exists for a full continuum of support
in schools, the basis of LRE is that students get the richest experience in a regular
classroom where varied activities, rich discourse, and proper levels of support are applied
for the students’ benefit. In addition, particularly as students grow older and the
curriculum gets more complex, having a regular education teacher with content training
is essential in helping diagnose student misconceptions on curricular concepts. This is
where trained special education teachers come into play in providing the content teacher
with strategies that can help a student be successful in the classroom given the nature of
their disability and needs. When these two professionals are hard at work on behalf of
the student the LRE can be achieved.
One of the primary constructs of special education practice is the application of
accommodations and modifications in the regular classroom. These supports are pieced
together based on the perception of student needs in relation to their weaknesses. The
Specially Designed Instruction (SDI) that is found in a student’s Individualized
Education Plan (IEP) outlines this to all adults that come into contact with the student.
However, one of the primary questions within the construction of this Doctoral Research
Capstone Project is how effective those various accommodations and modifications are in
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
2
assisting students in their achievement. Not only are we looking at the overall effect of
these supports, but at how they are applied across classrooms and with what fidelity.
Furthermore, concern exists that much of what is done for the student in the regular
classroom is accommodation driven rather than modification driven. This could be due to
the black and white nature of implementing accommodations rather than the more
complex use of modifications in the classroom.
This project is also very important in helping our schools achieve the benchmarks
set for LRE. The Pennsylvania Department of Education has comparative data that looks
at our students’ placement in the educational program. When these numbers fall short of
expectations a plan for improvement is necessary in what is termed, corrective action.
This is never a pleasant place for schools to be. It is important that we are proactive in
this area, and in all indicators of an effective special education program. Success in the
LRE is dictated most often by grades, and grades are dictated by students’ ability to
perform on performance measures, and students' ability to do well on performance
measures depends on the quality of instruction that has occurred. This is where many of
the accommodations and modifications can make a difference. However, sometimes
success comes down to the fidelity in which these modifications and accommodations
have been implemented, keeping the student in the LRE.
Background
This project arose from a desire to understand how the implementation of
student’s IEPs was contributing to the students remaining in the regular education
environment. At Independence Middle School, where I was principal from 2005 until
January of 2022, I saw the support framework evolve for students. Independence was
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
3
already a well-established school and performed well compared to surrounding schools in
Allegheny County. However, we did see gaps in how we supported students in the LRE,
particularly around co-teaching. The staff worked to evolve how we scheduled students
to add the co-teaching element to the continuum of support available to students. Around
this time, Bethel Park School District was noted in its special education cyclical
monitoring that they did not meet the benchmark for students in the regular classroom
80% or more of the time when compared to other school districts. This furthered the
conversation about what was being done to support students so that this benchmark could
be achieved.
Since January of 2022, I became the Director of Student Support Services full
time. This role is multifaceted in that it has oversight into gifted education, health
services, English as a Second Language, Foster Care and Homeless Student Services,
Counseling Services, Student Assistance Programming (SAP), and the Instructional
Support Team (IST) process at the elementary level. In conjunction with my colleague,
who is the Supervisor of Special Education, we jointly oversee the special education
program K-12. This is a huge task, but one that I am excited about in supporting those
students that are most vulnerable. Students with special needs have long been an interest
for me, and as I reflect, even from my earliest days. So, this next step professionally is
just a natural extension of my work at the building level with special education and LRE,
hence, why this project is valuable to me.
Capstone Focus
The research focus is on what works in the classrooms with student supports. This
research is meant to look at best practices that can be highlighted and replicated when
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
4
supported by actual student achievement data across classrooms and grade levels where
students with IEP’s show strong growth. To do so, we first need to start with what the
current perceptions and practices are. This is then followed with actual student growth
measures to validate those perceptions and practices. Without the lens placed on these
data points, we operate our schools on independent measures and beliefs about what
works within a classroom that may or may not be entirely accurate. The more unbiased
feedback that a teacher can get helps drive them and their students to better results. In the
end, I hope to validate best practices for student support implementation occurring in the
school to help guide teacher development initiatives that best serve our special education
student population.
Reflection
I feel sympathy for all involved in education currently who are trying to keep up
with what is truly best for students. All groups involved in this process have good
intentions much of the time. Special interest groups want students who are at risk to not
be left behind and purposely planned for. Legislation and those that legislate want the
same thing, for our nation’s students to excel, further develop our work force, and
diminish the need for public assistance. Parents want their children to come home happy
from school and learn information and skills to help them be gainfully employed.
Students want to pass their classes and enjoy their peers and teachers. Lastly, teachers
want to feel effective in supporting their students in being the best version of themselves
possible. With all these forces trying to accomplish a similar mission, but with
sometimes very different mindsets, pressure on the system can be astronomical and
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
5
include legal actions against schools through Due Process Proceedings, often costing
thousands of dollars.
Research Questions
The research questions are designed to uncover practices that are effective in the
least restrictive environment to support students with special needs. There are three
essential questions that we are investigating. They are:
•
What are teachers’ perceptions about student supports outlined in a student’s IEP and
how are those supports implemented in their classrooms?
•
What relationship, if any, is there between teacher perceptions/implementation of
student support and student achievement?
•
What movement from regular education classes to more restrictive pull-out classes
occurs over the course of a year and is there any correlation to perception and
implementation of student supports?
The research questions utilize multiple data points to draw conclusions from. The
first question includes Likert style survey data and semi-structured interviews to generate
understandings about teacher perceptions of accommodations and modifications. The
second research question looks at standardized data that is generated through the
Measures of Academic Progress (MAP). This data point allows us to see student
progress across classrooms on a common measure. Lastly, question three uses student
information system data to show possible patterns of success in the LRE for students
based on their movements to and from the regular classroom. When combined with the
perception data in the Likert survey on accommodation and modifications and an
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
6
additional semi-structured interview, we hope to be able to draw conclusions as to the
implementation of supports in the classroom and how that affected their success or not.
Expected Outcomes
It is thought that looking at this data in the manner the project has been
constructed will allow for an evaluation of the best supportive practices that achieve the
LRE for students. There is also potential that subject comparisons may also have
different effective support structures because of the nature of the subject matter. This is
certainly fine. The bigger outcome here is how to replicate what is effective across the
classroom settings, potentially by subject, and how to best articulate that within the
specially designed instruction that often has blanket accommodations. If we
conceptualize that for a moment, we can see how broad-brush stroking accommodations
and modifications can leave staff running in circles with supports that are not effective
but listed in the IEP as needed for the students’ success, taking teacher time and thought.
The outcome of this project could be a better articulated and tailored IEP document that
can better support the student. In addition, it may uncover potential professional
development topics that may support the staff in helping students achieve in the LRE.
Fiscal Implications
While the purpose of this project is really focused on student achievement, we
know that spending on education increases substantially based on student needs. The
cost to educate a regular education student is substantially less than that of their special
education counterpart. In facilitating best practices for student support, we are improving
the facilitation of a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) at the lowest cost we
can when students are in the regular education environment. With the number of staff
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
7
hired to support the growing number of students with IEP’s as well as other fiscal
influences unrelated to this project, it is no wonder that schools are annually grappling
with the revenue and expenditure structure to run an effective school district.
In the short term, the fiscal implications include savings due to increased student
achievement because there are better support structures in the classroom that allow
students to be more self-sufficient. When this occurs, reliance on staff such as
paraprofessionals becomes less. This allows the paraprofessionals to be better utilized,
preventing schools from having to hire more to support student needs. In addition, when
there is an increase in student achievement, costs associated with other forms of support
such as tutoring or mental health services are not needed to the same extent. This
decreases the financial burden on the school and district, ultimately increasing
productivity across the board.
In the long term, fiscal implications can include a decrease of students requiring a
multi-disciplinary evaluation, or an exit of students from special education services that
are costly. As already stated, it costs a great deal more to educate a student with an IEP
than it does a regular education student. Even decreasing the number of students
requiring services by a small percentage can have an impact on the financial obligations
of the district. When you create classrooms that have supports that are sound for nonidentified students as well as students with IEP’s you decrease the overall need for these
costly supports while also building better students. This project, in however small a way,
can affect fiscal resources in a positive direction by replicating best practices, and
increasing student achievement in the regular classroom with existing staff.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
8
Summary
The nature of educating students has evolved over time from the standpoint of
advancements in technology, common core standards, legislative expectations, parental
expectations, and general scrutiny of how public education operates. A central theme is a
Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) and how that is achieved through the
LRE. However, models of support that achieve the LRE are hard to generalize across
settings due to many different factors that include the continuum of support available,
pedagogical practices, and certainly people’s mindsets. This project is meant to look at
one school's structure and practices and how they can be optimized across classrooms and
content areas to give students the best experiences. Using effective data points, we can
draw possible understandings of best practices in the support structure and where there is
room for improvement. We will start out by looking at the literature to gain greater
insight into this complex issue. This review of literature will look at the evolution of
special education legislation to give context and necessity, as well as the special
education process that culminates in an IEP that is meant to support students' needs in the
classroom. We will continue with an understanding of continuum of support structures
available to students in a public school, an understanding of accommodations and
modifications, and how data points being used in this project are appropriate and relevant
to answer the questions that have been posed.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
9
Chapter II
Review of Literature
The Evolution of Special Education
The purpose of this research study is to look at the practices of teachers and
schools in implementing effective supports in the classroom that help meet the mandates
of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The history of legislation, and more
importantly its evolution towards inclusivity, has put a focus on how schools are
developing their practices to help students with disabilities make progress in the regular
classroom environment. These practices stem from a highly articulated evaluation
process that concludes with a comprehensive educational plan for students with
disabilities that has at its heart, a prescriptive and targeted approach to address student
needs through accommodations and modifications. These accommodations and
modifications are used to meet measurable goals in the student’s Individualized
Education Plan. Lastly, of utmost importance in this project are the assessment
frameworks that, not only measures student understanding of material, but also
effectively measures how practice and process are supporting all students in being the
best version of themselves possible.
This research project looks at one school's support structure, implementation of
these supports, placement success in regular education environments, and assessment
practices that demonstrate student progress. Looking at these components in more detail,
the literature review focuses on the evolution of law surrounding educating students with
disabilities, the evaluation process, the planning process, educational placement options,
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
10
teacher practices with support systems, and assessment practices in the classroom, in the
school, and statewide.
Special education, as a part of a student’s public education program, has evolved
since the 1970’s. While educating students with disabilities has been occurring in the
United States prior to that era, the weight of responsibility on public school systems to
include all students with disabilities gained significant momentum with the passing of the
Education for All Handicapped Act of 1975, or EHA as it has been called. This act,
known more often as Public Law 94-142, established the concept of a Free and
Appropriate Public Education for all students regardless of disability. Prior to this action
taken by the government, the education of students with disabilities was sporadic, or
sometimes even nonexistent across the United States. Statistics cited by the United States
Department of Education (2020) suggest that one in five students who were deaf, blind,
emotionally disturbed, or some other form of intellectual disability were educated in the
public-school setting. They also indicate that there were 1.8 million school aged children
that were not receiving an education prior to the passage of the act. The nation has
progressed to serve more than 7.5 million children with those same disabilities with
education services.
P.L. 94-142 established a phrase that holds great weight in today’s educational
programs known as a Free and Appropriate Public Education. This phrase has as its key
word appropriate. While this phrase and this essential word have driven the educational
program, it has also brought with it great debate of what is appropriate. Regardless of the
definition of appropriateness, the main priorities for the passing of the law were to ensure
four fundamental rights. These four rights were to ensure students with disabilities had
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
11
access to a free public education that was appropriate, that parents’ and students’ rights
were protected, that states had the backing of the federal government to achieve these
goals, and that effectiveness of these programs could be measured across the country
(United States Department of Education, 2020).
Following the groundbreaking EHA legislation in 1975, the federal government
reauthorized the law in 1990 through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or
IDEA. According to the United States Department of Education (2020), the main
changes within this reauthorization were the inclusion of additional disability categories,
namely traumatic brain injury and autism. Also, the reauthorization included transition
planning for students to improve students' movement from school aged years to post K12 school years.
In addition to the changes to the disability categories and inclusion of transition
services, the legislation speaks for the first time of the increasing diverse populations that
make up the United States of America. The legislation uses those statistics to
demonstrate some of the inequities that were starting to exist within the special education
programs throughout the country. According to the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act legislation (1990) at the time of printing, it was predicted that by the year
2000 that there would be 260,000,000 million Americans and that one in every three
citizens would be either African American, Hispanic/Latino, or Asian. These statistics
were important in the fact that the legislation noted the growing disparities in the
numbers of students in special education programs. In other words, our country was
growing more diverse but potentially falling into practices that could segregate the
population through inflated placement in special education. Studies at the time held that
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
12
the African American population was noted to comprise 12% of the school aged
population. However, the group comprised 28% of the special education population
(Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [IDEA], 1990).
The Federal government continued its evolution of special education
programming when it reauthorized IDEA in 1997. Of importance to this research study
was the emphasis placed on access to the general education curriculum. This was of
paramount importance to the inclusion movement because it set the groundwork that
students within the special education program should not be relegated to remediation
concepts alone as their source of curriculum. This brought a strong push for inclusionary
practices that began to strongly proliferate in schools across the country. The law
established a phrase known as the Least Restrictive Environment or LRE. The definition
of this was laid out in the legislation when it said:
To the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including children
in public or private institutions or other care facilities, are educated with children
who are not disabled, and special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of
children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only
when the nature or severity of the disability of a child is such that education in
regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be
achieved satisfactorily. (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 1997, p.111)
The concept of LRE again pushed the boundaries of what was felt to be appropriate under
FAPE in educating the special education population.
The reauthorization included legal clarifications and processes, setting the stage
for parents' ability to challenge school decisions. As an example, in section 604 of the
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
13
act, the law explains that sovereign immunity does not apply to public entities for
violations of the law. This clearly sent the message to school districts that their say so
was not protected when in violation of the IDEA provisions. In addition, a due process
format was also initiated through this reauthorization that substantiated a mediation
procedure for parents/guardians to disagree with school districts. Section 615 of the law
lays out this process, and most importantly the financial obligation of school districts to
pay for these proceedings. This included the establishment of an outline of the
procedural safeguards to protect student and family rights.
The procedural safeguards set forth a framework for parents’ meaningful
engagement in meetings regarding their child’s placement, evaluations, and FAPE
implementation. This included written notice and acceptance of changes in placement
that would affect the students LRE. In Pennsylvania this written document is known as
the Notice of Recommended Educational Placement (NOREP) and follows the guidelines
in the act that require a description of the action proposed or refused by the educational
agency, an explanation of why this proposal was being made, a description of any other
options considered and rejected, a listing of evaluations leading to the decision, other
relevant factors, and finally a notice to the parents that there are safeguards afforded to
them with contact numbers to assist when unsure or in disagreement with a district
proposal. These important changes transferred much of the power from school districts to
parents and guardians.
The procedural safeguards themselves were meant to be disseminated at crucial
decision-making times in a student’s program. Those critical moments were stated to be
upon request for evaluation of a student, reevaluation of a student, the occurrence of an
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
14
IEP meeting, and at the time that a notice of complaint was received by the school
district. An important piece of the procedural safeguards is the concept of Pendency.
This concept sets a standard for educational placement when there is disagreement.
Pendency requires schools to maintain the status quo of the placement until proper stages
of mediation occur.
An important process set up by IDEA (1990) dealt with the mediation and due
process that parents and districts can enter. The mediation process was established to
allow parents and school districts to have a formal discussion about the concerns. This
was not meant to deny the right of parents or the school district to enter due process
proceedings but was/is an attempt to settle the dispute prior to getting to that point.
Within the legislation states were charged with the task of establishing a list of mediators
that are trained to help the parties settle the dispute. The IDEA legislation makes it the
responsibility of the state to pay for the mediation services, so that no cost would be
incurred by the parent/guardian or district for that matter. The outcome of the mediation
would hopefully result in agreement and the legislation stipulates that this agreement
would be written down in a mediation agreement.
However, mediation is not effective in all cases, and as stated in the legislation, a
due process procedure is afforded to the parties. Within the due process framework is the
ability for the parent to obtain council and to award attorney fees to the family's attorney
in a prevailing case. The parties utilize a state agency when hearing these cases. The
parties involved must file all relevant documents pertaining to the case in a timely
manner. This is set at five days prior to the hearing date. Failure to do so could result in
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
15
the hearing officer barring the information from admission. All decisions at this level
may be appealed to an independent hearing officer for a final decision.
IDEA would continue to evolve in the new century. According to LDOnline
(2021), under President Bush and his No Child Left Behind legislation, IDEA saw
changes that included provisions for highly qualified teachers who teach students with
special needs, introduced changes to eligibility determination for learning disabilities
known as Response to Intervention (RTI), transition planning for students, as well as
Individualized Education Plan (IEP) implementation items to improve efficiency of the
IEP process.
According to the reauthorization found in IDEA (2004) the Highly Qualified
Provisions of the legislation put higher standards on the teaching qualifications for staff
that teach students in core subjects. It was no longer appropriate for staff holding a K-12
special education certificate to be considered highly qualified to teach Algebra as an
example. The purpose in the changes to the certifications was to drive teacher
proficiency in the core subjects and to drive teacher preparation programs to focus more
of their efforts on core content in addition to the skills needed to provide
accommodations and modifications to a student's special education program. This impact
was felt specifically in the learning support pull out classroom. The legislation did
differentiate between teachers that teach students working on alternate standards,
however. Those staff were not required to become highly qualified under the provisions
of the legislation.
Another aspect of the 2004 reauthorization and important to this Capstone Project
was the inclusion of the Response to Intervention (RTI) process for identifying students
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
16
with a learning disability. This was cited as a preferred method to the commonly known
discrepancy formula used to demonstrate a student's difference in achievement over their
ability. The National Center for Learning Disabilities (2006) states that response to
intervention is, “a comprehensive, multi-step process that closely monitors how the
student is responding to different types of services and instruction” (p. 12). The thinking
behind moving to the RTI model was driven by the concern that the discrepancy model
increased the time that a student might experience a lack of performance prior to being
identified for a learning disability. The RTI framework would shorten that time, with the
provision that the interventions used are scientifically based. The data collection for the
targeted interventions was called progress monitoring. In essence, data collection on
progress of key learning is regularly documented to determine a student’s progress in
attaining the skills. In documenting this information the school can determine, if after
using interventions, if the student continues to struggle that they would be eligible for
special education services.
The RTI framework is broken into three tiers. The tiers are simply labeled tier 1,
tier 2, and tier 3. Tier 1 includes all students as a part of universal screeners and group
interventions. Universal screeners are tools used by schools to identify weaknesses in a
students’ skills. After students are identified with some skill deficits, students are given
group interventions. What makes this a tier 1 strategy is that these interventions are
afforded to all students in the regular classroom that would show the need through the
universal screener. These group interventions would be applied to the targeted
population for a period up to 8 weeks. In contrast, tier 2 students who did not meet with
success in tier 1 are provided more intensive interventions in small groups, often outside
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
17
of the regular classroom environment. From a timeline perspective, tier 2 interventions
continue for approximately one grading period. Lastly, tier 3 interventions are given to
students who do not respond in tiers 1 and 2. However, the important difference between
the other tiers is that this tier provides individualized intervention programming for the
student. This RTI process allows for a pathway to identify a student for special education
services where the data gathered in the process are used in an evaluation for
identification. An important note within this framework, however, is the idea that a
family does not have to wait out the RTI process to conclude for an evaluation to be
done.
IDEA (2004) made transition planning a primary part of the IEP process for all
students 14 years or older. The purpose of transition planning as stated by Pennsylvania
Area Training and Technical Assistance Network (2018b) is:
The process of preparing students for adult life after they leave high school.
Transition planning begins at age 14, or younger if determined appropriate by the
IEP team, as students consider their goals for the time after graduation through
career awareness exploration activities. The transition process continues through
high school as academic instruction and community experiences help clarify and
support students’ goals. The entire process is based on individual student’s needs,
taking into account each student’s strengths, preferences, and interests. (p. 1)
This focus on life after high school is generally broken into the categories of postsecondary training, employment, and independent living. These categories are to have
goals implanted in the IEP to support the student in their post-secondary plans that are
developed through data that comes from assessment in these areas. During this
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
18
development phase the IEP team works to develop partnerships with community
organizations as the students get older such as meetings with post-secondary institutions
or representatives from the Office of Vocational Rehabilitation.
The Federal government has continued to make changes to IDEA in the years
2006, 2008, 2011, and 2013. These changes were less substantive to the purpose of this
Capstone Project. However, in 2015 changes were made that impacted process and
practice as it relates to least restrictive environment. In 2015 the reauthorization of IDEA
discontinued the authority for states to define alternate standards for students and the use
of assessments for assessing those modified standards. The government's original
thought on allowing modified standards was the belief that a small number of students
were not ready for the grade level academic standards. However, the government also
acknowledged that more research needed to be done in this area when modified standards
were allowed. A rule explained in the Federal Register under the title, Improving the
Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged (2015) stated that the changes to the
regulations were a result of research conducted that demonstrated strong outcomes for
students with disabilities on grade level standards when they, “received systematic,
explicit instruction; learning strategy instruction; and other evidence-based instructional
strategies and supports” (p. 50774). This was the basis that changed the initial legislation
that allowed for modified standards. The legislation makes important use of the word
access as it describes the state’s responsibility to provide that pathway to all the nation’s
students.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
19
Chapter 14 Special Education Services and Programs
Pennsylvania’s process for delivering special education programming to students
identified as needing specially designed instruction in the state is driven by the
Pennsylvania School Code under Title 22 (Education) and Chapter 14 (Special Education
Services and Programs). The provisions of the regulations meet the Federal standards set
forth in IDEA as was outlined in the initial literature review section of this Doctoral
Capstone Project. Chapter 14 is set up into six main parts that include General
Provisions, Child Find, Screening and Evaluation, IEP, Educational Placement, Early
Intervention, and Procedural Safeguards. These regulations have oversite by the State
Board of Education. According to the Pennsylvania Code, the state board is given the
power to “adopt broad policies and principles and establish standards governing the
educational program of the Commonwealth” (2021, Title 22, §1.2).
The General Provisions clearly state its purpose and uses the commensurate IDEA
language when describing the meaning of Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE)
as well as access to general education curriculum and “a full continuum of placement
options” (Pennsylvania Code, Title 22, §14.102). The full continuum of placement
options operates under the guidance of the least restrictive environment in which a
student is provided services in an educational environment that is as similar to their same
aged peers as possible where the student’s needs are being addressed. This continuum of
support, as it is commonly called, provides these comprehensive options to the
Individualize Education Program (IEP) team. However, the starting point for placement
options really begins with a student’s initial evaluation.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
20
Educational Evaluation
The Pennsylvania School Code explains that the evaluation is to be conducted by
a school psychologist for the purpose of identifying students who may qualify for a
disability category of “autism, emotional disturbance, mental retardation (Now known as
Intellectual Disability), multiple disabilities, other health impairments, specific learning
disability, or traumatic brain injury” (PA Code, sec. 14.123). The evaluation is an
essential portion of the special education process as it uses a comprehensive battery of
assessment to determine the specific needs of the learner and can make recommendations
for those needs to the IEP team. The data for this evaluation is not only gathered by the
psychologist themselves but is gathered from multiple stakeholders involved in the
student's education, including parents, and teachers. According to the National Joint
Committee on Learning Disabilities (2011) a Multidisciplinary Evaluation (MDE) report
uses standardized assessments, informal measures, observations, student self-reports,
parent reports, and progress monitoring data and are used to “identify a student’s pattern
of strengths and needs” (p. 4). In addition, the evaluation must prove two things prior to
a student’s placement in special education. That is determining if a disability exists AND
if the student needs specially designed instruction due to low performance. In other
words, having a disability in and of itself is not the sole factor for placement in special
education.
For the purposes of students with learning disabilities an evaluation looks to
determine if a discrepancy exists in students' achievement and their abilities known as the
discrepancy formula. While an important determining factor, the discrepancy formula
may not be the only measure for a student's qualifications for a learning disability as
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
21
discussed previously. The areas that are targeted include oral expression, listening
comprehension, written expression, basic reading skills, reading fluency skills, reading
comprehension, mathematics calculation, and mathematical problem solving. According
to the National Center for Learning Disabilities (2006) the evaluation should also look at
ability levels across domains of motor, sensory, cognitive, communication, behavior,
perception, memory, attention, sequencing, motor planning and coordination, thinking,
reasoning, and organization.
Evaluation reports include information on exclusionary factors, inclusionary
factors, and the patterns of strengths and weaknesses that the student has established over
time. Whitaker and Oritz (2019) explain that exclusionary factors that a psychologist
may consider in evaluating a student might include environmental, cultural or economic
factors that have kept the student from achieving at the levels of their ability. These
environmental factors, such as students that are English Language Learners, or students
who have not had regular patterns of attendance at school, or students who have
experienced a significant traumatic event may be reasons for the student’s
underachievement and not a learning disability. As an example, in a recent study by
Horowitz et al. (2017), English Language Learners made up 9 percent of students in the
public school system, but made-up 12 percent of students identified for a specific
learning disability. These types of factors are considered as possible exclusionary factors
to a student’s qualifications as a student with disabilities because these factors would
hinder progress in the educational program and do not necessarily indicate a disability.
The purpose of this, according to Whitaker and Oritz (2019) is to protect against
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
22
disproportionate placement of students with these factors in special education programs
that promote biased practice whether intentional or not.
An evaluation for students with learning disabilities relies in part on the use of a
discrepancy formula. However, after IDEA 2004, the discrepancy formula may not be
used by itself to determine if a learning disability exists. It is important that multiple
measures are used to identify areas of concern since testing by itself is one moment in
time and may or may not be accurate to the student’s real weaknesses. However, the
discrepancy formula is still a measure and considers a student's ability as measured on an
intelligence test as compared to their achievement across multiple categories on a
standardized test. When a significant gap exists between a student’s ability and
achievement it is one indicator of a potential learning disability. According to the Iris
Center (2021), a significant discrepancy exists when there is a 30-point difference
between a student's ability and their achievement. This difference is two standard
deviations from the student’s ability score. So, as an example, a student who scored a
100 on their intelligence score and a 68 on their achievement score would have met one
of the indicators for a learning disability because it meets the discrepancy formula. In a
different example, a student who has an Intelligence Quotient of 110 and an 85
achievement score would not meet that eligibility criteria piece based on the discrepancy
being 25 points.
As LdOnline (2021) points out, “the reason that comprehensive assessment and
evaluation procedures are needed is because learning disabilities may be manifested
differently among individuals over time, in severity, and across settings” (para. 33). This
speaks to why the discrepancy formula can’t be the sole indicator of a learning disability
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
23
and key elements of a comprehensive evaluation should include the strengths and
weaknesses of the student as well as other factors that are affecting performance in the
regular education environment.
The components of the evaluation report are many and are set up to walk the
practitioners and IEP team through various considerations based in data that define a
student’s needs and whether a diagnosis exists. The following is a brief overview of the
components of a report, followed by a brief explanation of those components to illustrate
the process for identifying students with special education needs. It is important to note
that an evaluation may be initiated by a parent or by a school. This is the reason that the
report starts out with a reason for the referral. This gives the MDE team background on
what brought the evaluation to this point. According to the PATTAN (2018a), this
section, “clearly, thoroughly and concisely describe why the evaluation is being
conducted” (p. 2).
The second portion of the evaluation report contains the Sources of Evaluation
Data. This section contains the assessment batteries that have been conducted based on
the areas of concern that were reported to the school psychologist. The reader would also
find the results of these batteries in this area. PATTAN (2018a) makes reference in their
annotated evaluation report that this piece should be clear to the reader, acknowledging
that the reader will not have the same level of training and expertise as the psychologist
writing the report. These sources of data are broken up into an organizational structure or
categories. These categories include parent feedback, observations of the student by the
teacher or related service providers, recommendations by teachers, physical health reports
such as their vision and hearing screenings, assessment data such as classroom-based
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
24
assessments; aptitude and achievement tests; local and state assessments; behavior
assessments; interests and preferences, and discipline referral information.
The third component of the evaluation includes any deviation from normal testing
routines. This section would include information such as testing changes that existed due
to testing needs. An example may be testing in the student's native language. Other
examples may include a student who became ill during the assessment or if the full
battery was not given and only certain sub sections were conducted.
The Determining Factor section, noted as section 4, is meant to illustrate the
possibility of exclusionary factors. As explained earlier in this project, students can have
existing factors that might preclude a student from being eligible for special education
services. Students who have had a lack of instruction as an example may not be eligible
for special education based on these exclusionary factors. English as a second language
is another example that could preclude a student from qualifying for special education
services. As a reminder, this provision was meant to safeguard the overidentification of
students with these factors into special education because the suspicion would be that this
factor itself was primary to their lower achievement and special education was not the
appropriate answer.
The report nears culmination in a summary of findings and interpretation of the
results. The summary puts into clear language how the student is performing, also known
as the Present Levels of Performance. These present levels are broken down into
academic performance, functional levels of performance, and behavioral performance.
These pieces of information are transferred onto the IEP for students who qualify to drive
programming planning. Academic performance includes, as its name suggests, the
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
25
assessment feedback that deals with achievement in school derived from the collection of
data. Functional performance includes the day-to-day living skills of the student
including hygiene, dressing, community-based instruction skills, and consumer skills.
Lastly, behavioral information would contain feedback from assessments such as
measures of social and emotional functioning. An example may be attention rating
scales.
Lastly, the report is finalized with conclusions and recommendations based on the
data that is included. There are three options for the team to choose from within this
portion of the report. The data either reveals that the student does not have a disability,
has a disability but is not in need of specially designed instruction, or is a student with a
disability in need of specially designed instruction. Remember that a student having a
disability alone does not necessitate the need for an Individualized Educational Program.
There must be a demonstrated need shown through the review of data. Hence the reason
for the second option in the evaluation report. Additionally, this is also a crucial section
of the report where a diagnosis will be assigned to the student if they are found in need of
specially designed instruction. A student may, in fact, have more than one diagnosis but
there is a primary diagnosis assigned to the student known as their primary disability
category.
The psychologist will incorporate their recommendations in this portion of the
report as well. This important section gives the team guidance on what support may be
put in place based on the report’s findings. Recommendations made by the Education
Law Center (2021) state “the special education and related services the child needs to
participate in the regular curriculum” (p. 19). They go on to say that specially designed
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
26
instruction includes “what is taught, methodology (the process used to teach), or delivery
of the curriculum to take account of your child’s learning needs and to ensure that your
child has access to the general education curriculum” (p. 9). Additionally, related
services are items that the student needs such as transportation,
speech/occupational/physical therapy, interpreting services, or school health services that
address other weaknesses that affect the student adversely in the school environment. As
an example, pull out classes may be considered for a student where small group
instruction is recommended because a specially designed instruction element would
include that recommendation. Whereas an example of a related service may be
occupational therapy needs due to a student’s weakness in fine motor skills as it relates to
holding and manipulating a pencil. Certainly, while not academic, this related service
would have an impact on the student’s academic success.
Individualized Education Plan Design
The Individualized Education Plan, or IEP is designed by a team of individuals at
least annually for a student who has qualified for special education services. The
Education Law Center (2021) states that an IEP is “a written plan that describes the
unique needs of a child who is eligible for special education and explains the specific
services that the school will give the child” (p. 31). The initial provision for special
education is derived from the Evaluation Report, taking the present levels of
performance, strengths and needs of the student as well as the recommendations to
address these needs. The IEP itself is broken out into many different components that all
have meaning in achieving a Free and Appropriate Public Education while also adhering
to the principals of the Least Restrictive Environment. Important to this project are the
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
27
components of the IEP known as present levels of academic achievement, goals and
objectives, specially designed instruction, and educational placement.
Special considerations are noted at the beginning of the IEP document, to keep at
the forefront, considerations that may be less typical but need much attention through the
development of the IEP. These considerations may include blind or vision impairments,
communication needs, assistive technology needs, limited English proficiency skills, and
behavior that may impede the student’s progress or that of others. These items can have
implications throughout the IEP. As an example, a student who is noted as having
behaviors that impede their learning or that of others may need a behavior plan that is
driven by a Functional Behavioral Assessment (FBA). A behavior plan includes positive
behavioral supports that would be clearly stated in the IEP for all staff to review and
follow, to maintain a cohesive approach to dealing with the student’s behavioral needs.
Yet another example might be the inclusion of mobility training in the Related Services
portion of the IEP if the IEP team were to indicate blind or visual impairment needs.
The team uses information from the Evaluation Report and data from the current
academic program such as grades, scores on standardized tests, information from those
involved with the student and other data available to the team to construct the Present
Levels of Academic Achievement and Functional Performance. Harmon et al. (2020)
state, “one of the most important elements of an individualized education program (IEP)
is the section on present levels of academic achievement and functional performance
(PLAAFP)” (p. 321). This section clearly outlines for those that play a role in the
student’s education where the student is in their educational program, what to expect
from the student, what struggles the student has, and sets the direction for where the
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
28
student needs to go based on the needs identified. This may include feedback from the
parent as well.
Within the present levels framework are measures of functional performance.
Harmon et al. (2020) explains that functional performance “refers to any nonacademic
area that allows a student to function independently on a day-to-day basis, such as
cognition, communication, motor skills, behavior, or social-emotional functioning” (p.
321). PATTAN (2018c) contributes to this understanding in its annotated IEP when it
said that this, “relates to activities of daily living like hygiene, dressing, basic consumer
skills, community-based instruction, or the ability to access public transportation,
social/emotional learning skills or behavioral difficulties, and the consideration of
personal safety and socially appropriate behavior” (p. 15). Functional performance is not
always a concern for students whose needs are mainly academic. However, all domains
of functional performance need to be considered for each student to rule in or rule out the
need within this section of the IEP.
Within the Present Levels of Academic and Functional Performance is the
inclusion of transition needs and strengths. Transition refers to the areas of interest that
the student may have regarding post-secondary life. The IEP team may gather this
information from activities such as career awareness surveys or interest inventories. The
team may also look at instruments such as the ASVAB for high school students. As
Harmon et al. (2020) put it, “a description of the degree of match between the student's
current skills and the student's desired postschool outcomes will provide insight into the
impact of the disability and will assist the team with comprehensive transition planning”
(p. 327). For students in the state of Pennsylvania, transition must be considered for
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
29
those students who are 14 years of age or older. The IEP team may consider transition
services for students who are younger if the IEP team determines that this is appropriate.
Lastly, considerations on present levels for behavior are also pertinent
information to be included in this area. While previously stated under the special
considerations section of the IEP, behavior that impedes the student’s learning or that of
others requires specific attention within the IEP. From the special considerations comes
the information demonstrating the student’s progress and ongoing needs in this area.
Primary information pertinent to this would be found in a Functional Behavioral
Assessment (FBA). The FBA defines the target behavior and looks at the function of the
behavior for why the behavior might exist. The FBA also includes triggers or
antecedents to the behavior so that the team can consider what manipulations to the
environment can be made to avoid the trigger to the behavior. Just as important is the
statement of the behavior that is desired. Data can be gathered from sources including
referrals to the office or direct observation of the problem behaviors. The information is
placed in this area to demonstrate the needs that will be addressed later in the IEP as a
goal or goals.
The third part of the IEP is the Transition section. This should sound familiar
because transition was discussed in the student’s present levels section specified
previously. This section takes that information and puts into action a plan to achieve
post-secondary goals in the areas of education and training, employment, and
independent living needs (not all students require independent living to be addressed).
As Finn and Kohler (2009) state:
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
30
This federal mandate for IEP transition content actually helps simplify IEP
development, by aligning the various components (present level of academic
achievement and functional performance, annual goals, course of study, special
education and related services, duration of services, and accommodations) with
the student's postsecondary goals. (p. 20)
The Individualized Education Plan team puts in this section specific activities that will
occur throughout the year that will assist the student in fulfilling the goals. As an
example, a student with a post-secondary employment goal of being a carpenter may
have as a part of their IEP a trip planned to see the local area vocational technical school
servicing the district. Another example may be taking part in developing a career plan
that fulfills career awareness standards. Lastly, this area is a federally monitored portion
of the IEP known as Indicator 13. There are 20 indicators that are used to show
compliance and effectiveness of a students’ IEP and the implementation of IDEA (Project
10 Transition Network, 2021). With the Federal weight placed on this indicator, it makes
this an important part of the individualized education plan.
Part IV of the IEP includes the consideration of whether the student will
participate in state and local assessments. This portion of the IEP is important in the
sense that the research conducted in this study uses standardized and local assessment
data to determine the effectiveness of supports, accommodations and modifications that
help the student make progress in the regular education curriculum and results in positive
achievement on these measures. In addition, in the state of Pennsylvania currently, the
use of standardized measures fulfills some of the graduation pathways for all students.
At the heart of this project is the pedagogy and practice that keeps students in the Least
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
31
Restrictive Environment and assists students in successfully achieving grade level
standards. It is important, as a part of accountability measures, that students take part in
the assessment structure in order to gain valuable insight into the effectiveness of the
educational program and their achievement. However, there are students who cannot
take part in the state standardized assessment system. In Pennsylvania as an example,
students that the IEP team determine meet the criteria to participate in the Pennsylvania
Alternate System of Assessment (PASA) would be noted in this area of the IEP.
Pennsylvania outlines six criteria that a student must meet in order to be eligible to take
part in the PASA. These six criteria, taken from the PATTAN IEP template (2018c) are
listed as follows:
1. Will the student be in grade 3,4,5,6,7,8, or 11 by September 1st of the
school year during which the IEP will be operative?
2. Does the student have significant cognitive disabilities? Pennsylvania
defines significant cognitive disabilities as pervasive and global in nature,
affecting student learning in all academic content areas, as well as
adaptive behaviors and functional skills across life domains.
3. Does the student require intensive, direct, and repeated instruction in order
to learn and generalize academic, functional, and adaptive behavior skills
across multiple settings?
4. Does the student require extensive adaptations and support in order to
perform and/or participate meaningfully and productively in the everyday
life activities of integrated school, home, community, and work
environments?
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
32
5. Does the student require substantial modifications to the general education
curriculum?
6. Does the student’s participation in the general education curriculum differ
substantially in form and/or substance from that of most other students?
Students found eligible to take the PASA must have measurable annual
goals AND short-term objectives reflected in the IEP. (p. 26)
In addition, for English Language (EL) students, considerations would be made as
to the appropriateness of the state assessments and what accommodations may be
necessary for the student to show what they know to eliminate the language barrier to the
greatest extent possible. EL students, who take the Assessing Comprehension and
Communication in English State-to-State assessment, or ACCESS testing, have
considerations in this area of the IEP as well. The testing is broken into domains of
Reading, Writing, Speaking, and Listening. Accommodation exists for each of these
domains.
Much of the prior information leads up to the next section of the IEP known as
Part V Goals and Objectives. This area brings into action the need statements discussed
in the Present Levels of Academic and Functional Performance and potentially the
transition portion of the document. The goal statements are broken up into Measurable
Annual Goals and Short-Term Objectives. Measurable Annual Goals are necessary for
all students in the areas that affect their disability. This could include academic goals,
transition goals, or behavioral goals. Short Term Objectives are not necessary in all
cases. They are necessary, however, for students who participate in the PASA testing.
Hedin and DeSpain (2018) state that IEP goals “include four components: conditions,
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
33
learner, behavior, and criteria” (p.101). Goals need to be driven from the learner’s needs,
include the type of behavior that is desired for the student based off that need, and is
measurable to a criteria that includes baseline and successful attainment of the goal. As
an example, if we know that a student has a weakness in reading comprehension a
measurable annual goal may look like this:
Given a reading comprehension passage at a Lexile level of 700, Gavin will answer 80%
of the comprehension questions for the passage correctly from a baseline of 60%.
In this example, the learner’s needs would be stated in the present levels and known to
be in the reading comprehension area. We would also know from the present levels the
instructional level. The goal describes the behavior of the student answering correctly
the comprehension questions, with a criteria of 80% accuracy from a baseline of 60%.
Paramount to this Capstone Project is part VI of the IEP known as Related
Services/Supplementary Aids and Services, and Program Modifications. Specifically,
this section is broken into five parts, Specially Designed Instruction, Related Services,
Supports for School Personnel, Gifted Support Services and Extended School Year. For
the purposes of this Capstone Project we will focus on the Specially Designed Instruction
(SDI) portion of the IEP.
As you have read, the beginning of the literature review focused on the evolution
of legislation to support special education students in their educational growth. Primary
to this objective was access to the general education curriculum as well as placement in
the Least Restrictive Environment. The primary vehicle to achieving this success can be
found in section VI of the IEP. Here, the IEP team articulates the types of supports that
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
34
can be put in place to keep the student in the least restrictive educational environment,
accessing the regular curriculum.
Looking at part A, Specially Designed Instruction, this would be where staff
dealing with the student’s needs would find pertinent information about the
accommodations and modifications that are prescriptive in helping the student achieve in
the classroom. Part of the goal of this project is to look at the practices for
accommodations and modifications and to what level of fidelity their implementation
effects the student’s access to the curriculum, stay in the least restrictive environment,
and show growth. Specifically, the Assistance to States for the Education of Students
with Disabilities (2012) describe SDI’s as:
Adapting, as appropriate to the needs of an eligible child under this part, the
content, methodology or delivery of instruction (i) to address the unique needs of
the child that result from the child's disability; and (ii) to ensure access of the
child to the general curriculum, so that the child can meet the educational
standards within the jurisdiction of the public agency that apply to all children.
(§300.39[b])
These are supposed to be matched with the student’s deficits to overcome the barriers that
the disability places on the students access to curriculum and programming. The next
section breaks out the difference between accommodations and modifications and their
role in the academic program.
Accommodations are known within the special education and broader school
community as changing the way that students learn or present material. As Lovett and
Nelson (2020) state, “in either case, the essential content of the academic program
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
35
(instruction or testing) is retained, but the mode of administering an aspect of the
program (the timing, scheduling, setting, presentation style, or response format) is
altered” (p. 442). These accommodations may include changes to how students access
information or present information. As an example, a student with a reading disability
may access reading content from an audio book file for social studies class. Another
example may be that a student uses a calculator for certain abstract mathematics
problems so that the student can practice and demonstrate what they know about the
concept where calculation is not the targeted skill. These would be examples of
accommodations that allow a student to access information. Another example may be a
student who is able to use text to speech software in order to respond to a comprehension
question. In all cases, the standards that the student is being assessed on are the same as
their regular education counterparts.
However, some concerns exist with the efficacy of accommodations in the
educational program. It is suggested in some circles that the dissemination of
accommodation lists in government publications and by special education advocacy
groups has led to the inclusion of many accommodations in action plans that do not have
any research as to their effectiveness. Additionally, there are suggestions that
accommodations are easier for schools to implement and less costly than intervention
practices which are more costly resulting in proliferating the use of the accommodations
in IEP and 504 documents. However, research done by Lovett and Nelson (2020)
measured read alouds as one of the exceptions to the ineffectiveness of accommodations
for students with Attention Deficit Disorder. Also, VanSciver and Conover (2009) state
in their research that it was “reported that on computations and problem-solving
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
36
questions, teachers erred by over-identifying accommodations. Specifically, teachers
granted accommodations to large numbers of students with learning disabilities who
failed to profit from those accommodations more than would be expected among nondisabled students” (p. 3). Additionally, VanSciver & Conover (2009) state that much of
the decision making that goes into the use of accommodations come from a teacher’s
preferences, the ease at which an accommodation can be put into place, or the parent’s
urging the use of an accommodation.
In a study conducted by LeDoux et al. (2012) Likert style surveying was used to
determine staff perceptions of seven perceived teacher challenges in the classroom when
working with special needs children. In doing so, the researchers demonstrated that the
biggest challenges to staff were keeping special education students on pace with the
regular education curriculum as well as finding the time to meet the special education
students' needs. Comparatively, of much less concern to the staff was identifying and
implementing accommodations and modifications. This suggests some of the concerns
cited in this section of the fidelity of accommodations put in place and their actual effect
on student performance. One would reasonably expect that if the accommodations were
effective, keeping up with the content and finding time to meet the student needs would
not outpace choosing appropriate accommodations. The two should go hand in hand and
possibly reinforces the idea that accommodations are much more generic than pointedly
effective as discussed in Lovett and Nelson’s research.
Modifications, as opposed to accommodations, include the changing of the actual
content being learned rather than the way it is learned or demonstrated. According to the
PACER Center Champions for Children with Disabilities (2013), modifications are:
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
37
An adjustment to an assignment or a test that changes the standard or what the test
or assignment is supposed to measure. Examples of modifications include a
student completing work on part of a standard or a student completing an alternate
assignment that is more easily achievable than the assignment. (p. 1)
Decisions that teachers may make in the realm of modifications could include choosing
literature with a lower Lexile level but practicing or introducing similar concepts. In
essence, the student is learning the standards in a modified way. Another example may
be a teacher who modifies content for a student so that only the big ideas are
taught/assessed, leaving out some lesser essential elements of the content. Beyond
materials, modifications can also be rooted in grading practices, curriculum, and testing.
As an example, a grading modification may include partially grading the contents of the
assessment to the big ideas that the staff member wants to assess. Curriculum
modifications could potentially be shortened assignments that focus on the key concepts
being taught. Testing modifications may include changing the type of test given or
providing a word bank to the test, where other students may be asked to remember the
words from memory.
Interesting research conducted on the implementation of modifications was found
in a research study conducted by Hawpe (2013). In his research, Hawpe investigated
some key questions around willingness to implement modifications disaggregated by
gender, grade, regular education staff and special education staff, whether the teacher had
a disability themselves, or if a family member of the staff member had a disability. The
results suggested that more females than males were open to providing modifications for
their students in the classroom. In addition, it was found that neither middle school or
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
38
high school teachers are more or less inclined to provide modifications. Also, staff that
had a disability were more inclined to provide modifications to their students as well.
Lastly, it was found that special education teachers were more likely to give students
modified outlines and materials than were their regular education counterparts. This
research was pertinent to the Doctoral Capstone Project in that we are studying the
fidelity of accommodations and modifications and how that affects the least restrictive
environment in the core subjects.
While there are other components to the IEP, the last ones to discuss that affect
this Doctoral Capstone Project include Parts VII, Educational Placement and Part VIII,
Penn Data Reporting. They will be dealt with here together because of their close
relationship. The Educational Placement of the student deals directly with the LRE that
is spoken of so often in the IDEA regulations and in this project. The educational
placement is supposed to be driven from considerations in using supplementary aids and
services. The IEP team is to consider what supplementary aids and services are
necessary to help the student be successful in the placement that is recommended in the
IEP. This is also where the IEP team makes specific statements about how the student
will be included in the regular education classroom and regular education curriculum.
The IEP team is asked the following questions.
1. Explanation of the extent, if any, to which the student will not participate with
students without disabilities in the regular education class.
2. Explanation of the extent, if any, to which the student will not participate with
students without disabilities in the general education curriculum.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
39
Depending on the answers to these questions, the team would declare the level of support
that the student will receive. There are three levels of support considered in this area.
They are itinerant, supplemental, and full time support services. Itinerant support refers
to the lowest level of support where the student spends less than 20% of their day outside
of the regular education classroom. Supplemental support refers to 20%-79% of the day
outside of the regular education environment. This is followed by full time support, that
is 80-100% of the school day separated from their regular education peers.
Continuum of Support
Students with disabilities are serviced in public schools under the direction of
LRE. Schools are expected, to the extent possible, to provide this education with
supports in the regular education setting. School districts are also asked to provide
supports that would be commensurate with the needs that the students have. The type of
support is critical and challenges old ways of thinking with regard to a type of support
(Learning Support, Emotional Support, Life Skills Support, Etc.) as opposed to a place
where the support is given. Three categories of location are typically found in public
education, and they are inclusive regular education classrooms, pull-out classrooms, and
settings in a separate school.
According to Choi et al. (2020), research indicates that including students in the
regular education environment meaningfully results in improved academic and social
outcomes for students with disabilities. This research makes the argument compelling for
schools to implement support in this environment. One such model of support to help
students with disabilities gain access to the regular classroom is the coteaching model.
Within this model, there are two educators present in the classroom at any one time.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
40
Sinclair et al. (2018) indicates that this arrangement usually includes a special education
teacher who serves as an intervention specialist and a regular education teacher that
serves as a content specialist. However, within the model of coteaching there are
different approaches. There are generally six of these approaches that have been
developed as a framework for coteaching (Friend, 2008, as cited in Sinclair et al., 2018).
These models include one teach, one observe, one teach, one assist, parallel teaching,
station teaching, alternative teaching, and team teaching. A goal that is sought by
teachers in a coteaching arrangement using these approaches is that there isn’t a
discernable difference between the special education teacher and content area teacher.
While the approaches may be different in the classroom, the view from the students is
hoped to be that the two professionals are their teachers (Hurd & Wielbacher, 2017).
Perceived benefits of the model include reducing the student-to-teacher ratio in such a
way that students get more attention, improving the delivery of content when presented
from multiple viewpoints, providing for teamwork opportunities, and eliminating some of
the negative connotations associated with being pulled out of the regular classroom
environment (Hacket et al., 2020).
In the one teach, one observe approach either the content area teacher (CAT) or
the special education teacher (SET) would be delivering the main portion of instruction.
The other teacher would be conducting data collection in order to plan for interventions
needed for the student’s success. While this could be either teacher in either role, the
intervention specialist is often the data gatherer while the content specialist, CAT is
delivering the instruction to the class (Sinclair et al., 2018).
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
41
In the one teach, one assist model, one of the professional staff are conducting the
instruction for the class while the other instructor is monitoring the students and
providing assistance to students who demonstrate need. This assistance can involve 1:1
support on the current assignment, or behavioral interventions necessary due to
frustration with the activity being conducted (Sinclair et al., 2018).
In the parallel teaching approach, there is a splitting of the classroom into two
groups. In this model the teachers are vested equally in the instruction and assessment of
the lesson. Students could be heterogeneously grouped or homogeneously grouped in
order to serve the approach that the activity is trying to accomplish. Of usefulness with
this model is the ability to achieve more facetime and accountability to student learning
since you are effectively cutting the class in half. Sinclair et al. (2018) states that this
method is great for the reviewing of information because it gives students more
opportunities to demonstrate what they know and don’t know for the instructor.
Using station teaching is yet another model that staff can use when implementing
a coteaching approach. Station teaching refers to the ability of the instructors to work
with small groups of students. When this occurs, the teachers plan for specific activities
that could be without the teacher present, such as centers, mixed in with small group
sessions with the teacher that can provide targeted interventions for students. This leads
to a level of differentiation for students throughout the lesson.
Alternative teaching refers to the SET and CAT grouping students based off
assessment and feedback. This method requires formative assessment practice that
determines what students need small group instruction on a topic while other students
may receive whole group instruction (Sinclair et al., 2018). In doing so, the teachers are
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
42
identifying needs, based in data, and responding to those needs in real time. An example
of this might be students taking a bell ringer assessment that measures their
understanding of simplifying fractions. Based on this result, the SET may take a small
number of students who are showing basic skill deficits in simplifying fractions.
Whereas students who may have a stronger understanding of the content may work on
more complex ratio problems that practice this skill in an application type format.
Remediation is provided where necessary to the small group so that the application piece
can then be applied while not holding up the students ready for this task.
Lastly, team teaching refers to the practice of both teachers delivering instruction
at the same time to the whole group. Sinclair et al. (2018) indicates that this model
highlights the strengths of each teacher during the lesson and may appeal to different
students from the differing approaches that the instructors have. One weakness to this
model is that it does not present itself with many opportunities to differentiate instruction
for students.
Having a knowledge of these different models enables the teachers involved to
choose between them based off what they are trying to accomplish. If the goal of the
lesson is to differentiate then one would certainly not use the one teach, one observe or
team-teaching method. Likewise, during the initial instruction phase, the team teaching,
one teach, one observe, or the one teach, one assist approach may be the best method.
Challenges to the implementation of the coteaching model are plentiful. Teacher
common planning time, as one example, is a primary ingredient to the success of the
framework. Without this necessary component, teacher ability to make adaptions and
discuss scope and sequence affects the efficacy of the model. Additionally, Scruggs et al.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
43
(2007) explains that the depth of knowledge that the co-teacher has in the subject matter
can also play a role in the model’s success. This is viewed as a barrier to a co-teacher
being a fully valued member of the classroom or being treated as an equal. Hacket et. al
(2020) notes certain attributes that successful staff may have that play a role in the
success of the program. Teachers who engage in the model successfully are most
commonly flexible, have trust with their co-teacher, enter the process voluntarily, and
have strong interpersonal and communication skills.
Much discussion has occurred regarding the effectiveness of this model. For
practitioners and administrators there are challenging factors to overcome before a coteaching framework can function properly. According to staff who have been surveyed
on this piece, concepts such as common planning time, shared responsibilities,
compatibility, and desire have all played a role in the success of this approach. Sinclair
et. al (2018) notes that the research on the effectiveness of the co-teaching framework has
limited information, however. Murawski & Swanson (2001) (as cited in Sinclair et al.,
2018) noted that the net effect of students in pull out instruction and those in co-teaching
classrooms had very little net difference in achievement. In fact, it was noted that “of 89
identified studies on co-teaching, only 6 could be analyzed for effects and the average
effect size was only 0.40” (p. 307). Still other research noted by Fuchs et al. (2015)
stated that students below the 10th percentile that were in pull out environments had a
greater increase in their achievement relative to students in inclusive settings. However,
other research focused on the feelings of students in coteaching arrangements were much
more positive. According to Gokbulut et al. (2020) students reported being “happy,
successful, and academically prepared during the coteaching practices, found the
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
44
materials used by their teachers interesting, were willing to attend the class and were
pleased to be in school” (p.12). Another study by Rosati (2009) (as cited in Gokbulut et
al., 2020) stated that students felt they were better able to get the help they needed
quickly and efficiently in a coteaching environment.
A placement option that exists in public schools is the regular classroom with
supports outlined in the IEP, tailored to the student’s needs. This differs from the
cotaught classroom in that the environment has one teacher facilitating instruction. Burns
(2007), states that the “regular education classroom teacher has the expertise that is
crucial for a child with a disability to achieve satisfactorily in the regular education
classroom” (p. 27). He goes on to say that this crucial individual knows the framework
and structure of the curriculum and is an expert in helping the student in attaining the
goals of the course and sequential benchmarks. This environment may include supports
such as paraprofessional support, modified curriculum, accommodations such as
lengthened time to complete assignments, or the ability to have assessments read, to
name a few examples. However, the primary prescriptive instruction is outlined in the
specially designed instruction portion of the IEP that is implemented in this environment.
Thurlow et al. (2005) cite five major accommodation categories for students in the
general education classroom. These categories include timing such as alternate test
schedules, response such as ways in which students present what they know, setting that
include changes to where tasks are completed, equipment and materials such as text to
speech computer functions, and presentation such as how a student represents what they
have learned.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
45
Within the regular classroom framework there are additional practices that occur
that help the student be successful beyond the accommodation strategies discussed.
Differentiated instruction has been a widely used approach to meeting the needs of
learners that come to the classroom with different skillsets and readiness. Tomlinson (as
cited in Goodard et al., 2019) notes this approach as a means for the learner to have
varied ways to interact with the content. Goodard (2019) goes on to say that this could
include changes to content, process, and what is produced by the student based on the
“student’s readiness, interests, or needs” (p. 201). Tomlinson herself noted in an
interview with the School of Education at the University of Virginia that differentiation
means “trying to make sure that teaching and learning work for the full range of students”
(Bell, 2011, para. 2). Tomlinson states that this comes down to three student need areas
of student readiness, student interest, and student learning profile. This includes what
Tomlinson refers to as modes of learning that have four facets of gender, culture, learning
styles, and intelligence preferences. Tomlinson cites that much of the difficulty in
incorporating differentiated instruction in the classroom is that it must take into account
the four facets. To do one facet of the program, such as incorporating learning styles is
only implementing part of what makes differentiated instruction work. Therefore,
Tomlinson refers to implementation of differentiated instruction as a second order change
process. It requires teachers to rethink their classroom and being comfortable with
multiple things going on at the same time. These are some of the barriers to effective
differentiation in the classroom.
Lastly, the IEP team may decide that a student’s education is best supported in a
pull-out classroom. This is known as a more restrictive environment, as the class
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
46
operates with only students with disabilities and not in the general education setting. The
purpose of the pull-out classroom is to provide smaller, individualized instruction.
Teachers in this setting are given more opportunity to pace instruction to meet the needs
of the learner's content acquisition rate. Causton-Theoharis et al. (2011) stated that selfcontained classrooms are more protective environments. Some have gone as far as to say
that a pull-out environment is necessary and that subjecting students with disabilities to
the regular education classroom and corresponding assessments was actually
discriminating against the special education student (Albrecht & Joles, 2003). Another
author boldly stated, ‘‘the goals of teaching all children well and teaching all children in
the same place and at the same time (i.e., full inclusion) are on a collision course for
some students’’ and that ‘‘we cannot avoid the ‘train wreck’ of these two goals unless we
give up one for the other in some cases’’ (Kauffman et al., 2005, p. 2). These arguments
have made the inclusion of the pull-out classroom an option in the continuum of support
that schools have offered.
The pull-out setting does not come without its share of concerns, however. Some
of the drawbacks to this type of program can include stigmatization (Klingner et al.,
1998). Also, there is a great deal of debate in the research world as to whether pull-out
classrooms are effective in achieving a better outcome for students with disabilities.
Fuchs et al. (1993) had conducted research that demonstrated that students receiving
math instruction showed greater gains in the pull-out classroom. However, interestingly,
in a study conducted by Hurt (2012), the author noted that he had found eighteen studies
on the effects of inclusive practice as compared to pull-out practice. Of those studies, ten
showed a positive correlation to achievement for students in inclusive settings vs. pull-
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
47
out settings, while seven showed no difference to placement in inclusive settings vs. pullout settings, and one showed a negative result to placement in inclusive settings vs. pullout settings that tipped the scale slightly in favor of educating students in inclusive
settings. Hurt’s study also included studies of Virginia’s standardized testing framework
and found that there wasn’t any significant difference between students in pull out
settings and inclusive settings. So, the research about the effectiveness of pull-out and
inclusive practice seems to fall short of declaring a best approach. Most likely this is due
to the varied nature of students' skills and readiness, teacher experience and readiness,
school resources, and local mindsets as it relates to the implementation of these
programs.
Instructional Practices
As has been explained in the IEP process, there is specially designed instruction
that is provisioned for students with disabilities in the classroom setting. Namely these
are modifications and accommodations that affect the delivery of instruction that meets
their specified needs. However, what are examples of these kinds of modifications and
accommodations? Also, is there any empirical evidence that these instructional practices
actually work for students with disabilities. As mentioned in the literature review,
modifications are changes to what is taught to students. Accommodations are changes in
the environment that allow students to work around their disabilities. The Iris Center
(2021) notes four types of accommodations that involve presentation, response, setting,
and timing/scheduling. We will look at both modifications and accommodations in more
detail below.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
48
Looking at modification practices first, researchers have suggested that there are
two types of modifications made to curriculum (Wehmeyer et al., 2002). The first is
curriculum adaptation and the second is curriculum augmentation. Curriculum
adaptation refers to how content is represented or in how students respond to curriculum.
This adaptation does not alter the content that the student is learning. Principles of
Universal Design for Learning (UDL) strongly support curriculum adaptation in practice.
UDL is a method for staff to vary how material is presented, how teachers deliver the
content, and how students show what they have learned (Rose & Meyer, 2002). An
example of how material is represented and presented may be in the selection of text,
graphics, pictures, or audio and video content to name a few. When delivering content,
varied approaches may include lectures, visual presentation (such as slide shows), role
playing, or computer mediated instruction. Lastly, when it comes to showing what they
have learned students may be given options such as reports, exams, portfolios, drawings,
performances, oral reports, videotaped reports, or other alternative means for evaluation.
Curriculum augmentation, on the other hand, refers to layering supporting skills
in the delivery of content. Lee et al. (2006) cites that these augmentations may include
helping students with meta-cognitive or executive functioning strategies to access the
content and teaching students to learn how to learn. Contrary to what the title might
indicate, augmentation does not mean that curriculum is altered. It is only that there are
skills embedded that assist the student in understanding the material being taught. Lee et
al. (2006) gives other examples of curriculum augmentation such as shadowing, verbatim
notes, graphic organizers, semantic maps, mnemonics, chunking, questioning, and
visualizing strategies.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
49
Looking at some of these examples in more detail, Lee et al. (2006) explains the
use of graphic organizers creates a visual that helps the student organize information in a
way that they can understand. An example of this might be a Venn Diagram that shows
information that two groups/items have in common represented in the overlap of two
circles but show their differences in the parts of the circle that are not overlapping. This
visual representation that compares and contrasts the items is helpful in providing a
framework to conceptualize the information. Another augmentation, chunking, is a
strategy that is used to put strands of information together in a manner that connects the
material in smaller units of information. This makes it easier for the learner to synthesize
the information. Mnemonic devices are another example of modifications that aide a
student in memory recall. Using this method, one uses imagery through pictures or
words that help students recall information. A popular example that most learners can
remember from their school days is Please Excuse My Dear Aunt Sally when thinking
about the order of operations parenthesis, exponents, multiplication, division, addition,
and subtraction.
Modifications in the regular classroom can be difficult to implement due to the
time and thought that goes into creating these flexible opportunities. Research by
Dymond & Russell (2004) (as cited in Lee et al., 2010) suggests that studies conducted to
determine modifications made for students with mild disabilities in the classroom were
almost nonexistent. However, in their research, when students were subject to
modifications there was a high correlation between positive student academic responses
and the presence of those modifications. They also found that these modifications were
mostly noted in social studies and science and not in Language Arts and math. Still other
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
50
research has noted the higher quality individualized education programming existed when
modifications were present that included better social outcomes (Kurth & Mastergeorge
2010, as cited in Morningstar et al., 2015). Carter et al. (2012) conducted research that
also showed a high correlation between students with disabilities in the general education
setting and their adult outcomes. Such research continues to drive schools forward in
creating opportunities for students to access the curriculum in the regular classroom
through modifications made by staff.
Accommodations offer other support to students trying to access the curriculum in
the regular education environment. As stated previously, these deal with manipulation of
the classroom environment and deal mainly with presentation, response, setting, and
timing/scheduling. Generally, accommodations are applied for instructional purposes
and for assessment purposes. Lazarus et al. (2006) reveal that the most popular
accommodations for testing include extended time, small group testing, reading test items
aloud, and reading test directions aloud. Instructional accommodations include items
such as text to speech software, picture dictionaries, reduction in clutter or number of
problems presented on a page, large print materials, responding to items by pointing, or
preferential seating to name a few. Some accommodations can be both testing and
instructional in nature. An example might be items read aloud such that a student’s
reading disability does not interfere with the understanding of print materials. In the
research that was done by Lazarus et al. (2006), teachers were asked why they use
accommodations in the classroom. It was noted that the top two responses for why
teachers use accommodations instructionally were to create higher levels of independence
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
51
and to allow access to the general education curriculum. Staff went on to say that they
used student abilities to make these determinations.
Assessment Practices with Students with Disabilities
Formative and summative assessment practices are essential elements of any
classroom serving any student, regardless of the presence of a disability. Formative
assessment would include data that the teacher gathers each day to help them understand
where a student stands in building an understanding of the material. This assessment is
conducted concurrently with instruction (McTighe & O’Connor, 2005). To be effective,
this assessment must have certain elements of timing, specificity, understanding, and
allow for students to judge their learning with an opportunity to correct their
misunderstandings prior to summative measures (Wiggins, 1998). Dixson and Worrell
(2016) give us feedback that says formative assessment is both planned and unplanned.
Teachers asking pointed questions that are a part of their lesson planning and expertise or
homework would fall into planned formative assessment. Other examples of planned
formative assessment may include an exit ticket or bell ringer activity. These respective
activities that occur at the end or beginning of class respectively, are a method for the
teacher to know if the student was able to use what was asked of them during class or
from the previous class. All of this is meant to inform the teacher. On the other hand,
unplanned formative assessment might include a teacher that notices students are not
understanding a concept, and probes deeper into these misunderstandings by deviating
from the lesson plan. Whether planned or unplanned, formative assessment is a key
element to guiding the teacher through day-to-day decision making about next steps in
lesson design.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
52
Summative assessment occurs when the teacher is assessing what a student has
learned at the end of a unit of learning (American Educational Research Association et
al., 2014). Most of us are very used to the traditional summative assessment method, the
chapter test. In this case, the teacher has taught the material and measures if the goal of
teaching that information was achieved. However, another type of summative
assessment that one may not think of in this category of assessment includes
performance-based assessments. These assessments are built around a demonstration of
what was learned. If you think about a Family Consumer Science class as an example,
students putting into practice what they learned about recipes and, as a culminating
activity, may cook something using those skills would be an example of a performancebased assessment. Another more common example might include an argumentative essay
that is written by students at the conclusion of a series of planned instruction about this
method of writing where the student may lobby for a change in the school’s dress code
(Dixon & Worrell, 2016).
The importance of ongoing use of formative and summative assessment is crucial
to ongoing systems of monitoring student performance. These two systems are not
separate and work in conjunction with one another (McTighe & O’Connor, 2005).
When used cohesively they help the teacher pace their instruction, adjust instruction, and
ultimately increase the outcomes for students in the class. Houston and Thompson
(2017) suggest that the interplay between these two processes is really a communication
framework about learning. These practices create evidence for the teacher in a way that
allows them to make judgements. Knight (2002) refers to this as sense making and claim
making regarding student learning.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
53
Also important in this Doctoral Capstone Project is the use of standardized test
measures that assess student progress in the curriculum. A benchmark tool in this project
is the Measure of Academic Progress (MAP). MAP testing, as it’s known, is authored by
the Northwest Evaluation Association. The MAP is a computer adaptive test that is given
throughout the year and gives feedback on growth. MAP is an assessment tool that was
developed by NWEA, a nonprofit organization that has been in existence for forty years.
This is a Pre-K-12 assessment tool that is used by over 9500 schools in 145 countries
(Northwest Evaluation Association [NWEA] 2021a). The client base for this
organization and their tools are quite extensive. According to the MAP Growth fact sheet
produced by NWEA (2021b), the assessment adjusts to student responses to give
thorough reporting on what a student is ready to do. The assessment is given over
multiple periods of time, usually three but can be done up to four times. This periodic
implementation of the assessment measures growth over those three periods. The norms
are invoked for pools of testing that occurred in prior years at the same time for other test
takers, which allows for strong statistical analysis. In addition to this, scores on the MAP
are normed nationally and use a linear scale called a RIT scale, short for Rasch Unit.
The linear scale enables student scores to be placed on a continuum that is common for
all students, regardless of grade. In other words, the score achieved for a fifth grader and
eighth grader who have the same RIT score are theoretically achieving on the same level.
NWEA (2021) reports that they can leverage 10.2 million students to gain insights about
student learning, making it statistically reliable. NWEA touts that this data culture is
more equitable because it includes both mastery and growth. In this way, students are
given credit for their improvements because it respects where a student has started.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
54
Research on the effect of MAP implementation appears to lack volume, but there
is substantial research on the effects of formative assessment (Cordray et al., 2012).
However, research that is pertinent to the use of MAP as a predictable tool for student
readiness for learning and for projected growth is well documented. Looking at the study
conducted in 2015, NWEA was able to show "for mathematics, a pattern of steady
increase in standard deviations over grade levels” that was “evident for both students and
schools” (p. 40). Other research done by Ball & O’Connor (2016) using a regression
analysis was able to demonstrate reliability on its ability to predict student performance
on the state standardized achievement tests in Wisconsin. They concluded a high level of
reliability using this model. Still, in other research, Klingbeil et al. (2015) looked at the
reliability of the scores, noting a high level of correlation, particularly when multiple
measures were given throughout the year. However, there is also evidence to suggest that
the quality of teacher preparation to use the MAP data is a predictor of implementation
success as well (Wagner, 2020). In other words, while reliable as a predictor, how to use
the benchmark formatively is more elusive without adequate teacher preparation.
The PSSA on the other hand, is a summative assessment measure in the state of
Pennsylvania that has a long history of implementation. The PSSA is administered in the
spring for students in grades 3-8 in Math and ELA and in grades 4 and 8 in science
(Pennsylvania Department of Education, 2022). The Pennsylvania Department of
Education notes that this is a standards-based, criterion referenced assessment. A
criterion referenced assessment is one that compares the student score to a standard, in
this case established cut scores. In other words, cut scores that students achieve are based
on what they know and not how they compare to other students, which would be a norm
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
55
referenced assessment. The assessment is based on the PA Common Core Standards.
The PA Core Standards were adopted in July 2010 and were modeled after the National
Common Core standards. This is the standard most widely used in the state for
measuring student performance and school performance.
PVAAS is the tool by which the state reports student progress to stakeholders.
This data tool reports not only achievement but also growth and will predict student
achievement based on the students’ prior testing history. The methodology used to
measure growth gives credit to schools and staff for making gains with students even if
their achievement data is Basic or Below Basic, which are two of the lowest score
categories. This process involves taking the students testing data and compares it to
previous years' assessment data for that cohort of students. The process looks at the
students' relative position within the group from year to year. Students who move their
relative position up within the group make greater relative gains to their peers. Whereas
students who move down from their relative position show regression when compared to
their peers. Of course, it is also possible that a student maintains their relative position.
While PVAAS does not report individual students’ growth, it does take the group
of students involved at the school and classroom level and applies an aggregate score to
that group known as the growth measure. This growth measure is compared to the
growth standard that has been calculated for the entire student group in the state based on
the average of the prior years’ testing history. PVAAS uses a color-coded key to signify
this growth. Dark Blue signifies strong evidence that the instructional program is moving
students up the continuum. Light blue signifies moderate evidence that the educational
program is moving students up the continuum. Green signifies evidence that the
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
56
educational program is maintaining students' growth. Yellow is moderate evidence that
the educational program is causing students to lose ground. Finally, red is strong
evidence that students are losing ground in the educational program. It is important to
note that green is not a negative data point. However, as one might expect, if we are
talking about students in a classroom who are in the lowest performance group, a green
indicator is not helping those students make gains to raise their achievement to be
commensurate with their peers. So, in this case, the goal for this targeted group would
ultimately be a light blue to dark blue indicator demonstrating positive growth beyond the
growth standard.
PVAAS also uses what is called projections. In the case of ELA and math,
projections take all the prior testing history for a student on all subject tests to formulate a
prediction for future performance. The methodology then takes that score profile and
compares it to students who have scored similarly in the past and what they achieved on
the current test in question. According to the paper published by the Pennsylvania
Department of Education (2021), the methodology is very reliable statistically from the
years of giving the assessment.
In summation, PVAAS is a reporting method that allows schools to accurately
look at their growth and achievement collectively. This tool and methodology takes into
account where students start and acknowledges growth as a measure of a school or
teacher’s effect on students. This is argued to be a much better methodology that serves
different types of schools fairly. Traditionally low performing students, who are perhaps
in lower performing schools, can find improvement initiatives challenging and hard to
measure. This method acknowledges their growth as an evaluative measure of their
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
57
change initiatives. Likewise, students and schools who do well in measures of
achievement may become stagnant and lack a bigger picture of their students’ growth. In
those cases, when their students start to lose their relative positioning, yielding negative
growth scores, that is an indication that good isn’t good enough.
Literature Review Summary
This Doctoral Capstone Project is built on the concept of Least Restrictive
Environment for students as established over the decades of evolution that special
education has undergone. The laws have continued to progress, making it the expectation
that students are educated in the regular education environment with supplementary aids
and services to the greatest extent possible. With the evolution of the law, so too has
there been an evolution in the processes in schools for evaluating and placing students.
This literature review looked at the important processes at play in the Evaluation Report,
that shows the methodology for a student to be placed in special education, as well as the
recommendations that are meant to support the student in there identified areas of need.
The identification process led to the establishment of the Individualized Education Plan,
that used the evaluation to design a prescriptive course of action to support students in the
least restrictive environment identified by the IEP team. This included the environments
that the student may be educated in throughout a school day such as, cotaught
classrooms, regular classrooms with supports, pull out classrooms, and separate schools.
Integral to this project is how all of these processes lead to success in the least restrictive
environment using the supports in the IEP that include modifications and
accommodations. The effectiveness of these supports is the crucial piece, that often is
dependent on a teacher’s understanding of them and best practices in implementing them
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
58
in the classroom. Lastly, the literature review looked at assessment practices in the
classroom, in the school, and statewide. These assessment frameworks are essential in
understanding how students attain success in the least restrictive environments they are
educated as well as measuring school progress on teaching curriculum. As you can see,
these processes are all intermingled, but all pointed to one thing, student progress and
success in school!
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
59
CHAPTER III
Methodology
The review of literature makes it clear that the push to educate students in the
least restrictive environment is the main goal of federal and state legislation. From the
earliest forms of legislation, such as P.L. 94-142, pressure and movement from
stakeholders drove the concept of FAPE with four primary tenants. Those tenants were
ensuring students with disabilities had access to a free public education that was
appropriate, that parents’ and students’ rights were protected, that states had the backing
of the federal government to achieve these goals, and that effectiveness of these programs
could be measured across the country (United States Department of Education, 2020).
Furthermore, the purpose has evolved from protecting those four tenants to funneling the
definition of what is appropriate. The IDEA legislation reauthorized in 1997 had strong
wording of to the maximum extent possible children with disabilities would be included
with their same aged peers (1997, p.111). This language forced schools to look at their
practice intensively and that level of introspection is still occurring today.
This push to include students in the regular classroom is accomplished through
thorough planning guided by the multi-disciplinary evaluation process and subsequent
development of the IEP. Specifically, within the IEP is the plan for supplementary aides
and services that includes specially designed instruction made up of accommodations and
modifications that include strategies such as coteaching and paraprofessional support.
This background is a key understanding in the “why” of the research.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
60
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to look at accommodations and modifications
delivered in the classroom in more detail that help schools achieve LRE and FAPE. The
focus will essentially be on their application across settings and on teacher perception as
to their importance overall and by content area. The goal is student success as it relates
to student achievement measured using a variety of data points that include grades,
adaptive tests, standardized test scores, and predictive metrics. The research focus is on
what practices are working in the classrooms with student supports that yield better
results. This research is meant to look at best practices that can be highlighted and
replicated through reinforcing actual student data across classrooms and grade levels
where students with IEP’s show stronger growth.
To do so, the researcher decided to use a mixed method approach, combining the
best attributes of qualitative and quantitative study techniques. This led to a research
plan that collected data starting with what the current perceptions and practices were in
the classroom. This was then followed by a study of achievement prediction measures
and actual student growth measures that were followed by a closer look at student
movement between classes throughout the year. Without the lens placed on these
common data points, schools operate on independent measures and beliefs about what is
working within a classroom that may or may not be entirely accurate. The more objective
feedback that a teacher and school system can obtain helps drive the organization, staff,
and students to better results. In the end, the intent is for the research to validate best
practices for student support implementation occurring in the school to help guide teacher
development initiatives to best serve our special education student population and staff.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
61
Research Questions
There are three key questions to answer within the construct of this research
project that are supported by a clear collection of data points using a variety of
instruments.
Research question number 1 is:
What are teachers’ perceptions about student supports outlined in a student’s IEP and
how are those supports implemented in their classrooms?
Research question number 2 is:
What relationship, if any, is there between teacher perceptions/implementation of student
supports and student achievement?
Research question number 3 is:
What movement from regular education classes to more restrictive pull-out classes occur
over the course of a year and is there any correlation to perception and implementation of
student supports?
These questions illustrate the alignment of the purpose of the research study and the data
being sought. As one can see, if we are trying to highlight what teacher practices
regarding accommodations and modifications produce better results, teacher perception
of the supports, aligned with student performance measures, as well as studying student
movement to and from the least restrictive environment support the purpose of the study.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
62
Setting and Participants
Bethel Park School District is a K-12 public school located to the south of
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The district is within the Municipality of Bethel Park that
comprises 11.67 square miles of territory. This is slightly larger than the surrounding
communities in terms of geographical size. As of 2019 there were 32,177 people living in
Bethel Park. The median salary of families in the community was $79,894 dollars while
the median home cost $188,600 dollars. Additionally, 80% of the families in Bethel Park
owned their own homes. Regarding race, the population of citizens in 2019 was 91.6%
white, 2.59% multi-racial, 2.17% black, 2.17% Asian, 1.42% Hispanic/Latino, and .06%
of the population was American Indian. The median age of a person in Bethel Park was
46.6 years. Lastly, those individuals living below the poverty line in Bethel Park made up
4.64% of the total population (Data USA, n.d.).
The school district itself is comprised of five elementary buildings, one 5-6
middle school building, one 7-8 middle school building, and one 9-12 high school
building. This study is being conducted at Independence Middle School, which is made
up of students in the 7th and 8th grade. The school is scheduled via the middle school
concept. The middle school concept utilizes the school within a school approach. This
entails breaking staff into teams where a portion of the students are scheduled to a
specific group of educators. This creates a smaller community feel, where teams can take
on their own identity, developing a more personal approach that is responsive to the
middle school students’ needs. Independence Middle School has five of these teams.
There are two 7th grade teams, two 8th grade teams, and one team, referred to as a “split”
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
63
team, that has both 7th and 8th grade students. However, students on this split team do not
mix by grade level within their classes.
A team at Independence Middle School is made up of either 6 or 7 teachers. In
7th grade, the staff make-up is one social studies teacher, one science teacher, one math
teacher, one Language Arts teacher, one reading teacher, and one special education
teacher. In eighth grade this team is expanded to include a health teacher that teaches a
semester course to the students. To accommodate the inclusion of this course in 8th grade,
the reading class is taught for one semester so that the health course can be taught in the
opposite semester. The core team members have common planning time three days a
week. During this time, the core team staff can meet to plan for upcoming activities
across content areas, discuss student needs, conduct parent meetings, participate in IEP
and Chapter 15 Service Agreement meetings, and meet with administrative and counseling
staff on student needs. It is also time that can be used to implement professional
development learning opportunities for staff.
The school day for the student is made up of nine periods. These periods include
instruction based on the Pennsylvania Chapter 4 regulations, PA Standards, and PA
Common Core Standards. These periods include Math, Social Studies, Reading,
Language Arts, Science, World Language, Unified Arts, Physical Education, and lunch.
Physical Education is a course that operates every other day on a six-day rotation while
the others operate every day. These are the standard courses that students typically take at
school. However, many students do take part in performing arts such as band, chorus, and
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
orchestra as well.
64
These courses operate every other day on a six-day rotation and are
opposite of physical education in the student’s schedule.
There are students who require additional supports throughout the school day and
whose schedule may look different than stated. One of the supports offered to students is
Academic Assistance. This course is a structured time slot where staff can work with
students on organization, study habits, reteaching of concepts, and work completion.
This support is typically offered every other day in the six-day rotation. In addition to
this support for regular education students, there are resource class periods available to
students with an IEP to provide some of the specially designed instruction while also
providing opportunity for reteaching, organizational support, and work completion.
The remediation program at Independence Middle School includes coursework in
reading and math. The reading remediation services are broken into two separate
components based on a student’s need. The Academy of Reading is the first of these two
courses. This program focuses on structured literacy programming that includes
decoding and encoding, fluency, and reading comprehension. A student who may take
this course is typically a student with the greatest reading skill deficits. The second of the
two reading courses is entitled Read 180. This course was designed for readers who
struggle with comprehension. It assumes that the foundational literacy skills are
mastered such as decoding and encoding, targeting comprehension skill building almost
exclusively.
Math remediation also happens in two tiers at Independence Middle School. The
first tier includes a course called The Academy of Math program. This program, similar
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
65
to its reading counterpart, focuses on students who have the greatest skill deficits. The
course works on their individualized skill gaps. The second course is called Math Lab
where the targeted group of students are close to being proficient on PSSA testing and
work on extended opportunities within the grade level concepts that they are learning.
These two tiers of courses are populated at the beginning of the year by looking at
standardized test scores and classroom grades.
Students are scheduled on teams through a variety of factors at the school. First, a
student who requires special education services are partitioned by their needs onto one of
the special education teacher’s caseloads who are already assigned to individual teams.
Scheduling of special education student’s courses is typically one of the first things done.
For the rest of the student body, they are scheduled to a team based on their math
sequence primarily. Depending on the number of math sections required year to year, not
every team has the same math courses available to the students. So, the first decision to
be made with students’ team placement is largely based on what math they need and how
many sections of that math are available on each team. Lastly, there are other factors that
contribute to team placement driven by a student’s course requests. Course requests such
as band, chorus, and orchestra, as well as World Language selection may push a student
from one team to another. This is because combinations of classes desired by the student
may not fit the team schedule. To illustrate this, if there is only one section of French for
7th grade that is period 3 and one of the teams is teaching period 3, that student would not
be able to be scheduled on that team. These scheduling conflicts usually resolve
themselves by changing the team assignment.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
66
The demographic make-up of the school includes a current population of 611
students. The breakdown of the student body is listed in Table 1.
Table 1
Independence Middle School Demographic Data
Number of Students
Percent of the population
Gender
Female
290 students
47.70% of student pop.
Male
318 students
52.30% of student pop.
1 student
0.16% of student pop.
Asian or Pacific
Islander
26 students
4.28% of student pop.
Black
24 students
3.95% of student pop.
Hispanic
10 students
1.64% of student pop.
White
547 students
89.97% of student pop.
Subgroups
504
41 students
6.74% of student pop.
ELL
11 students
1.81% of student pop.
FRL
104 students
17.11% of student pop.
IEP
97 students
15.95% of student pop.
Race
American Indian
Independence Middle School has continued to evolve in its service delivery and
continuum of support in special education. At the start of the researcher’s tenure at the
school in 2005, the special education delivery structure included placements such as Life
Skills Support, Autistic Support, and Learning Support. Learning support services were
delivered by the team special education teacher. Conversely, students in the Life Skills
and Autistic Support program were included on teams for various subjects and for the
purpose of team activities. However, the Life Skills and Autistic Support teachers were
not attached to the team and serviced students from across the school. On the other hand,
Learning Support teachers were assigned to individual teams. Content taught by the
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
67
Learning Support staff included math, reading, Language Arts, and a resource class that
provided back up instruction for students’ coursework throughout the day. Generally,
this resulted in either 5 or 6 periods of instruction for the learning support staff member.
Life Skills and Autistic Support teachers generally taught 5 or 6 periods of classes as
well.
Around the year 2015, a change was made to the scheduling of learning support
staff. While the learning support teachers were still attached to a team for the purpose of
scheduling students, the concept of content specialist became a focus in the development
of the special education department. The premise behind this change was the belief that
it was very difficult for the teacher to design lessons for three diverse subjects and be
proficient in that content area to a high level. A fundamental belief at that time, and still
held today, is that the teacher who understands the content in depth is best equipped to
recognize student misunderstandings in that content area. It was also believed that the
teacher could design better lessons that were more engaging and cohesive throughout the
year if they had a content specialty at which they could become proficient. Special
education teachers were well versed in adaptations and modifications but did not
necessarily have the background in all three content areas that their team-teaching
colleagues had. This was also coming on the heels of what was called “Bridge
Certification”. This was an attempt by the Department of Education to push for content
area proficiency. Bridge certification has since been abandoned by the state, but its
impetus was to really drive the instructor proficiency piece and arguably had some merit.
From the scheduling standpoint of staff at that time, the decision was made between
teachers and administration to maintain a learning support teacher on each team.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
68
However, students requiring pull out instruction would receive their core instruction for
that course by the learning support content specialist. As an example, the math specialist
may be attached to a specific 7th grade team, provide resource support for that team, but
teach all students requiring pull out math in the 7th grade.
Around the year 2017 there was an increasing gap that was noticeable in the
continuum of support offered to learning support students. This gap was the absence of
the coteaching concept as one of the support options for students. The district started to
proliferate the coteaching concept in its buildings to fill this need. This presented
multiple challenges that included how to preserve content specialty in the teaching staff
while also providing for coteaching opportunities for students. In working with the
teaching staff, it was decided to utilize a scheduling technique that is known as “cross
teaming.” This technique, while not preferred, allows students to be scheduled with
teachers assigned to other teams if it met their need for a cotaught course request. This
enabled the teachers to focus on one content area still, while also coteaching in that same
content area, furthering their expertise. The benefit to that structure was that both
teaching professionals could learn from each other. The regular education teacher could
learn about modifications and accommodations while the special education teacher could
learn more about their content specialty from a content specialist, trained to have a deep
understanding of this area. The negative piece was that this was similar to the type of
scheduling seen in a junior high where students were sent outside of their team areas.
However, this was only for learning support students who required the cotaught class.
All other instances students would be scheduled on the team for which they belonged.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
69
This process of scheduling was the first attempt at providing coteaching while also
maintaining content specialty.
As the coteaching model began to accelerate, one problem that kept coming up
was the difficulty that cross teaming the students created. There were challenges for
teams to flex their schedule, challenges to school and home communications now that
students were on multiple teams, and the overall sense of belonging that the team concept
creates, was hindered. The struggle between increasing staffs’ content expertise and
preserving the middle school concept conflicted with one another. This led to additional
recommendations by staff that maintained content specialization for pull out classes but
asked the learning support teacher to coteach on team across the three subject areas
(math, reading, Language Arts). Starting in the 2021-2022 school year this adaptation
was made in the schedule making it possible for students to stay on team for their special
education services in the regular classroom. In the end, this created an opportunity for a
full continuum of support for students that included the regular class with supports,
regular class with supports that included coteaching and paraprofessional services, as
well as pull out classes in the core subjects.
For this research project the student population that was included in the study was
comprised of special education students receiving services in the learning support and
regular education environments in both 7th and 8th grades as was described in the previous
paragraphs. While they did not individually participate in the study, aggregate student
grade data and MAP score data were collected for the student population by course and
teacher from this targeted population.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
70
In this research study there were 16 teaching staff out of 18 eligible to be involved
who agreed to participate. The invitation was based on their teaching assignment. All of
the Language Arts, reading, math, and special education teachers were given this
invitation. The teachers were given an explanation of the research study in a large group
setting at the beginning of the 2021-2022 school year. An informed consent form
explaining the study was given to the eligible staff after this meeting by placing the
information in the staff mailboxes. The informed consent document can be found in
Appendix B.
As you can see, the setting for this research includes a robust continuum of
support structure in the school. It also includes a targeted group of students across five
teams that operate in the middle school model. This was the backdrop for this research
study and should help build an understanding to the rationale for why the research
questions were designed the way that they were and how data was captured.
Research Plan
The research plan was constructed on experiences that the educator has had over a
period of 25 years as a special education teacher, principal, and director. This project
evolved through the review of literature that studied the special education process,
supplementary aids and services, and the reinforcement of the least restrictive
environment that federal and state legislation has required. Special education legislation
clearly gives guidance beyond any doubt that the school’s obligation is to provide as
many opportunities in the regular education environment as is possible. The literature
review also demonstrates how the process of identifying students using the multi-
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
71
disciplinary evaluation, developing the IEP with supplementary aides and services, and
ultimately the students’ placement is essential to this success. Following this process
provides the best means to keep the student in the least restrictive environment while
progressing in the regular education curriculum. However, progress on the intent of the
legislation reviewed in the literature is affected by a local school district’s capacity to
implement that vision through the special education service delivery model. Staffing, as
one example, is not always the same from district to district. This can include numbers of
paraprofessionals available to support classrooms and the number of teachers who affect
the types of services that can be offered to the students. Mindsets of the staff delivering
the educational program can vary largely from district to district. So, effectiveness can
be affected by budgeting challenges, local priorities, and belief systems. The research
plan was set up to look at how one school implements this process, what supports have
been developed and utilized in the classroom, and what results that yields.
The research method that is employed with this action research project is a mixed
methods approach using both qualitative and quantitative data. Perception data was
collected utilizing a Likert style survey instrument on what supports are felt to be most
effective for special education students in their class. This was followed by a semistructured interview of the participants for qualitative data on how these supports were
implemented. The study also uses MAP data (Measure of Academic Progress) that was
implemented in the ELA and math classrooms at two points in the first half of the year.
Using RIT scores (Rausch Unit), which is an estimate of a student’s instructional level,
the researcher analyzed what practices and perceptions may correlate to higher growth in
the IEP student population. Grade information was looked at to determine, what, if any
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
72
relationships exist between perception and implementation of student supports and grade
performance in the class. Low grades often lead to a change in placement during a school
year, which affects the LRE, making these data points significant.
Lastly, the researcher uses qualitative feedback from staff regarding changes in
placement that occur throughout the year. These changes in placement to a more
restrictive environment often are the result of low grades. These lower grades may come
from differences in the way that specially designed instruction is implemented in the
classroom and/or student’s readiness to learn the skills. It also could be in the quality of
specially designed instruction that is articulated in the IEP. Answering the research
questions using this data can hopefully provide direction in this way.
The timeline for the collection of data took into account markers throughout the
year that naturally occur. Table 2, the Research Data Collection Timeline, illustrates
these markers as they occur in the school calendar. As an example, the MAP testing
conducted for the district occurs during windows of time preestablished. Additional data
points required for the study were inserted at moments that were logical. An example of
this was collecting the teacher perception data towards the end of the first semester, after
the staff had time to implement the students’ IEPs with specially designed instruction.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
73
Table 2
Research Data Collection Timeline
Research Question
What are teachers’ perceptions
about student supports outlined
in a student’s IEP, and how are
those supports implemented in
their classrooms?
Data Tool
Likert Perception Survey
(Appendix C)
Timeline
December 2021
Semi-Structured Interview
#1 (Appendix D)
February 2022
What relationship, if any, is
there between teacher
perceptions/implementation of
student supports and student
achievement?
MAP Data Collection
September 7-17, 2021 (Fall)
and January 6-19, 2022
(Winter)
Student Grade Data
February 2022 (after 2nd
marking period)
*Data from research
question 1 is used as well
and collected as identified
above
What movement from regular
education classes to more
restrictive pull-out classes
occur over the course of a year
and is there any correlation to
perception and implementation
of student supports?
Semi-Structured Interview
#2 (Appendix E)
April 2022 at the conclusion
of the 3rd nine weeks
*Data from research
question 1 is used here and
collected as identified in
question 1
From a fiscal standpoint, conducting this project has very little financial impact to
the district. There are current practices that were used in this study that do come at a
cost, but they already exist. As an example, the use of the MAP assessment is a practice
that the school district uses to measure progress throughout the school year. The cost of
this tool was $14,000 dollars. Another example is the use of our data warehouse called
EdInsight. This tool, purchased by the district each year, is a repository for all data the
district collects. However, for all other aspects of this study, the only cost was that of
time.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
74
More importantly to the fiscal matters of conducting the study are the
expenditures that occur on staffing a special education program annually. The cost of
educating a special education student can cost two times as much than that of educating a
regular education student. The only way to decrease costs associated with educating
students under the law is to be more efficient. The hope with this project is to work at
what practices increase student performance and mitigate wasted effort that has little
effect on that performance. When better systems are in place, the reliance on staffing can
become less. This could have much larger fiscal implications when viewed in this
context. An example might be the number of paraprofessionals staffed by the district.
When better supports are in place that help a student be more self-sufficient, reliance on
traditional practices/supports that take up resources become less necessary.
Research Design, Methods, and Data Collection
Research Question Number 1:
What are teachers’ perceptions about student supports outlined in a student’s IEP, and
how are those supports implemented in their classrooms?
To answer this question, quantitative perception data of the various supports
outlined in the students’ IEP by the regular and special education teachers was collected
using a Likert style survey. The survey itself had 28 questions that listed the various
specially designed instruction elements most commonly found in the IEP. Supports were
paraphrased in the survey to collate similar SDI’s to eliminate redundancy in questions.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
75
An example of this might be, student will be seated close to the source of instruction as
compared to preferential seating which both have very similar meanings.
This survey was first presented to the staff at an in-service on August 20th, 2021.
During this session the researcher introduced the research project to the staff members.
Informed Consent was sent to the staff officially on October 2nd, 2021. Subsequently, on
December 6th, 2021 the Likert style survey was given to the staff. The staff were asked to
have the survey back to the researcher by January 7th, 2022. The success in getting back
the survey was high with 89% of staff eligible for the study returning the survey. These
results were compiled to assist the researcher in the next step of the semi-structured
interview.
The Likert survey was followed by a semi-structured interview that sought to
gather qualitative data on why staff felt strongly about one support and not another.
Using the survey data, staff were asked 5 questions. These questions not only asked for
what the most and least effective supports were, but also how the support was
implemented that made it one that they valued. Staff were also asked what change could
be made to make a support more effective if they did not feel strongly about the support
listed. Lastly, staff were asked to think of a support that, without constraints, they would
implement if they could. The semi-structured interviews were conducted on February 2nd
and 3rd, 2022 during the school day at a time that the teacher selected.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
76
Research Question Number 2:
What relationship, if any, is there between teacher perceptions/implementation of student
supports and student achievement?
To answer this question the researcher gathered quantitative achievement data for
students using the MAP assessment that yielded a RIT score at two intervals throughout
the year. The two testing intervals used to collect the MAP data were September 7th-17th,
2021 (fall) and January 6-19th, 2022 (winter). The researcher was not able to collect the
third MAP measure for this research due to the timing of the last MAP testing date and
the culmination of this project. However, when using the RIT score that MAP provided
in the two testing windows, a rank order for the students in the RIT score as well as
percentile could be seen. Student growth between the testing windows can be seen in this
way also. Remember from the literature review that RIT scores allow us to acknowledge
growth from different starting points because it operates on a linear scale no matter what
the age or ability of the student.
Using a data warehouse for our school district called, EdInsight, a data report was
constructed that pulled this information for the researcher for students in the target group.
Student data for this was pulled on February 3rd, 2022 after the second testing window
that occurred on January 6th-19th.
To validate this starting point, one of the additional instruments used were the
scaled scores for the preceding year’s PSSA testing. Students took the PSSA in the
spring of 2021. This data point allowed us to see their achievement level as they entered
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
77
the 21-22 school year as indicated on this measure. The students’ scaled scores were
placed in a rank order. This rank order was then able to be compared to the RIT score
and percentile rank for the fall MAP testing. Using this method, the researcher was able
to determine if those scores fell in line with each other, helping triangulate the validity of
the starting point for students and confidence in the MAP tool itself to measure growth
over the first two quarters.
Finally, the researcher collected student grades in the first and second nine weeks
for the targeted student population. This is an important aspect of student achievement
that can be studied that adds to the broader picture of student growth with the
standardized measures. Grades are also particularly important because it is one of the
first indicators to dictate a student’s placement in the least restrictive environment which
is one of the goals of this project. As part of the methodology for answering this question
the grades were analyzed to determine if any significant differences existed across
classrooms. This data was pulled at the conclusion of the second marking period on
January 13th, 2022.
The second method used to answer this question is coupled with the methodology
for the research question number 1. Looking back at that first question, it is seeking to
answer what teacher perceptions are of the various supports outlined in the student’s IEP
that are used in their classrooms. The researcher can look at what general trends there are
in the value placed on student supports overall as well as within the math and ELA
content areas specifically. In the context of this research question, that same quantitative
and qualitative data gleaned from the survey and interview are used in comparison to the
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
78
student achievement data gathered for this question. The methodology includes looking
at classrooms where higher growth occurred using the RIT scores and determine what
similarities existed in the value placed on the student supports outlined in the student’s
IEP by teacher and subject. This includes looking at trends in how the student support is
implemented in the classroom.
In summation, looking at the second MAP assessment, gains that a student made
using the RIT scores can be seen. Combining this with the grades through the first
semester it furthers the understanding of the student’s progress and success in the LRE.
In classrooms where those greater gains took place, possible commonality in practices
with accommodations and modifications may prove more beneficial in helping students
be successful in class.
Research Question Number 3:
What movement from regular education classes to more restrictive pull-out classes occur
over the course of a year and is there any correlation to perception and implementation of
student supports?
The methodology used to answer this question included having the researcher
track schedule changes that occurred as the year proceeded. The researcher looked at
students who moved both from more restrictive to lesser restrictive environments and
from lesser restrictive to more restrictive environments. The purpose of this was to
gather any trends on student movement as it pertained to subject or teacher and how this
related to their beliefs on the most effective student supports outlined in students’ IEPs.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
79
As was explained within the prior two questions’ methodology, the staff were
asked a series of questions on a Likert survey that gathered their perceptions about
student supports. The survey required the staff to place a value on a scale from 1 to 6
with one signifying “Strongly Disagree” and a six signifying “Strongly Agree” regarding
their feelings on a support being “highly effective” in their class. There were a series of
28 questions for the staff to answer with one being an open-ended question about any
support they felt was important that should be noted that was not included in the survey.
The Likert survey was then followed up with a semi-structured interview that
gathered qualitative data on the staff’s reasoning for valuing some student supports above
others. This method allows staff to speak in more detail about how the support was
useful or not in their classroom. The interview included feedback on those supports that
were rated as strongly agree or agree and, conversely, on those rated as strongly disagree
or disagree. In addition, the staff were asked to indicate any support that they feel could
be implemented that would have a great impact on their students. This allowed the
teachers to notate any holes that they see in student supports for their class.
Finally, the special education staff were interviewed a second time for any
students on their caseload that moved from one course to another. If a staff member did
not have any changes within their caseload, they were not interviewed a final time. For
this survey the researcher wanted to better understand what factors led to the movement
from a lesser restrictive environment to a more restrictive environment, as well as from a
more restrictive environment to a lesser restrictive environment. The nature of this
interview asked the staff to expand on the factors that led to their movement. They were
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
80
also asked what supports, if any, the student did respond to. The staff were asked if any
revisions to the IEP were made to help the student if they were struggling. Lastly, the
interview sought to determine how the existing accommodations and modifications were
being implemented in the class. Combining the information from the first two research
questions and adding the data of the movement that occurred over the course of the year
with the qualitative data point of the teacher interview allows the researcher to look for
common trends that could be found to answer this question.
Internal Review Board Process
As a part of the planning process for this Capstone Project, a series of steps were
taken to attain Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval. Prior to conducting any
research, certification modules were completed through the CITI Program. There were
three specific areas of focus that included a Basic Course, Conflicts of Interest, and
Responsible Conduct of Research. As a next step to the IRB process, the candidate
authored a research proposal that outlined the research study in detail, citing the problem
statement, a description of why the topic was worth researching, research questions,
methodology, a data collection plan, and a data analysis plan. The candidate used this
proposal to seek approval from the Bethel Park School District to ensure the support for
the research to be conducted. This culminated in a letter of approval from the
superintendent. Finally, these items were furnished to the California University IRB
along with the Informed Consent notice (Appendix B), Likert Survey (Appendix C), and
both semi-structured interviews (Appendix D and E). The IRB gave approval with an
effective date of 8/10/21. IRB approval can be found in Appendix A.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
81
Ethical Considerations
As with all research studies there exists possibilities that those that participate
may experience undo stress. This research study, as indicated in the IRB approval phase,
introduced the participants to the nature of the study in detail and described such risks as
minimal. While there isn’t any likelihood of physical harm to those who participate in
the research study, it is true that those that participate may find themselves feeling stress
about the content of the survey, interview, or research study results. To offset this
concern, the Informed Consent was very clear that the study was non evaluative, and that
the data would remain anonymous. Data collected in the paper surveys did not have
names attached, only numbers. Anonymity was maintained in the same manner when
collecting responses in the interview process where the responses were tabulated with a
number. In this manner, the number that is associated to a subject area is the only
identifying information. Lastly, participants were made fully aware of the amount of
time their participation would entail.
Validity
Mixed methods research is the process of using both qualitative and quantitative
methods to investigate a problem. Mertler (2019) states that mixed methods research
provides for a deeper understanding of the problem because this approach uses the best of
the two methods into one approach. Leedy and Ormrod (2013) attempts to address the
validity of mixed methods research studies by asking themselves, or others engaged in
research, a series of questions. Those questions are:
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
82
Are the samples used for the quantitative and qualitative components of the study
sufficiently similar in order to justify comparisons between the two types of data?
Are the quantitative and qualitative data equally relevant to the same or similar
topics and research questions?
Are the two types of data weighted equally in drawing conclusions? If not, what
is the justification for prioritization of one type over the other?
Are you able to use specific qualitative statements or artifacts in the study in order
to support or illustrate some of the quantitative results?
Can obvious discrepancies between the two types of data be resolved? (p. 262)
Using Leedy & Ormrod’s (2013) validity framework question number 1, for this
research study the qualitative components and quantitative components are very closely
related to the types of data being sought. Looking at the research question number 1,
what are teachers’ perceptions about student supports outlined in a student’s IEP and how
are those supports implemented in their classrooms? This question draws from the
quantitative survey that elicits a numeric response of importance on a Likert scale.
Likewise, blending the qualitative tool that asks them to expand on these responses
directly aligns with their perceptions of the specially designed instruction used in their
classrooms based on the student’s IEP.
The research question number 2 was, what relationship, if any, is there between
teacher perceptions/implementation of student supports and student achievement? In this
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
83
question the researcher is looking at the data used to answer question one, but we are now
blending that data with a look at how students performed to see if there are any trends
that show a benefit to certain elements of specially designed instruction and student
performance. In this case the additional quantitative data include standardized measures
and grades. However, in all cases they are closely related to the purpose of the study to
measure effectiveness of student supports in the classroom.
Lastly, research question number 3 was what movement from regular education
classes to more restrictive pull-out classes occurs over the course of a year and is there
any correlation to perception and implementation of student supports? To answer this
question the researcher gathered quantitative data about schedule changes and utilized a
qualitative semi-structured interview to gauge reasons why the schedule change was
made. The quantitative data closely related to the qualitative data that was searching for
the number of schedule changes and the teachers’ thoughts on why the schedule change
was necessary. This also makes use again of the data gleaned from the mixed methods
data from questions 1 and 2. Again, the alignment of the data to the purpose is easily
seen.
The second question posed by Leedy & Ormrod (2013) to establish validity in this
framework was, are the quantitative and qualitative data equally relevant to the same or
similar topics and research questions? In all three questions the data that is associated
with the question is equally relevant. All pieces of data represent important
understandings about student supports and achievement.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
84
The third question to establish validity by Leedy & Ormrod (2013) was, Are the
two types of data weighted equally in drawing conclusions? If not, what is the
justification for prioritization of one type over the other? For research questions 1 and 3
the qualitative and quantitative hold equal weight in answering the question. However, in
research question 2, it could be argued that there is greater weight placed on the
quantitative data used to answer this question. This is due to the additional data points
that demonstrate the students’ growth data through MAP scores as well as grades. In
addition, the Likert survey that measures staff’s perception of the importance of specially
designed instruction is used as it was in question one. This is then mixed with only the
qualitative data from the semi-structured interviews to answer the question. In this case,
the quantitative data piece has greater presence in answering this question. However, this
is justified in that the growth data for this question takes center stage in highlighting the
possible correlations between student success and support implementation.
The fourth question by Leedy & Ormrod (2013) was, are you able to use specific
qualitative statements or artifacts in the study in order to support or illustrate some of the
quantitative results? The specific purpose of the semi-structured interview was to gather
statements that validated the perception survey data from the teacher’s perspective. This
data set is used throughout the three research questions. Therefore, it is believed that the
qualitative statements do illustrate and support the quantitative data to a high degree.
Lastly, the framework by Leedy & Ormrod (2013) seeks to answer, can obvious
discrepancies between the two types of data be resolved? The process by which data was
gathered both qualitatively and quantitatively did not demonstrate discrepancies in the
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
85
information for any of the questions. Within the context of this study, perception data
and semi-structured interview feedback was in alignment. This held true for all three
questions that were studied.
Hendricks (2017) also states four fundamental concepts to increase validity in
research. They are credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability.
Credibility deals with the processes used to ensure the results are accurate.
Transferability is the concept of how the research has broader implications, in this case,
to special education programs in other schools. Dependability is a validity consideration
that, if other students and staff with similar demographics would be used, would similar
results be expected. Finally, confirmability is the concept of ensuring that the results are
accurate and free and clear of the researcher’s bias, motivation, or interest.
Within this study the information that was pulled quantitatively was from a data
warehouse used by the district. From the standpoint of credibility, all the quantitative
data was presented in the research as it was mined. In addition, the qualitative semistructured interview data was compiled with the teacher’s direct statements. The coding
of this information did not include any insertion of the researcher’s thoughts on behalf of
the teacher. The motivation for the research is strictly on best practices for students of
special needs in the regular classroom as it relates to specially designed instruction in the
IEP. Using so many data points helped triangulate the data to increase its credibility.
Looking at the concept of transferability, the researcher would need to consider
how these results may transfer to other similar settings. The participants chosen for the
research included all teacher and student stakeholders that fit the demographic identified
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
86
in the study. Those demographic items included regular education teachers who teach
students with special needs in the math and ELA subject areas, special education teachers
who teach students with special needs, and the entire population of students receiving
learning support services in the regular classroom and learning support classroom. These
demographics replicate themselves across school districts very commonly. While cited in
this project that school culture is very specific to various schools including mindsets of
teachers, which can influence transferability, the structural make up of what was studied
is commonly found in schools. Therefore, this research does have uses beyond the
context of Independence Middle School. In addition, a strategy used to increase
transferability is a thorough analysis of the setting, study, and participants. It is believed
that this was done and also increases the transferability to schools with similar
demographics.
In consideration of validity that is established through dependability, there is
reasonable thought that similar results would be found in many schools having the same
demographic make-up. However, as also stated in this research study, not all processes
for placement of special education are similar across school districts due to different
levels of staffing, mindsets of teaching staff, and local norms in the community as to the
value of special education services. This is a natural part of what makes effective special
education programming elusive because generalizing practices falls victim to these local
differences. However, for the purposes of establishing validity, there is no reason to
think that these results would not replicate themselves in other settings similar to
Independence Middle School lending it to being dependable.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
87
Lastly, in consideration of confirmability, the data that was used in the study
came exactly as it was found quantitatively. The use of this data fell in line with what the
research questions needed to be answered. Qualitatively, the information used came
directly from the semi-structured interview and was not embellished or altered in any
way by the researcher. The questions asked were open ended and did not predispose the
participant to a biased line of thought in the question design. Therefore, it is argued that
the research conducted was valid to a high degree.
Summary
The function of this chapter was to look at the purpose, setting and participants,
research plan, methodology, types of data collected, the timeline for that collection, and
the validity of the research. As stated, the research study is meant to look at perceptions
and practice regarding supports in the classroom and how those supports effect student
performance and outcomes in the classroom. The three key research questions seek to
find what staff value in supporting those students and how those values play out over the
course of a school year using multiple student performance data points.
The setting for this project was Independence Middle School that is comprised of
7th and 8th grade students. To study this the researcher included all students that fit the
demographic of students receiving learning support services. In addition, the researcher
was able to obtain 16 out of 18 staff members that fit the criteria for the study. The adult
participants were given Informed Consent and a fully detailed breakdown of the research
study.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
88
The research plan included a mixed methods approach that gathered data from a
multitude of data sources. These sources included the teachers themselves through
qualitative and quantitative feedback, standardized student assessment data, and student
grade data. The quantitative data was collected using a tool called EdInsight. The data
was pulled over the course of the first three quarters of the school year. The qualitative
data was gleaned from interviews with the staff over that same time frame.
The research conducted created very little fiscal impact. Data points were
collected through instruments that the district already has invested in. Other than time,
there wasn’t a direct cost to the research study. However, it is hoped that the outcome of
the research can help guide future considerations with how IEP’s are developed,
implemented, and how staff are scheduled to support this. It is well known that special
education costs are much higher than the cost of educating students who do not have an
IEP. Therefore, being better at supporting the students would absolutely affect the
bottom-line cost of educating special education students.
The validity of the research was established through the work of Leedy and
Ormrod (2013), as well as Hendricks (2017) and Mertler (2019). This included a review
of the alignment of the qualitative and quantitative data gathered, whether any of these
were weighted more heavily than the other, and if there were any discrepancies in the
data gathered. In addition, the four concepts of credibility, transferability, dependability,
and confirmability were reviewed. This ensured, to the best of the researcher’s ability,
that the information was not biased or influenced by the researcher and that the results
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
89
utilized multiple data points to ensure that conclusions drawn would have the highest
degree of validity possible.
In the next chapter the researcher will be providing an analysis of the data. The
analysis of the data utilizes multiple data points as described in the methodology chapter.
This will help answer the three research questions established in this research study for
which conclusions can be drawn. This will inform, not only the researcher, but also the
school in improving the outcomes for students in special education.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
90
Chapter IV
Data Analysis and Results
The purpose of this chapter is to display the data and results of the research that
was conducted on supports in the classroom for students who have special education
services. The data gathered attempts to capture teachers’ perceptions regarding the value
of various supports in the IEP, teachers’ beliefs and methods of implementation of those
supports, student performance data on standardized assessments that may indicate
classrooms where greater growth may have occurred, and student movement to and from
the least restrictive environment that may demonstrate patterns in the effectiveness of
student supports and their implementation. This data was gathered to answer the
following research questions.
1.
What are teachers’ perceptions about student supports outlined in a student’s IEP
and how are those supports implemented in their classrooms?
2.
What relationship, if any, is there between teacher perceptions/implementation of
student support and student achievement?
3.
What movement from regular education classes to more restrictive pull-out
classes occur over the course of a year and is there any correlation to perception and
implementation of student supports?
The study focused on the specific specially designed instruction (SDI) elements
that can be found in the students’ IEPs. These are most commonly known as
accommodations and modifications. Through a listing of the 27 commonly found SDI’s
in the IEP staff were asked, using a Likert scale from 1-6, what supports they most
strongly agreed or disagreed with being effective in the classroom. This was followed by
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
91
a semi-structured interview in which staff were asked to give feedback on why they felt
this way and how these supports were implemented in their classroom. This information
was gathered to answer the first research question regarding the value of supports in the
IEP and their implementation.
The researcher also gathered performance data for students that had IEPs. This
performance data included MAP assessments from the fall and winter of the 21-22 school
year. These are regularly administered assessments in the school. Most importantly the
MAP assessment is given multiple times during the year and demonstrates growth
between testing windows. This data point allows us to see growth over time and the
possible effect student supports in the IEP may have had on student growth. Grades were
gathered as another achievement measurement that may demonstrate student success and
growth. This information was used in conjunction with the qualitative data gathered for
question one about staff perception of the value of supports in the IEP in their classroom
to answer research question number two.
Lastly, qualitative data was gathered using a semi-structured interview with staff
regarding the movement of students from the LRE to a pull-out environment. This data
was meant to help answer the third research question about student movement and the
relationship to perceptions of student supports in the IEP and the implementation of those
supports. The purpose was to identify factors or patterns that may exist that could
potentially lead to a student’s movement from the regular education classroom
environment to more restrictive pull-out settings. As stated in the literature review, the
LRE mandate from the federal government states plainly that the regular education
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
92
environment is the starting point for students with disabilities and that is why it is
important to understand the context of movement throughout the year.
Participant Description
There were 18 eligible teachers that could participate in this research study. Out
of the 18 eligible candidates, 16 agreed to participate. The eligibility criteria for the
group required that the staff member taught either Language Arts, Math, Reading, or
Special Education. Table 3 demonstrates how many teachers in each content area
participated.
Table 3
Staff Participation Demographic
Discipline
Number of staff
Language Arts
4 Staff
Reading
3 Staff
Math
5 Staff
Special Education
4 Staff
These teachers, as explained in the methodology chapter of this Doctoral
Research Capstone Project, are a part of middle school teams. Each team shares the same
students amongst themselves, which is a hallmark of the middle school model.
While there were not any individual students invited to participate in this study,
aggregate data was collected for students who receive supports outlined in the student’s
IEP. Table 4 demonstrates the number of students for which the aggregate data is
represented in each subject area.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
93
Table 4
Number of Students by Subject
Subject Area
Number of Students
Language Arts
77
Reading
73
Math
78
Data Analysis
The first research question gathered perception data using a Likert style survey.
The survey asked the staff to rate their agreement with SDIs listed in the IEP and whether
they Strongly Agree, Agree, Slightly Agree, Slightly Disagree, Disagree, or Strongly
Disagree that the support was helpful in the class. This was then followed up with a
semi-structured interview that yielded qualitative data regarding why they felt this way
and how the support was implemented in their classroom. The method of analysis used
to analyze the data included ranking the 27 most commonly listed SDI’s in the IEP as
most valued to the least valued as rated by the staff on the Likert survey. This ranking
was found by averaging the staff members scored responses on each SDI collectively.
This data was then broken out by content area to see what patterns existed, which could
potentially vary based on course demands. Also, the qualitative data from the semistructured interview was added to the analysis of the SDI’s that demonstrate staff’s
beliefs on why the various supports were valued, and how that support might be
implemented in the classroom.
The second question required the gathering of MAP testing data from the fall and
winter testing sessions as described in the methods chapter of this Doctoral Research
Capstone Project. The data was tabulated by each respondent in each content area. This
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
94
tabulation was done by calculating the average growth using the change in RIT scores for
all learning support students the teacher has. The mean, median, mode, standard
deviation, and percent of students making gains in the class were calculated. In addition,
the students average first semester grade was also calculated to see any trends in student
achievement that exist across classrooms.
The second part of the research question looked at the perception data that was
gathered in the Likert survey. However, for this question, it is the importance of supports
as identified by the teaching staff whose learning support students demonstrated the
highest growth that we are focused on. This is done to see what consistencies there may
be in the value placed on student supports that may lead to higher achievement in each
content area.
The third question required collecting data on student movement from the LRE
(regular classroom) to pull out settings and from pull out settings to the LRE. However,
the question requires a focus on students who leave the LRE for more restrictive pull-out
classroom settings. After collecting this data, semi-structured interviews were conducted
with staff to gain insight as to why the change was initiated, any SDI’s that proved
effective for the student and any changes to the IEP that may have occurred when these
changes were being considered. This information was used to analyze any commonality
between perception of student supports and student movement.
Results
Research Question Number 1
The first research question asked, what are teachers’ perceptions about student
supports outlined in a student’s IEP and how are those supports implemented in their
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
95
classrooms? Using the Likert survey, the researcher looked at the average score from 1-6
for the SDIs as identified by the 16 staff members who participated. Looking at Table 5,
the following results were reported by all staff that participated in the research regarding
their perceptions of the value of SDIs that could be found in the IEP.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
Table 5
Staff Perceptions of the Importance of SDIs in their Classrooms
Accommodation/Modification
Average Score of Teacher
Responses
Paraprofessional Support
5.88
Extended Time for Testing
5.44
Adapted Tests
5.31
Small Group Testing
5.06
Tests Read Aloud
5.00
Preferential Seating
4.94
Coteaching
4.81
Crisis Pass
4.81
Use of Graphic Organizer
4.67
Audio Books
4.67
Use of a Calculator
4.54
Organization Support
4.53
Getting Student Attention Prior
to Giving Instruction
4.44
Allow Movement in the
Classroom
4.44
Modifying Homework
4.38
Positive Reinforcement
4.38
Study Guides
4.33
Pairing Visual and Verbal
Directions
4.31
Extended Time for Assignments
4.25
96
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
Checks for Understanding
4.25
Directions Repeated and
Restated
4.13
Providing Visual Instructions
4.06
Chunking Assignments
3.86
Voice to Text
3.86
Opportunity to Retake Tests
3.63
Copy of Class Notes
3.50
Assignment Book Checks
3.33
97
As you can see from the survey results, the top five valued SDIs when averaged
for all staff taking the survey included Paraprofessional Support, Extended Time for
Testing, Adapted Tests, Small Group Testing, and Tests Read Aloud. In contrast, the
five least most valued supports for students were Chunking Assignments, Voice to Text,
Opportunity to Retake Tests, Copy of Class Notes, and Assignment Book Checks.
The perception data was also broken out by content area to see what trends may
exist that differ when compared to the average of all teacher responses. This helps us put
a lens on supports that may be felt to be more beneficial or less beneficial based on the
subject/content demands. Table 6 illustrates the feedback for the top five supports and
bottom five supports that Language Arts staff rated as most important and least
important.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
Table 6
Language Arts Staff Perceptions of the Importance of SDIs
Top 5 Language Arts Staff Responses
Bottom 5 Language Arts Staff Responses
Type of Support, Average Score
Type of Support, Average Score
Paraprofessional Support, 5.75
Assignment Book Checks, 4.0
Organization Support, 5.5
Extended Time for Assignments, 3.75
Crisis Pass, 5.0
Modifying Homework, 3.75
Preferential Seating, 5.25
Copy of Class Notes, 3.5
Small Group Testing, 5
Opportunity to Retake Tests, 3.25
In Table 7 we can see the reading teachers’ results as to the five most valued
supports and the five least valued supports in their content area.
Table 7
Reading Staff Perceptions of the Importance of SDIs
Top 5 Reading Staff Responses
Bottom 5 Reading Staff Responses
Type of Support, Average Score
Type of Support, Average Score
Preferential Seating, 6
Opportunity to Retake Tests, 3.67
Paraprofessional Support, 6
Copy of Class Notes, 3.67
Tests Read Aloud, 5.67
Use of a Calculator, 3.5
Adapted Tests, 5.67
Assignment Book Checks, 3.33
Extended Time for Testing, 5.3
Coteaching, 2.67
In Table 8, we can see the math teachers results as to the five most valued
supports and the five least valued supports.
98
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
Table 8
Math Staff Perceptions of the Importance of SDIs
Top 5 Math Staff Responses
Bottom 5 Math Staff Responses
Type of Support, Average Score
Type of Support, Average Score
Paraprofessional Support, 5.8
Study Guides, 3.2
Coteaching, 5.8
Copy of Class Notes, 3.2
Extended Time for Testing, 5.6
Voice to Text, 2.75
Tests Read Aloud, 5
Chunking Assignments, 2.33
Adapted Tests, 5
Assignment Book Checks, 1.5
In Table 9 we can see the special education teachers results as to the five most
valued supports and the five least valued supports.
Table 9
Special Education Staff Perceptions of the Importance of SDIs
Top 5 Special Ed. Staff Responses
Bottom 5 Special Ed. Staff Responses
Type of Support, Average Score
Type of Support, Average Score
Adapted Tests, 6
Voice to Text, 4
Paraprofessional Support, 6
Crisis Pass, 4
Extended Time for Testing, 5.75
Allow Movement in Classroom, 3.75
Study Guides, 5.67
Copy of Class Notes, 3.75
Small Group Testing, 5.5
Opportunity to Retake Tests, 3
The second part of research question number one asked staff their beliefs about
SDIs and how supports are implemented in the classroom. Each teacher was asked to
99
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
100
give feedback in a semi-structured interview to expand on the supports that they had
responded about being most important to them on the Likert survey by selecting Strongly
Agree. The following summation of information was gleaned from the staff and is
grouped by content area that expands on the trends noted in Tables 6, 7, 8, and 9. An
abridged listing of staff feedback by respondent can be found in Appendix F.
Language Arts Staff Beliefs
Multiple Language Arts staff had rated chunking assignments as an important SDI
in the IEP. The rationale behind this being an important support from their perspective
included the idea that writing assignments, which is what students spend a lot of time
doing in the LA classroom, need broken up so that students can put the pieces together on
longer term assignments and grammar units effectively. The decision of where to chunk
an assignment is very purposeful on the teacher’s part by their account. Staff also report
that chunking allows them to take advantage of the attention span of the students, getting
better quality work in finite periods of time is, for them, a best practice.
Language Arts staff also placed high value on coteaching as an SDI that students
benefit from. The staff members report that the students benefit from the strengths of
each teacher in this classroom situation. These strengths include both the understanding
of content and the understanding of accommodations and modifications that best suit
students. The staff can both bring these qualifications to the table that help the student be
successful in the classroom. These interactions are felt to be important when staff push
back on one another in positive discourse, expanding each other’s thinking on best
serving students. However, as stated by staff, it is important for teachers to have the
ability to plan together as an essential ingredient to a healthy coteaching relationship.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
101
Multiple LA staff members rated directions repeated and restated as an important
SDI in student’s IEP’s. Being mindful of a student not getting directions the first time is
important. Additionally, staff feel it is simply a good teaching practice. Staff also report
that they make sure that they make frequent visits to a student’s desk who they know will
struggle with directions or will call on students at important moments of understanding to
make sure that the comprehension is there for what the students are doing.
One member of the LA staff had rated extended time on assignments as being
very important. This staff member made a comment where they said, “processing delays
are real” and that getting their best work requires some flexibility on timelines. This
same teacher did say that they particularly believe in giving students extended time when
they can see the effort that the students are putting into the assignment. It was interesting
that there was only one staff member that rated this SDI as highly important in the LA
staff group.
Another single LA teacher had noted their strong belief in allowing for movement
in the classroom. They felt as though kinesthetic opportunities help students “galvanize”
their thoughts and understanding of concepts. Also, the teacher felt that students’
attention is supported through acceptable movement in the classroom. Students with
these opportunities can better attend to the task at hand.
Organizational support shared agreement between multiple staff members. In the
Language Arts classroom, it was noted that systems of organization are essential for
student success. This was noted as especially important for executive functioning needs
students at the middle level have. The staff has noted that these organizational structures
have needed to change over time where students now have digital files that outnumber
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
102
papers students may receive. Conscious effort has had to be made in making sure that
there is organization in this area because digital files can be lost just the same as hard
copy papers. In essence, students knowing where to find things is essential to follow
through and success.
Paraprofessional support was recognized as one of the most important supports
available to a student in the LA classroom by multiple staff. The role that a para plays is
reported to be multifaceted. Within the classroom the para can cue for attention as well
as provide more feedback to students throughout the class, correcting misunderstandings.
Paras also provide 1:1 opportunity as needed during the instructional portion of class.
However, an important piece of para support as reported by the staff included what the
paraprofessional brings back to the resource room as being a very important function.
Because resource acts as an important backup to the regular class environment, the
precious minutes that staff have are optimized when the para knows what the student
needs to accomplish or where the misunderstandings were for the student on the content
to further aid the student in their comprehension of the subject matter. Lastly, staff
appreciate the timely support for items like small group testing that paras assist with.
Also, small group testing is an SDI that one of the LA staff also strongly agreed with,
making it understandable the para’s importance to staff in meeting this need.
Finally, a support that the LA staff valued was preferential seating. This support
was felt to have high return for very little effort on the teacher’s part. The staff noted that
preferential seating could mean different things for different students. Some students
need to be closer to the source of instruction while other students need a spot where they
can be provided room for movement. Still other students may respond by being near the
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
103
teacher’s desk where redirection may be more frequently necessary during seatwork time.
The opportunity to sit near a peer role model was another example of what the best use of
preferential seating might be. The Language Arts staff clearly have many approaches
when it comes to preferential seating in the classroom.
Math Staff Beliefs
The math staff had expanded upon their Likert survey feedback in the semistructured interview process as well. One of the SDIs that the staff valued was that of
adapted tests. Staff feedback states that changing the format of tests, such as bolding
essential words or providing simple hints to help the student access their prior
understandings, help them be successful and is a good strategy. Staff also report that this
helps in getting the student started so that they are not behind as the testing session moves
on due to being stuck. Teachers also report that the elimination of distracting information
supports students and their success on tests. Finally, the reading level of tests can be
difficult for some students, which is another method of adapting tests so that reading is
not a barrier to student success on the assessment.
Coteaching was a widely recognized support that staff valued as important to
student success. Staff cite that the students benefit from receiving more facetime
throughout the class period. The ability to group and regroup students between the two
staff is helpful in meeting the diverse needs that the students may have while also giving
students varied viewpoints on the content at hand. While challenges were noted by staff
such as overcoming egos and matching personalities, the benefit of playing off one
another and utilizing each of the staff member’s strengths and expertise was felt to be an
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
104
advantage to the students. Staff report that this comes by employing the various
coteaching models flexibly in the classroom.
Math staff expanded on directions repeated and restated as being essential
elements in an effective classroom due to student struggles with focus. They state that
this is good to do as a general teaching practice and not just with students who have
IEP’s. Sometimes staff note that the directions may need rephrased in clearer language
for students as a part of this process. Staff knowing their students helps target this
intervention according to feedback from the teachers.
Extended time on tests and assignments was an accommodation that was felt to be
important for students in the math classroom, particularly on tests. Staff note that
allowing more processing time for students is important, and with assignments, doing the
work is the most important thing, not strictly the time that it is done in. A word of
caution for extended time from staff is keeping it within reason so that there isn’t a
snowball effect for the student where work and tests compile on one another.
Interestingly, one teacher cited the importance for this accommodation for all students, so
that the accommodation is a natural part of the fabric of instruction in the classroom.
Paraprofessional support was expanded upon in the semi-structured interview for
math teachers based on their feedback on the Likert survey. Similar to other subject
areas, staff report that the value extends beyond their classroom and to the information
brought back to the resource room. In this environment, the paraprofessional having a
strong grasp of what students need extra help on or what pieces of work need finished is
very beneficial. Importance was placed on the quality of the para that is in the math
classroom due to the complexity of content that needs to be understood well by the staff
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
105
member to support the student. Still other benefits include variation on the way things
are explained to the students. These beliefs are cited by math staff as important points to
effective para support.
While not as widely supported by math staff, but by one staff member was the
importance of retaking tests. The value system placed on this was because it was more
important for the teacher to know that the student could do it in order to move forward.
Related to testing, one other staff member had stated that small group testing was highly
valued as well. This was for the purposes of reading the test aloud and allowing for
clarifications that supported students who just need a little boost to get started.
Reading Staff Beliefs
Reading staff feedback on their beliefs varied more than most other subject areas.
Three staff provided feedback through the semi-structured interview regarding the
supports that they valued as most important. One staff member had given feedback about
adapted tests and its importance saying it “really makes a difference”. The strategies that
the staff member employed included use of graphic organizers, adapting written portions
that are often hard for students, and reducing volume of content, focusing in on the key
information. Also related to testing was the value placed on extended time for tests by
another staff member. This particular staff member cited that students who are anxious
benefit from extended time a great deal because they often work slower than most of the
other students and struggle to demonstrate all that they know. Also associated with
testing was the importance of tests being read aloud because of the auditory modality was
felt to be very effective for students. Other singleton responses rated highly by staff
members included checking for understanding, especially as the lesson ends to make sure
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
106
that they are “concluding” with the correct information. Movement in the classroom was
felt to be important by another staff member who stated that they purposefully create
these opportunities, often off to the side for students who have attention difficulties.
Lastly, pairing visual and verbal directions was targeted by a staff member as important
because they state that this improves the chances that the student will give back what it is
that the staff member is looking for.
There was more agreement amongst staff when it came to paraprofessional
support and preferential seating. Regarding paraprofessional support, similar to other
subject areas, staff state that it matters who that paraprofessional is. However, as a
function, paras support redirecting students when they are off task by using proximity
control or verbalizations. Staff also cite the importance of being able to pull students
together in small groups to help with misunderstandings of content. A similar theme that
played out in other subject areas about this support was the importance that the para
played in bringing the information back to the resource room where additional time could
be given to the student on concepts that were not understood or to complete tasks.
Finally, preferential seating was in agreement with multiple staff members as being
effective. Like other subject areas, this was not merely putting a student in the front of
the room but in the place that most benefited the student. This included away from
distractors, near the source of instruction, near the board, or where students could be
easily accessed throughout the class period.
Special Education Staff Beliefs
Special education staff had given feedback in the semi-structured interview with
regard to their beliefs and implementation of the most important supports to them as rated
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
107
on the Likert survey. There were multiple staff who rated adapted tests as very important
but that each class required different adaptations. Subjects such as social studies, that had
the potential for a lot of content, may need paired down. Whereas math may require the
opportunity to reteach and retest as a primary consideration. Staff also state the
importance of having students zero in on the most essential information to improve the
outcome where they know what the essential information is going into a testing situation.
Still other more traditional thoughts included eliminating responses from multiple choice
items.
Directions repeated and restated was felt by multiple special education staff as
being important. Staff feedback included the importance of students knowing how to get
started. Eliminating this problem is supported by rephrasing or restating directions to
ensure that the student isn’t stuck, being unproductive. Staff report that students don’t
always get it the first time, particularly those who have attention difficulties. Restating
and repeating is an effective way for staff to be sure that students who have attention
difficulties are on task.
Paraprofessional support was broadly supported by special education staff as
benefiting students. Again, like the other subject areas, staff cite paraprofessionals
bringing the information back to the resource room with information about what students
need help with and what work needs completed is felt to be paramount. They go on to
report that the natural communication that occurs in this dynamic is what is so helpful.
One quote from special education staff states that they are the “bridge to success” for
students in the least restrictive environment. Other time periods where paraprofessional
support is valued are in classrooms that require a lot of classroom notes.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
108
Paraprofessionals keeping copies of notes for students and assisting students with
notetaking is felt to be a helpful role.
There were also some singleton supports that staff valued and gave feedback on.
One staff member cited the importance of audio books as being important for their
students. Because so many students have reading levels that are below grade level that
have IEP’s, materials that can’t be adapted for one reason or another benefit students
when they are in an audio format. The teacher states that students have the ability to
access/understand much of the material. However, reading is often a barrier for them in a
class such as social studies as an example. Another staff cited extended time on
assignments as being essential. Feedback from staff included the idea that workload can
ebb and flow. Students with special needs sometimes require that flexibility that comes
with extended time when the ebb and flow becomes overwhelming. This is another way
resource is helpful for students in completing items that they owe where the
paraprofessional communicates those needs.
Other singleton supports included guided notes that were stated by a staff member
as being important to student success. This staff member articulated that this is
especially important in a class like social studies where a lot of notes are given. A barrier
for students is often the legibility of their writing when taking notes. Therefore students
often do not find the notes helpful to them after they take them, which is a primary
function of notetaking. Having guided notes eliminates some of the intensive writing that
notetaking requires, letting them key in on essential information. Closely related to
guided notes are study guides that one staff member also felt was very important. The
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
109
emphasis from the staff member was the narrowing of information so that the student was
getting the greatest benefit from their study time on what content was most essential.
Additionally, a staff member held small group testing and tests read aloud as two
important SDIs. This staff member stated that both help students who are easily
distracted or who have anxiety. Students who have decoding concerns also benefit from
having tests read aloud. Finally, a staff member stated that use of a calculator was very
important saying that students need to understand process and concepts at this stage and
not focus on the calculation skills of the student.
Research Question Number 2
The second research question asked, what relationship, if any, is there between
teacher perceptions/implementation of student support and student achievement? To
answer this question, data was gathered on student growth using the MAP assessment.
Students were assessed in the fall of the 2021-2022 school year and again in January of
the 2021-2022 school year. The MAP test by NWEA, as referenced in the literature
review, is an adaptive test, which means it responds to the test taker based on their
success at answering questions. This is done to find the student’s instructional level for
the content area being assessed. This data was used to try and isolate the highest
performing classrooms where we could then pair those staff members’ perceptions of
student supports to see if any correlations may exist in their beliefs and implementation
of those supports.
The Language Arts staff had four participants in this research study. Table 10
displays the mean, median, and mode for students in the class regarding their MAP
110
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
growth scores. It also includes the standard deviation, the percent of students making
gains, number of students with data, and the average first semester grade.
Table 10
Language Arts Performance Results
Respondent
Subject
Mean
Median
Mode
Standard
Deviation
Percent of
Students
Making
Gains
15
11
13
5
LA
LA
LA
LA
0.85
1.3
3.4
3.73
0
2.5
3
2
0
-5, 3
3, 9
0
9.67
5.8
7.53
7.9
43
70
70
64
Number
of
Students
7
10
10
11
Average
1st
Semester
Grade
84
86.5
82.6
81.5
The second research question sought to find any relationships that exist between
achievement and perceptions of student supports in the IEP. For the purposes of
answering this question, respondents 5 and 13 demonstrated a mean growth of more than
3 points, showing the highest growth by the learning support students in their classes.
Looking at the survey results regarding perceptions of supports, Table 11 shows the
supports rated as Strongly Agree by each respondent with the highest growth to see what,
if any, common beliefs the staff had regarding supports in the classroom. Common
responses are listed first. We see that only one support was shared between them that
was rated as Strongly Agree, which was Organization Support.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
111
Table 11
Language Arts Teacher Perceptions for Staff with the Highest Growth
Respondent 5
Respondent 13
Organization Support
Organization Support
Chunking Assignments
Small Group Testing
Directions Repeated
Preferential Seating
Extended Time for
Assignments
Allow Movement in the
Classroom
Use of Graphic Organizer
Paraprofessional Support
Study Guides
Coteaching
Positive Reinforcement
Crisis Pass
Checks for Checks for
Understanding
Going one step further in this line of inquiry, we can look at the top 5 rated
supports as reported by these staff members where there was agreement between the
staff, rating the support Strongly Agree OR Agree. In doing so, we can draw some
additional comparisons in what staff value as strong supports for their students as seen in
Table 12.
112
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
Table 12
Top 5 Most Commonly Valued Supports for High Achieving LA Staff
Support
Respondent 5
Respondent 13
Organization Support
Strongly Agree
Strongly Agree
Small Group Testing
Agree
Strongly Agree
Preferential Seating
Agree
Strongly Agree
Allow Movement in the
Classroom
Agree
Strongly Agree
Paraprofessional Support
Agree
Strongly Agree
The Math staff had four participants in this research study. Table 13 displays the
mean, median, and mode for students in the class regarding their MAP growth scores. It
also includes the standard deviation, the percent of students making gains, number of
students with data, and the average first semester grade.
Table 13
Math Performance Results
Respondent
9
8
2
17
Subject
Math
Math
Math
Math
Mean
1.4
3.3
4.92
6.6
Median
1.5
4
4.5
6
Mode
-2, 1, 4,
7
-5
1
Standard
Deviation
Percent of
Students
Making
Gains
Number
of
Students
5.1
6.97
7.11
3
57
56
75
100
14
9
12
5
Average
1st
Semester
Grade
76
79.4
78.4
83.5
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
113
Using the results in Table 13, respondents 2, 8, and 17 demonstrated a mean
growth of more than 3 points, showing the highest growth by the learning support
students in their classes. Looking at the survey results regarding perceptions of supports,
Table 14 shows the supports rated as Strongly Agree by each respondent to see what, if
any, common beliefs they have regarding support in the classroom. Common supports
are displayed in order for ease of reference.
Table 14
Math Teacher Perceptions for Staff with the Highest Growth
Respondent 2
Respondent 8
Respondent 17
Extended Time for
Testing
Extended Time for
Testing
Extended Time for
Testing
Coteaching
Coteaching
Coteaching
Paraprofessional
Support
Paraprofessional
Support
Paraprofessional
Support
Adapted Tests
Adapted Tests
Opportunity to
Retake Tests
Tests Read Aloud
Positive
Reinforcement
Allow Movement
in the Classroom
Going one step further in this line of inquiry we can look at the top-rated supports
as reported by these staff members where there was agreement between the staff, rating
the support Strongly Agree OR Agree. In doing so we can draw some additional
comparisons in what staff do value that are most in common between the staff as seen in
Table 15.
114
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
Table 15
Math Most Common Supports Rated Agree or Strongly Agree
Support
Respondent 2
Respondent 8
Respondent 17
Extended Time
for Testing
Strongly Agree
Strongly Agree
Strongly Agree
Paraprofessional
Support
Strongly Agree
Strongly Agree
Strongly Agree
Coteaching
Strongly Agree
Strongly Agree
Strongly Agree
Adapted Tests
Strongly Agree
Strongly Agree
Agree
Crisis Pass
Agree
Agree
Agree
The reading staff had three participants in this research study. Table 16 displays
the mean, median, and mode for students in the class regarding their MAP growth scores.
It also includes the standard deviation, the percent of students making gains, number of
students with data, and the average first semester grade.
Table 16
Reading Performance Results
Respondent
Subject
Mean
Median
Mode
Standard
Deviation
Percent of
Students
Making
Gains
12
7
16
Rdg.
Rdg.
Rdg.
-2.25
3.67
4.5
3
3.5
3
3
0, 14
3, 9
12.05
8.92
6
66
58
73
Number
of
Students
12
12
11
Average
1st
Semester
Grade
81
79
84
Using the results in Table 16, respondents 7 and16 demonstrated a mean growth
of more than 3 points, showing the highest growth by the learning support students in
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
115
their classes. Looking at the survey results regarding perceptions of supports, Table 17
shows the supports rated as Strongly Agree by respondents 7 and 16 to see what, if any,
common beliefs they have regarding support in the classroom. Common supports have
been listed together for ease of reference.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
Table 17
Reading Teacher Perceptions for Staff with the Highest Growth
Respondent 7
Respondent 16
Tests Read Aloud
Tests Read Aloud
Preferential Seating
Preferential Seating
Adapted Tests
Adapted Tests
Paraprofessional Support
Paraprofessional Support
Directions Repeated and
Restated
Extended Time for
Assignments
Extended Time for Testing
Small Group Testing
Organization Support
Providing Visual
Instructions
Chunking Assignments
Getting Student Attention
Prior to Instruction
Pairing Visual and Verbal
Directions
Modifying Homework
Voice to Text
Crisis Pass
Use of a Calculator
Positive Reinforcement
Checks for Understanding
116
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
117
Going one step further in this line of inquiry we can look at the top-rated supports
as reported by these staff members where there was agreement between the staff, rating
the support Strongly Agree OR Agree. In doing so we can draw some comparisons in
what these staff do value that are most in common as seen in Table 18.
Table 18
Reading Most Common Supports Rated as Agree or Strongly Agree
Support
Respondent 7
Respondent 16
Tests Read Aloud
Strongly Agree
Strongly Agree
Preferential Seating
Strongly Agree
Strongly Agree
Adapted Tests
Strongly Agree
Strongly Agree
Paraprofessional Support
Strongly Agree
Strongly Agree
Extended Time for Testing
Agree
Strongly Agree
Crisis Pass
Agree
Strongly Agree
Use of Graphic Organizer
Agree
Agree
Audio Books
Agree
Agree
The Special Education staff had four participants in this research study. Table 19
displays the mean, median, and mode for students in the class regarding their MAP
growth scores. It also includes the standard deviation, the percent of students making
gains, number of students with data, and the average first semester grade.
118
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
Table 19
Special Education Performance Results
Respondent
Subject
Mean
Median
4
SpEd
-0.06
0
10
6
SpEd
SpEd
0.45
0.56
1
1
18
SpEd
2.63
2
Mode
-5, 1, 1,
2
-9, 2,
14
-5
0, 1,
2, 8
Standard
Deviation
Percent of
Students
Making
Gains
Number
of
Students
Average
1st
Semester
Grade
7.1
47
17
78
9.1
5.25
45
56
11
9
73.2
79.2
7.33
69
16
89
Using the results in Table 19, the respondents that demonstrated a mean growth of
more than 3 points did not exist as it did in the other content areas. The respondent
whose learning support students achieved the highest growth was respondent 18 with a
mean growth of 2.63 points. Looking at the survey results regarding perceptions of
supports, Table 20 shows the supports rated as Strongly Agree by this respondent.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
119
Table 20
Special Education Teacher Perceptions for Staff with the Highest Growth
Respondent 18
Small Group Testing
Tests Read Aloud
Extended Time for Assignments
Extended Time for Testing
Adapted Tests
Use of Graphic Organizer
Paraprofessional Support
Coteaching
In the case of the Special Education staff, because there aren’t any other staff with
significant evidence of progress, we do not have the ability to show the top supports
where staff agree as either Strongly Agree OR Agree.
Research Question Number 3
The third question asked, what movement from regular education classes to more
restrictive pull-out classes occur over the course of a year and is there any correlation to
perception and implementation of student supports? As mentioned, in the Data Analysis
section, the focus was on students who moved from the LRE to more restrictive pull-out
class settings. However, in analyzing the data, it was apparent that there was value to
look at how many students moved from pull-out settings to the regular classroom
environment, as this was more frequent in its occurrence than was movement to pull-out
settings. The data is represented accordingly in the following paragraphs and tables.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
120
Table 21 represents the number of students who had a change in placement
throughout the school year. This includes students moving from the LRE to pull-out
classes and from pull-out to the LRE. This table includes the respondents where the
movement occurred to look at perceptions for student supports in the classroom and what,
if any common themes there were as to the reason for the movement.
Table 21
Student Movement Throughout the Year
Reg Ed.
Respondent
15
16
5
7
8
5
7
8
Special Ed.
Respondent
18
6
4
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Number of Students
1 Student Exited Special Education
2 Students Moved to Reg. LA
1 Student Moved to Reg. Reading
4 Students Moved to Reg. LA
4 Students Moved to Reg. Reading
2 Students Moved to Reg. Math
1 Student Moved to Pull-Out LA
3 Students to Pull-Out Reading
1 Student to Pull-Out Math
1 Student Moved from LS Reading to LSS
Reading
Looking at the table we can see that there were 13 movements from pull-out
classes to regular education environments throughout the year. There were 6 movements
that occurred where students went from regular education settings to more restrictive
pull-out settings. It is also important to note that students can count for multiple moves.
In the examples given, the total number of movements were attributed to 11 different
students. In fact, the total number of moves from the LRE to pull-out settings did not
involve more than 4 total students.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
121
Teachers were interviewed in a semi-structured interview and were asked to
respond to four questions regarding the movement of students to and from their
classrooms. When asked, what the factors were that led to the student’s change in
placement in their class, staff responded by stating that students who moved from pullout classes to the regular education classroom were consistently outscoring their peers on
assessments and classroom performance tasks in the pull-out setting. Respondents also
had similarities in their description of these students as hard workers. This compelled
staff to communicate with parents as to moving the student up the continuum of support.
These same staff state that students who had moved to a more restrictive setting were
noted as having additional factors that led to the change in placement. Staff reported that
attendance was a primary factor for one of the students that moved to pull-out classes and
that mental health concerns was a primary factor in the movement of another student to a
smaller learning environment. Ability, in and of itself, was not a primary factor in the
movement of these students. However, in the two other cases, the factors were academic.
Staff had agreement that they felt they had modified the curriculum to such an extent,
with the students still not meeting with success, that a change in placement was
warranted to provide a smaller learning environment that might benefit the students with
pacing and curriculum modifications. Another factor that was also common in the
reported cases was the Lexile level of the students moved to pull-out classes. They were
noted as being lower than their other special education peers.
The staff were also asked if there were any supports that were in place that the
students did respond to, and if so, what they were. For those students who moved from
regular education settings to more restrictive environments, staff stated that the extent of
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
122
the struggle for the student after modifications and accommodations was the primary
factor in their decision making. Despite having adapted tests, adapted homework
assignments, extended time for assessments, and coteaching models the students were
still underperforming. In one case, a staff member had explained that a student was given
a graphic organizer as a modification for a writing assignment. The teacher was willing
to grade the student on the thoughts in the graphic organizer rather than the paper itself.
As the respondent stated, “Often the thoughts are there for the student but getting those
thoughts to paper in paragraph form can be a challenge.” However, the student was still
not on topic with the thoughts in the graphic organizer. In this example, it was an
indicator that, despite the modification, the student still was struggling with the concepts
and would require smaller group support.
In yet another example, the teacher allowed for a retest and the special education
staff member went back through the material with the student to try and reteach the
content. Even after this modification the student could not perform on the adapted
assessment. This was, again, another example of a decision made to pull the student back
to a more restrictive setting based on the consistent lack of response to modifications
being made such as this. Staff cited that it does take time to make these decisions and
that it shouldn’t be rushed so that an accurate placement can be recommended. One
teacher cited that originally, with one of the students that was moved back, that it seemed
like a motivation issue. However, after consistent review and changes to the
modifications being done in the LRE, it became clear that what seemed like a motivation
issue was really a lack of understanding.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
123
Staff did report the importance of some of the remediation coursework that
occurred to improve students’ reading levels as an important factor to success as well.
The remediation coursework is done above and beyond the coursework done in the
regular or pull-out class, occupying a different slot in the schedule. This supported the
students in not losing time on grade level topics in the learning support environment
because the remediation class took care of the remediation need. In addition to
remediation classes, one teacher stated that the inclusion of two resource periods to allow
for more individualized attention and back up instruction also was a positive support for
the students. This increase in individual attention allowed the teacher to attack
misunderstandings, helping the student keep up.
On the other hand, though, students who demonstrated readiness for the regular
education environment were responding to the adaptations being put in place. All the
students, except for one, had the use of adapted tests that made the transition manageable
for them to the regular education classroom. For the student who did not have adapted
tests, they had demonstrated that they did not need this modification to their program and
could perform using the regular classroom assessment. In an interesting case, a student
consistently demonstrated delays in processing speed. However, given extended time,
the student could demonstrate understanding. This same student had the highest grade in
the class after being given the accommodation of extended time on a recent test. The
staff noted that it is sometimes difficult balancing how much extended time is acceptable,
where sometimes it is time to move on for the sake of the new learning. Still in other
examples, staff reported modifications to the length of written work as a primary SDI
implemented that supported students in the regular education environment.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
124
Staff were also asked if there were any revisions to the IEP that could be recalled,
and if so, what they were. Staff commonly cited that the SDI’s that come from the
preceding school are often very robust and that there aren’t many more to add to IEP’s
once they get to Independence Middle School. In the examples of students moving
backwards, it was more a question of trying different aspects of modifications on
assignments and tests since this SDI was already listed in the IEP. Staff cited that the real
benefit in these situations has been the co-teacher’s ability to make changes as instruction
unfolds based on how students are responding to the situation beyond what was already
planned for by the staff. In another comment, a regular education teacher stated that “in
17 years this year was the best year that I have had in supporting students” due to the
continuum of support that is provided. It appeared that most staff felt that the SDI’s as
listed were not in need of changing, but that the implementation was what was being
examined based on student needs.
In a different example, a staff member reported that the initial placement in the
regular classroom did not start well. The teacher stated that the student was not willing to
use the tools that had been provided, even though they had shown a readiness for being in
the regular class. The teacher revised the IEP to provide for the student taking pictures of
their assignments and directions on the board. This was to help with the student’s
reading disability and executive functioning needs. The teacher did report that over time
there was improvement in the student’s performance in class.
Finally, staff were also asked to look at the student’s supports in the IEP and
explain how the accommodations were implemented for students who had moved from
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
125
the LRE to pull out settings. As stated in the previous question, many staff cited that
changes in the way modifications were made on tests and assignments were what was
refined for the student since the SDI existed allowing for the modifications. Examples of
these changes included the complexity of problems being answered, or the length of the
assignment being further reduced, or the amount of time given to complete a task. Also,
as explained previously, one teacher was willing to adapt the grading of the student who
was eventually moved to a pull-out class based on her ability to put forward thoughts in a
graphic organizer rather than in paragraph form. However, in all of these cases,
modifications could not be made that provided for a level of understanding and success
that made remaining in the LRE a viable option.
Interpretation of Data for Research Question Number 1
Research question number one, what are teachers’ perceptions about student
supports outlined in a student’s IEP and how are those supports implemented in their
classrooms, was supported by the data that was returned on the Likert survey and
subsequent semi-structured interview. This revealed that there are trends by subject for
SDI’s that are found to be most effective by staff. Staff overall felt as though the top 5
supports available to students in the IEP were Paraprofessional Support, Extended Time
for Testing, Adapted Tests, Small Group Testing, and Tests Read Aloud. One
immediately can note that there is a common word in four out of the five supports in this
case, that is “tests”. This may be the case because this is where students earn much of
their grade and where success and failure in the class is mostly hinged upon. However,
when we look at the various subjects there is not necessarily agreement with the top 5,
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
126
which would be logical based on the type of content that you teach and how those SDI’s
effect your content area. Let us take a closer look at this.
As seen in Table 6, the top five SDIs in Language Arts were Paraprofessional
Support, Organization Support, Crisis Pass, Preferential Seating, and Small Group
Testing. These valued supports are shared by small group testing and paraprofessional
support with the overall feelings of the staff on the survey. It also highlights three
supports not in agreement with the overall feelings of the staff that include the use of a
crisis pass, preferential seating, and organization support. Looking at the feedback for
organizational support, it is apparent that the nature of Language Arts requires a high
level of organization due to longer term projects and writing assignments. The staff seem
to value the purposeful effort placed into organizational structures in the class that help
students be successful due to the many parts that writing projects contain. This is a
natural place where students with special needs do tend to falter due to executive
functioning deficits and is logical to have higher value placed upon it.
When looking at the implementation and beliefs by the Language Arts staff, we
see statements for Paraprofessional Support that indicate the importance of providing 1:1
support as needed, providing back up instruction, assisting with small group testing, and
providing redirection to students. As stated in the previous paragraph, looking at the SDI
of Organizational Support the staff reports that having structure helps with executive
functioning and finding the items that are needed for the class. Staff also report the
importance of digital organization support in a digital age as a key consideration for
organizational support. The use of a Crisis Pass was ranked high on the list for Language
Arts teachers but was not commented on in regard to the reasons for why in the interview
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
127
process. However, preferential seating was noted by staff to provide a large return for
something that is easy to do. Staff report that there are different ways in which
preferential seating is implemented based on what the student needs in the class. This
could include sitting close to the teacher, near the board, away from distractions, or in a
spot that allows for movement. Lastly, Small Group testing was noted as being a good
opportunity to clarify for students while also providing for scaffolding to access what
they know about the content when testing.
Looking at the math staff responses, the top five responses included
paraprofessional support, coteaching, extended time for testing, tests read aloud, and
adapted tests. In contrast to the overall list, the math staff shared agreement with four out
of the five with paraprofessional support, extended time for testing, adapted tests and
tests read aloud being the common items. The SDI that the math department felt strongly
about that was not in complete alignment with some of the other subject areas was
coteaching, which had strong agreement amongst the math staff as a top five support.
Looking at the overall list of supports and their value, coteaching was number seven on
the list when averaged by all staff. This would indicate that there is some agreement
amongst staff of its value overall but still was not in the top five as it was for the math
staff.
When looking at the beliefs and implementation of these supports the math staff
gave feedback regarding paraprofessional support stating that in many cases the support
is best in the resource class to provide back up to what the student was learning in class.
Teachers also report that the support is best when it is present throughout the class if it is
available, where the para can serve as an extra set of eyes on the situation as well as
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
128
provide a different perspective of the work that needs done. Lastly, staff report that it is
beneficial to have the additional voice of encouragement for the students in the class.
Coteaching was a support that the staff felt was important. Their beliefs and
implementation of this support included comments such as the increased face time that is
allotted the students in the class, the ability to group students and work with them based
on their needs, and the ability to employ different coteaching delivery options. Face time
was the most prevalent similarity in how the staff describe this support being effective.
Staff also see value in the co-teacher’s presence to make adaptations for the students.
Math staff supported the importance of extended time for testing. Words and
phrases that describe the beliefs and implementation of this support include that this is
something that needs to be afforded all students in the classroom. Staff report that
students need to be given time for processing purposes, as not all students are as fast as
each other. Staff do cite that it is important to put limitations on this accommodation as
well though, so that the student can eventually “move forward” from the assessment.
Test read aloud was considered an important SDI by the math staff. The feedback
regarding this support however was not commented on in the interview as to why.
Adapted Tests were commented on, though. Those comments included that adapted tests
are given to students that include a change in reading level, formatting of the tests such as
bolding key words, and giving a simple hint to help them access what they know. Still
other practices include eliminating distractor responses on the test.
Looking at the reading staff feedback, the top 5 supports listed were preferential
seating, paraprofessional support, tests read aloud, adapted tests, and extended time for
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
129
testing. In contrast to the overall feedback of staff, the common SDI’s were
paraprofessional support, tests read aloud, adapted tests, and extended time for testing.
The only SDI that varied was preferential seating that the reading staff felt was important.
So, there was strong agreement with the reading staff to the overall feeling of teachers
regarding SDIs found in the IEP.
When we look at the feedback from reading staff about their beliefs and
implementation of preferential seating teachers report that there are many ways in which
this support is implemented. Like what is reported by other staff who value this support,
the ability to move a student away from distractors, near the source of instruction, or near
the board all can mean preferential seating. Sometimes teachers report that it is important
for them to have easy access to the students, which constitutes preferential seating.
Paraprofessional support was, again, one of the most popular supports in the SDI
section of the IEP as reported by the reading teachers and shared with the other staff
members. Feedback from the staff include the quality of the para being a primary
determining factor to the effectiveness of this support as well as knowing the students
they are working with. The reading staff value the ability to have paras use proximity
control to keep students on task. Some state that this is even the number one purpose to
having the paraprofessional in the room. Staff also state that the ability to pull the
students into small groups is also helpful. Lastly, the staff report that the para is really
important in the communication area to the resource teacher in order to help students’
complete assignments.
Tests read aloud, while rated highly by the staff on the Likert survey, was not
commented on by the staff in the semi-structured interview. However, adapted tests were
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
130
discussed, and staff reported that this makes a difference for students. One reading
teacher states that written portions are in special need of adaptations, with graphic
organizers being helpful. Staff also report the reduction of multiple-choice options as a
valuable strategy when adapting tests. Additionally, reading teachers report that
extended time for testing is an important accommodation for students. Staff report that
this is important for students who are having anxiety about testing that slows them down
and which requires that additional time.
The special education staff has as their top 5 rated SDIs adapted tests,
paraprofessional support, extended time for testing, study guides, and small group testing.
When compared with the results of the overall staff there are four in common that include
paraprofessional support, extended time for testing, small group testing, and adapted
tests. One SDI that was different included the use of study guides. This was not in the
top five for all staff. In fact, this was one of the lower rated supports by staff where it
ranked at number 17.
Special Education staff feedback with regard to adapted tests included the
importance of acknowledging the differences between the content areas and the types of
modifications that were necessary due to course demands. As an example, math often
requires reteaching and retesting, whereas science and social studies require a reduction
in the amount of content. This also requires being very clear in what content will be
tested. Another teacher noted the importance of minimizing the amount of content on the
assessment to help keep the student motivated and minimizing distraction. Common with
other staff member reports, the importance of eliminating some response items from tests
was also valued.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
131
Paraprofessional Support was again a top choice for the special education staff
members as it was for all staff. Special education staff feedback regarding this support
draws from their experiences as resource teachers as well. This is reflected in the
comments that the para is crucial in bringing back information about student needs to the
special education teacher. There is natural communication that occurs between the
special education teacher and the para that eliminates delay in communicating needs to
the teacher. This is a common report by special education staff. They also report that
this support helps with getting copies of notes given where note taking is often a struggle
for students. One staff member went as far as to say they are the “bridge to success in the
regular classroom”.
Staff did not provide feedback on extended time for testing even though it was a
top-rated support collectively. However, they did provide feedback on study guides as an
important SDI. Staff who provided feedback on this support indicated the importance of
narrowing the information for the students. They report the importance of having a
predefined outline because the students can learn the information but need to know what
is essential to help with their focus. Lastly, staff placed value on small group testing as a
support that they value. Feedback on the beliefs and implementation of this support were
stated as providing focus and reducing anxiety through the testing session.
Interpretation of Data for Research Question Number 2
Looking at the data returned from the MAP testing, the Likert survey, and the
semi-structured interview feedback on the beliefs and implementation of student
supports, we can look at any similarities by subject that exist based on student
performance and the perception/implementation of supports in the highest performing
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
132
classrooms. It makes the most sense to look at these similarities and differences by
content area since we have already established that there are sometimes differences in
how each content area values SDI’s. We will first look at Language Arts.
Two Language Arts respondents had a mean RIT growth of more than 3 points
from the fall to winter testing. In analyzing the similarities that exist for these two
respondents based on the value placed on SDI’s in the classroom there was very little
agreement on SDI’s that were rated as strongly agree on the Likert survey. The one in
common was organizational support. This support was stated as important due to the
lengthy assignments that can exist in Language Arts, including digital structures that are
important with the proliferation of digital technologies. In addition, highlighting key
information for students to help them focus was also stated as important for
organizational purposes.
One additional step that was taken in this research included the top-rated SDI’s
where the highest performing staff had agreement on the support as strongly agree OR
agree. This creates a broader picture of common feelings regarding supports in the
Language Arts classroom where greater growth was measured. Using this lens as a
backdrop, we can see that the highest performing Language Arts staff, in addition to
organizational support, value small group testing, preferential seating, allowing for
movement in the classroom, and paraprofessional support. These supports were reported
as agree or strongly agree by the staff. However, the semi-structured interview, at the
time it was given, focused on qualitative feedback on supports rated as strongly agree.
There were three math staff that had a mean RIT growth greater than 3 points. In
analyzing the similarities that exist for these three respondents based on the value placed
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
133
on SDI’s in the classroom, there was much agreement on SDI’s that were rated as
Strongly Agree on the Likert survey. These common SDI’s were extended time for tests,
adapted tests, paraprofessional support, and coteaching. The staff’s comments regarding
adapted tests in these higher performing classes included changing the format of tests
such as bolding essential words, simple hints to remind students of what they had learned,
eliminating responses, and changing the reading level on the test. Staff comments about
coteaching included the ability to group and regroup students, increase in facetime with
the students, help with adaptations in the classroom, importance of additional viewpoints,
and varying instruction/models of coteaching. Extended time for tests was an area that
the three staff rated highly as well. Comments regarding this SDI included the
importance of understanding differences in students’ processing times, keeping extended
time within reason, and that this support is important for all students, not just students
with IEP’s. Finally, paraprofessional support shared agreement amongst the highest
performing staff where comments included the importance of carryover by the
paraprofessional to the resource class of information from math class, the ability to
support repetition, the importance of a qualified para, and the ability to vary what is said
to students to help them comprehend information. In table 19, one additional support that
shared a rating of Agree was the use of a Crisis Pass. This support was rated as Agree by
all three staff members. However, it was not commented on by the respondents in the
interview.
Two reading teachers had an increase in mean RIT score of more than 3 points.
These staff had responded similarly on the SDI’s tests read aloud, preferential seating,
adapted tests and paraprofessional support. Staff had commented regarding adapted tests
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
134
that they use graphic organizers for students and reduce multiple choice options on tests.
Also, these two staff report that they use paraprofessional support for proximity control
of students during class, the ability to work individually as needed with students, the
importance of the para knowing the student in depth, paras regrouping students during
independent time, and the importance of paras bringing information back to the resource
room. Two additional supports were rated as either agree or strongly agree. Those two
supports were extended time for testing and crisis pass. The only comment made by the
staff regarding these additional two supports was for the use of extended time where the
respondent had stated the importance of this for students who get anxious with testing.
Finally, the special education staff did not have any respondents whose students
had a mean RIT score gain over 3 points. The closest respondent to this was a staff
member whose students had a mean gain of 2.63 points. As seen in table 20, this staff
member rated small group testing, tests read aloud, extended time for assignments,
extended time for testing, adapted tests, use of graphic organizers, paraprofessional
support, and coteaching as strongly agree. This teacher stated that for extended time on
assignments that workload can come and go, making this important at times when the
student has a heavy load of work to do. For paraprofessional support, the staff member
sites this as the most important afforded to students as it brings back vital information to
resource class where students get support for their core classes. For small group testing
the teacher expressed the importance of providing focus and reducing test anxiety. For
tests read aloud the staff member felt it was essential to eliminate decoding concerns and
distractions.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
135
Interpretation of Data for Research Question Number 3
The third research question asked, what movement from regular education classes
to more restrictive pull-out classes occur over the course of a year and is there any
correlation to perception and implementation of student supports? When we look at the
data that came back in analyzing movement to and from the LRE it was reassuring to see
that the trend was to move students up the continuum towards the LRE. In fact, there
were 19 moves made this past school year to and from the LRE. 13 of those moves were
to the regular classroom and 6 of those moves were to pull out settings. This is more than
double the amount of movement up the continuum in fulfillment of the federal mandate
for reinforcing the least restrictive environment. In addition, only 4 of the 11 students
were involved in the 6 moves to pull-out settings. That means that 7 students moved up
the continuum to lesser restrictive settings.
What we also find in this scenario is that the majority of moves to and from the
LRE were with teachers who had students that displayed some of the highest growth in
their classrooms. It is important to note that the vast number of these moves came within
one team of teachers. This team of teachers, throughout the semi-structured interview,
mentioned that they regularly look at placements, accommodations, and modifications in
order to find a best fit for the students on the team.
The second part of research question number 3 asked if there was any correlation
between student movement and perception of student supports. Looking at the data, the
movement from the LRE to pull-out classes was relegated to one team as mentioned.
However, the vast majority of moves from this same team were to the LRE. Also, these
moves were across subject areas making it harder to draw a correlation since we already
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
136
have established that the various disciplines’ view supports differently at times based on
the content taught. However, a correlation could be made using the Likert survey when
looking at the highest rated supports that the staff had in common when responding agree
and strongly agree. Looking at Table 22 you can see that the only supports that were in
common with one another where staff said strongly agree to the importance of the SDI
were adapted tests and paraprofessional support. However, this was only for respondents
7 and 8. Only when you take into account Table 23 for those supports that the staff agree
OR strongly agree do you begin to get agreement on what supports are most important.
Those supports were paraprofessional support, adapted tests, audiobooks, and crisis pass.
It was very evident in the interview process that the staff puts a great deal of effort into
adapting tests for their students based on need. It was also evident that the staff values
the support of the paraprofessional, not only in the classroom but more importantly in the
bringing back of information to the resource room where students receive backup
instruction and support.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
137
Table 22
Supports Rated as Strongly Agree for Staff with Student Movement
Respondent 5 Lang. Arts
Respondent 7 Reading
Respondent 8 Math
Chunking Assignments
Adapted Tests
Adapted Tests
Directions Repeated
Paraprofessional Support
Paraprofessional Support
Extended Time for
Assignments
Preferential Seating
Extended Time for Tests
Organization Support
Tests Read Aloud
Coteaching
Use of Graphic Organizer
Study Guides
Positive Reinforcement
Checks for Understanding
Table 23
Supports Rated as Strongly Agree and Agree for Staff with Student Movement
SDI
Respondent 5
Respondent 7
Respondent 8
Adapted Tests
Agree
Strongly Agree
Strongly Agree
Audiobooks
Agree
Agree
Agree
Paraprofessional
Support
Agree
Strongly Agree
Strongly Agree
Crisis Pass
Agree
Agree
Agree
Looking at the semi-structured interview feedback, the consistent themes that
were obtained by staff where students moved from the LRE to pull-out environments that
were not related to non-academic factors such as attendance or mental health concerns
were relegated to the lack of response that students had when modifications were made to
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
138
assignments and tests. Staff feedback gave examples as to how assignments and tests
were modified, how extensions to time were given, and modifications to grading were
made with little results. This showed a correlation when considering student movement
and the implementation of supports rated as agree and Strongly Agree, however, there
was not broad agreement to supports where staff Strongly Agree with the importance of
those supports.
Discussion
The data analysis process that was followed for the three research questions to
draw conclusions for the next chapter required the researcher to blend the various data
points as was described in the methods chapter of this Doctoral Capstone Research
Project and as given in its raw form in this chapter. Specifically, question number 1 took
into account two data points that included the Likert survey and the semi-structured
interview. In taking those two pieces of data into account, the researcher first analyzed
the Likert survey feedback by averaging all respondents scores for each SDI that was
measured. These SDI’s were then placed in rank order so that they could be viewed from
most important to least important. Additionally, the Likert survey data was broken out by
subject area in the same way, averaging the feedback from each respondent by subject
area and ranking those 27 supports. In this way, the researcher could look at differences
that demonstrate themselves in staff perceptions about supports by subject area when
compared to the whole group.
The second piece of data was qualitative from the semi-structured interview
regarding their beliefs and implementation of their top-rated supports. The researcher
compiled this information into a grid based on the notes from the interview in order to
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
139
code the information, looking for familiar themes that came from staff regarding the
SDIs. The researcher broke out the qualitative data by subject area so that, again, any
trends by content could be noted. The first research question really seeks to find staff
perceptions and beliefs about the most important specially designed instruction elements.
This was presented in narrative form in this chapter. However, in the conclusions
portion, we will look at pairing the top-rated supports on the Likert scale with the
qualitative feedback by subject area.
For research question number 2, the researcher compiled the information from
three data points, that being the Likert survey, the semi-structured interview, and
performance data on the MAP assessment in the fall and winter testing sessions. The
data analysis process for this question was to first determine what staff, who had learning
support students in their class, saw the most growth in their students based off the MAP
testing. This included looking at the mean, median, mode, standard deviation, percent of
students making gains, and average first semester grades. Then, identifying those
classrooms, the Likert survey data was pulled for only those respondents to determine
what commonality existed. In addition, an added layer was done to look at supports that
were in common where the teacher rated them as agree and not only strongly agree. This
allowed the researcher to look at any additional belief systems that the teachers shared
where there was generally strong agreement on effective specially designed instruction.
Lastly, the data analysis process for this question pulled the comments made about the
supports rated as strongly agree by those staff members with the highest performance.
The third research question utilized the tracking of student movement throughout
the year from least restrictive to more restrictive environments and vice versa. The
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
140
researcher looked at trends in where this student movement occurred. Where this
movement occurred, a follow up interview was conducted with the staff members to
gather feedback on various aspects of IEP implementation, looking for any common
feedback that could be found. This led to some encouraging trends with student
movement to lesser restrictive environments while also highlighting some of the practices
that were proving effective for students.
Summary
This Doctoral Research Capstone Project was meant to look at teacher perception
of the importance of SDI’s written into the IEP’s of students as well as insight into their
beliefs and practices with those supports. Also, the project sought to find any similarities
that could be found in teachers’ perceptions, beliefs, and practices for those classrooms
where students show greater growth. Lastly, the project sought to identify student
movement to and from the LRE and what correlation to perception, beliefs, and practices
might be found amongst teachers where student movement occurs. Utilizing a series of
datapoints that included a Likert survey, semi-structured interviews, standardized testing
data, and grades, insight into teacher perception, beliefs and practices could be analyzed.
The perceptions and practices were found to vary from content area to content
area slightly due to the nature of what students are asked to do. However, when you look
at content areas in isolation, there are patterns of value systems that begin to emerge in
both beliefs and implementation. Furthermore, when you look at how staff who have
students that demonstrate higher growth and compare their perception, beliefs, and
practice other patterns emerge, particularly if you consider specially designed instruction
that the staff rated as Agree or Strongly Agree in their perceptions.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
141
Lastly, when looking at student movement to and from the LRE, it was gratifying
to see that the overall trend of student movement was from more restrictive to lesser
restrictive environments. Themes that emerged with staff where student movement went
to more restrictive settings centered around the lack of response to accommodations and
modifications that were made for the student, sometimes significant modifications that
did not result in the type of progress that one would want to see when such adjustments
are made. The movement that occurred to more restrictive environments also happened
with some of the staff whose students showed the highest growth overall. On one hand
one could suggest that this could account for some of the increase in the mean average
RIT gain of the class. However, we should be quick to remember that these same staff
members moved other students from more restrictive placements to their class. So, it is
unlikely that this movement had significant impact on the mean scores. However, there
was correlation between the staff’s feedback on SDIs and movement to more restrictive
environments.
In the next chapter we will attempt to draw some conclusions regarding the data
for the research questions that were framed for this project. These conclusions can
hopefully be used to influence future in-service for staff on the types of SDI’s and their
implementation that has the greatest effect on student performance. We will also attempt
to address the fiscal implications of the research, as well as identify areas that may need
further investigation due to the findings. Lastly, we will attempt to identify any
limitations that may have existed in the design or implementation of this research project
that could have affected the results.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
142
Chapter V
Conclusions and Recommendations
This chapter is designed to bring together the data into conclusions and
recommendations regarding the three research questions proposed in this Doctoral
Research Capstone Project. This mixed methods research project was constructed to
shed light on the practices and beliefs of staff about specially designed instruction for
students with IEPs. The conclusions are drawn from varied sources of data that involve
both qualitative and quantitative points including Likert survey results, semi-structured
interviews, and contemporary and historical student performance data. This chapter will
also look at potential implications for future practice at Independence Middle School and
what fiscal implications that this may entail. As with all research there are limitations to
the design and implementation of the project. This chapter will also look at those
limitations to transparently put forward the conclusions and recommendations, taking the
shortcomings into account. This will give way to thoughts about future research topics
surrounding students with IEPs and structures meant to support the mandate of Least
Restrictive Environment.
The review of literature that was provided in this research project clearly
demonstrates the evolution of legal mandates that started with the inclusion of special
education students in schools themselves, to a much more inclusive environment of
students with special needs in the regular education classroom in the modern day. The
literature review also demonstrated the special education process being structured in a
way that strives for inclusion in the least restrictive environment, starting with a multidisciplinary evaluation, culminating in an Individualized Education Program meant to
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
143
make use of supplementary aides and services written in the form of specially designed
instruction that have both accommodations and modifications to the educational program
targeted for the students’ success. This chapter ties these concepts together, along with
the results, to paint a picture of the status of inclusion and LRE at Independence Middle
School as well as what next steps may entail.
Conclusions
There were three research questions that the researcher was attempting to answer
in this project. Those research questions will be listed in order followed by conclusions
drawn from the data for each.
Research Question Number One
The first question was, what are teachers’ perceptions about student supports
outlined in a student’s IEP and how are those supports implemented in their classrooms?
This question looks to simply find what the value system and implementation of supports
looks like for staff. The Likert survey and first semi-structured interview were used to
answer this question.
It was clear early on that there was great value in looking at the supports as
grouped by the various content areas in addition to the overall responses. This was
because the structure of the disciplines affected teacher response in various content areas
making it important to acknowledge this line of inquiry rather than at a macro level for
the entire group of teachers’ view on accommodations and modifications. However, the
focus on the overall staff’s thoughts for these supports was still felt to be important as it
allowed us to see what was common and what was different.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
144
Looking at all staff first we see that, almost universally, paraprofessional support
was rated as a key inclusion in a student’s IEP regardless of discipline. This support was
the only SDI that was included in the top 5 of the aggregate scores in each of the content
areas as well as in the overall top 5. Staff clearly desire the flexibility that another adult
in the room provides. The staff feedback demonstrates the multi-faceted role that the
paraprofessional provides in their eyes, both in real time while the class is unfolding and
outside of the classroom during backup instructional time. During classroom time, staff
report the importance of having another point of view, an additional set of eyes on the
needs of the students, providing 1:1 or small group support during the class, support for
small group testing, tests read aloud, and in helping focus the students during class.
Outside of class, multiple staff report the importance that the paraprofessional plays in
communicating student needs to the resource room where backup instruction and
organizational support are provided.
Additionally, for all staff, was the importance placed on supports surrounding
testing. Four of the top five supports that were rated highest by the staff overall included
extended time for testing, adapted tests, small group testing, and tests read aloud. While
the type of support valued by staff around testing may vary, all disciplines valued some
sort of support in a student’s IEP around this subject. It seems apparent that this focus on
testing parallels the barriers that sometimes arise with the LRE when students are not
“passing”. In other words, when students are not achieving the grades in the regular
classroom, a more restrictive environment is often the result. Hence, any accommodation
or modification that affects the most impactful factor for placement in the LRE (grades)
is given a lot of attention. Language Arts was the only real exception to this because a
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
145
larger portion of the assessment practices in this class involve written work more often
than formal testing. This is an example of a content area that diverges from the overall
trend in perception data measured by the survey where test accommodations and
modifications are so highly rated.
As stated, staff by content area varied sometimes slightly and sometimes largely
from the overall list. Language Arts staff varied the most from the overall feelings of the
staff sharing only paraprofessional support and small group testing with the feelings of
the collective group. The other supports that they felt were important were preferential
seating, organization support, and the use of the crisis pass. When you look at the
qualitative data for these supports that diverge from the overall feelings of the group, you
understand the staffs’ focus on practices that keep the students focused and engaged
through organizational structures in their classrooms, including digital structures due to
the project type content that occurs in their area. While there are certainly organizational
structures in other content areas, learning is largely compartmentalized to isolated pieces
of work. In a persuasive essay, as an example, if you have lost your prewriting work and
graphic organizer it is hard to start your rough draft. However, homework for math class
is not viewed in that same way where once the assignment is done, a student can be
successful without finding that homework assignment again or referring to it directly in
many cases. So, one can understand the divergence in the feelings of the Language Arts
staff in this way. Also, the importance placed on a crisis pass and preferential seating by
the Language Arts staff were not far off from the top 5 supports for all staff. They were
number 6 and number 8 respectively in the list of 27. This indicates that the feelings of
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
146
the overall staff are similar in this regard but are more strongly felt by the Language Arts
staff.
The math content area was predominantly in line with the feedback from the staff.
The exception to this was the higher value that the staff had placed on the coteaching
support. The overall feelings of the staff were that coteaching ranked 7th in the list of 27
SDIs. There is some agreement amongst staff overall for this support. However, the fact
that the math staff felt this support was in the top 5 was notable. In looking at the
qualitative feedback from the staff it was apparent that the staff looked upon this support
favorably due to the additional support it gives the classroom, where constant formative
assessment is even more essential. Having the extra set of trained eyes is valued by the
staff. Staff report valuing the ability to group and regroup students, increased facetime,
provide different perspectives to students, and assistance with adaptations for the work
that is assigned or tests that are taken.
Reading staff were also largely in agreement with the overall feelings of the
group. The value placed on preferential seating practices was the only difference in the
top 5 supports as rated by the reading staff. However, overall, preferential seating was
rated sixth by all staff. The reading staff’s value placed on supports that help with testing
as well as paraprofessional support also indicate the acknowledgement that, at the end of
the day, the grade is the validating factor that keeps students in the LRE and why they
value this support so much.
Lastly, the special education staff was also largely in agreement with the feelings
of the rest of the staff. The SDI that varied for the special education staff was the use of
study guides. This was the real outlier when answering research question one for the four
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
147
content areas. Study guides as ranked by the entire staff was seventeenth out of the 27
SDIs. In the cases of the other content areas, any variability in the value placed on SDIs
in their top 5 list was generally found to be ranked very close to the top in the overall
standings. When looking at the special education staff feedback about this support it is
not hard to understand why special education staff value this, though. In their world it is
important to know what students need to be successful on a test. Also, staff indicate that
they need their students to be able to focus in on the need-to-know content using a
predefined outline so that they can be efficient in their studying, increasing their chances
for a higher grade. It would be interesting to know why content area staff do not feel the
same way about this item since it directly affects success on tests, which, as indicated on
the Likert survey feedback, is where the most value is placed.
There are multiple implications to answering research question number one as it
relates to future practice at Independence Middle School. First, it is important to have a
starting point for current realities surrounding student supports in the school. When
students are not doing well in class, knowing the type of supports that are valued by staff
can help an IEP team ask essential questions to improve that situation for the student. As
an example, knowing that organizational support is of high importance in the Language
Arts classroom will assist the IEP team in looking into how that system is working or not
working for the student, if implicit instruction is needed in the organizational framework,
or if tweaks to the framework are needed. Additionally, seeing how coteaching ranks so
highly for math and Language Arts staff, but not as much in reading, enables us to ask the
question why and to potentially divert more support to the development of this
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
148
relationship. So, understanding the perceptions, beliefs and practices in this area has
important information we can learn from to generate conversation for growth.
In summary, supports found in the IEP and their value to staff carried many
similarities from content area to content area with a few exceptions. The staff places a
high degree of value on supports that are meant to accommodate or modify testing for
students with disabilities, which has the greatest effect on a student’s grade and
placement in the least restrictive environment. Staff also universally support the use of a
paraprofessional to support students across settings, including the resource room where
backup instruction occurs. In places where the staff varied in their responses it seemed
tied to the constraints of the subject area such as organizational support for Language
Arts and study guides for special education staff. Finally, the implication to the school in
answering this question is that it provides a necessary understanding of “what is” in
regard to the value of supports by staff. This allows the IEP team to better understand
how that support may affect the student in the classroom and how that support may need
explicit instruction or modified to better meet the needs of the student in the LRE.
Research Question Number Two
The second research question asked, what relationship, if any, is there between
teacher perceptions/implementation of student support and student achievement? The
purpose of this question was to find if there was any correlation in perception and
implementation of SDIs so that, if a correlation existed, the practice could be replicated
across classroom settings. Looking at Language Arts you can see that there was not
agreement in the most highly rated supports on the Likert survey by the two staff
members that showed more than 3 points of growth. Organization support was the only
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
149
SDI that the staff shared as strongly agree. However, when we looked at the supports
that the two staff members rated as agree we do see that there are some common shared
values. Those supports were small group testing, preferential seating, allowing for
movement in the classroom, and paraprofessional support. While the interview of the
staff focused on those supports that were rated as strongly agree the commonality
between supports rated as agree still has importance and would benefit from future lines
of inquiry about why those staff members feel the way that they do about those supports
and how those supports are implemented.
There were three staff members that showed growth of more than three points in
the math content area. There was agreement between the three staff members that shared
values on extended time for tests, paraprofessional support, and coteaching. These
supports were all rated as strongly agree by the three staff members. If you also consider
supports rated as agree you would add adapted tests and crisis pass to the list. Qualitative
feedback from staff with these supports demonstrate common patterns of thought with
coteaching where staff note that the students benefit from having multiple perspectives
and increased facetime with students to correct misunderstandings. Paraprofessional
support, that was rated so highly by all staff, ranked highly with math staff as well. It
was stated by the highest performing math teachers that the importance of having a
qualified paraprofessional was paramount due to the technical nature of their content
area. However, divergent in the qualitative feedback was the value that some had placed
on the para support in the class vs. support that is provided in the resource room. In either
case, the complexity of math content seems to have an “all hands-on deck” approach
when it comes to coteaching and paraprofessional support.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
150
A common theme as well with the math staff is the willingness to adapt tests for
the students. The method of the adaptations may vary slightly, but the flexibility that the
staff are willing to make for students in adapting the tests is notable. Lastly, the staff’s
flexibility is further noted in their willingness to extend time on the testing. Common
themes for this from staff include the understanding that not all students process in the
same amount of time and that what you really want to know is what students can do, not
how fast they can do it. This approach is different than more traditional math teacher
mindsets when it comes to belief systems on test taking procedures.
There were two reading staff that had demonstrated growth of greater than 3
points in their classrooms with their students with IEPs. Those two staff members shared
a high degree of commonality in values placed on SDIs. Those two staff rated 4 supports
as Strongly Agree on the Likert survey which included tests read aloud, preferential
seating, adapted tests, and paraprofessional support. Additionally, extended time for
testing and crisis pass were rated as either strongly agree or agree by the reading staff as
important to student success. Common themes that come out in staff feedback regarding
these supports include flexibility for tests, in not only adapting them, but also in
extending time for students when needed. Staff also talk about the importance of the
ways in which preferential seating is conducted in their classes. This practice is based on
needs of the student and is not synonymous with sitting in the front of the classroom as
many people might first assume. This approach seems to highlight that a lot of thought
on what students need to be successful in the classroom occurs with these staff and is not
a one size fits all approach.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
151
Special education staff, when looking at the growth data, showed one staff
member whose students achieved a growth score of almost three points. The other staff
were not close in this area. While we can’t come to conclusions about common practices
in a special education teacher’s classroom as it relates to SDIs, we can take the highest
performing staff member’s thoughts in this case at face value. The staff member with the
highest growth had indicated that they valued small group testing, tests read aloud,
extended time for assignments, extended time for testing, and adapted tests. When we
look at the qualitative data surrounding these supports, we find that the teacher is flexible
in extending time on assignments and needs this flexibility for the staff teaching students
on their caseload. The respondent also commented on the importance of the
paraprofessional stating it is “the most important afforded to students” of all the supports
listed in the IEP. The paraprofessional is noted as being a key communicator between
those involved with the student. The respondent also uses words and phrases such as
focus, reduce anxiety, and keeping students from distraction as the reason for the
importance of testing supports such as small group and reading tests aloud. This, as it
does for the other highest performing teachers, demonstrates intensive thought about each
student’s needs.
The implication for answering this question is perhaps the most important of the
three that this Doctoral Research Capstone Project sought to answer. In knowing what
the highest performing teachers value and what their beliefs and implementations are for
those supports, we can potentially look to mirror that in other classrooms where students
are not making the same gains. This has a direct effect on the student’s placement in the
LRE and improves outcomes for students with IEP’s when we can define or demonstrate
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
152
best practices. As was seen in the data surrounding this question, the highest performing
staff afford a lot of flexibility in how they handle students regarding accommodations and
modifications on tests as well as assignments. It was also clear that staff levy resources
such as coteaching and paraprofessional support to provide an umbrella of support
throughout the school day.
In summary, except for Language Arts, there was much agreement on the
supports that were rated as Strongly Agree on the Likert Survey amongst the highest
achieving staff in the study. In most cases, three or four out of the top five supports were
common amongst the respondents. However, when you add supports that the staff also
rated as Agree a broader picture of commonly valued supports reveals itself. In addition
to what those supports are by name are the beliefs and implementation of those practices
in the classroom. Staff in this higher performing category seem to commonly make
adjustments for students on assignments and tests in order to achieve best results and
feelings of success in their students. This is important for the implications for this
research that can attempt to support the replication of those practices in the other
classrooms where growth is not as prevalent. Building on the consistency of these
practices across classrooms provides for more consistent success in the LRE.
Research Question Number 3
The third research questions asked, what movement from regular education
classes to more restrictive pull-out classes occur over the course of a year and is there any
correlation to perception and implementation of student supports? This question was put
into the line of inquiry due to the federal mandate of the LRE and our responsibility to
keep this movement in the forefront of our minds as a school. In addition, the District, in
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
153
prior years had been noted as being higher than the state average in their placement of
students outside of the LRE. This led to initiatives such as coteaching to try and support
the LRE as the first consideration for students with special education needs. The
encouraging information that came back from this question was the limited movement
that had occurred for students moving from the LRE to more restrictive pull-out settings.
In fact, it was quite the opposite where students moved from more restrictive settings to
the LRE. The data captured made it clear that the trends in belief systems where students
moved up the continuum included a lot of flexibility.
What was also important to recognize in this case was that most of the student
movement happened within one middle school team. In fact, they were the only team
that moved students down the continuum with a total of 6 moves to a more restrictive
environment that affected 4 different students. This same team had 10 moves to the
regular education classroom that included 4 different students as well i.e. one student
moving to regular education Language Arts and regular education math counts as two
moves by one student. So, the net movement was zero when looking at numbers of
students on this team that had moved down or up the continuum of support.
What was also evident in the faculty feedback where students made a backwards
move was the fact that the staff had put a lot of effort into adapting work and tests to help
the students be successful in the LRE, to little effect. This is important because it
documents effort made to prevent the movement which validates to a higher degree the
need for the change in placement. The one thing that we also see with student movement
to more restrictive environments include non-academic factors such as attendance and
mental health concerns. While attendance has often been associated with lower
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
154
achievement, the effects of the pandemic on mental health have led to greater concerns
for student success in school to a degree not felt before.
When looking at the correlation for beliefs and practice of student supports in the
IEP where student movement to and from the LRE exists, it was apparent that student
movement to more restrictive environments were grounded in the fact that students were
not responding to accommodations and modifications made in the classroom. In all
instances, the staff were able to name ways in which they modified homework and tests.
Some went so far as to admit that they had misread student misunderstanding for
laziness, but through constant reflection and modifications concluded that the student was
having comprehension difficulties that could not be met in the regular education
classroom and a change was made.
Conversely, on the other side of student movement, students who moved from the
pull out setting to the LRE were noted as far outpacing their peers in the pull-out
classroom. Correlation could also be found in the staff feedback that students were
responding to adapted tests to the extent that they could be successful in the regular
education environment. Staff also reported that the use of extended time for testing and
modifications to written work were helpful in assisting students transition to the regular
education environment. Lastly, staff reported the support of co-teachers and
paraprofessionals in the role they play in supporting students in the LRE as being
consistent factors that help students remain in the regular classroom. So, what started out
as an attempt to see if there was any correlation to SDI implementation for students who
moved down the continuum, quickly became a parallel inquiry to see what correlations
there were for students moving up the continuum.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
155
The implications for the school regarding this question deal with the practices that
occur when a student is being considered for movement from the LRE. The increased
focus on keeping students in the LRE has had positive effect with the proliferation of
coteaching and the focus on adaptations to tests and assignments. The fact that the pace
of movement into the LRE outpaces movement to more restrictive environments is very
favorable. The implication is that the school is meeting the federal mandate of LRE to a
higher degree with the practices outlined.
In summary, student movement to the LRE far outpaced movement to more
restrictive environments. This is a positive trend in meeting the federal legislation of
inclusive practices of students in the least restrictive environment. Correlation could be
found in the belief systems of staff in movement to more restrictive environments where
adaptations had been made to the content and to testing where students still showed high
degrees of lack of progress. Conversely, students moving to the LRE were showing the
highest grades in the pull-out class as well as responding to the adapted tests and work in
the regular education environment. The implication to these outcomes is a school that
seemingly is moving students up the continuum of support rather than in the other
direction. This is due, in part, to a willingness of staff to review supports and adapt or
modify work and tests. The continuation of this practice should yield positive results for
the school.
From a fiscal perspective, the results of this study may help us refine practices
and uses of resources that affect the financial expenditures for the school and district.
The single biggest cost in the budget is personnel costs associated with salary and
benefits. When we are more efficient in educating students with special education needs,
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
156
our costs for salary and benefits could theoretically be less over time (not counting
inflation factors). However, an important thought that came from this research project is
the importance that staff place on the human capital that is needed to support students in
the LRE. However, when we build consistency in how supports are implemented based
in data that highlights successful practice, we most assuredly will decrease the demand on
personnel, including exiting students from special education as a possible outcome. The
results of this study that show progress in pushing students up the continuum of services
illustrates how this could be possible. In fact, we saw one student exited from special
education this year during the study. Ideally, we will hit critical mass movement when
our exiting students outpace our placed students in the school. This will undoubtedly
affect the budget in a positive way.
Limitations
There are always factors that create limitations in the research design and
methodology. Often these factors are unforeseen or don’t become readily as clear when
the researcher first designs the project. One such factor that is noted in this project was
that there were two long terms substitutes in core content positions at the onset of this
study. One of the classrooms was not used for the study at all due to this factor.
However, not having this class could have influenced some of the data to a certain extent.
In addition to this, one of the teachers involved in the study, whose classroom was
originally staffed by a long-term substitute, was not directly responsible for all of the
student content that was taught and initially tested using the MAP data. This teacher’s
student scores did not show enough growth to be used in research question number 2. It
is possible that the teacher’s data, if they were the teacher of record for the entire time of
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
157
the study, could have yielded additional feedback to consider. I would quickly say,
though, that the data was not used in determining an answer to the second research
question and therefore did not negatively impact the use of data where staff did show the
greatest growth. This is simply an acknowledgement of the fact that the classrooms
could have contributed more information to the research had that staffing been intact.
Another aspect of this project that one must consider is the role that the art of
teaching plays on student skill acquisition. Certainly, the implementation of SDIs in the
student’s IEP is important, and the merit of the work is obvious. However, student
growth in classrooms are also greatly attributable to the skills of the teacher, the
engagement that they provide, the depth of knowledge of their content area, and the
design of the lesson. Therefore, when we measure student progress and draw correlations
to teacher perception, beliefs, and implementation of student supports we need to also
consider the role that the art of teaching plays in student achievement.
One last factor to consider regarding this study is the mere fact that I was the
principal of the building for almost 17 years. While great care was taken to be objective
about the study and what I know about teachers and the students there, having
relationships and knowing the inner workings of the school can certainly influence
thinking, processes, and conclusions, not always for the worse. However, again, great
care was taken so that this knowledge did not affect any results. The staff were given
numbers so that when data was analyzed, anonymity was there so that the researcher did
not know who had responded in what way to protect against assumptions and
predetermined thoughts. This was an effective safeguard against making assumptions
that could bleed their way into the findings.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
158
Recommendations for Future Research
This Doctoral Research Capstone Project led the researcher to ponder many
concepts for further review. First and foremost, the majority of student supports that
were discussed involved accommodations and modifications surrounding testing. One of
the areas that would have great benefit to students is looking in greater detail how student
assessments are modified. Staff did go into some detail about how they implement
adapted tests certainly. However, this topic could certainly warrant a research study in
and of itself to understand how modifications such as these affect student performance
and what modifications help teachers the most in getting students to produce what they
know on formal assessments.
Also, with so much focus on testing accommodations and the fact that the
majority of supports in the IEP are accommodation driven, greater research could be done
on the modifications of day-to-day learning that leads up to the assessment, or even the
use of different methods of demonstrating competency. The effects of Universal Design
for Learning principles and their effect on the day-to-day engagement and learning of
material would certainly be a topic that would place in greater detail how modifications
or rethinking learning could support students rather than focusing on “the test” within the
specially designed instruction framework.
Another aspect of future research would be to look more in depth at how the MAP
assessment data can inform instruction for students with IEP’s and how to use the
information to flexibly group students, perhaps making better use of coteaching supports
and paraprofessional supports. The MAP assessment process is still new to the staff at
Bethel Park School District. There is a wealth of information in the assessment that is
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
159
given three times throughout the year. The assessment itself does much more than just
measure growth and predict proficiency. The assessment gives feedback on the readiness
level for various skills that groups of students can be instructed upon. This tool allows
staff to think about flexible grouping and pre-teaching strategies when approaching units
of instruction. Certainly, this tool has much promise that can be used to improve
planning and instruction for students with IEPs and would be worthy of greater research.
Lastly, a great deal of credibility was given to paraprofessional support and
coteaching from the staff in this research study as a meaningful SDI for students.
Additional research would be very worthwhile to study the function of these individuals
in the classroom in greater detail to highlight the best practices to assist in training for
staff. The literature is rich in the area of coteaching and the modalities of coteaching.
The literature is much less substantial in the effect of paraprofessional practice.
However, regardless of the extent of the literature, local norms and belief systems can
affect the implementation of these supports. In addition to this, the reading staff in this
research study did not rate coteaching highly in their Likert survey results. Time spent
investigating the relationship that exists in this situation and what is happening in other
scenarios where coteaching is highly rated and supported would be time well spent. The
nuances of successfully integrating individuals into the support structure at school is
complex. Relationships, training, skills, and mindsets all play roles in the success of this
integration. However, highlighting things going well within the local context can be
helpful. Lastly, regarding paraprofessional support, there is a constant struggle in the
district as to the number of paraprofessionals needed. This struggle occurs from all
angles including parent desire to have para support, teacher desire for para support, and
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
160
administration trying to sort through the merit of the financial outlay with ever more
complex funding constraints. This additional research could help support best practices
for implementation of this support to try and relieve some of this strain.
Summary
Chapter V has presented the conclusions that were found in the data for the three
research questions. The findings reveal the perceptions, beliefs and implementation of
specially designed instruction that supports students in the least restrictive environment.
These perceptions are affected to some extent by the content that the staff member
teaches and what constraints their subject may present.
Additionally, the data revealed staff who have fostered a learning environment
that has yielded greater results in their learning support population. In highlighting these
classrooms, correlations were noted that named the supports and practices that were
similar and could be considered local best practices to support students with special
needs. While there were some variabilities in some of the subjects, the highest
performing staff by content area did share many common ideas about support
implementation.
Lastly, the data revealed that movement from the LRE to more restrictive
environments was not pervasive. In fact, movement from pull-out settings to the LRE
outpaced movement to pull-out settings. In answering the third research question there
were correlations that could be made regarding teacher perceptions, beliefs, and
implementation of student supports when movement is made to more restrictive
environments and when movement is made to the LRE. These perceptions and beliefs
centered around adapting tests and assignments, and how students responded to these
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
161
accommodations and modifications as determining factors for movement. It was
important to note that modifications were experimented with prior to student movement
being made. One can imagine that this is not always the case in a traditional classroom
where the mindset may be rigid in what a student must be able to do to be successful in
the classroom.
The results and conclusions made in this research study allow us to understand
where staff are in their perceptions, beliefs, and implementation of student supports. This
is helpful to a school in establishing what the status is in support implementation. The
results also help us determine what practices are getting better results in classrooms by
content area and how to structure future discussions with staff that drive support
implementation. Lastly, it is important to understand what effect student movement to
and from the LRE has on the learning environment of a school and fulfillment of state
mandates. Understanding how structures affect this movement helps administration
move supports and structure conversations that help the school in its fulfillment of federal
mandates to educate students in the LRE. It is my hope that the school and District will
continue its focus on practices that support students equitably across settings. This
requires focus and data mining so that the correct determinations can be made for a
process of continuous growth.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
162
References
Albrecht, S. F., & Joles, C. (2003). Accountability and access to opportunity: Mutually
exclusive tenets under a high-stakes testing mandate. Preventing School Failure:
Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 47(2), 86–91.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10459880309604435
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & the
National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for
educational & psychological testing.
Assistance to States for the Education of Students with Disabilities, 34 C.F.R. § 300
(2012). https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-34/subtitle-B/chapter-III/part-300
Ball, C., & R., O'Connor, E. (2016). Predictive utility and classification accuracy of oral
reading fluency and the measures of academic progress for the Wisconsin
Knowledge and Concepts Exam. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 41(4),
195-208. https://doi:10.1177/1534508415620107
Bell, L. (2011). Faculty conversation: Carol Tomlinson on differentiation. Curry
Magazine. https://education.virginia.edu/news/faculty-conversation-caroltomlinson-differentiation
Burns, E. (2007). The essential special education guide for the regular education teacher
Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED497333). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED497333
Carter, E. W., Austin, D., & Trainor, A. A. (2012). Predictors of postschool employment
outcomes for young adults with severe disabilities. Journal of Disability Policy
Studies, 23, 50-63. https://doi.org/10.1177/1044207311414680
Causton-Theoharis, J. Theoharis, G. Orsati, F. Cosler, M. (2011). Does self-contained
special education deliver on its promises? A critical inquiry into research and
practice. Journal of Special Education Leadership. Vol. 24 (2), 61-78
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
163
Choi, J. McCart, A. Sailor, W. (2020). Reshaping educational systems to realize the
promise of inclusive education. Fire: Forum for International Research in
Education. 6(1), 8-23.
Cordray, D. P. (2012, November 30). The impact of the measures of Academic Progress
(MAP) program on student reading achievement. final report. NCEE 2013-4000.
National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Retrieved
October 10, 2021, from
https://eric.ed.gov/?q=exit+survey+questions+Focus+group+questions&ff1=pubR
eports++Research&ff2=souNational+Center+for+Education+Evaluation+and+Regional+
Assistance&id=ED537982.
Data USA. (n.d.). Bethel Park, PA Census Place. https://datausa.io/profile/geo/bethelpark-pa - category_race-and-ethnicity
Dixson, D. D., & Worrell, F. C. (2016). Formative and summative assessment in the
classroom. Theory Into Practice, 55(2), 153–159.
Dymond, S. K., & Russell, D. L. (2004). Impact of grade and disability on the
instructional context of inclusive classrooms. Education and Training in
Developmental Disabilities, 39, 127-140.
Education Law Center. (n.d.). Education Law Center’s statement of student rights - elcpa.org. Retrieved October 10, 2021, from https://www.elc-pa.org/wpcontent/uploads/2017/08/ELC-Statement-Student-Rights-11-17-2016.pdf.
Finn, J. E., & Kohler, P. D. (2009). A compliance evaluation of the transition outcomes
project. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 32(1), 17-29.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0885728808315332
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., & Fernstrom, P. (1993). A conservative approach to special
education reform: Mainstreaming through transenvironmental programming and
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
164
curriculum-based measurement. American Educational Research Journal, 30(1),
149–177.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Compton, D. L., Wehby, J., Schumacher, R. F., Gersten, R., &
Jordan, N. C. (2015). Inclusion versus specialized intervention for very-lowperforming students: What does access mean in an era of academic challenge?
Exceptional Children, 81, 134- 157.
Gokbulut, O. D., Akcamete, G., & Güneyli, A. (2020). Impact of co-teaching approach in
inclusive education settings on the development of reading skills. International
Journal of Education and Practice, 8(1), 1–17.
Harmon, S., Street, M., Bateman, D., & Yell, M. L. (2020). Developing present levels of
academic achievement and functional performance statements for IEPS. Teaching
Exceptional Children, 52(5), 320–332.
Hawpe, J. (2013, February 4). Secondary teachers’ attitudes toward and willingness to
provide accommodations and modifications for students with disabilities.
[Doctorate of Education. Baker University]. PDQT Open.
https://media.proquest.com/media/hms/ORIG/2/eivhI?_s=mZoiL3qklv2y30b75vo
0I%2B4QM%2B4%3D
Hedin, L., & DeSpain, S. (2018). SMART or not? writing specific, measurable IEP goals.
Teaching Exceptional Children, 51(2), 100–110.
Hendricks, C. (2017). Improving schools through action research: A reflective practice
approach. Pearson.
Horowitz, S. H., Rawe, J., & Whittaker, M. C. (2017). The state of learning disabilities:
Understanding the 1 in 5. National Center for Learning Disabilities.
Hurd, E., & Weilbacher, G. (2017). “You want me to do what?” the benefits of coteaching in the middle level. Middle Grades Review, 3(1). 1-14.
Hurt, J. M. (2012). A Comparison of Inclusion and Pullout Programs on Student
Achievement for Students with Disabilities [ProQuest LLC]. In ProQuest LLC.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
165
Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged; Assistance to States for the
Education of Children with Disabilities 2015, 80 F.R. 50773. (August 21, 2015)
(To be codified with 34CFR Parts 200 and 300)
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (1990).
https://sites.ed.gov/idea/about-idea/
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (1997).
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-105publ17/html/PLAW105publ17.htm
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004).
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-108publ446/html/PLAW108publ446.htm
Iris Center. (2021). The IQ Discrepancy Model. Iris Peabody Vanderbuilt.
https://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/module/rti01/cresource/q1/p02/
Kauffman, J.M., Landrum, T.J., Mock, D.R., Sayeski, B., & Sayeski, K.L. (2005).
Diverse knowledge and skills require diversity of instructional groups: A position
statement. Remedial and Special Education, 26 (1), 2–6.
Klingbeil, D. A., McComas, J. J., Burns, M. K., & Helman, L. (2015). Comparison of
predictive validity and diagnostic accuracy of screening measures of reading
Skills. Psychology In the Schools, 52(5), 500-514. https://doi:10.1002/pits.21839
Knight, P.T. (2002). Summative assessment in higher education: Practices in disarray.
Studies in Higher Education, 27(3), 275-286.
Kurth, J.A., & Mastergeorge, A.M. (2010). Academic and cognitive profiles of students
with autism: Implications for classroom practice and placement. International
Journal of Special Education, 25(2), 8-14.
Lazarus, S. S., Thompson, S. J., & Thurlow, M. L. (2006). How students access
accommodations in assessment and instruction: Results of a survey of special
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
166
education teachers. EPRRI Issue Brief Seven. Educational Policy Reform
Research Institute.
LDOnline. (2021). Highlights of key provisions and important changes in the final
regulations for IDEA 2004. http://www.ldonline.org/article/54711/
Lee, S., Amos, B.A., Gragoudas, S., Lee, Y, Shogren, K.A., Theoharis, R., (2006).
Curriculum augmentation and adaptation strategies to promote access to the
general curriculum for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities.
Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 41(3). 199-212.
Lee, S.-H., Wehmeyer, M. L., Soukup, J. H., & Palmer, S. B. (2010). Impact of
curriculum modifications on access to the general education curriculum for
students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 76(2), 213–233.
Leedy, P.D., & Ormrod, J.E. (2013). Practical research: Planning and design (10th ed.).
Pearson.
LeDoux, C., Graves, S. L., & Burt, W. (2012). Meeting the needs of special education
students in inclusion classrooms. Journal of the American Academy of Special
Education Professionals, Winter 2012. 20–34.
Lovette, B. Nelson, J. (2020, July 31). Educational accommodations for children and
adolescents with Attention-Deficit/ Hyperactivity Disorder. Journal of the
American Academy of Child Adolescent and Adolescent Psychiatry. Systematic
Review. 69(4), 448-457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2020.07.891
Morningstar, M. E., Shogren, K. A., Lee, H., & Born, K. (2015). Preliminary lessons
about supporting participation and learning in inclusive classrooms. Research and
Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 40(3), 192–210.
Murawski, W. W., & Swanson, H. L. (2001). Meta-analysis of co-teaching research:
Where are the data? Remedial and Special Education, 22, 258-267.
National Center for Learning Disabilities. (2006, April). IDEA parent guide: A
comprehensive guide to your rights and responsibilities under the Individuals with
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
167
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA 2004). NCLD.org. https://www.ncld.org/wpcontent/uploads/2014/11/IDEA-Parent-Guide.pdf
National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (2011). Comprehensive assessment
and evaluation of students with learning disabilities: A paper prepared by the
National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. Learning Disability
Quarterly, 34(1), 3-16. https://doi.org/10.1177/073194871103400101
Northwest Evaluation Association. (2021a). Empowering school leaders. Improve student
outcomes. NWEA. https://www.nwea.org/resource-center/factsheet/36677/school-imrpovement-empower-school-leaders_NWEA_factsheet.pdf/
Northwest Evaluation Association. (2021b). MAP growth. NWEA.
https://www.nwea.org/resource-center/fact-sheet/29446/mapgrowth_NWEA_factsheet.pdf/
PACER Center Champions for Children with Disabilities. (2013). School accommodation
and modification ideas for students who receive special education services. The
Center on Technology and Disabilities Institute.
https://www.ctdinstitute.org/sites/default/files/file_attachments/School
Accommodation and Modification Ideas for Students who Receive Special
Education Services English.pdf
Pennsylvania Area Training and Technical Assistance Network. (2018a). Evaluation
report annotated. https://www.pattan.net/assets/PaTTAN/aa/aab2daae-1366425a-85e3-5dc087cae4bd.pdf
Pennsylvania Area Training and Technical Assistance Network. (2018b). What is
secondary transition. https://www.pattan.net/Graduation-Post-SecondaryOutcomes/Educational-Initiatives/What-is-Secondary-Transition
Pennsylvania Area Training and Technical Assistance Network. (2018c). Individualized
education program annotated.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
168
https://www.pattan.net/assets/PaTTAN/2b/2bc7d2b3-1bb2-42a4-a372c81fe4cba007.pdf
Pennsylvania Code. Title 22 § 1.2, 14.102 (2021).
http://www.pacodeandbulletin.gov/Display/pacode?titleNumber=022&file=/secur
e/pacode/data/022/022toc.html
Pennsylvania Department of Education. (2022). Pennsylvania System of School
Assessment. https://www.education.pa.gov/K12/Assessment%20and%20Accountability/PSSA/Pages/default.aspx
Project 10 Transition Network. (2021). IDEA indicators.
http://project10.info/DPage.php?ID=310
Rosati, M. L. (2009). Student, Teacher, and Administrator Perceptions of a Co-Teaching
Inclusion Model in One Virginia High School [ProQuest LLC]. ED514070
Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal
design for learning. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., & McDuffie, K. A. (2007). Co-teaching in inclusive
classrooms: A meta-synthesis of qualitative research. Exceptional Children,
73(4), 392-416.
Sinclair, A. C., Bray, L. E., Wei, Y., Clancy, E. E., Wexler, J., Kearns, D. M., & Lemons,
C. J. (2018). Coteaching in content area classrooms: Lessons and guiding
questions for administrators. NASSP Bulletin, 102(4), 303–322.
Thurlow, M. L., Lazarus, S. S., Thompson, S. J., & Morse, A. B. (2005). State policies on
assessment participation and accommodations for students with disabilities. The
Journal of Special Education, 38(4), 232 – 240.
United States Department of Education. (2020, November 24). A history of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. https://sites.ed.gov/idea/IDEAHistory#1975
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
169
VanSciver, J. Conover, V. (2009). Making accommodations work in the special
education setting. Teaching Exceptional Children Plus. 6(2), 2-10
Wagner, J, (2020). Using formative assessment of map data to shape instructional
practices. [Doctoral Dissertation, Walden University]. WU Scholarworks.
https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=10564&context=di
ssertations
Wehmeyer, M. L., Lance, G. D., & Bashinski, S. (2002). Promoting access to the general
curriculum for students with mental retardation: A multi-level model. Education
and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 37(3), 223–
234.
Wiggins, G. (1998). Educative assessment: Designing assessments to inform and improve
student performance. Jossey-Bass.
Whitaker, Megan. Ortiz, Samuel. (2019). What a specific learning disability is not:
Examining exclusionary factors. National Center for Learning Disabilities.
https://www.ncld.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/What-a-Specific-LearningDisability-Is-Not-Examining-Exclusionary-Factors.12192019.pdf
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
Appendices
170
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
171
Appendix A
IRB Letter of Approval
Institutional Review Board
California University of Pennsylvania
Morgan Hall, 310
250 University Avenue
California, PA 15419
instreviewboard@calu.edu
Melissa Sovak, Ph.D.
Dear David,
Please consider this email as official notification that your proposal titled “
Establishing Effective Supports Across Classrooms that Allow Equity and Access to
High Quality Instruction” (Proposal #20-038) has been approved by the California
University of Pennsylvania Institutional Review Board as submitted.
The effective date of approval is 8/10/21 and the expiration date is 8/9/22. These dates
must appear on the consent form.
Please note that Federal Policy requires that you notify the IRB promptly regarding any
of the following:
(1) Any additions or changes in procedures you might wish for your study (additions or
changes must be approved by the IRB before they are implemented)
(2) Any events that affect the safety or well-being of subjects
(3) Any modifications of your study or other responses that are necessitated by any
events reported in (2).
(4) To continue your research beyond the approval expiration date of 8/9/22 you must
file additional information to be considered for continuing review. Please contact
instreviewboard@calu.edu
Please notify the Board when data collection is complete.
Regards,
Melissa Sovak, PhD.
Chair, Institutional Review Board
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
172
Appendix B
Informed Consent
TITLE OF STUDY
Establishing Effective Supports Across Classrooms that Allow Equity and Access to High
Quality Instruction
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
David Michael Muench
California University of Pennsylvania School of Education Administration and Leadership
3282 Forest Road, Bethel Park, PA 15102
412-760-9443
mue6400@calu.edu
INTERNAL COMMITTEE CHAIR
Dr. Kevin Lordon
Professor at California University of Pennsylvania School of Education Administration
and Leadership
lordon@calu.edu
PURPOSE OF STUDY
You are being asked to take part in a research study. The reason why you are being asked
is that you are a teacher of either ELA, Math, or a special education teacher. Before you
decide to participate in this study, it is important that you understand why the research is
being done and what it will involve. Please read the following information carefully.
Please ask the researcher if there is anything that is not clear or if you need more
information.
The purpose of this study is to look at student supports outlined in IEP’s and their effect
on success in the regular classroom, specifically in ELA and math. The researcher is
specifically looking at teachers’ perceptions and thoughts on what supports are most
helpful and how they are implemented in the classroom. The purpose would be to build
upon this feedback to better build supports for special education students at Independence
Middle School.
This study has been approved by the California University of Pennsylvania Institutional
Review Board. This approval is effective 08/10/21 and expires 08/09/22
STUDY PROCEDURES
The first step for this study will be for staff to complete a survey regarding student
supports in the IEP and their perceived effectiveness in their classroom. The researcher
will then follow up with a semi-structured interview to gather additional insight into the
feelings that made the staff member feel this way about those supports. Third, the
researcher will be looking at how students perform and grow over the year to see how the
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
173
supports were helpful or not. Lastly, when students are moved between regular education
and pull-out classrooms, a follow up interview may be conducted to gather thoughts on
what was not working in the IEP to support this placement decision.
The amount of time for this study will be approximately 60-90 minutes over the course of
the school year. The majority of this time will take place in the first quarter of the year.
The initial survey should take approximately 20-30 minutes and the follow up interview
should take approximately 30 minutes. If a follow up interview is to be conducted
regarding a student change in placement, that interview would take approximately 10-15
minutes. Interviews will be dictated by the interviewer and at no time will video or audio
recording be used in the interview process.
RISKS
There are minimal risks in taking part in this study. As with any research study, no
matter how minimal the risks, there are unforeseen outcomes that participants may feel.
To be clear, this study is not evaluative of teachers and in no way is incorporated in any
evaluation instrument. In step one of the study, your answers will not be shared with
anyone and remain anonymous throughout except to the researcher. Your survey will be
given a number and not a name. In step 2 of the research study, the interview data will
also remain anonymous to all but the researcher, applying the same number used in step
one to analyze the data. In step 3 of the research study, the students will be supplied a
number in order to analyze the data. Finally, in step 4, where a follow up interview may
exist, the same staff number will be applied to the interview form. Please remember that
you may decline to answer any or all questions and you may terminate your involvement
at any time if you choose. Should the participant feel any distress be it physical or
emotional, the researcher would be fully supportive of discontinuing participation.
BENEFITS
The benefits of this study include a better understanding of how supports help the
educational process for students in our school and in what content areas they may be
most effectively done. This will help us replicate the most effective supports while also
potentially eliminating or changing supports that are less effective. To you as the teacher,
the benefit would be a more supportive IEP in your classroom that helps you serve the
student population to the best of your ability. The potential benefit to the student would
be replicating services that have the most benefit in supporting their academic
achievement in the ELA and math content areas, keeping them in the richest educational
placement possible, that is also the least restrictive as defined by the law.
CONFIDENTIALITY
Your responses to the perception survey will be kept confidential. Please do not write any
identifying information on your perception survey. Again, your survey will be supplied a
number in order to maintain confidentiality to the greatest extent possible. This number
will also be applied to the interview form, and any follow up interview form. Every
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
174
effort will be made by the researcher to preserve your confidentiality including the
following:
•
•
•
Never including the participant’s name in any document other than the initial number
association document.
Reporting data in the research report will never list any identifiable information.
Keeping notes, interview transcriptions, and any other identifying participant
information in a locked file cabinet in the personal possession of the researcher as
well as password protecting any digital files.
COMPENSATION
There isn’t any compensation in participating in this study.
CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have questions at any time about this study, or you experience adverse effects as
the result of participating in this study, you may contact the researcher whose contact
information is provided on the first page. If you have questions regarding your rights as a
research participant, or if problems arise which you do not feel you can discuss with the
Primary Investigator, please contact the Institutional Review Board at
instreviewboard@calu.edu .
VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION
Your participation in this study is voluntary. It is up to you to decide whether or not to
take part. If you decide to take part in this study, you will be asked to sign a consent
form. After you sign the consent form, you are still free to withdraw at any time and
without giving a reason. Withdrawing from this study will not affect the relationship you
have, if any, with the researcher. If you withdraw from the study before data collection is
completed, your data will be returned to you or destroyed. To withdraw from the study
simply email the researcher at mue6400@calu.edu with your withdrawal.
CONSENT
I have read and I understand the provided information and have had the opportunity to
ask questions. I understand that my participation is voluntary and that I am free to
withdraw at any time, without giving a reason and without cost. I understand that I will
be given a copy of this consent form. I voluntarily agree to take part in this study.
Participant's signature ______________________________ Date __________
Investigator's signature _____________________________ Date __________
175
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
Appendix C
Likert Survey
Participant #_____________
Thank you for agreeing to take this survey. Remember that you are not obligated to answer all
of the questions in this survey, and you are able to opt out of the research project at any time.
Please also remember that any responses are not evaluative of the teacher. Please do not
write any identifying information on the form. The following 27 items are
accommodations/modifications listed in various IEP’s in the building. Please rate each
accommodation/modification on how helpful they are in keeping students successful in your
classroom. The scale ranges from a numeric value of 1 which equals “Strongly Disagree” to 6
which equals “Strongly Agree”. The last question is open-ended and would include any
accommodation not listed that you think is important to your students’ success.
1. The accommodation of “small group testing” is highly effective in helping my students be
successful in my class.
1
Strongly
Disagree
2
Disagree
3
Slightly
Disagree
4
Slightly Agree
5
Agree
6
Strongly Agree
2. The accommodation of having “tests read aloud” is highly effective in helping my students be
successful in my class.
1
Strongly
Disagree
2
Disagree
3
Slightly
Disagree
4
Slightly Agree
5
Agree
6
Strongly Agree
3. The modification of “chunking assignments” is highly effective in helping my students be
successful in my class
1
Strongly
Disagree
2
Disagree
3
Slightly
Disagree
4
Slightly Agree
5
Agree
6
Strongly Agree
4. The accommodation of having “Directions Repeated and Restated” is highly effective in helping
my students be successful in my class.
1
Strongly
Disagree
2
Disagree
3
Slightly
Disagree
4
Slightly Agree
5
Agree
6
Strongly Agree
5. The accommodation of having “extended time for assignments” is highly effective in helping my
students be successful in my class.
1
2
3
4
5
6
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree
Slightly Agree
Agree
176
Strongly Agree
6. The accommodation of having “extended time for testing” is highly effective in helping my
students be successful in my class.
1
Strongly
Disagree
2
Disagree
3
Slightly
Disagree
4
Slightly Agree
5
Agree
6
Strongly Agree
7. The accommodation of “preferential seating” is highly effective in helping my students be
successful in my class.
1
Strongly
Disagree
2
Disagree
3
Slightly
Disagree
4
Slightly Agree
5
Agree
6
Strongly Agree
8. The accommodation of “Organization Support” is highly effective in helping my students be
successful in my class.
1
Strongly
Disagree
2
Disagree
3
Slightly
Disagree
4
Slightly Agree
5
Agree
6
Strongly Agree
9. The accommodation of “providing visual instructions” is highly effective in helping my students
be successful in my class.
1
Strongly
Disagree
2
Disagree
3
Slightly
Disagree
4
Slightly Agree
5
Agree
6
Strongly Agree
10. The modification of “Adapted Tests” are highly effective in helping my students be successful in
my class.
1
Strongly
Disagree
2
Disagree
3
Slightly
Disagree
4
Slightly Agree
5
Agree
6
Strongly Agree
11. The accommodation of “getting student attention prior to giving instruction” is highly effective
in helping my students be successful in my class.
1
Strongly
Disagree
2
Disagree
3
Slightly
Disagree
4
Slightly Agree
5
Agree
6
Strongly Agree
12. The accommodation to “allow movement in the classroom” is highly effective in helping my
students be successful in my class.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
1
Strongly
Disagree
2
Disagree
3
Slightly
Disagree
4
Slightly Agree
5
Agree
177
6
Strongly Agree
13. The accommodation of “pairing visual and verbal directions” is highly effective in helping my
students be successful in my class.
1
Strongly
Disagree
2
Disagree
3
Slightly
Disagree
4
Slightly Agree
5
Agree
6
Strongly Agree
14. The modification of “modifying homework” is highly effective in helping my students be
successful in my class.
1
Strongly
Disagree
2
Disagree
3
Slightly
Disagree
4
Slightly Agree
5
Agree
6
Strongly Agree
15. The accommodation of “Use of graphic organizer” is highly effective in helping my students be
successful in my class.
1
Strongly
Disagree
2
Disagree
3
Slightly
Disagree
4
Slightly Agree
5
Agree
6
Strongly Agree
16. The accommodation of “assignment book checks” is highly effective in helping my students be
successful in my class.
1
Strongly
Disagree
2
Disagree
3
Slightly
Disagree
4
Slightly Agree
5
Agree
6
Strongly Agree
17. The accommodation of “audio books” is highly effective in helping my students be successful in
my class.
1
Strongly
Disagree
2
Disagree
3
Slightly
Disagree
4
Slightly Agree
5
Agree
6
Strongly Agree
18. The accommodation of “Paraprofessional Support” is highly effective in helping my students be
successful in my class.
1
Strongly
Disagree
2
Disagree
3
Slightly
Disagree
4
Slightly Agree
5
Agree
6
Strongly Agree
19. The accommodation of allowing students the “Opportunity to retake tests” is highly effective in
helping my students be successful in my class.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
1
Strongly
Disagree
2
Disagree
3
Slightly
Disagree
4
Slightly Agree
5
Agree
178
6
Strongly Agree
20. The accommodation of “Co-teaching” is highly effective in helping my students be successful in
my class.
1
Strongly
Disagree
2
Disagree
3
Slightly
Disagree
4
Slightly Agree
5
Agree
6
Strongly Agree
21. The accommodation of allowing “Voice to Text” is highly effective in helping my students be
successful in my class.
1
Strongly
Disagree
2
Disagree
3
Slightly
Disagree
4
Slightly Agree
5
Agree
6
Strongly Agree
22. The accommodation of having “Study Guides” is highly effective in helping my students be
successful in my class.
1
Strongly
Disagree
2
Disagree
3
Slightly
Disagree
4
Slightly Agree
5
Agree
6
Strongly Agree
23. The accommodation of giving a “copy of class notes” is highly effective in helping my students
be successful in my class.
1
Strongly
Disagree
2
Disagree
3
Slightly
Disagree
4
Slightly Agree
5
Agree
6
Strongly Agree
24. The accommodation of students having a “Crisis Pass” is highly effective in helping my students
be successful in my class.
1
Strongly
Disagree
2
Disagree
3
Slightly
Disagree
4
Slightly Agree
5
Agree
6
Strongly Agree
25. The accommodation to allow “use of a calculator" is highly effective in helping my students be
successful in my class.
1
Strongly
Disagree
2
Disagree
3
Slightly
Disagree
4
Slightly Agree
5
Agree
6
Strongly Agree
26. The accommodation of using “positive reinforcement” is highly effective in helping my students
be successful in my class.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
1
Strongly
Disagree
2
Disagree
3
Slightly
Disagree
4
Slightly Agree
5
Agree
179
6
Strongly Agree
27. The accommodation of using “checks for understanding” is highly effective in helping my
students be successful in my class.
1
Strongly
Disagree
2
Disagree
3
Slightly
Disagree
4
Slightly Agree
5
Agree
6
Strongly Agree
28. Are there any accommodations that you feel are helpful to your students that were not listed
above? Please list any that you find helpful.
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
180
Appendix D
Semi-Structured Interview #1
Participant # ______
Read to participant: Today, I am conducting an interview based off of your responses on
the perception survey that you filled out previously on student supports in your
classroom. Participation in this study and in this interview are completely voluntary and
you can withdraw at any time from the study. Also, you are not obligated to answer all
the questions being asked if you are not comfortable doing so. Remember that no
identifying information will be noted on this form by the researcher. Please also
remember that none of your responses are evaluative in any way. The interview will
take approximately 20 to 30 minutes.
Question 1: You had noted that the following accommodations were the most effective
for you and your students in the classroom. Please discuss with me why you place these
as the most effective supports for you and your content area. (List one at a time, the
strongest supported items from the perception survey)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Question 2: In looking at the supports that are most effective, can you explain how they
are implemented?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
181
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Question 3: You had noted that the following accommodations are the least effective
for you and your students in the classroom. Please discuss with me why you place these
as the least effective supports for you and your content area. (List one at a time, the
least supported items from the perception survey)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Question 4: In looking at the least effective supports, are there any changes to them
that you think would make them more effective for your students?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
182
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Question 5: If you could develop one support for students but can’t due to some
limitation whether its personnel, time, resources, support, etc. what would it be?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
183
Appendix E
Semi-Structured Interview #2
Participant # ______
Read to participant: Today, I am conducting an interview to look at some of the factors
that led to a change in placement for students in your class. Please remember that
participation in this study and in this interview are completely voluntary and you can
withdraw at any time. Also, you are not obligated to answer all the questions being asked
if you are not comfortable doing so. Remember that no identifying information will be
noted on this form by the researcher and that none of your responses are evaluative. The
interview will take approximately 10 to 20 minutes.
Question 1: What were the factors that led to the student’s change in placement in your
class?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Question 2: Were there any supports that were in place that the student did respond to, if
so, what were they?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Question 3: Were there any revisions to the IEP that you can recall, and if so, what were
they?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
184
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Question 4: Looking at the student’s supports in the IEP can you explain how the
following accommodations were implemented?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
185
Appendix F
Abridged Qualitative Feedback Interview #1
Language Arts Staff Beliefs and Implementation of Supports
Respondent
Subject
SDI
11 LA
Chunking
Assignments
5 LA
Chunking
Assignments
13 LA
Coteaching
15 LA
Coteaching
5 LA
Directions Repeated
and Restated
11 LA
Directions Repeated
and Restated
5 LA
Extended Time for
Assignments
13 LA
Movement in the
classroom
Teacher
Implementation/Beliefs
Really essential for writing
assignments, extremely
important to do this on longer
term assignments and grammar
units
Making conscious decisions of
where to break an assignment
apart, increased use of short
attention spans when chunking
is done
Enhances classroom through
strengths and weaknesses of
each other, important to push
back on one another for the
benefit of the students
Important to have someone
who understands the content,
really places value on common
planning time to address needs
of learners
One of the keys to success,
repetition is very necessary and
helpful for the students
Target students that need called
on for this purpose,
purposefully go to a student's
desk who struggles with
directions to help them get
started
Important especially when you
see the effort to produce best
work, processing delays are
real
Believes in kinesthetic learning
to galvanize concepts for
students
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
11 LA
Organization Support
13 LA
Organization Support
11 LA
Paraprofessional
Support
15 LA
Paraprofessional
Support
13 LA
Preferential Seating
15 LA
Preferential Seating
13 LA
Small Group Testing
186
Important to have a system of
organization so that they know
where everything can be found
Really focus on executive
functioning, Digital structure
has taken a top priority
compared to when students
were asked to fill out agendas,
highlighting of key information
is very important to focus the
student
Para support is important to
make sure the students are with
the rest of the class.
Can provide 1:1 at times,
Important to bring the backup
instruction to resource class,
provide small group testing
Easy to do with a high return,
means different things for
different students, an example
is a student who needs to be
able to move vs. a student who
needs to be close to source of
instruction
Student dependent on what is
needed, near the board vs near
a peer role model vs towards
source of instruction
Students need some
clarification, and this provides
some scaffolding to help them
access what they know
Math Staff Beliefs and Implementation of Supports
Respondent
Subject
2 Math
SDI
Adapted Tests
Teacher Implementation/Beliefs
Format of test such as bolding
essential words, simple hint to
remind students of skills they
know but need to get a start on,
eliminate responses that are
distracting
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
8 Math
Adapted Tests
2 Math
Coteaching
3 Math
Coteaching
8 Math
Coteaching
9 Math
Coteaching
17 Math
Coteaching
3 Math
Directions Repeated
and Restated
9 Math
Directions Repeated
and Restated
3 Math
Extended time on
assignments
2 Math
Extended Time on
Tests
8 Math
Extended Time on
Tests
187
Having coteaching has really
helped with this, more
adaptations than in the past with
this support, taking out
distractors, changing reading
level
Kids get a lot out of it, ability to
group and regroup, facetime with
students is increased each class.
Must overcome egos, very
beneficial to students,
opportunity to give different
perspectives, employ various
coteaching models based on the
need
Really think this is helpful to
increase facetime, helpful for
adaptation support
Increase of facetime with
students, being able to allow the
two teachers play off one another
Personality is very important to
match, having the additional
viewpoint is helpful for students,
more facetime with students
Absolutely necessary for students
who struggle with focus, good to
do as a general practice and not
just an SDI.
Kids that you know are struggling
benefit from the teacher knowing
the students so that directions can
be targeted and restated
Allow for more processing time
when needed, importance placed
on actually doing the work,
eliminate barriers when “life
happens”
Keep within reason so that the
student can move forward, but
recognize the importance of
students needing this at times
Teacher believes this is important
for all kids in her 7th grade math
class but not in pre-algebra or
Algebra
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
17 Math
Extended Time on
Tests
2 Math
Paraprofessional
Support
8 Math
Paraprofessional
Support
17 Math
Paraprofessional
Support
17 Math
Retake tests
9 Math
Small Group Testing
188
Students process differently,
allowing for different thinking
speeds is important to supporting
different types of learners
Not as beneficial in class as it is
during the resource period to
provide repetition, really matters
who the para is
Qualified para makes the
difference, most beneficial when
they are there from beginning to
end of the period
Encouragement and enthusiasm
are key with support persons,
extra set of eyes is really helpful
during class along with a little
variation on explaining things
Ultimate point is that the student
should be able to show what they
know, should be universal for all
students
Most important for reading
purposes, allows for clarifications
which supports students who
know what to do but struggle
with the start
Reading Staff Beliefs and Implementation of Supports
Respondent
Subject
SDI
7 Reading
Adapted Tests
12 Reading
Check for
Understanding
16 Reading
Extended Time on
Tests
Teacher Implementation/Beliefs
Really makes a difference for
students, written portions
especially need adaptation with
graphic organizers, multiple
choice reduction
Comprehension checks with
specific groups making sure they
are "concluding" the lesson with
the right information
Particularly important for
students who are having a lot of
anxiety that is slowing them
down
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
16 Reading
Movement in the
classroom
12 Reading
Pairing Visual and
Verbal Directions
7 Reading
Paraprofessional
Support
12 Reading
Paraprofessional
Support
16 Reading
Paraprofessional
Support
7 Reading
Preferential Seating
12 Reading
Preferential Seating
7 Reading
Tests Read Aloud
189
Teacher purposefully creates
these opportunities off to the side
of the class
How information is presented is
key to the students giving you
what you want
Really depends on the person you
have, really need the para to
know the student individually,
proximity control support
Important to have the right
person, expect them to work with
all students, keeping students on
task is the number one thing,
small group support for students
who need caught up
Para is really helpful in keeping
students on task, on the lookout
for the glazed looks, regroup
students during independent time
between teacher and student, para
brings information back to
resource which is very helpful
Not just putting a student in the
front of the room, seating really
needs to be based on what the
student needs for example away
from distractors, near source of
instruction, near the board
Important in order to access the
student quickly for needs, could
mean closer to the projector,
could mean closer to the board or
closer to the teacher
Auditory modality is very helpful
for the students, assists students
who have processing speed
problems,
Special Education Staff Beliefs and Implementation of Support
Respondent
Subject
SDI
Teacher Implementation/Beliefs
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
Special
6 Ed.
Adapted Tests
Special
10 Ed.
Adapted Tests
Special
10 Ed.
Audio Books
Special
4 Ed.
Directions Repeated
and Restated
Special
6 Ed.
Directions Repeated
and Restated
Special
18 Ed.
Extended time on
assignments
Special
6 Ed.
Guided Notes
Special
4 Ed.
Paraprofessional
Support
190
Different need for adaptation in
each class, math reteach and
retest, science and social studies
reduce content, being very clear
on what is being tested.
Important to minimize the
amount of information the
student needs to look at,
eliminate some response items
from the test
Students are not at grade level but
can still understand content,
Important across subjects so that
students can access information
Important for students to
eliminate the barrier to
understanding how to start,
purposefully getting students
attention to minimize difficulties
starting
Students struggle getting started,
making sure they understand
what they are doing is key
Important to be flexible so
students can be successful with
the workload, Resource is a very
valuable time to keeping the
students caught up and allowing
for the extended time
This is especially important in
social studies, giving them a
completed study guide is helpful
because they can't read what they
write often when completing the
study guide.
The number one thing is bringing
the information back to resource
class for backup instruction,
provides natural daily discussion
that eliminates delay in
communicating needs to special
education teacher
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
Special
6 Ed.
Paraprofessional
Support
Special
10 Ed.
Paraprofessional
Support
Special
18 Ed.
Special
18 Ed.
Paraprofessional
Support
Special
4 Ed.
Small Group Testing
Study Guides
Special
18 Ed.
Tests Read Aloud
Special
10 Ed.
Use of Calculator
191
SS has a lot of lecture and para
support that helps keep the
student on task, in science student
need support with labs, biggest
help is in resource class for
backup instruction.
The support in resource is
invaluable for what is brought
back from the regular classroom,
keep students moving forward on
assignments, they are the bridge
to success in the regular ed
classroom
This support is felt to be one of
the most important afforded to
students, important to bring the
information back to resource
Provide focus and reduce test
anxiety
Important to narrow the
information for the student,
students must have a predefined
outline because they can learn the
information but need to know
what the essential information is
Essential to keep students from
getting distracted, eliminate
decoding concerns
The important thing is
understanding process and
concepts, not memorizing facts,
focus needs to be on how to do
the math.
ESTABLISHING EFFECTIVE SUPPORTS ACROSS CLASSROOMS THAT
ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO HIGH QUALITY INSTRUCTION
A Doctoral Capstone Project
Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies and Research
Department of Education
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Education
David Michael Muench
California University of Pennsylvania
August 4, 2022
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
California University of Pennsylvania
School of Graduate Studies and Research
Department of Education
We hereby approve the capstone of
David Michael Muench
Candidate for the Degree of Doctor of Education
ii
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
iii
Dedication
This work is dedicated to my wife Tracey and my children Jason, Katey, Justin,
and Brett. I am eternally grateful for your love and patience through this journey and
always. You extended to me such grace during this period of time where my moments
with you all have been so very limited. I love you very much and can’t thank you enough
for the continued support that is given to me. Here is to the next chapter! All my love,
all my life!
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
iv
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the efforts of many people that helped make this project a
reality for me. First, my staff at Independence Middle School who have worked tirelessly
with me over the past 16 ½ years and on this project. I am eternally grateful for your
professionalism, expertise, and utmost care for the students at Bethel Park. We have
worked so hard together to educate students with special education needs, and of course
all our students. You are all a tribute to the profession! I am proud to work with you.
I would also like to thank Dr. James Walsh, an outstanding superintendent who
always puts the needs of others before himself. When I first approached Dr. Walsh about
being my external chair it was very early in our professional relationship. Dr. Walsh
didn’t hesitate to want to support me in this endeavor. I have witnessed many times his
selflessness and dedication to the school community. It has been an education in and of
itself to work with this professional. Thank you so very much for taking the time to make
this piece a reality in my life.
Lastly, I would like to thank Dr. Kevin Lordon, my committee chair, for his
dedicated support to my success. Whether it was touching base on a zoom meeting, late
phone calls, email after email, or meetings at Panera, Dr. Lordon was always willing to
support the students under his care. It has been a pleasure to work with you on this
journey!
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
Table of Contents
Dedication
iii
Acknowledgements
iv
List of Tables
viii
Abstract
x
CHAPTER I. Capstone Project Background
1
Introduction
1
Background
2
Capstone Focus
3
Reflection
4
Research Questions
5
Expected Outcomes
6
Fiscal Implications
6
Summary
8
CHAPTER II. Review of Literature
9
The Evolution of Special Education
9
Chapter 14 Special Education Services and Programs
19
Educational Evaluation
20
Individualized Education Plan Design
26
Continuum of Support
39
Instructional Practices
47
Assessment Practices with Students with Disabilities
51
Literature Review Summary
57
v
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
CHAPTER III. Methodology
59
Purpose
60
Research Questions
61
Setting and Participants
62
Research Plan
70
Research Design, Methods, and Data Collection
74
Research Question Number 1
74
Research Question Number 2
76
Research Question Number 3
78
Internal Review Board Process
80
Ethical Considerations
81
Validity
81
Summary
87
CHAPTER IV. Data Analysis and Results
90
Participant Description
91
Data Analysis
93
Results
94
Research Question Number 1
94
Language Arts Staff Beliefs
100
Math Staff Beliefs
103
Reading Staff Beliefs
105
Special Education Staff Beliefs
106
Research Question Number 2
109
vi
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
Research Question Number 3
119
Interpretation of Data for Research Question Number 1
125
Interpretation of Data for Research Question Number 2
131
Interpretation of Data for Research Question Number 3
135
Discussion
138
Summary
140
CHAPTER V. Conclusions and Recommendations
142
Conclusions
143
Research Question Number 1
143
Research Question Number 2
148
Research Question Number 3
152
Limitations
156
Recommendations for Future Research
158
Summary
159
References
162
APPENDIX A. IRB Letter of Approval
171
APPENDIX B. Informed Consent
172
APPENDIX C. Likert Survey
175
APPENDIX D. Semi-Structured Interview #1
180
APPENDIX E. Semi-Structured Interview #2
183
APPENDIX F. Abridged Qualitative Feedback Interview #1
185
vii
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
List of Tables
Table 1. Independence Middle School Demographic Data
66
Table 2. Research Data Collection Timeline
73
Table 3. Staff Participation Demographic
92
Table 4. Number of Students by Subject
93
Table 5. Staff Perceptions of the Importance of SDIs in their
96
Classrooms
Table 6. Language Arts Staff Perceptions of the
98
Importance of SDIs
Table 7. Reading Staff Perceptions of the Importance of SDIs
98
Table 8. Math Staff Perceptions of the Importance of SDIs
99
Table 9. Special Education Staff Perceptions of the
99
Importance of SDIs
Table 10. Language Arts Performance Results
110
Table 11. Language Arts Teacher Perceptions for
111
Staff with the Highest Growth
Table 12. Top 5 Most Commonly Valued Supports for
112
High Achieving LA Staff
Table 13. Math Performance Results
112
Table 14. Math Teacher Perceptions for Staff with the
113
Highest Growth
Table 15. Math Most Common Supports Rated
114
Agree or Strongly Agree
Table 16. Reading Performance Results
114
viii
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
Table 17. Reading Teacher Perceptions for
116
Staff with the Highest Growth
Table 18. Reading Most Common Supports Rated as
117
Agree or Strongly Agree
Table 19. Special Education Performance Results
118
Table 20. Special Education Teacher Perceptions for
119
Staff with the Highest Growth
Table 21. Student Movement Throughout the Year
120
Table 22. Supports Rated as Strongly Agree for
137
Staff with Student Movement
Table 23. Supports Rated as Strongly Agree and
Agree for Staff with Student Movement
137
ix
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
x
Abstract
A central component of special education is the concept of Least Restrictive Environment
(LRE), meaning a student’s right to have access to the regular education classroom and
curriculum as the starting conversation for placement. The purpose of this study is to
examine IEP specially designed instruction implementation and teacher perceptions of
their effect on student achievement that results in success in the LRE where high quality
educational opportunities exist. This research project looks to answer three questions.
What are teachers’ perceptions about student supports outlined in a student’s IEP and
how are those supports implemented in their classrooms? What relationship, if any, is
there between teacher perceptions/implementation of student supports and student
achievement? What movement from regular education classes to more restrictive pullout classes occur over the course of a year and is there any correlation to perception and
implementation of student supports? Through a mixed methods approach that collects
teacher perception data, qualitative feedback, standardized achievement data, and
schedule changes throughout the year, the researcher used the data to find common trends
in student achievement and value systems with supports implementation. There is
evidence that teachers who show the greatest gains with their students often have similar
value systems regarding supports put in place in their classrooms. There are also
differences in how various content teachers view supports in their classroom. The results
of the study are meant to inform us as educators to try and replicate practices that yield
better results.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
1
Chapter I
Capstone Project Background
The evolution of special education practices, regulations, and laws in the United
States have furthered the cause of educating students with disabilities across the nation
since the 1970’s. As with all evolution and progress there are many moments of learning
through both success and failure. The concept of Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) is
a central mindset in that evolution. While the need exists for a full continuum of support
in schools, the basis of LRE is that students get the richest experience in a regular
classroom where varied activities, rich discourse, and proper levels of support are applied
for the students’ benefit. In addition, particularly as students grow older and the
curriculum gets more complex, having a regular education teacher with content training
is essential in helping diagnose student misconceptions on curricular concepts. This is
where trained special education teachers come into play in providing the content teacher
with strategies that can help a student be successful in the classroom given the nature of
their disability and needs. When these two professionals are hard at work on behalf of
the student the LRE can be achieved.
One of the primary constructs of special education practice is the application of
accommodations and modifications in the regular classroom. These supports are pieced
together based on the perception of student needs in relation to their weaknesses. The
Specially Designed Instruction (SDI) that is found in a student’s Individualized
Education Plan (IEP) outlines this to all adults that come into contact with the student.
However, one of the primary questions within the construction of this Doctoral Research
Capstone Project is how effective those various accommodations and modifications are in
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
2
assisting students in their achievement. Not only are we looking at the overall effect of
these supports, but at how they are applied across classrooms and with what fidelity.
Furthermore, concern exists that much of what is done for the student in the regular
classroom is accommodation driven rather than modification driven. This could be due to
the black and white nature of implementing accommodations rather than the more
complex use of modifications in the classroom.
This project is also very important in helping our schools achieve the benchmarks
set for LRE. The Pennsylvania Department of Education has comparative data that looks
at our students’ placement in the educational program. When these numbers fall short of
expectations a plan for improvement is necessary in what is termed, corrective action.
This is never a pleasant place for schools to be. It is important that we are proactive in
this area, and in all indicators of an effective special education program. Success in the
LRE is dictated most often by grades, and grades are dictated by students’ ability to
perform on performance measures, and students' ability to do well on performance
measures depends on the quality of instruction that has occurred. This is where many of
the accommodations and modifications can make a difference. However, sometimes
success comes down to the fidelity in which these modifications and accommodations
have been implemented, keeping the student in the LRE.
Background
This project arose from a desire to understand how the implementation of
student’s IEPs was contributing to the students remaining in the regular education
environment. At Independence Middle School, where I was principal from 2005 until
January of 2022, I saw the support framework evolve for students. Independence was
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
3
already a well-established school and performed well compared to surrounding schools in
Allegheny County. However, we did see gaps in how we supported students in the LRE,
particularly around co-teaching. The staff worked to evolve how we scheduled students
to add the co-teaching element to the continuum of support available to students. Around
this time, Bethel Park School District was noted in its special education cyclical
monitoring that they did not meet the benchmark for students in the regular classroom
80% or more of the time when compared to other school districts. This furthered the
conversation about what was being done to support students so that this benchmark could
be achieved.
Since January of 2022, I became the Director of Student Support Services full
time. This role is multifaceted in that it has oversight into gifted education, health
services, English as a Second Language, Foster Care and Homeless Student Services,
Counseling Services, Student Assistance Programming (SAP), and the Instructional
Support Team (IST) process at the elementary level. In conjunction with my colleague,
who is the Supervisor of Special Education, we jointly oversee the special education
program K-12. This is a huge task, but one that I am excited about in supporting those
students that are most vulnerable. Students with special needs have long been an interest
for me, and as I reflect, even from my earliest days. So, this next step professionally is
just a natural extension of my work at the building level with special education and LRE,
hence, why this project is valuable to me.
Capstone Focus
The research focus is on what works in the classrooms with student supports. This
research is meant to look at best practices that can be highlighted and replicated when
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
4
supported by actual student achievement data across classrooms and grade levels where
students with IEP’s show strong growth. To do so, we first need to start with what the
current perceptions and practices are. This is then followed with actual student growth
measures to validate those perceptions and practices. Without the lens placed on these
data points, we operate our schools on independent measures and beliefs about what
works within a classroom that may or may not be entirely accurate. The more unbiased
feedback that a teacher can get helps drive them and their students to better results. In the
end, I hope to validate best practices for student support implementation occurring in the
school to help guide teacher development initiatives that best serve our special education
student population.
Reflection
I feel sympathy for all involved in education currently who are trying to keep up
with what is truly best for students. All groups involved in this process have good
intentions much of the time. Special interest groups want students who are at risk to not
be left behind and purposely planned for. Legislation and those that legislate want the
same thing, for our nation’s students to excel, further develop our work force, and
diminish the need for public assistance. Parents want their children to come home happy
from school and learn information and skills to help them be gainfully employed.
Students want to pass their classes and enjoy their peers and teachers. Lastly, teachers
want to feel effective in supporting their students in being the best version of themselves
possible. With all these forces trying to accomplish a similar mission, but with
sometimes very different mindsets, pressure on the system can be astronomical and
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
5
include legal actions against schools through Due Process Proceedings, often costing
thousands of dollars.
Research Questions
The research questions are designed to uncover practices that are effective in the
least restrictive environment to support students with special needs. There are three
essential questions that we are investigating. They are:
•
What are teachers’ perceptions about student supports outlined in a student’s IEP and
how are those supports implemented in their classrooms?
•
What relationship, if any, is there between teacher perceptions/implementation of
student support and student achievement?
•
What movement from regular education classes to more restrictive pull-out classes
occurs over the course of a year and is there any correlation to perception and
implementation of student supports?
The research questions utilize multiple data points to draw conclusions from. The
first question includes Likert style survey data and semi-structured interviews to generate
understandings about teacher perceptions of accommodations and modifications. The
second research question looks at standardized data that is generated through the
Measures of Academic Progress (MAP). This data point allows us to see student
progress across classrooms on a common measure. Lastly, question three uses student
information system data to show possible patterns of success in the LRE for students
based on their movements to and from the regular classroom. When combined with the
perception data in the Likert survey on accommodation and modifications and an
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
6
additional semi-structured interview, we hope to be able to draw conclusions as to the
implementation of supports in the classroom and how that affected their success or not.
Expected Outcomes
It is thought that looking at this data in the manner the project has been
constructed will allow for an evaluation of the best supportive practices that achieve the
LRE for students. There is also potential that subject comparisons may also have
different effective support structures because of the nature of the subject matter. This is
certainly fine. The bigger outcome here is how to replicate what is effective across the
classroom settings, potentially by subject, and how to best articulate that within the
specially designed instruction that often has blanket accommodations. If we
conceptualize that for a moment, we can see how broad-brush stroking accommodations
and modifications can leave staff running in circles with supports that are not effective
but listed in the IEP as needed for the students’ success, taking teacher time and thought.
The outcome of this project could be a better articulated and tailored IEP document that
can better support the student. In addition, it may uncover potential professional
development topics that may support the staff in helping students achieve in the LRE.
Fiscal Implications
While the purpose of this project is really focused on student achievement, we
know that spending on education increases substantially based on student needs. The
cost to educate a regular education student is substantially less than that of their special
education counterpart. In facilitating best practices for student support, we are improving
the facilitation of a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) at the lowest cost we
can when students are in the regular education environment. With the number of staff
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
7
hired to support the growing number of students with IEP’s as well as other fiscal
influences unrelated to this project, it is no wonder that schools are annually grappling
with the revenue and expenditure structure to run an effective school district.
In the short term, the fiscal implications include savings due to increased student
achievement because there are better support structures in the classroom that allow
students to be more self-sufficient. When this occurs, reliance on staff such as
paraprofessionals becomes less. This allows the paraprofessionals to be better utilized,
preventing schools from having to hire more to support student needs. In addition, when
there is an increase in student achievement, costs associated with other forms of support
such as tutoring or mental health services are not needed to the same extent. This
decreases the financial burden on the school and district, ultimately increasing
productivity across the board.
In the long term, fiscal implications can include a decrease of students requiring a
multi-disciplinary evaluation, or an exit of students from special education services that
are costly. As already stated, it costs a great deal more to educate a student with an IEP
than it does a regular education student. Even decreasing the number of students
requiring services by a small percentage can have an impact on the financial obligations
of the district. When you create classrooms that have supports that are sound for nonidentified students as well as students with IEP’s you decrease the overall need for these
costly supports while also building better students. This project, in however small a way,
can affect fiscal resources in a positive direction by replicating best practices, and
increasing student achievement in the regular classroom with existing staff.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
8
Summary
The nature of educating students has evolved over time from the standpoint of
advancements in technology, common core standards, legislative expectations, parental
expectations, and general scrutiny of how public education operates. A central theme is a
Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) and how that is achieved through the
LRE. However, models of support that achieve the LRE are hard to generalize across
settings due to many different factors that include the continuum of support available,
pedagogical practices, and certainly people’s mindsets. This project is meant to look at
one school's structure and practices and how they can be optimized across classrooms and
content areas to give students the best experiences. Using effective data points, we can
draw possible understandings of best practices in the support structure and where there is
room for improvement. We will start out by looking at the literature to gain greater
insight into this complex issue. This review of literature will look at the evolution of
special education legislation to give context and necessity, as well as the special
education process that culminates in an IEP that is meant to support students' needs in the
classroom. We will continue with an understanding of continuum of support structures
available to students in a public school, an understanding of accommodations and
modifications, and how data points being used in this project are appropriate and relevant
to answer the questions that have been posed.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
9
Chapter II
Review of Literature
The Evolution of Special Education
The purpose of this research study is to look at the practices of teachers and
schools in implementing effective supports in the classroom that help meet the mandates
of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The history of legislation, and more
importantly its evolution towards inclusivity, has put a focus on how schools are
developing their practices to help students with disabilities make progress in the regular
classroom environment. These practices stem from a highly articulated evaluation
process that concludes with a comprehensive educational plan for students with
disabilities that has at its heart, a prescriptive and targeted approach to address student
needs through accommodations and modifications. These accommodations and
modifications are used to meet measurable goals in the student’s Individualized
Education Plan. Lastly, of utmost importance in this project are the assessment
frameworks that, not only measures student understanding of material, but also
effectively measures how practice and process are supporting all students in being the
best version of themselves possible.
This research project looks at one school's support structure, implementation of
these supports, placement success in regular education environments, and assessment
practices that demonstrate student progress. Looking at these components in more detail,
the literature review focuses on the evolution of law surrounding educating students with
disabilities, the evaluation process, the planning process, educational placement options,
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
10
teacher practices with support systems, and assessment practices in the classroom, in the
school, and statewide.
Special education, as a part of a student’s public education program, has evolved
since the 1970’s. While educating students with disabilities has been occurring in the
United States prior to that era, the weight of responsibility on public school systems to
include all students with disabilities gained significant momentum with the passing of the
Education for All Handicapped Act of 1975, or EHA as it has been called. This act,
known more often as Public Law 94-142, established the concept of a Free and
Appropriate Public Education for all students regardless of disability. Prior to this action
taken by the government, the education of students with disabilities was sporadic, or
sometimes even nonexistent across the United States. Statistics cited by the United States
Department of Education (2020) suggest that one in five students who were deaf, blind,
emotionally disturbed, or some other form of intellectual disability were educated in the
public-school setting. They also indicate that there were 1.8 million school aged children
that were not receiving an education prior to the passage of the act. The nation has
progressed to serve more than 7.5 million children with those same disabilities with
education services.
P.L. 94-142 established a phrase that holds great weight in today’s educational
programs known as a Free and Appropriate Public Education. This phrase has as its key
word appropriate. While this phrase and this essential word have driven the educational
program, it has also brought with it great debate of what is appropriate. Regardless of the
definition of appropriateness, the main priorities for the passing of the law were to ensure
four fundamental rights. These four rights were to ensure students with disabilities had
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
11
access to a free public education that was appropriate, that parents’ and students’ rights
were protected, that states had the backing of the federal government to achieve these
goals, and that effectiveness of these programs could be measured across the country
(United States Department of Education, 2020).
Following the groundbreaking EHA legislation in 1975, the federal government
reauthorized the law in 1990 through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or
IDEA. According to the United States Department of Education (2020), the main
changes within this reauthorization were the inclusion of additional disability categories,
namely traumatic brain injury and autism. Also, the reauthorization included transition
planning for students to improve students' movement from school aged years to post K12 school years.
In addition to the changes to the disability categories and inclusion of transition
services, the legislation speaks for the first time of the increasing diverse populations that
make up the United States of America. The legislation uses those statistics to
demonstrate some of the inequities that were starting to exist within the special education
programs throughout the country. According to the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act legislation (1990) at the time of printing, it was predicted that by the year
2000 that there would be 260,000,000 million Americans and that one in every three
citizens would be either African American, Hispanic/Latino, or Asian. These statistics
were important in the fact that the legislation noted the growing disparities in the
numbers of students in special education programs. In other words, our country was
growing more diverse but potentially falling into practices that could segregate the
population through inflated placement in special education. Studies at the time held that
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
12
the African American population was noted to comprise 12% of the school aged
population. However, the group comprised 28% of the special education population
(Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [IDEA], 1990).
The Federal government continued its evolution of special education
programming when it reauthorized IDEA in 1997. Of importance to this research study
was the emphasis placed on access to the general education curriculum. This was of
paramount importance to the inclusion movement because it set the groundwork that
students within the special education program should not be relegated to remediation
concepts alone as their source of curriculum. This brought a strong push for inclusionary
practices that began to strongly proliferate in schools across the country. The law
established a phrase known as the Least Restrictive Environment or LRE. The definition
of this was laid out in the legislation when it said:
To the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including children
in public or private institutions or other care facilities, are educated with children
who are not disabled, and special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of
children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only
when the nature or severity of the disability of a child is such that education in
regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be
achieved satisfactorily. (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 1997, p.111)
The concept of LRE again pushed the boundaries of what was felt to be appropriate under
FAPE in educating the special education population.
The reauthorization included legal clarifications and processes, setting the stage
for parents' ability to challenge school decisions. As an example, in section 604 of the
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
13
act, the law explains that sovereign immunity does not apply to public entities for
violations of the law. This clearly sent the message to school districts that their say so
was not protected when in violation of the IDEA provisions. In addition, a due process
format was also initiated through this reauthorization that substantiated a mediation
procedure for parents/guardians to disagree with school districts. Section 615 of the law
lays out this process, and most importantly the financial obligation of school districts to
pay for these proceedings. This included the establishment of an outline of the
procedural safeguards to protect student and family rights.
The procedural safeguards set forth a framework for parents’ meaningful
engagement in meetings regarding their child’s placement, evaluations, and FAPE
implementation. This included written notice and acceptance of changes in placement
that would affect the students LRE. In Pennsylvania this written document is known as
the Notice of Recommended Educational Placement (NOREP) and follows the guidelines
in the act that require a description of the action proposed or refused by the educational
agency, an explanation of why this proposal was being made, a description of any other
options considered and rejected, a listing of evaluations leading to the decision, other
relevant factors, and finally a notice to the parents that there are safeguards afforded to
them with contact numbers to assist when unsure or in disagreement with a district
proposal. These important changes transferred much of the power from school districts to
parents and guardians.
The procedural safeguards themselves were meant to be disseminated at crucial
decision-making times in a student’s program. Those critical moments were stated to be
upon request for evaluation of a student, reevaluation of a student, the occurrence of an
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
14
IEP meeting, and at the time that a notice of complaint was received by the school
district. An important piece of the procedural safeguards is the concept of Pendency.
This concept sets a standard for educational placement when there is disagreement.
Pendency requires schools to maintain the status quo of the placement until proper stages
of mediation occur.
An important process set up by IDEA (1990) dealt with the mediation and due
process that parents and districts can enter. The mediation process was established to
allow parents and school districts to have a formal discussion about the concerns. This
was not meant to deny the right of parents or the school district to enter due process
proceedings but was/is an attempt to settle the dispute prior to getting to that point.
Within the legislation states were charged with the task of establishing a list of mediators
that are trained to help the parties settle the dispute. The IDEA legislation makes it the
responsibility of the state to pay for the mediation services, so that no cost would be
incurred by the parent/guardian or district for that matter. The outcome of the mediation
would hopefully result in agreement and the legislation stipulates that this agreement
would be written down in a mediation agreement.
However, mediation is not effective in all cases, and as stated in the legislation, a
due process procedure is afforded to the parties. Within the due process framework is the
ability for the parent to obtain council and to award attorney fees to the family's attorney
in a prevailing case. The parties utilize a state agency when hearing these cases. The
parties involved must file all relevant documents pertaining to the case in a timely
manner. This is set at five days prior to the hearing date. Failure to do so could result in
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
15
the hearing officer barring the information from admission. All decisions at this level
may be appealed to an independent hearing officer for a final decision.
IDEA would continue to evolve in the new century. According to LDOnline
(2021), under President Bush and his No Child Left Behind legislation, IDEA saw
changes that included provisions for highly qualified teachers who teach students with
special needs, introduced changes to eligibility determination for learning disabilities
known as Response to Intervention (RTI), transition planning for students, as well as
Individualized Education Plan (IEP) implementation items to improve efficiency of the
IEP process.
According to the reauthorization found in IDEA (2004) the Highly Qualified
Provisions of the legislation put higher standards on the teaching qualifications for staff
that teach students in core subjects. It was no longer appropriate for staff holding a K-12
special education certificate to be considered highly qualified to teach Algebra as an
example. The purpose in the changes to the certifications was to drive teacher
proficiency in the core subjects and to drive teacher preparation programs to focus more
of their efforts on core content in addition to the skills needed to provide
accommodations and modifications to a student's special education program. This impact
was felt specifically in the learning support pull out classroom. The legislation did
differentiate between teachers that teach students working on alternate standards,
however. Those staff were not required to become highly qualified under the provisions
of the legislation.
Another aspect of the 2004 reauthorization and important to this Capstone Project
was the inclusion of the Response to Intervention (RTI) process for identifying students
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
16
with a learning disability. This was cited as a preferred method to the commonly known
discrepancy formula used to demonstrate a student's difference in achievement over their
ability. The National Center for Learning Disabilities (2006) states that response to
intervention is, “a comprehensive, multi-step process that closely monitors how the
student is responding to different types of services and instruction” (p. 12). The thinking
behind moving to the RTI model was driven by the concern that the discrepancy model
increased the time that a student might experience a lack of performance prior to being
identified for a learning disability. The RTI framework would shorten that time, with the
provision that the interventions used are scientifically based. The data collection for the
targeted interventions was called progress monitoring. In essence, data collection on
progress of key learning is regularly documented to determine a student’s progress in
attaining the skills. In documenting this information the school can determine, if after
using interventions, if the student continues to struggle that they would be eligible for
special education services.
The RTI framework is broken into three tiers. The tiers are simply labeled tier 1,
tier 2, and tier 3. Tier 1 includes all students as a part of universal screeners and group
interventions. Universal screeners are tools used by schools to identify weaknesses in a
students’ skills. After students are identified with some skill deficits, students are given
group interventions. What makes this a tier 1 strategy is that these interventions are
afforded to all students in the regular classroom that would show the need through the
universal screener. These group interventions would be applied to the targeted
population for a period up to 8 weeks. In contrast, tier 2 students who did not meet with
success in tier 1 are provided more intensive interventions in small groups, often outside
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
17
of the regular classroom environment. From a timeline perspective, tier 2 interventions
continue for approximately one grading period. Lastly, tier 3 interventions are given to
students who do not respond in tiers 1 and 2. However, the important difference between
the other tiers is that this tier provides individualized intervention programming for the
student. This RTI process allows for a pathway to identify a student for special education
services where the data gathered in the process are used in an evaluation for
identification. An important note within this framework, however, is the idea that a
family does not have to wait out the RTI process to conclude for an evaluation to be
done.
IDEA (2004) made transition planning a primary part of the IEP process for all
students 14 years or older. The purpose of transition planning as stated by Pennsylvania
Area Training and Technical Assistance Network (2018b) is:
The process of preparing students for adult life after they leave high school.
Transition planning begins at age 14, or younger if determined appropriate by the
IEP team, as students consider their goals for the time after graduation through
career awareness exploration activities. The transition process continues through
high school as academic instruction and community experiences help clarify and
support students’ goals. The entire process is based on individual student’s needs,
taking into account each student’s strengths, preferences, and interests. (p. 1)
This focus on life after high school is generally broken into the categories of postsecondary training, employment, and independent living. These categories are to have
goals implanted in the IEP to support the student in their post-secondary plans that are
developed through data that comes from assessment in these areas. During this
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
18
development phase the IEP team works to develop partnerships with community
organizations as the students get older such as meetings with post-secondary institutions
or representatives from the Office of Vocational Rehabilitation.
The Federal government has continued to make changes to IDEA in the years
2006, 2008, 2011, and 2013. These changes were less substantive to the purpose of this
Capstone Project. However, in 2015 changes were made that impacted process and
practice as it relates to least restrictive environment. In 2015 the reauthorization of IDEA
discontinued the authority for states to define alternate standards for students and the use
of assessments for assessing those modified standards. The government's original
thought on allowing modified standards was the belief that a small number of students
were not ready for the grade level academic standards. However, the government also
acknowledged that more research needed to be done in this area when modified standards
were allowed. A rule explained in the Federal Register under the title, Improving the
Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged (2015) stated that the changes to the
regulations were a result of research conducted that demonstrated strong outcomes for
students with disabilities on grade level standards when they, “received systematic,
explicit instruction; learning strategy instruction; and other evidence-based instructional
strategies and supports” (p. 50774). This was the basis that changed the initial legislation
that allowed for modified standards. The legislation makes important use of the word
access as it describes the state’s responsibility to provide that pathway to all the nation’s
students.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
19
Chapter 14 Special Education Services and Programs
Pennsylvania’s process for delivering special education programming to students
identified as needing specially designed instruction in the state is driven by the
Pennsylvania School Code under Title 22 (Education) and Chapter 14 (Special Education
Services and Programs). The provisions of the regulations meet the Federal standards set
forth in IDEA as was outlined in the initial literature review section of this Doctoral
Capstone Project. Chapter 14 is set up into six main parts that include General
Provisions, Child Find, Screening and Evaluation, IEP, Educational Placement, Early
Intervention, and Procedural Safeguards. These regulations have oversite by the State
Board of Education. According to the Pennsylvania Code, the state board is given the
power to “adopt broad policies and principles and establish standards governing the
educational program of the Commonwealth” (2021, Title 22, §1.2).
The General Provisions clearly state its purpose and uses the commensurate IDEA
language when describing the meaning of Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE)
as well as access to general education curriculum and “a full continuum of placement
options” (Pennsylvania Code, Title 22, §14.102). The full continuum of placement
options operates under the guidance of the least restrictive environment in which a
student is provided services in an educational environment that is as similar to their same
aged peers as possible where the student’s needs are being addressed. This continuum of
support, as it is commonly called, provides these comprehensive options to the
Individualize Education Program (IEP) team. However, the starting point for placement
options really begins with a student’s initial evaluation.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
20
Educational Evaluation
The Pennsylvania School Code explains that the evaluation is to be conducted by
a school psychologist for the purpose of identifying students who may qualify for a
disability category of “autism, emotional disturbance, mental retardation (Now known as
Intellectual Disability), multiple disabilities, other health impairments, specific learning
disability, or traumatic brain injury” (PA Code, sec. 14.123). The evaluation is an
essential portion of the special education process as it uses a comprehensive battery of
assessment to determine the specific needs of the learner and can make recommendations
for those needs to the IEP team. The data for this evaluation is not only gathered by the
psychologist themselves but is gathered from multiple stakeholders involved in the
student's education, including parents, and teachers. According to the National Joint
Committee on Learning Disabilities (2011) a Multidisciplinary Evaluation (MDE) report
uses standardized assessments, informal measures, observations, student self-reports,
parent reports, and progress monitoring data and are used to “identify a student’s pattern
of strengths and needs” (p. 4). In addition, the evaluation must prove two things prior to
a student’s placement in special education. That is determining if a disability exists AND
if the student needs specially designed instruction due to low performance. In other
words, having a disability in and of itself is not the sole factor for placement in special
education.
For the purposes of students with learning disabilities an evaluation looks to
determine if a discrepancy exists in students' achievement and their abilities known as the
discrepancy formula. While an important determining factor, the discrepancy formula
may not be the only measure for a student's qualifications for a learning disability as
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
21
discussed previously. The areas that are targeted include oral expression, listening
comprehension, written expression, basic reading skills, reading fluency skills, reading
comprehension, mathematics calculation, and mathematical problem solving. According
to the National Center for Learning Disabilities (2006) the evaluation should also look at
ability levels across domains of motor, sensory, cognitive, communication, behavior,
perception, memory, attention, sequencing, motor planning and coordination, thinking,
reasoning, and organization.
Evaluation reports include information on exclusionary factors, inclusionary
factors, and the patterns of strengths and weaknesses that the student has established over
time. Whitaker and Oritz (2019) explain that exclusionary factors that a psychologist
may consider in evaluating a student might include environmental, cultural or economic
factors that have kept the student from achieving at the levels of their ability. These
environmental factors, such as students that are English Language Learners, or students
who have not had regular patterns of attendance at school, or students who have
experienced a significant traumatic event may be reasons for the student’s
underachievement and not a learning disability. As an example, in a recent study by
Horowitz et al. (2017), English Language Learners made up 9 percent of students in the
public school system, but made-up 12 percent of students identified for a specific
learning disability. These types of factors are considered as possible exclusionary factors
to a student’s qualifications as a student with disabilities because these factors would
hinder progress in the educational program and do not necessarily indicate a disability.
The purpose of this, according to Whitaker and Oritz (2019) is to protect against
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
22
disproportionate placement of students with these factors in special education programs
that promote biased practice whether intentional or not.
An evaluation for students with learning disabilities relies in part on the use of a
discrepancy formula. However, after IDEA 2004, the discrepancy formula may not be
used by itself to determine if a learning disability exists. It is important that multiple
measures are used to identify areas of concern since testing by itself is one moment in
time and may or may not be accurate to the student’s real weaknesses. However, the
discrepancy formula is still a measure and considers a student's ability as measured on an
intelligence test as compared to their achievement across multiple categories on a
standardized test. When a significant gap exists between a student’s ability and
achievement it is one indicator of a potential learning disability. According to the Iris
Center (2021), a significant discrepancy exists when there is a 30-point difference
between a student's ability and their achievement. This difference is two standard
deviations from the student’s ability score. So, as an example, a student who scored a
100 on their intelligence score and a 68 on their achievement score would have met one
of the indicators for a learning disability because it meets the discrepancy formula. In a
different example, a student who has an Intelligence Quotient of 110 and an 85
achievement score would not meet that eligibility criteria piece based on the discrepancy
being 25 points.
As LdOnline (2021) points out, “the reason that comprehensive assessment and
evaluation procedures are needed is because learning disabilities may be manifested
differently among individuals over time, in severity, and across settings” (para. 33). This
speaks to why the discrepancy formula can’t be the sole indicator of a learning disability
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
23
and key elements of a comprehensive evaluation should include the strengths and
weaknesses of the student as well as other factors that are affecting performance in the
regular education environment.
The components of the evaluation report are many and are set up to walk the
practitioners and IEP team through various considerations based in data that define a
student’s needs and whether a diagnosis exists. The following is a brief overview of the
components of a report, followed by a brief explanation of those components to illustrate
the process for identifying students with special education needs. It is important to note
that an evaluation may be initiated by a parent or by a school. This is the reason that the
report starts out with a reason for the referral. This gives the MDE team background on
what brought the evaluation to this point. According to the PATTAN (2018a), this
section, “clearly, thoroughly and concisely describe why the evaluation is being
conducted” (p. 2).
The second portion of the evaluation report contains the Sources of Evaluation
Data. This section contains the assessment batteries that have been conducted based on
the areas of concern that were reported to the school psychologist. The reader would also
find the results of these batteries in this area. PATTAN (2018a) makes reference in their
annotated evaluation report that this piece should be clear to the reader, acknowledging
that the reader will not have the same level of training and expertise as the psychologist
writing the report. These sources of data are broken up into an organizational structure or
categories. These categories include parent feedback, observations of the student by the
teacher or related service providers, recommendations by teachers, physical health reports
such as their vision and hearing screenings, assessment data such as classroom-based
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
24
assessments; aptitude and achievement tests; local and state assessments; behavior
assessments; interests and preferences, and discipline referral information.
The third component of the evaluation includes any deviation from normal testing
routines. This section would include information such as testing changes that existed due
to testing needs. An example may be testing in the student's native language. Other
examples may include a student who became ill during the assessment or if the full
battery was not given and only certain sub sections were conducted.
The Determining Factor section, noted as section 4, is meant to illustrate the
possibility of exclusionary factors. As explained earlier in this project, students can have
existing factors that might preclude a student from being eligible for special education
services. Students who have had a lack of instruction as an example may not be eligible
for special education based on these exclusionary factors. English as a second language
is another example that could preclude a student from qualifying for special education
services. As a reminder, this provision was meant to safeguard the overidentification of
students with these factors into special education because the suspicion would be that this
factor itself was primary to their lower achievement and special education was not the
appropriate answer.
The report nears culmination in a summary of findings and interpretation of the
results. The summary puts into clear language how the student is performing, also known
as the Present Levels of Performance. These present levels are broken down into
academic performance, functional levels of performance, and behavioral performance.
These pieces of information are transferred onto the IEP for students who qualify to drive
programming planning. Academic performance includes, as its name suggests, the
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
25
assessment feedback that deals with achievement in school derived from the collection of
data. Functional performance includes the day-to-day living skills of the student
including hygiene, dressing, community-based instruction skills, and consumer skills.
Lastly, behavioral information would contain feedback from assessments such as
measures of social and emotional functioning. An example may be attention rating
scales.
Lastly, the report is finalized with conclusions and recommendations based on the
data that is included. There are three options for the team to choose from within this
portion of the report. The data either reveals that the student does not have a disability,
has a disability but is not in need of specially designed instruction, or is a student with a
disability in need of specially designed instruction. Remember that a student having a
disability alone does not necessitate the need for an Individualized Educational Program.
There must be a demonstrated need shown through the review of data. Hence the reason
for the second option in the evaluation report. Additionally, this is also a crucial section
of the report where a diagnosis will be assigned to the student if they are found in need of
specially designed instruction. A student may, in fact, have more than one diagnosis but
there is a primary diagnosis assigned to the student known as their primary disability
category.
The psychologist will incorporate their recommendations in this portion of the
report as well. This important section gives the team guidance on what support may be
put in place based on the report’s findings. Recommendations made by the Education
Law Center (2021) state “the special education and related services the child needs to
participate in the regular curriculum” (p. 19). They go on to say that specially designed
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
26
instruction includes “what is taught, methodology (the process used to teach), or delivery
of the curriculum to take account of your child’s learning needs and to ensure that your
child has access to the general education curriculum” (p. 9). Additionally, related
services are items that the student needs such as transportation,
speech/occupational/physical therapy, interpreting services, or school health services that
address other weaknesses that affect the student adversely in the school environment. As
an example, pull out classes may be considered for a student where small group
instruction is recommended because a specially designed instruction element would
include that recommendation. Whereas an example of a related service may be
occupational therapy needs due to a student’s weakness in fine motor skills as it relates to
holding and manipulating a pencil. Certainly, while not academic, this related service
would have an impact on the student’s academic success.
Individualized Education Plan Design
The Individualized Education Plan, or IEP is designed by a team of individuals at
least annually for a student who has qualified for special education services. The
Education Law Center (2021) states that an IEP is “a written plan that describes the
unique needs of a child who is eligible for special education and explains the specific
services that the school will give the child” (p. 31). The initial provision for special
education is derived from the Evaluation Report, taking the present levels of
performance, strengths and needs of the student as well as the recommendations to
address these needs. The IEP itself is broken out into many different components that all
have meaning in achieving a Free and Appropriate Public Education while also adhering
to the principals of the Least Restrictive Environment. Important to this project are the
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
27
components of the IEP known as present levels of academic achievement, goals and
objectives, specially designed instruction, and educational placement.
Special considerations are noted at the beginning of the IEP document, to keep at
the forefront, considerations that may be less typical but need much attention through the
development of the IEP. These considerations may include blind or vision impairments,
communication needs, assistive technology needs, limited English proficiency skills, and
behavior that may impede the student’s progress or that of others. These items can have
implications throughout the IEP. As an example, a student who is noted as having
behaviors that impede their learning or that of others may need a behavior plan that is
driven by a Functional Behavioral Assessment (FBA). A behavior plan includes positive
behavioral supports that would be clearly stated in the IEP for all staff to review and
follow, to maintain a cohesive approach to dealing with the student’s behavioral needs.
Yet another example might be the inclusion of mobility training in the Related Services
portion of the IEP if the IEP team were to indicate blind or visual impairment needs.
The team uses information from the Evaluation Report and data from the current
academic program such as grades, scores on standardized tests, information from those
involved with the student and other data available to the team to construct the Present
Levels of Academic Achievement and Functional Performance. Harmon et al. (2020)
state, “one of the most important elements of an individualized education program (IEP)
is the section on present levels of academic achievement and functional performance
(PLAAFP)” (p. 321). This section clearly outlines for those that play a role in the
student’s education where the student is in their educational program, what to expect
from the student, what struggles the student has, and sets the direction for where the
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
28
student needs to go based on the needs identified. This may include feedback from the
parent as well.
Within the present levels framework are measures of functional performance.
Harmon et al. (2020) explains that functional performance “refers to any nonacademic
area that allows a student to function independently on a day-to-day basis, such as
cognition, communication, motor skills, behavior, or social-emotional functioning” (p.
321). PATTAN (2018c) contributes to this understanding in its annotated IEP when it
said that this, “relates to activities of daily living like hygiene, dressing, basic consumer
skills, community-based instruction, or the ability to access public transportation,
social/emotional learning skills or behavioral difficulties, and the consideration of
personal safety and socially appropriate behavior” (p. 15). Functional performance is not
always a concern for students whose needs are mainly academic. However, all domains
of functional performance need to be considered for each student to rule in or rule out the
need within this section of the IEP.
Within the Present Levels of Academic and Functional Performance is the
inclusion of transition needs and strengths. Transition refers to the areas of interest that
the student may have regarding post-secondary life. The IEP team may gather this
information from activities such as career awareness surveys or interest inventories. The
team may also look at instruments such as the ASVAB for high school students. As
Harmon et al. (2020) put it, “a description of the degree of match between the student's
current skills and the student's desired postschool outcomes will provide insight into the
impact of the disability and will assist the team with comprehensive transition planning”
(p. 327). For students in the state of Pennsylvania, transition must be considered for
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
29
those students who are 14 years of age or older. The IEP team may consider transition
services for students who are younger if the IEP team determines that this is appropriate.
Lastly, considerations on present levels for behavior are also pertinent
information to be included in this area. While previously stated under the special
considerations section of the IEP, behavior that impedes the student’s learning or that of
others requires specific attention within the IEP. From the special considerations comes
the information demonstrating the student’s progress and ongoing needs in this area.
Primary information pertinent to this would be found in a Functional Behavioral
Assessment (FBA). The FBA defines the target behavior and looks at the function of the
behavior for why the behavior might exist. The FBA also includes triggers or
antecedents to the behavior so that the team can consider what manipulations to the
environment can be made to avoid the trigger to the behavior. Just as important is the
statement of the behavior that is desired. Data can be gathered from sources including
referrals to the office or direct observation of the problem behaviors. The information is
placed in this area to demonstrate the needs that will be addressed later in the IEP as a
goal or goals.
The third part of the IEP is the Transition section. This should sound familiar
because transition was discussed in the student’s present levels section specified
previously. This section takes that information and puts into action a plan to achieve
post-secondary goals in the areas of education and training, employment, and
independent living needs (not all students require independent living to be addressed).
As Finn and Kohler (2009) state:
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
30
This federal mandate for IEP transition content actually helps simplify IEP
development, by aligning the various components (present level of academic
achievement and functional performance, annual goals, course of study, special
education and related services, duration of services, and accommodations) with
the student's postsecondary goals. (p. 20)
The Individualized Education Plan team puts in this section specific activities that will
occur throughout the year that will assist the student in fulfilling the goals. As an
example, a student with a post-secondary employment goal of being a carpenter may
have as a part of their IEP a trip planned to see the local area vocational technical school
servicing the district. Another example may be taking part in developing a career plan
that fulfills career awareness standards. Lastly, this area is a federally monitored portion
of the IEP known as Indicator 13. There are 20 indicators that are used to show
compliance and effectiveness of a students’ IEP and the implementation of IDEA (Project
10 Transition Network, 2021). With the Federal weight placed on this indicator, it makes
this an important part of the individualized education plan.
Part IV of the IEP includes the consideration of whether the student will
participate in state and local assessments. This portion of the IEP is important in the
sense that the research conducted in this study uses standardized and local assessment
data to determine the effectiveness of supports, accommodations and modifications that
help the student make progress in the regular education curriculum and results in positive
achievement on these measures. In addition, in the state of Pennsylvania currently, the
use of standardized measures fulfills some of the graduation pathways for all students.
At the heart of this project is the pedagogy and practice that keeps students in the Least
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
31
Restrictive Environment and assists students in successfully achieving grade level
standards. It is important, as a part of accountability measures, that students take part in
the assessment structure in order to gain valuable insight into the effectiveness of the
educational program and their achievement. However, there are students who cannot
take part in the state standardized assessment system. In Pennsylvania as an example,
students that the IEP team determine meet the criteria to participate in the Pennsylvania
Alternate System of Assessment (PASA) would be noted in this area of the IEP.
Pennsylvania outlines six criteria that a student must meet in order to be eligible to take
part in the PASA. These six criteria, taken from the PATTAN IEP template (2018c) are
listed as follows:
1. Will the student be in grade 3,4,5,6,7,8, or 11 by September 1st of the
school year during which the IEP will be operative?
2. Does the student have significant cognitive disabilities? Pennsylvania
defines significant cognitive disabilities as pervasive and global in nature,
affecting student learning in all academic content areas, as well as
adaptive behaviors and functional skills across life domains.
3. Does the student require intensive, direct, and repeated instruction in order
to learn and generalize academic, functional, and adaptive behavior skills
across multiple settings?
4. Does the student require extensive adaptations and support in order to
perform and/or participate meaningfully and productively in the everyday
life activities of integrated school, home, community, and work
environments?
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
32
5. Does the student require substantial modifications to the general education
curriculum?
6. Does the student’s participation in the general education curriculum differ
substantially in form and/or substance from that of most other students?
Students found eligible to take the PASA must have measurable annual
goals AND short-term objectives reflected in the IEP. (p. 26)
In addition, for English Language (EL) students, considerations would be made as
to the appropriateness of the state assessments and what accommodations may be
necessary for the student to show what they know to eliminate the language barrier to the
greatest extent possible. EL students, who take the Assessing Comprehension and
Communication in English State-to-State assessment, or ACCESS testing, have
considerations in this area of the IEP as well. The testing is broken into domains of
Reading, Writing, Speaking, and Listening. Accommodation exists for each of these
domains.
Much of the prior information leads up to the next section of the IEP known as
Part V Goals and Objectives. This area brings into action the need statements discussed
in the Present Levels of Academic and Functional Performance and potentially the
transition portion of the document. The goal statements are broken up into Measurable
Annual Goals and Short-Term Objectives. Measurable Annual Goals are necessary for
all students in the areas that affect their disability. This could include academic goals,
transition goals, or behavioral goals. Short Term Objectives are not necessary in all
cases. They are necessary, however, for students who participate in the PASA testing.
Hedin and DeSpain (2018) state that IEP goals “include four components: conditions,
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
33
learner, behavior, and criteria” (p.101). Goals need to be driven from the learner’s needs,
include the type of behavior that is desired for the student based off that need, and is
measurable to a criteria that includes baseline and successful attainment of the goal. As
an example, if we know that a student has a weakness in reading comprehension a
measurable annual goal may look like this:
Given a reading comprehension passage at a Lexile level of 700, Gavin will answer 80%
of the comprehension questions for the passage correctly from a baseline of 60%.
In this example, the learner’s needs would be stated in the present levels and known to
be in the reading comprehension area. We would also know from the present levels the
instructional level. The goal describes the behavior of the student answering correctly
the comprehension questions, with a criteria of 80% accuracy from a baseline of 60%.
Paramount to this Capstone Project is part VI of the IEP known as Related
Services/Supplementary Aids and Services, and Program Modifications. Specifically,
this section is broken into five parts, Specially Designed Instruction, Related Services,
Supports for School Personnel, Gifted Support Services and Extended School Year. For
the purposes of this Capstone Project we will focus on the Specially Designed Instruction
(SDI) portion of the IEP.
As you have read, the beginning of the literature review focused on the evolution
of legislation to support special education students in their educational growth. Primary
to this objective was access to the general education curriculum as well as placement in
the Least Restrictive Environment. The primary vehicle to achieving this success can be
found in section VI of the IEP. Here, the IEP team articulates the types of supports that
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
34
can be put in place to keep the student in the least restrictive educational environment,
accessing the regular curriculum.
Looking at part A, Specially Designed Instruction, this would be where staff
dealing with the student’s needs would find pertinent information about the
accommodations and modifications that are prescriptive in helping the student achieve in
the classroom. Part of the goal of this project is to look at the practices for
accommodations and modifications and to what level of fidelity their implementation
effects the student’s access to the curriculum, stay in the least restrictive environment,
and show growth. Specifically, the Assistance to States for the Education of Students
with Disabilities (2012) describe SDI’s as:
Adapting, as appropriate to the needs of an eligible child under this part, the
content, methodology or delivery of instruction (i) to address the unique needs of
the child that result from the child's disability; and (ii) to ensure access of the
child to the general curriculum, so that the child can meet the educational
standards within the jurisdiction of the public agency that apply to all children.
(§300.39[b])
These are supposed to be matched with the student’s deficits to overcome the barriers that
the disability places on the students access to curriculum and programming. The next
section breaks out the difference between accommodations and modifications and their
role in the academic program.
Accommodations are known within the special education and broader school
community as changing the way that students learn or present material. As Lovett and
Nelson (2020) state, “in either case, the essential content of the academic program
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
35
(instruction or testing) is retained, but the mode of administering an aspect of the
program (the timing, scheduling, setting, presentation style, or response format) is
altered” (p. 442). These accommodations may include changes to how students access
information or present information. As an example, a student with a reading disability
may access reading content from an audio book file for social studies class. Another
example may be that a student uses a calculator for certain abstract mathematics
problems so that the student can practice and demonstrate what they know about the
concept where calculation is not the targeted skill. These would be examples of
accommodations that allow a student to access information. Another example may be a
student who is able to use text to speech software in order to respond to a comprehension
question. In all cases, the standards that the student is being assessed on are the same as
their regular education counterparts.
However, some concerns exist with the efficacy of accommodations in the
educational program. It is suggested in some circles that the dissemination of
accommodation lists in government publications and by special education advocacy
groups has led to the inclusion of many accommodations in action plans that do not have
any research as to their effectiveness. Additionally, there are suggestions that
accommodations are easier for schools to implement and less costly than intervention
practices which are more costly resulting in proliferating the use of the accommodations
in IEP and 504 documents. However, research done by Lovett and Nelson (2020)
measured read alouds as one of the exceptions to the ineffectiveness of accommodations
for students with Attention Deficit Disorder. Also, VanSciver and Conover (2009) state
in their research that it was “reported that on computations and problem-solving
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
36
questions, teachers erred by over-identifying accommodations. Specifically, teachers
granted accommodations to large numbers of students with learning disabilities who
failed to profit from those accommodations more than would be expected among nondisabled students” (p. 3). Additionally, VanSciver & Conover (2009) state that much of
the decision making that goes into the use of accommodations come from a teacher’s
preferences, the ease at which an accommodation can be put into place, or the parent’s
urging the use of an accommodation.
In a study conducted by LeDoux et al. (2012) Likert style surveying was used to
determine staff perceptions of seven perceived teacher challenges in the classroom when
working with special needs children. In doing so, the researchers demonstrated that the
biggest challenges to staff were keeping special education students on pace with the
regular education curriculum as well as finding the time to meet the special education
students' needs. Comparatively, of much less concern to the staff was identifying and
implementing accommodations and modifications. This suggests some of the concerns
cited in this section of the fidelity of accommodations put in place and their actual effect
on student performance. One would reasonably expect that if the accommodations were
effective, keeping up with the content and finding time to meet the student needs would
not outpace choosing appropriate accommodations. The two should go hand in hand and
possibly reinforces the idea that accommodations are much more generic than pointedly
effective as discussed in Lovett and Nelson’s research.
Modifications, as opposed to accommodations, include the changing of the actual
content being learned rather than the way it is learned or demonstrated. According to the
PACER Center Champions for Children with Disabilities (2013), modifications are:
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
37
An adjustment to an assignment or a test that changes the standard or what the test
or assignment is supposed to measure. Examples of modifications include a
student completing work on part of a standard or a student completing an alternate
assignment that is more easily achievable than the assignment. (p. 1)
Decisions that teachers may make in the realm of modifications could include choosing
literature with a lower Lexile level but practicing or introducing similar concepts. In
essence, the student is learning the standards in a modified way. Another example may
be a teacher who modifies content for a student so that only the big ideas are
taught/assessed, leaving out some lesser essential elements of the content. Beyond
materials, modifications can also be rooted in grading practices, curriculum, and testing.
As an example, a grading modification may include partially grading the contents of the
assessment to the big ideas that the staff member wants to assess. Curriculum
modifications could potentially be shortened assignments that focus on the key concepts
being taught. Testing modifications may include changing the type of test given or
providing a word bank to the test, where other students may be asked to remember the
words from memory.
Interesting research conducted on the implementation of modifications was found
in a research study conducted by Hawpe (2013). In his research, Hawpe investigated
some key questions around willingness to implement modifications disaggregated by
gender, grade, regular education staff and special education staff, whether the teacher had
a disability themselves, or if a family member of the staff member had a disability. The
results suggested that more females than males were open to providing modifications for
their students in the classroom. In addition, it was found that neither middle school or
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
38
high school teachers are more or less inclined to provide modifications. Also, staff that
had a disability were more inclined to provide modifications to their students as well.
Lastly, it was found that special education teachers were more likely to give students
modified outlines and materials than were their regular education counterparts. This
research was pertinent to the Doctoral Capstone Project in that we are studying the
fidelity of accommodations and modifications and how that affects the least restrictive
environment in the core subjects.
While there are other components to the IEP, the last ones to discuss that affect
this Doctoral Capstone Project include Parts VII, Educational Placement and Part VIII,
Penn Data Reporting. They will be dealt with here together because of their close
relationship. The Educational Placement of the student deals directly with the LRE that
is spoken of so often in the IDEA regulations and in this project. The educational
placement is supposed to be driven from considerations in using supplementary aids and
services. The IEP team is to consider what supplementary aids and services are
necessary to help the student be successful in the placement that is recommended in the
IEP. This is also where the IEP team makes specific statements about how the student
will be included in the regular education classroom and regular education curriculum.
The IEP team is asked the following questions.
1. Explanation of the extent, if any, to which the student will not participate with
students without disabilities in the regular education class.
2. Explanation of the extent, if any, to which the student will not participate with
students without disabilities in the general education curriculum.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
39
Depending on the answers to these questions, the team would declare the level of support
that the student will receive. There are three levels of support considered in this area.
They are itinerant, supplemental, and full time support services. Itinerant support refers
to the lowest level of support where the student spends less than 20% of their day outside
of the regular education classroom. Supplemental support refers to 20%-79% of the day
outside of the regular education environment. This is followed by full time support, that
is 80-100% of the school day separated from their regular education peers.
Continuum of Support
Students with disabilities are serviced in public schools under the direction of
LRE. Schools are expected, to the extent possible, to provide this education with
supports in the regular education setting. School districts are also asked to provide
supports that would be commensurate with the needs that the students have. The type of
support is critical and challenges old ways of thinking with regard to a type of support
(Learning Support, Emotional Support, Life Skills Support, Etc.) as opposed to a place
where the support is given. Three categories of location are typically found in public
education, and they are inclusive regular education classrooms, pull-out classrooms, and
settings in a separate school.
According to Choi et al. (2020), research indicates that including students in the
regular education environment meaningfully results in improved academic and social
outcomes for students with disabilities. This research makes the argument compelling for
schools to implement support in this environment. One such model of support to help
students with disabilities gain access to the regular classroom is the coteaching model.
Within this model, there are two educators present in the classroom at any one time.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
40
Sinclair et al. (2018) indicates that this arrangement usually includes a special education
teacher who serves as an intervention specialist and a regular education teacher that
serves as a content specialist. However, within the model of coteaching there are
different approaches. There are generally six of these approaches that have been
developed as a framework for coteaching (Friend, 2008, as cited in Sinclair et al., 2018).
These models include one teach, one observe, one teach, one assist, parallel teaching,
station teaching, alternative teaching, and team teaching. A goal that is sought by
teachers in a coteaching arrangement using these approaches is that there isn’t a
discernable difference between the special education teacher and content area teacher.
While the approaches may be different in the classroom, the view from the students is
hoped to be that the two professionals are their teachers (Hurd & Wielbacher, 2017).
Perceived benefits of the model include reducing the student-to-teacher ratio in such a
way that students get more attention, improving the delivery of content when presented
from multiple viewpoints, providing for teamwork opportunities, and eliminating some of
the negative connotations associated with being pulled out of the regular classroom
environment (Hacket et al., 2020).
In the one teach, one observe approach either the content area teacher (CAT) or
the special education teacher (SET) would be delivering the main portion of instruction.
The other teacher would be conducting data collection in order to plan for interventions
needed for the student’s success. While this could be either teacher in either role, the
intervention specialist is often the data gatherer while the content specialist, CAT is
delivering the instruction to the class (Sinclair et al., 2018).
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
41
In the one teach, one assist model, one of the professional staff are conducting the
instruction for the class while the other instructor is monitoring the students and
providing assistance to students who demonstrate need. This assistance can involve 1:1
support on the current assignment, or behavioral interventions necessary due to
frustration with the activity being conducted (Sinclair et al., 2018).
In the parallel teaching approach, there is a splitting of the classroom into two
groups. In this model the teachers are vested equally in the instruction and assessment of
the lesson. Students could be heterogeneously grouped or homogeneously grouped in
order to serve the approach that the activity is trying to accomplish. Of usefulness with
this model is the ability to achieve more facetime and accountability to student learning
since you are effectively cutting the class in half. Sinclair et al. (2018) states that this
method is great for the reviewing of information because it gives students more
opportunities to demonstrate what they know and don’t know for the instructor.
Using station teaching is yet another model that staff can use when implementing
a coteaching approach. Station teaching refers to the ability of the instructors to work
with small groups of students. When this occurs, the teachers plan for specific activities
that could be without the teacher present, such as centers, mixed in with small group
sessions with the teacher that can provide targeted interventions for students. This leads
to a level of differentiation for students throughout the lesson.
Alternative teaching refers to the SET and CAT grouping students based off
assessment and feedback. This method requires formative assessment practice that
determines what students need small group instruction on a topic while other students
may receive whole group instruction (Sinclair et al., 2018). In doing so, the teachers are
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
42
identifying needs, based in data, and responding to those needs in real time. An example
of this might be students taking a bell ringer assessment that measures their
understanding of simplifying fractions. Based on this result, the SET may take a small
number of students who are showing basic skill deficits in simplifying fractions.
Whereas students who may have a stronger understanding of the content may work on
more complex ratio problems that practice this skill in an application type format.
Remediation is provided where necessary to the small group so that the application piece
can then be applied while not holding up the students ready for this task.
Lastly, team teaching refers to the practice of both teachers delivering instruction
at the same time to the whole group. Sinclair et al. (2018) indicates that this model
highlights the strengths of each teacher during the lesson and may appeal to different
students from the differing approaches that the instructors have. One weakness to this
model is that it does not present itself with many opportunities to differentiate instruction
for students.
Having a knowledge of these different models enables the teachers involved to
choose between them based off what they are trying to accomplish. If the goal of the
lesson is to differentiate then one would certainly not use the one teach, one observe or
team-teaching method. Likewise, during the initial instruction phase, the team teaching,
one teach, one observe, or the one teach, one assist approach may be the best method.
Challenges to the implementation of the coteaching model are plentiful. Teacher
common planning time, as one example, is a primary ingredient to the success of the
framework. Without this necessary component, teacher ability to make adaptions and
discuss scope and sequence affects the efficacy of the model. Additionally, Scruggs et al.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
43
(2007) explains that the depth of knowledge that the co-teacher has in the subject matter
can also play a role in the model’s success. This is viewed as a barrier to a co-teacher
being a fully valued member of the classroom or being treated as an equal. Hacket et. al
(2020) notes certain attributes that successful staff may have that play a role in the
success of the program. Teachers who engage in the model successfully are most
commonly flexible, have trust with their co-teacher, enter the process voluntarily, and
have strong interpersonal and communication skills.
Much discussion has occurred regarding the effectiveness of this model. For
practitioners and administrators there are challenging factors to overcome before a coteaching framework can function properly. According to staff who have been surveyed
on this piece, concepts such as common planning time, shared responsibilities,
compatibility, and desire have all played a role in the success of this approach. Sinclair
et. al (2018) notes that the research on the effectiveness of the co-teaching framework has
limited information, however. Murawski & Swanson (2001) (as cited in Sinclair et al.,
2018) noted that the net effect of students in pull out instruction and those in co-teaching
classrooms had very little net difference in achievement. In fact, it was noted that “of 89
identified studies on co-teaching, only 6 could be analyzed for effects and the average
effect size was only 0.40” (p. 307). Still other research noted by Fuchs et al. (2015)
stated that students below the 10th percentile that were in pull out environments had a
greater increase in their achievement relative to students in inclusive settings. However,
other research focused on the feelings of students in coteaching arrangements were much
more positive. According to Gokbulut et al. (2020) students reported being “happy,
successful, and academically prepared during the coteaching practices, found the
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
44
materials used by their teachers interesting, were willing to attend the class and were
pleased to be in school” (p.12). Another study by Rosati (2009) (as cited in Gokbulut et
al., 2020) stated that students felt they were better able to get the help they needed
quickly and efficiently in a coteaching environment.
A placement option that exists in public schools is the regular classroom with
supports outlined in the IEP, tailored to the student’s needs. This differs from the
cotaught classroom in that the environment has one teacher facilitating instruction. Burns
(2007), states that the “regular education classroom teacher has the expertise that is
crucial for a child with a disability to achieve satisfactorily in the regular education
classroom” (p. 27). He goes on to say that this crucial individual knows the framework
and structure of the curriculum and is an expert in helping the student in attaining the
goals of the course and sequential benchmarks. This environment may include supports
such as paraprofessional support, modified curriculum, accommodations such as
lengthened time to complete assignments, or the ability to have assessments read, to
name a few examples. However, the primary prescriptive instruction is outlined in the
specially designed instruction portion of the IEP that is implemented in this environment.
Thurlow et al. (2005) cite five major accommodation categories for students in the
general education classroom. These categories include timing such as alternate test
schedules, response such as ways in which students present what they know, setting that
include changes to where tasks are completed, equipment and materials such as text to
speech computer functions, and presentation such as how a student represents what they
have learned.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
45
Within the regular classroom framework there are additional practices that occur
that help the student be successful beyond the accommodation strategies discussed.
Differentiated instruction has been a widely used approach to meeting the needs of
learners that come to the classroom with different skillsets and readiness. Tomlinson (as
cited in Goodard et al., 2019) notes this approach as a means for the learner to have
varied ways to interact with the content. Goodard (2019) goes on to say that this could
include changes to content, process, and what is produced by the student based on the
“student’s readiness, interests, or needs” (p. 201). Tomlinson herself noted in an
interview with the School of Education at the University of Virginia that differentiation
means “trying to make sure that teaching and learning work for the full range of students”
(Bell, 2011, para. 2). Tomlinson states that this comes down to three student need areas
of student readiness, student interest, and student learning profile. This includes what
Tomlinson refers to as modes of learning that have four facets of gender, culture, learning
styles, and intelligence preferences. Tomlinson cites that much of the difficulty in
incorporating differentiated instruction in the classroom is that it must take into account
the four facets. To do one facet of the program, such as incorporating learning styles is
only implementing part of what makes differentiated instruction work. Therefore,
Tomlinson refers to implementation of differentiated instruction as a second order change
process. It requires teachers to rethink their classroom and being comfortable with
multiple things going on at the same time. These are some of the barriers to effective
differentiation in the classroom.
Lastly, the IEP team may decide that a student’s education is best supported in a
pull-out classroom. This is known as a more restrictive environment, as the class
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
46
operates with only students with disabilities and not in the general education setting. The
purpose of the pull-out classroom is to provide smaller, individualized instruction.
Teachers in this setting are given more opportunity to pace instruction to meet the needs
of the learner's content acquisition rate. Causton-Theoharis et al. (2011) stated that selfcontained classrooms are more protective environments. Some have gone as far as to say
that a pull-out environment is necessary and that subjecting students with disabilities to
the regular education classroom and corresponding assessments was actually
discriminating against the special education student (Albrecht & Joles, 2003). Another
author boldly stated, ‘‘the goals of teaching all children well and teaching all children in
the same place and at the same time (i.e., full inclusion) are on a collision course for
some students’’ and that ‘‘we cannot avoid the ‘train wreck’ of these two goals unless we
give up one for the other in some cases’’ (Kauffman et al., 2005, p. 2). These arguments
have made the inclusion of the pull-out classroom an option in the continuum of support
that schools have offered.
The pull-out setting does not come without its share of concerns, however. Some
of the drawbacks to this type of program can include stigmatization (Klingner et al.,
1998). Also, there is a great deal of debate in the research world as to whether pull-out
classrooms are effective in achieving a better outcome for students with disabilities.
Fuchs et al. (1993) had conducted research that demonstrated that students receiving
math instruction showed greater gains in the pull-out classroom. However, interestingly,
in a study conducted by Hurt (2012), the author noted that he had found eighteen studies
on the effects of inclusive practice as compared to pull-out practice. Of those studies, ten
showed a positive correlation to achievement for students in inclusive settings vs. pull-
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
47
out settings, while seven showed no difference to placement in inclusive settings vs. pullout settings, and one showed a negative result to placement in inclusive settings vs. pullout settings that tipped the scale slightly in favor of educating students in inclusive
settings. Hurt’s study also included studies of Virginia’s standardized testing framework
and found that there wasn’t any significant difference between students in pull out
settings and inclusive settings. So, the research about the effectiveness of pull-out and
inclusive practice seems to fall short of declaring a best approach. Most likely this is due
to the varied nature of students' skills and readiness, teacher experience and readiness,
school resources, and local mindsets as it relates to the implementation of these
programs.
Instructional Practices
As has been explained in the IEP process, there is specially designed instruction
that is provisioned for students with disabilities in the classroom setting. Namely these
are modifications and accommodations that affect the delivery of instruction that meets
their specified needs. However, what are examples of these kinds of modifications and
accommodations? Also, is there any empirical evidence that these instructional practices
actually work for students with disabilities. As mentioned in the literature review,
modifications are changes to what is taught to students. Accommodations are changes in
the environment that allow students to work around their disabilities. The Iris Center
(2021) notes four types of accommodations that involve presentation, response, setting,
and timing/scheduling. We will look at both modifications and accommodations in more
detail below.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
48
Looking at modification practices first, researchers have suggested that there are
two types of modifications made to curriculum (Wehmeyer et al., 2002). The first is
curriculum adaptation and the second is curriculum augmentation. Curriculum
adaptation refers to how content is represented or in how students respond to curriculum.
This adaptation does not alter the content that the student is learning. Principles of
Universal Design for Learning (UDL) strongly support curriculum adaptation in practice.
UDL is a method for staff to vary how material is presented, how teachers deliver the
content, and how students show what they have learned (Rose & Meyer, 2002). An
example of how material is represented and presented may be in the selection of text,
graphics, pictures, or audio and video content to name a few. When delivering content,
varied approaches may include lectures, visual presentation (such as slide shows), role
playing, or computer mediated instruction. Lastly, when it comes to showing what they
have learned students may be given options such as reports, exams, portfolios, drawings,
performances, oral reports, videotaped reports, or other alternative means for evaluation.
Curriculum augmentation, on the other hand, refers to layering supporting skills
in the delivery of content. Lee et al. (2006) cites that these augmentations may include
helping students with meta-cognitive or executive functioning strategies to access the
content and teaching students to learn how to learn. Contrary to what the title might
indicate, augmentation does not mean that curriculum is altered. It is only that there are
skills embedded that assist the student in understanding the material being taught. Lee et
al. (2006) gives other examples of curriculum augmentation such as shadowing, verbatim
notes, graphic organizers, semantic maps, mnemonics, chunking, questioning, and
visualizing strategies.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
49
Looking at some of these examples in more detail, Lee et al. (2006) explains the
use of graphic organizers creates a visual that helps the student organize information in a
way that they can understand. An example of this might be a Venn Diagram that shows
information that two groups/items have in common represented in the overlap of two
circles but show their differences in the parts of the circle that are not overlapping. This
visual representation that compares and contrasts the items is helpful in providing a
framework to conceptualize the information. Another augmentation, chunking, is a
strategy that is used to put strands of information together in a manner that connects the
material in smaller units of information. This makes it easier for the learner to synthesize
the information. Mnemonic devices are another example of modifications that aide a
student in memory recall. Using this method, one uses imagery through pictures or
words that help students recall information. A popular example that most learners can
remember from their school days is Please Excuse My Dear Aunt Sally when thinking
about the order of operations parenthesis, exponents, multiplication, division, addition,
and subtraction.
Modifications in the regular classroom can be difficult to implement due to the
time and thought that goes into creating these flexible opportunities. Research by
Dymond & Russell (2004) (as cited in Lee et al., 2010) suggests that studies conducted to
determine modifications made for students with mild disabilities in the classroom were
almost nonexistent. However, in their research, when students were subject to
modifications there was a high correlation between positive student academic responses
and the presence of those modifications. They also found that these modifications were
mostly noted in social studies and science and not in Language Arts and math. Still other
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
50
research has noted the higher quality individualized education programming existed when
modifications were present that included better social outcomes (Kurth & Mastergeorge
2010, as cited in Morningstar et al., 2015). Carter et al. (2012) conducted research that
also showed a high correlation between students with disabilities in the general education
setting and their adult outcomes. Such research continues to drive schools forward in
creating opportunities for students to access the curriculum in the regular classroom
through modifications made by staff.
Accommodations offer other support to students trying to access the curriculum in
the regular education environment. As stated previously, these deal with manipulation of
the classroom environment and deal mainly with presentation, response, setting, and
timing/scheduling. Generally, accommodations are applied for instructional purposes
and for assessment purposes. Lazarus et al. (2006) reveal that the most popular
accommodations for testing include extended time, small group testing, reading test items
aloud, and reading test directions aloud. Instructional accommodations include items
such as text to speech software, picture dictionaries, reduction in clutter or number of
problems presented on a page, large print materials, responding to items by pointing, or
preferential seating to name a few. Some accommodations can be both testing and
instructional in nature. An example might be items read aloud such that a student’s
reading disability does not interfere with the understanding of print materials. In the
research that was done by Lazarus et al. (2006), teachers were asked why they use
accommodations in the classroom. It was noted that the top two responses for why
teachers use accommodations instructionally were to create higher levels of independence
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
51
and to allow access to the general education curriculum. Staff went on to say that they
used student abilities to make these determinations.
Assessment Practices with Students with Disabilities
Formative and summative assessment practices are essential elements of any
classroom serving any student, regardless of the presence of a disability. Formative
assessment would include data that the teacher gathers each day to help them understand
where a student stands in building an understanding of the material. This assessment is
conducted concurrently with instruction (McTighe & O’Connor, 2005). To be effective,
this assessment must have certain elements of timing, specificity, understanding, and
allow for students to judge their learning with an opportunity to correct their
misunderstandings prior to summative measures (Wiggins, 1998). Dixson and Worrell
(2016) give us feedback that says formative assessment is both planned and unplanned.
Teachers asking pointed questions that are a part of their lesson planning and expertise or
homework would fall into planned formative assessment. Other examples of planned
formative assessment may include an exit ticket or bell ringer activity. These respective
activities that occur at the end or beginning of class respectively, are a method for the
teacher to know if the student was able to use what was asked of them during class or
from the previous class. All of this is meant to inform the teacher. On the other hand,
unplanned formative assessment might include a teacher that notices students are not
understanding a concept, and probes deeper into these misunderstandings by deviating
from the lesson plan. Whether planned or unplanned, formative assessment is a key
element to guiding the teacher through day-to-day decision making about next steps in
lesson design.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
52
Summative assessment occurs when the teacher is assessing what a student has
learned at the end of a unit of learning (American Educational Research Association et
al., 2014). Most of us are very used to the traditional summative assessment method, the
chapter test. In this case, the teacher has taught the material and measures if the goal of
teaching that information was achieved. However, another type of summative
assessment that one may not think of in this category of assessment includes
performance-based assessments. These assessments are built around a demonstration of
what was learned. If you think about a Family Consumer Science class as an example,
students putting into practice what they learned about recipes and, as a culminating
activity, may cook something using those skills would be an example of a performancebased assessment. Another more common example might include an argumentative essay
that is written by students at the conclusion of a series of planned instruction about this
method of writing where the student may lobby for a change in the school’s dress code
(Dixon & Worrell, 2016).
The importance of ongoing use of formative and summative assessment is crucial
to ongoing systems of monitoring student performance. These two systems are not
separate and work in conjunction with one another (McTighe & O’Connor, 2005).
When used cohesively they help the teacher pace their instruction, adjust instruction, and
ultimately increase the outcomes for students in the class. Houston and Thompson
(2017) suggest that the interplay between these two processes is really a communication
framework about learning. These practices create evidence for the teacher in a way that
allows them to make judgements. Knight (2002) refers to this as sense making and claim
making regarding student learning.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
53
Also important in this Doctoral Capstone Project is the use of standardized test
measures that assess student progress in the curriculum. A benchmark tool in this project
is the Measure of Academic Progress (MAP). MAP testing, as it’s known, is authored by
the Northwest Evaluation Association. The MAP is a computer adaptive test that is given
throughout the year and gives feedback on growth. MAP is an assessment tool that was
developed by NWEA, a nonprofit organization that has been in existence for forty years.
This is a Pre-K-12 assessment tool that is used by over 9500 schools in 145 countries
(Northwest Evaluation Association [NWEA] 2021a). The client base for this
organization and their tools are quite extensive. According to the MAP Growth fact sheet
produced by NWEA (2021b), the assessment adjusts to student responses to give
thorough reporting on what a student is ready to do. The assessment is given over
multiple periods of time, usually three but can be done up to four times. This periodic
implementation of the assessment measures growth over those three periods. The norms
are invoked for pools of testing that occurred in prior years at the same time for other test
takers, which allows for strong statistical analysis. In addition to this, scores on the MAP
are normed nationally and use a linear scale called a RIT scale, short for Rasch Unit.
The linear scale enables student scores to be placed on a continuum that is common for
all students, regardless of grade. In other words, the score achieved for a fifth grader and
eighth grader who have the same RIT score are theoretically achieving on the same level.
NWEA (2021) reports that they can leverage 10.2 million students to gain insights about
student learning, making it statistically reliable. NWEA touts that this data culture is
more equitable because it includes both mastery and growth. In this way, students are
given credit for their improvements because it respects where a student has started.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
54
Research on the effect of MAP implementation appears to lack volume, but there
is substantial research on the effects of formative assessment (Cordray et al., 2012).
However, research that is pertinent to the use of MAP as a predictable tool for student
readiness for learning and for projected growth is well documented. Looking at the study
conducted in 2015, NWEA was able to show "for mathematics, a pattern of steady
increase in standard deviations over grade levels” that was “evident for both students and
schools” (p. 40). Other research done by Ball & O’Connor (2016) using a regression
analysis was able to demonstrate reliability on its ability to predict student performance
on the state standardized achievement tests in Wisconsin. They concluded a high level of
reliability using this model. Still, in other research, Klingbeil et al. (2015) looked at the
reliability of the scores, noting a high level of correlation, particularly when multiple
measures were given throughout the year. However, there is also evidence to suggest that
the quality of teacher preparation to use the MAP data is a predictor of implementation
success as well (Wagner, 2020). In other words, while reliable as a predictor, how to use
the benchmark formatively is more elusive without adequate teacher preparation.
The PSSA on the other hand, is a summative assessment measure in the state of
Pennsylvania that has a long history of implementation. The PSSA is administered in the
spring for students in grades 3-8 in Math and ELA and in grades 4 and 8 in science
(Pennsylvania Department of Education, 2022). The Pennsylvania Department of
Education notes that this is a standards-based, criterion referenced assessment. A
criterion referenced assessment is one that compares the student score to a standard, in
this case established cut scores. In other words, cut scores that students achieve are based
on what they know and not how they compare to other students, which would be a norm
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
55
referenced assessment. The assessment is based on the PA Common Core Standards.
The PA Core Standards were adopted in July 2010 and were modeled after the National
Common Core standards. This is the standard most widely used in the state for
measuring student performance and school performance.
PVAAS is the tool by which the state reports student progress to stakeholders.
This data tool reports not only achievement but also growth and will predict student
achievement based on the students’ prior testing history. The methodology used to
measure growth gives credit to schools and staff for making gains with students even if
their achievement data is Basic or Below Basic, which are two of the lowest score
categories. This process involves taking the students testing data and compares it to
previous years' assessment data for that cohort of students. The process looks at the
students' relative position within the group from year to year. Students who move their
relative position up within the group make greater relative gains to their peers. Whereas
students who move down from their relative position show regression when compared to
their peers. Of course, it is also possible that a student maintains their relative position.
While PVAAS does not report individual students’ growth, it does take the group
of students involved at the school and classroom level and applies an aggregate score to
that group known as the growth measure. This growth measure is compared to the
growth standard that has been calculated for the entire student group in the state based on
the average of the prior years’ testing history. PVAAS uses a color-coded key to signify
this growth. Dark Blue signifies strong evidence that the instructional program is moving
students up the continuum. Light blue signifies moderate evidence that the educational
program is moving students up the continuum. Green signifies evidence that the
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
56
educational program is maintaining students' growth. Yellow is moderate evidence that
the educational program is causing students to lose ground. Finally, red is strong
evidence that students are losing ground in the educational program. It is important to
note that green is not a negative data point. However, as one might expect, if we are
talking about students in a classroom who are in the lowest performance group, a green
indicator is not helping those students make gains to raise their achievement to be
commensurate with their peers. So, in this case, the goal for this targeted group would
ultimately be a light blue to dark blue indicator demonstrating positive growth beyond the
growth standard.
PVAAS also uses what is called projections. In the case of ELA and math,
projections take all the prior testing history for a student on all subject tests to formulate a
prediction for future performance. The methodology then takes that score profile and
compares it to students who have scored similarly in the past and what they achieved on
the current test in question. According to the paper published by the Pennsylvania
Department of Education (2021), the methodology is very reliable statistically from the
years of giving the assessment.
In summation, PVAAS is a reporting method that allows schools to accurately
look at their growth and achievement collectively. This tool and methodology takes into
account where students start and acknowledges growth as a measure of a school or
teacher’s effect on students. This is argued to be a much better methodology that serves
different types of schools fairly. Traditionally low performing students, who are perhaps
in lower performing schools, can find improvement initiatives challenging and hard to
measure. This method acknowledges their growth as an evaluative measure of their
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
57
change initiatives. Likewise, students and schools who do well in measures of
achievement may become stagnant and lack a bigger picture of their students’ growth. In
those cases, when their students start to lose their relative positioning, yielding negative
growth scores, that is an indication that good isn’t good enough.
Literature Review Summary
This Doctoral Capstone Project is built on the concept of Least Restrictive
Environment for students as established over the decades of evolution that special
education has undergone. The laws have continued to progress, making it the expectation
that students are educated in the regular education environment with supplementary aids
and services to the greatest extent possible. With the evolution of the law, so too has
there been an evolution in the processes in schools for evaluating and placing students.
This literature review looked at the important processes at play in the Evaluation Report,
that shows the methodology for a student to be placed in special education, as well as the
recommendations that are meant to support the student in there identified areas of need.
The identification process led to the establishment of the Individualized Education Plan,
that used the evaluation to design a prescriptive course of action to support students in the
least restrictive environment identified by the IEP team. This included the environments
that the student may be educated in throughout a school day such as, cotaught
classrooms, regular classrooms with supports, pull out classrooms, and separate schools.
Integral to this project is how all of these processes lead to success in the least restrictive
environment using the supports in the IEP that include modifications and
accommodations. The effectiveness of these supports is the crucial piece, that often is
dependent on a teacher’s understanding of them and best practices in implementing them
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
58
in the classroom. Lastly, the literature review looked at assessment practices in the
classroom, in the school, and statewide. These assessment frameworks are essential in
understanding how students attain success in the least restrictive environments they are
educated as well as measuring school progress on teaching curriculum. As you can see,
these processes are all intermingled, but all pointed to one thing, student progress and
success in school!
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
59
CHAPTER III
Methodology
The review of literature makes it clear that the push to educate students in the
least restrictive environment is the main goal of federal and state legislation. From the
earliest forms of legislation, such as P.L. 94-142, pressure and movement from
stakeholders drove the concept of FAPE with four primary tenants. Those tenants were
ensuring students with disabilities had access to a free public education that was
appropriate, that parents’ and students’ rights were protected, that states had the backing
of the federal government to achieve these goals, and that effectiveness of these programs
could be measured across the country (United States Department of Education, 2020).
Furthermore, the purpose has evolved from protecting those four tenants to funneling the
definition of what is appropriate. The IDEA legislation reauthorized in 1997 had strong
wording of to the maximum extent possible children with disabilities would be included
with their same aged peers (1997, p.111). This language forced schools to look at their
practice intensively and that level of introspection is still occurring today.
This push to include students in the regular classroom is accomplished through
thorough planning guided by the multi-disciplinary evaluation process and subsequent
development of the IEP. Specifically, within the IEP is the plan for supplementary aides
and services that includes specially designed instruction made up of accommodations and
modifications that include strategies such as coteaching and paraprofessional support.
This background is a key understanding in the “why” of the research.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
60
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to look at accommodations and modifications
delivered in the classroom in more detail that help schools achieve LRE and FAPE. The
focus will essentially be on their application across settings and on teacher perception as
to their importance overall and by content area. The goal is student success as it relates
to student achievement measured using a variety of data points that include grades,
adaptive tests, standardized test scores, and predictive metrics. The research focus is on
what practices are working in the classrooms with student supports that yield better
results. This research is meant to look at best practices that can be highlighted and
replicated through reinforcing actual student data across classrooms and grade levels
where students with IEP’s show stronger growth.
To do so, the researcher decided to use a mixed method approach, combining the
best attributes of qualitative and quantitative study techniques. This led to a research
plan that collected data starting with what the current perceptions and practices were in
the classroom. This was then followed by a study of achievement prediction measures
and actual student growth measures that were followed by a closer look at student
movement between classes throughout the year. Without the lens placed on these
common data points, schools operate on independent measures and beliefs about what is
working within a classroom that may or may not be entirely accurate. The more objective
feedback that a teacher and school system can obtain helps drive the organization, staff,
and students to better results. In the end, the intent is for the research to validate best
practices for student support implementation occurring in the school to help guide teacher
development initiatives to best serve our special education student population and staff.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
61
Research Questions
There are three key questions to answer within the construct of this research
project that are supported by a clear collection of data points using a variety of
instruments.
Research question number 1 is:
What are teachers’ perceptions about student supports outlined in a student’s IEP and
how are those supports implemented in their classrooms?
Research question number 2 is:
What relationship, if any, is there between teacher perceptions/implementation of student
supports and student achievement?
Research question number 3 is:
What movement from regular education classes to more restrictive pull-out classes occur
over the course of a year and is there any correlation to perception and implementation of
student supports?
These questions illustrate the alignment of the purpose of the research study and the data
being sought. As one can see, if we are trying to highlight what teacher practices
regarding accommodations and modifications produce better results, teacher perception
of the supports, aligned with student performance measures, as well as studying student
movement to and from the least restrictive environment support the purpose of the study.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
62
Setting and Participants
Bethel Park School District is a K-12 public school located to the south of
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The district is within the Municipality of Bethel Park that
comprises 11.67 square miles of territory. This is slightly larger than the surrounding
communities in terms of geographical size. As of 2019 there were 32,177 people living in
Bethel Park. The median salary of families in the community was $79,894 dollars while
the median home cost $188,600 dollars. Additionally, 80% of the families in Bethel Park
owned their own homes. Regarding race, the population of citizens in 2019 was 91.6%
white, 2.59% multi-racial, 2.17% black, 2.17% Asian, 1.42% Hispanic/Latino, and .06%
of the population was American Indian. The median age of a person in Bethel Park was
46.6 years. Lastly, those individuals living below the poverty line in Bethel Park made up
4.64% of the total population (Data USA, n.d.).
The school district itself is comprised of five elementary buildings, one 5-6
middle school building, one 7-8 middle school building, and one 9-12 high school
building. This study is being conducted at Independence Middle School, which is made
up of students in the 7th and 8th grade. The school is scheduled via the middle school
concept. The middle school concept utilizes the school within a school approach. This
entails breaking staff into teams where a portion of the students are scheduled to a
specific group of educators. This creates a smaller community feel, where teams can take
on their own identity, developing a more personal approach that is responsive to the
middle school students’ needs. Independence Middle School has five of these teams.
There are two 7th grade teams, two 8th grade teams, and one team, referred to as a “split”
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
63
team, that has both 7th and 8th grade students. However, students on this split team do not
mix by grade level within their classes.
A team at Independence Middle School is made up of either 6 or 7 teachers. In
7th grade, the staff make-up is one social studies teacher, one science teacher, one math
teacher, one Language Arts teacher, one reading teacher, and one special education
teacher. In eighth grade this team is expanded to include a health teacher that teaches a
semester course to the students. To accommodate the inclusion of this course in 8th grade,
the reading class is taught for one semester so that the health course can be taught in the
opposite semester. The core team members have common planning time three days a
week. During this time, the core team staff can meet to plan for upcoming activities
across content areas, discuss student needs, conduct parent meetings, participate in IEP
and Chapter 15 Service Agreement meetings, and meet with administrative and counseling
staff on student needs. It is also time that can be used to implement professional
development learning opportunities for staff.
The school day for the student is made up of nine periods. These periods include
instruction based on the Pennsylvania Chapter 4 regulations, PA Standards, and PA
Common Core Standards. These periods include Math, Social Studies, Reading,
Language Arts, Science, World Language, Unified Arts, Physical Education, and lunch.
Physical Education is a course that operates every other day on a six-day rotation while
the others operate every day. These are the standard courses that students typically take at
school. However, many students do take part in performing arts such as band, chorus, and
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
orchestra as well.
64
These courses operate every other day on a six-day rotation and are
opposite of physical education in the student’s schedule.
There are students who require additional supports throughout the school day and
whose schedule may look different than stated. One of the supports offered to students is
Academic Assistance. This course is a structured time slot where staff can work with
students on organization, study habits, reteaching of concepts, and work completion.
This support is typically offered every other day in the six-day rotation. In addition to
this support for regular education students, there are resource class periods available to
students with an IEP to provide some of the specially designed instruction while also
providing opportunity for reteaching, organizational support, and work completion.
The remediation program at Independence Middle School includes coursework in
reading and math. The reading remediation services are broken into two separate
components based on a student’s need. The Academy of Reading is the first of these two
courses. This program focuses on structured literacy programming that includes
decoding and encoding, fluency, and reading comprehension. A student who may take
this course is typically a student with the greatest reading skill deficits. The second of the
two reading courses is entitled Read 180. This course was designed for readers who
struggle with comprehension. It assumes that the foundational literacy skills are
mastered such as decoding and encoding, targeting comprehension skill building almost
exclusively.
Math remediation also happens in two tiers at Independence Middle School. The
first tier includes a course called The Academy of Math program. This program, similar
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
65
to its reading counterpart, focuses on students who have the greatest skill deficits. The
course works on their individualized skill gaps. The second course is called Math Lab
where the targeted group of students are close to being proficient on PSSA testing and
work on extended opportunities within the grade level concepts that they are learning.
These two tiers of courses are populated at the beginning of the year by looking at
standardized test scores and classroom grades.
Students are scheduled on teams through a variety of factors at the school. First, a
student who requires special education services are partitioned by their needs onto one of
the special education teacher’s caseloads who are already assigned to individual teams.
Scheduling of special education student’s courses is typically one of the first things done.
For the rest of the student body, they are scheduled to a team based on their math
sequence primarily. Depending on the number of math sections required year to year, not
every team has the same math courses available to the students. So, the first decision to
be made with students’ team placement is largely based on what math they need and how
many sections of that math are available on each team. Lastly, there are other factors that
contribute to team placement driven by a student’s course requests. Course requests such
as band, chorus, and orchestra, as well as World Language selection may push a student
from one team to another. This is because combinations of classes desired by the student
may not fit the team schedule. To illustrate this, if there is only one section of French for
7th grade that is period 3 and one of the teams is teaching period 3, that student would not
be able to be scheduled on that team. These scheduling conflicts usually resolve
themselves by changing the team assignment.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
66
The demographic make-up of the school includes a current population of 611
students. The breakdown of the student body is listed in Table 1.
Table 1
Independence Middle School Demographic Data
Number of Students
Percent of the population
Gender
Female
290 students
47.70% of student pop.
Male
318 students
52.30% of student pop.
1 student
0.16% of student pop.
Asian or Pacific
Islander
26 students
4.28% of student pop.
Black
24 students
3.95% of student pop.
Hispanic
10 students
1.64% of student pop.
White
547 students
89.97% of student pop.
Subgroups
504
41 students
6.74% of student pop.
ELL
11 students
1.81% of student pop.
FRL
104 students
17.11% of student pop.
IEP
97 students
15.95% of student pop.
Race
American Indian
Independence Middle School has continued to evolve in its service delivery and
continuum of support in special education. At the start of the researcher’s tenure at the
school in 2005, the special education delivery structure included placements such as Life
Skills Support, Autistic Support, and Learning Support. Learning support services were
delivered by the team special education teacher. Conversely, students in the Life Skills
and Autistic Support program were included on teams for various subjects and for the
purpose of team activities. However, the Life Skills and Autistic Support teachers were
not attached to the team and serviced students from across the school. On the other hand,
Learning Support teachers were assigned to individual teams. Content taught by the
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
67
Learning Support staff included math, reading, Language Arts, and a resource class that
provided back up instruction for students’ coursework throughout the day. Generally,
this resulted in either 5 or 6 periods of instruction for the learning support staff member.
Life Skills and Autistic Support teachers generally taught 5 or 6 periods of classes as
well.
Around the year 2015, a change was made to the scheduling of learning support
staff. While the learning support teachers were still attached to a team for the purpose of
scheduling students, the concept of content specialist became a focus in the development
of the special education department. The premise behind this change was the belief that
it was very difficult for the teacher to design lessons for three diverse subjects and be
proficient in that content area to a high level. A fundamental belief at that time, and still
held today, is that the teacher who understands the content in depth is best equipped to
recognize student misunderstandings in that content area. It was also believed that the
teacher could design better lessons that were more engaging and cohesive throughout the
year if they had a content specialty at which they could become proficient. Special
education teachers were well versed in adaptations and modifications but did not
necessarily have the background in all three content areas that their team-teaching
colleagues had. This was also coming on the heels of what was called “Bridge
Certification”. This was an attempt by the Department of Education to push for content
area proficiency. Bridge certification has since been abandoned by the state, but its
impetus was to really drive the instructor proficiency piece and arguably had some merit.
From the scheduling standpoint of staff at that time, the decision was made between
teachers and administration to maintain a learning support teacher on each team.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
68
However, students requiring pull out instruction would receive their core instruction for
that course by the learning support content specialist. As an example, the math specialist
may be attached to a specific 7th grade team, provide resource support for that team, but
teach all students requiring pull out math in the 7th grade.
Around the year 2017 there was an increasing gap that was noticeable in the
continuum of support offered to learning support students. This gap was the absence of
the coteaching concept as one of the support options for students. The district started to
proliferate the coteaching concept in its buildings to fill this need. This presented
multiple challenges that included how to preserve content specialty in the teaching staff
while also providing for coteaching opportunities for students. In working with the
teaching staff, it was decided to utilize a scheduling technique that is known as “cross
teaming.” This technique, while not preferred, allows students to be scheduled with
teachers assigned to other teams if it met their need for a cotaught course request. This
enabled the teachers to focus on one content area still, while also coteaching in that same
content area, furthering their expertise. The benefit to that structure was that both
teaching professionals could learn from each other. The regular education teacher could
learn about modifications and accommodations while the special education teacher could
learn more about their content specialty from a content specialist, trained to have a deep
understanding of this area. The negative piece was that this was similar to the type of
scheduling seen in a junior high where students were sent outside of their team areas.
However, this was only for learning support students who required the cotaught class.
All other instances students would be scheduled on the team for which they belonged.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
69
This process of scheduling was the first attempt at providing coteaching while also
maintaining content specialty.
As the coteaching model began to accelerate, one problem that kept coming up
was the difficulty that cross teaming the students created. There were challenges for
teams to flex their schedule, challenges to school and home communications now that
students were on multiple teams, and the overall sense of belonging that the team concept
creates, was hindered. The struggle between increasing staffs’ content expertise and
preserving the middle school concept conflicted with one another. This led to additional
recommendations by staff that maintained content specialization for pull out classes but
asked the learning support teacher to coteach on team across the three subject areas
(math, reading, Language Arts). Starting in the 2021-2022 school year this adaptation
was made in the schedule making it possible for students to stay on team for their special
education services in the regular classroom. In the end, this created an opportunity for a
full continuum of support for students that included the regular class with supports,
regular class with supports that included coteaching and paraprofessional services, as
well as pull out classes in the core subjects.
For this research project the student population that was included in the study was
comprised of special education students receiving services in the learning support and
regular education environments in both 7th and 8th grades as was described in the previous
paragraphs. While they did not individually participate in the study, aggregate student
grade data and MAP score data were collected for the student population by course and
teacher from this targeted population.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
70
In this research study there were 16 teaching staff out of 18 eligible to be involved
who agreed to participate. The invitation was based on their teaching assignment. All of
the Language Arts, reading, math, and special education teachers were given this
invitation. The teachers were given an explanation of the research study in a large group
setting at the beginning of the 2021-2022 school year. An informed consent form
explaining the study was given to the eligible staff after this meeting by placing the
information in the staff mailboxes. The informed consent document can be found in
Appendix B.
As you can see, the setting for this research includes a robust continuum of
support structure in the school. It also includes a targeted group of students across five
teams that operate in the middle school model. This was the backdrop for this research
study and should help build an understanding to the rationale for why the research
questions were designed the way that they were and how data was captured.
Research Plan
The research plan was constructed on experiences that the educator has had over a
period of 25 years as a special education teacher, principal, and director. This project
evolved through the review of literature that studied the special education process,
supplementary aids and services, and the reinforcement of the least restrictive
environment that federal and state legislation has required. Special education legislation
clearly gives guidance beyond any doubt that the school’s obligation is to provide as
many opportunities in the regular education environment as is possible. The literature
review also demonstrates how the process of identifying students using the multi-
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
71
disciplinary evaluation, developing the IEP with supplementary aides and services, and
ultimately the students’ placement is essential to this success. Following this process
provides the best means to keep the student in the least restrictive environment while
progressing in the regular education curriculum. However, progress on the intent of the
legislation reviewed in the literature is affected by a local school district’s capacity to
implement that vision through the special education service delivery model. Staffing, as
one example, is not always the same from district to district. This can include numbers of
paraprofessionals available to support classrooms and the number of teachers who affect
the types of services that can be offered to the students. Mindsets of the staff delivering
the educational program can vary largely from district to district. So, effectiveness can
be affected by budgeting challenges, local priorities, and belief systems. The research
plan was set up to look at how one school implements this process, what supports have
been developed and utilized in the classroom, and what results that yields.
The research method that is employed with this action research project is a mixed
methods approach using both qualitative and quantitative data. Perception data was
collected utilizing a Likert style survey instrument on what supports are felt to be most
effective for special education students in their class. This was followed by a semistructured interview of the participants for qualitative data on how these supports were
implemented. The study also uses MAP data (Measure of Academic Progress) that was
implemented in the ELA and math classrooms at two points in the first half of the year.
Using RIT scores (Rausch Unit), which is an estimate of a student’s instructional level,
the researcher analyzed what practices and perceptions may correlate to higher growth in
the IEP student population. Grade information was looked at to determine, what, if any
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
72
relationships exist between perception and implementation of student supports and grade
performance in the class. Low grades often lead to a change in placement during a school
year, which affects the LRE, making these data points significant.
Lastly, the researcher uses qualitative feedback from staff regarding changes in
placement that occur throughout the year. These changes in placement to a more
restrictive environment often are the result of low grades. These lower grades may come
from differences in the way that specially designed instruction is implemented in the
classroom and/or student’s readiness to learn the skills. It also could be in the quality of
specially designed instruction that is articulated in the IEP. Answering the research
questions using this data can hopefully provide direction in this way.
The timeline for the collection of data took into account markers throughout the
year that naturally occur. Table 2, the Research Data Collection Timeline, illustrates
these markers as they occur in the school calendar. As an example, the MAP testing
conducted for the district occurs during windows of time preestablished. Additional data
points required for the study were inserted at moments that were logical. An example of
this was collecting the teacher perception data towards the end of the first semester, after
the staff had time to implement the students’ IEPs with specially designed instruction.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
73
Table 2
Research Data Collection Timeline
Research Question
What are teachers’ perceptions
about student supports outlined
in a student’s IEP, and how are
those supports implemented in
their classrooms?
Data Tool
Likert Perception Survey
(Appendix C)
Timeline
December 2021
Semi-Structured Interview
#1 (Appendix D)
February 2022
What relationship, if any, is
there between teacher
perceptions/implementation of
student supports and student
achievement?
MAP Data Collection
September 7-17, 2021 (Fall)
and January 6-19, 2022
(Winter)
Student Grade Data
February 2022 (after 2nd
marking period)
*Data from research
question 1 is used as well
and collected as identified
above
What movement from regular
education classes to more
restrictive pull-out classes
occur over the course of a year
and is there any correlation to
perception and implementation
of student supports?
Semi-Structured Interview
#2 (Appendix E)
April 2022 at the conclusion
of the 3rd nine weeks
*Data from research
question 1 is used here and
collected as identified in
question 1
From a fiscal standpoint, conducting this project has very little financial impact to
the district. There are current practices that were used in this study that do come at a
cost, but they already exist. As an example, the use of the MAP assessment is a practice
that the school district uses to measure progress throughout the school year. The cost of
this tool was $14,000 dollars. Another example is the use of our data warehouse called
EdInsight. This tool, purchased by the district each year, is a repository for all data the
district collects. However, for all other aspects of this study, the only cost was that of
time.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
74
More importantly to the fiscal matters of conducting the study are the
expenditures that occur on staffing a special education program annually. The cost of
educating a special education student can cost two times as much than that of educating a
regular education student. The only way to decrease costs associated with educating
students under the law is to be more efficient. The hope with this project is to work at
what practices increase student performance and mitigate wasted effort that has little
effect on that performance. When better systems are in place, the reliance on staffing can
become less. This could have much larger fiscal implications when viewed in this
context. An example might be the number of paraprofessionals staffed by the district.
When better supports are in place that help a student be more self-sufficient, reliance on
traditional practices/supports that take up resources become less necessary.
Research Design, Methods, and Data Collection
Research Question Number 1:
What are teachers’ perceptions about student supports outlined in a student’s IEP, and
how are those supports implemented in their classrooms?
To answer this question, quantitative perception data of the various supports
outlined in the students’ IEP by the regular and special education teachers was collected
using a Likert style survey. The survey itself had 28 questions that listed the various
specially designed instruction elements most commonly found in the IEP. Supports were
paraphrased in the survey to collate similar SDI’s to eliminate redundancy in questions.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
75
An example of this might be, student will be seated close to the source of instruction as
compared to preferential seating which both have very similar meanings.
This survey was first presented to the staff at an in-service on August 20th, 2021.
During this session the researcher introduced the research project to the staff members.
Informed Consent was sent to the staff officially on October 2nd, 2021. Subsequently, on
December 6th, 2021 the Likert style survey was given to the staff. The staff were asked to
have the survey back to the researcher by January 7th, 2022. The success in getting back
the survey was high with 89% of staff eligible for the study returning the survey. These
results were compiled to assist the researcher in the next step of the semi-structured
interview.
The Likert survey was followed by a semi-structured interview that sought to
gather qualitative data on why staff felt strongly about one support and not another.
Using the survey data, staff were asked 5 questions. These questions not only asked for
what the most and least effective supports were, but also how the support was
implemented that made it one that they valued. Staff were also asked what change could
be made to make a support more effective if they did not feel strongly about the support
listed. Lastly, staff were asked to think of a support that, without constraints, they would
implement if they could. The semi-structured interviews were conducted on February 2nd
and 3rd, 2022 during the school day at a time that the teacher selected.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
76
Research Question Number 2:
What relationship, if any, is there between teacher perceptions/implementation of student
supports and student achievement?
To answer this question the researcher gathered quantitative achievement data for
students using the MAP assessment that yielded a RIT score at two intervals throughout
the year. The two testing intervals used to collect the MAP data were September 7th-17th,
2021 (fall) and January 6-19th, 2022 (winter). The researcher was not able to collect the
third MAP measure for this research due to the timing of the last MAP testing date and
the culmination of this project. However, when using the RIT score that MAP provided
in the two testing windows, a rank order for the students in the RIT score as well as
percentile could be seen. Student growth between the testing windows can be seen in this
way also. Remember from the literature review that RIT scores allow us to acknowledge
growth from different starting points because it operates on a linear scale no matter what
the age or ability of the student.
Using a data warehouse for our school district called, EdInsight, a data report was
constructed that pulled this information for the researcher for students in the target group.
Student data for this was pulled on February 3rd, 2022 after the second testing window
that occurred on January 6th-19th.
To validate this starting point, one of the additional instruments used were the
scaled scores for the preceding year’s PSSA testing. Students took the PSSA in the
spring of 2021. This data point allowed us to see their achievement level as they entered
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
77
the 21-22 school year as indicated on this measure. The students’ scaled scores were
placed in a rank order. This rank order was then able to be compared to the RIT score
and percentile rank for the fall MAP testing. Using this method, the researcher was able
to determine if those scores fell in line with each other, helping triangulate the validity of
the starting point for students and confidence in the MAP tool itself to measure growth
over the first two quarters.
Finally, the researcher collected student grades in the first and second nine weeks
for the targeted student population. This is an important aspect of student achievement
that can be studied that adds to the broader picture of student growth with the
standardized measures. Grades are also particularly important because it is one of the
first indicators to dictate a student’s placement in the least restrictive environment which
is one of the goals of this project. As part of the methodology for answering this question
the grades were analyzed to determine if any significant differences existed across
classrooms. This data was pulled at the conclusion of the second marking period on
January 13th, 2022.
The second method used to answer this question is coupled with the methodology
for the research question number 1. Looking back at that first question, it is seeking to
answer what teacher perceptions are of the various supports outlined in the student’s IEP
that are used in their classrooms. The researcher can look at what general trends there are
in the value placed on student supports overall as well as within the math and ELA
content areas specifically. In the context of this research question, that same quantitative
and qualitative data gleaned from the survey and interview are used in comparison to the
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
78
student achievement data gathered for this question. The methodology includes looking
at classrooms where higher growth occurred using the RIT scores and determine what
similarities existed in the value placed on the student supports outlined in the student’s
IEP by teacher and subject. This includes looking at trends in how the student support is
implemented in the classroom.
In summation, looking at the second MAP assessment, gains that a student made
using the RIT scores can be seen. Combining this with the grades through the first
semester it furthers the understanding of the student’s progress and success in the LRE.
In classrooms where those greater gains took place, possible commonality in practices
with accommodations and modifications may prove more beneficial in helping students
be successful in class.
Research Question Number 3:
What movement from regular education classes to more restrictive pull-out classes occur
over the course of a year and is there any correlation to perception and implementation of
student supports?
The methodology used to answer this question included having the researcher
track schedule changes that occurred as the year proceeded. The researcher looked at
students who moved both from more restrictive to lesser restrictive environments and
from lesser restrictive to more restrictive environments. The purpose of this was to
gather any trends on student movement as it pertained to subject or teacher and how this
related to their beliefs on the most effective student supports outlined in students’ IEPs.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
79
As was explained within the prior two questions’ methodology, the staff were
asked a series of questions on a Likert survey that gathered their perceptions about
student supports. The survey required the staff to place a value on a scale from 1 to 6
with one signifying “Strongly Disagree” and a six signifying “Strongly Agree” regarding
their feelings on a support being “highly effective” in their class. There were a series of
28 questions for the staff to answer with one being an open-ended question about any
support they felt was important that should be noted that was not included in the survey.
The Likert survey was then followed up with a semi-structured interview that
gathered qualitative data on the staff’s reasoning for valuing some student supports above
others. This method allows staff to speak in more detail about how the support was
useful or not in their classroom. The interview included feedback on those supports that
were rated as strongly agree or agree and, conversely, on those rated as strongly disagree
or disagree. In addition, the staff were asked to indicate any support that they feel could
be implemented that would have a great impact on their students. This allowed the
teachers to notate any holes that they see in student supports for their class.
Finally, the special education staff were interviewed a second time for any
students on their caseload that moved from one course to another. If a staff member did
not have any changes within their caseload, they were not interviewed a final time. For
this survey the researcher wanted to better understand what factors led to the movement
from a lesser restrictive environment to a more restrictive environment, as well as from a
more restrictive environment to a lesser restrictive environment. The nature of this
interview asked the staff to expand on the factors that led to their movement. They were
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
80
also asked what supports, if any, the student did respond to. The staff were asked if any
revisions to the IEP were made to help the student if they were struggling. Lastly, the
interview sought to determine how the existing accommodations and modifications were
being implemented in the class. Combining the information from the first two research
questions and adding the data of the movement that occurred over the course of the year
with the qualitative data point of the teacher interview allows the researcher to look for
common trends that could be found to answer this question.
Internal Review Board Process
As a part of the planning process for this Capstone Project, a series of steps were
taken to attain Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval. Prior to conducting any
research, certification modules were completed through the CITI Program. There were
three specific areas of focus that included a Basic Course, Conflicts of Interest, and
Responsible Conduct of Research. As a next step to the IRB process, the candidate
authored a research proposal that outlined the research study in detail, citing the problem
statement, a description of why the topic was worth researching, research questions,
methodology, a data collection plan, and a data analysis plan. The candidate used this
proposal to seek approval from the Bethel Park School District to ensure the support for
the research to be conducted. This culminated in a letter of approval from the
superintendent. Finally, these items were furnished to the California University IRB
along with the Informed Consent notice (Appendix B), Likert Survey (Appendix C), and
both semi-structured interviews (Appendix D and E). The IRB gave approval with an
effective date of 8/10/21. IRB approval can be found in Appendix A.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
81
Ethical Considerations
As with all research studies there exists possibilities that those that participate
may experience undo stress. This research study, as indicated in the IRB approval phase,
introduced the participants to the nature of the study in detail and described such risks as
minimal. While there isn’t any likelihood of physical harm to those who participate in
the research study, it is true that those that participate may find themselves feeling stress
about the content of the survey, interview, or research study results. To offset this
concern, the Informed Consent was very clear that the study was non evaluative, and that
the data would remain anonymous. Data collected in the paper surveys did not have
names attached, only numbers. Anonymity was maintained in the same manner when
collecting responses in the interview process where the responses were tabulated with a
number. In this manner, the number that is associated to a subject area is the only
identifying information. Lastly, participants were made fully aware of the amount of
time their participation would entail.
Validity
Mixed methods research is the process of using both qualitative and quantitative
methods to investigate a problem. Mertler (2019) states that mixed methods research
provides for a deeper understanding of the problem because this approach uses the best of
the two methods into one approach. Leedy and Ormrod (2013) attempts to address the
validity of mixed methods research studies by asking themselves, or others engaged in
research, a series of questions. Those questions are:
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
82
Are the samples used for the quantitative and qualitative components of the study
sufficiently similar in order to justify comparisons between the two types of data?
Are the quantitative and qualitative data equally relevant to the same or similar
topics and research questions?
Are the two types of data weighted equally in drawing conclusions? If not, what
is the justification for prioritization of one type over the other?
Are you able to use specific qualitative statements or artifacts in the study in order
to support or illustrate some of the quantitative results?
Can obvious discrepancies between the two types of data be resolved? (p. 262)
Using Leedy & Ormrod’s (2013) validity framework question number 1, for this
research study the qualitative components and quantitative components are very closely
related to the types of data being sought. Looking at the research question number 1,
what are teachers’ perceptions about student supports outlined in a student’s IEP and how
are those supports implemented in their classrooms? This question draws from the
quantitative survey that elicits a numeric response of importance on a Likert scale.
Likewise, blending the qualitative tool that asks them to expand on these responses
directly aligns with their perceptions of the specially designed instruction used in their
classrooms based on the student’s IEP.
The research question number 2 was, what relationship, if any, is there between
teacher perceptions/implementation of student supports and student achievement? In this
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
83
question the researcher is looking at the data used to answer question one, but we are now
blending that data with a look at how students performed to see if there are any trends
that show a benefit to certain elements of specially designed instruction and student
performance. In this case the additional quantitative data include standardized measures
and grades. However, in all cases they are closely related to the purpose of the study to
measure effectiveness of student supports in the classroom.
Lastly, research question number 3 was what movement from regular education
classes to more restrictive pull-out classes occurs over the course of a year and is there
any correlation to perception and implementation of student supports? To answer this
question the researcher gathered quantitative data about schedule changes and utilized a
qualitative semi-structured interview to gauge reasons why the schedule change was
made. The quantitative data closely related to the qualitative data that was searching for
the number of schedule changes and the teachers’ thoughts on why the schedule change
was necessary. This also makes use again of the data gleaned from the mixed methods
data from questions 1 and 2. Again, the alignment of the data to the purpose is easily
seen.
The second question posed by Leedy & Ormrod (2013) to establish validity in this
framework was, are the quantitative and qualitative data equally relevant to the same or
similar topics and research questions? In all three questions the data that is associated
with the question is equally relevant. All pieces of data represent important
understandings about student supports and achievement.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
84
The third question to establish validity by Leedy & Ormrod (2013) was, Are the
two types of data weighted equally in drawing conclusions? If not, what is the
justification for prioritization of one type over the other? For research questions 1 and 3
the qualitative and quantitative hold equal weight in answering the question. However, in
research question 2, it could be argued that there is greater weight placed on the
quantitative data used to answer this question. This is due to the additional data points
that demonstrate the students’ growth data through MAP scores as well as grades. In
addition, the Likert survey that measures staff’s perception of the importance of specially
designed instruction is used as it was in question one. This is then mixed with only the
qualitative data from the semi-structured interviews to answer the question. In this case,
the quantitative data piece has greater presence in answering this question. However, this
is justified in that the growth data for this question takes center stage in highlighting the
possible correlations between student success and support implementation.
The fourth question by Leedy & Ormrod (2013) was, are you able to use specific
qualitative statements or artifacts in the study in order to support or illustrate some of the
quantitative results? The specific purpose of the semi-structured interview was to gather
statements that validated the perception survey data from the teacher’s perspective. This
data set is used throughout the three research questions. Therefore, it is believed that the
qualitative statements do illustrate and support the quantitative data to a high degree.
Lastly, the framework by Leedy & Ormrod (2013) seeks to answer, can obvious
discrepancies between the two types of data be resolved? The process by which data was
gathered both qualitatively and quantitatively did not demonstrate discrepancies in the
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
85
information for any of the questions. Within the context of this study, perception data
and semi-structured interview feedback was in alignment. This held true for all three
questions that were studied.
Hendricks (2017) also states four fundamental concepts to increase validity in
research. They are credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability.
Credibility deals with the processes used to ensure the results are accurate.
Transferability is the concept of how the research has broader implications, in this case,
to special education programs in other schools. Dependability is a validity consideration
that, if other students and staff with similar demographics would be used, would similar
results be expected. Finally, confirmability is the concept of ensuring that the results are
accurate and free and clear of the researcher’s bias, motivation, or interest.
Within this study the information that was pulled quantitatively was from a data
warehouse used by the district. From the standpoint of credibility, all the quantitative
data was presented in the research as it was mined. In addition, the qualitative semistructured interview data was compiled with the teacher’s direct statements. The coding
of this information did not include any insertion of the researcher’s thoughts on behalf of
the teacher. The motivation for the research is strictly on best practices for students of
special needs in the regular classroom as it relates to specially designed instruction in the
IEP. Using so many data points helped triangulate the data to increase its credibility.
Looking at the concept of transferability, the researcher would need to consider
how these results may transfer to other similar settings. The participants chosen for the
research included all teacher and student stakeholders that fit the demographic identified
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
86
in the study. Those demographic items included regular education teachers who teach
students with special needs in the math and ELA subject areas, special education teachers
who teach students with special needs, and the entire population of students receiving
learning support services in the regular classroom and learning support classroom. These
demographics replicate themselves across school districts very commonly. While cited in
this project that school culture is very specific to various schools including mindsets of
teachers, which can influence transferability, the structural make up of what was studied
is commonly found in schools. Therefore, this research does have uses beyond the
context of Independence Middle School. In addition, a strategy used to increase
transferability is a thorough analysis of the setting, study, and participants. It is believed
that this was done and also increases the transferability to schools with similar
demographics.
In consideration of validity that is established through dependability, there is
reasonable thought that similar results would be found in many schools having the same
demographic make-up. However, as also stated in this research study, not all processes
for placement of special education are similar across school districts due to different
levels of staffing, mindsets of teaching staff, and local norms in the community as to the
value of special education services. This is a natural part of what makes effective special
education programming elusive because generalizing practices falls victim to these local
differences. However, for the purposes of establishing validity, there is no reason to
think that these results would not replicate themselves in other settings similar to
Independence Middle School lending it to being dependable.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
87
Lastly, in consideration of confirmability, the data that was used in the study
came exactly as it was found quantitatively. The use of this data fell in line with what the
research questions needed to be answered. Qualitatively, the information used came
directly from the semi-structured interview and was not embellished or altered in any
way by the researcher. The questions asked were open ended and did not predispose the
participant to a biased line of thought in the question design. Therefore, it is argued that
the research conducted was valid to a high degree.
Summary
The function of this chapter was to look at the purpose, setting and participants,
research plan, methodology, types of data collected, the timeline for that collection, and
the validity of the research. As stated, the research study is meant to look at perceptions
and practice regarding supports in the classroom and how those supports effect student
performance and outcomes in the classroom. The three key research questions seek to
find what staff value in supporting those students and how those values play out over the
course of a school year using multiple student performance data points.
The setting for this project was Independence Middle School that is comprised of
7th and 8th grade students. To study this the researcher included all students that fit the
demographic of students receiving learning support services. In addition, the researcher
was able to obtain 16 out of 18 staff members that fit the criteria for the study. The adult
participants were given Informed Consent and a fully detailed breakdown of the research
study.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
88
The research plan included a mixed methods approach that gathered data from a
multitude of data sources. These sources included the teachers themselves through
qualitative and quantitative feedback, standardized student assessment data, and student
grade data. The quantitative data was collected using a tool called EdInsight. The data
was pulled over the course of the first three quarters of the school year. The qualitative
data was gleaned from interviews with the staff over that same time frame.
The research conducted created very little fiscal impact. Data points were
collected through instruments that the district already has invested in. Other than time,
there wasn’t a direct cost to the research study. However, it is hoped that the outcome of
the research can help guide future considerations with how IEP’s are developed,
implemented, and how staff are scheduled to support this. It is well known that special
education costs are much higher than the cost of educating students who do not have an
IEP. Therefore, being better at supporting the students would absolutely affect the
bottom-line cost of educating special education students.
The validity of the research was established through the work of Leedy and
Ormrod (2013), as well as Hendricks (2017) and Mertler (2019). This included a review
of the alignment of the qualitative and quantitative data gathered, whether any of these
were weighted more heavily than the other, and if there were any discrepancies in the
data gathered. In addition, the four concepts of credibility, transferability, dependability,
and confirmability were reviewed. This ensured, to the best of the researcher’s ability,
that the information was not biased or influenced by the researcher and that the results
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
89
utilized multiple data points to ensure that conclusions drawn would have the highest
degree of validity possible.
In the next chapter the researcher will be providing an analysis of the data. The
analysis of the data utilizes multiple data points as described in the methodology chapter.
This will help answer the three research questions established in this research study for
which conclusions can be drawn. This will inform, not only the researcher, but also the
school in improving the outcomes for students in special education.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
90
Chapter IV
Data Analysis and Results
The purpose of this chapter is to display the data and results of the research that
was conducted on supports in the classroom for students who have special education
services. The data gathered attempts to capture teachers’ perceptions regarding the value
of various supports in the IEP, teachers’ beliefs and methods of implementation of those
supports, student performance data on standardized assessments that may indicate
classrooms where greater growth may have occurred, and student movement to and from
the least restrictive environment that may demonstrate patterns in the effectiveness of
student supports and their implementation. This data was gathered to answer the
following research questions.
1.
What are teachers’ perceptions about student supports outlined in a student’s IEP
and how are those supports implemented in their classrooms?
2.
What relationship, if any, is there between teacher perceptions/implementation of
student support and student achievement?
3.
What movement from regular education classes to more restrictive pull-out
classes occur over the course of a year and is there any correlation to perception and
implementation of student supports?
The study focused on the specific specially designed instruction (SDI) elements
that can be found in the students’ IEPs. These are most commonly known as
accommodations and modifications. Through a listing of the 27 commonly found SDI’s
in the IEP staff were asked, using a Likert scale from 1-6, what supports they most
strongly agreed or disagreed with being effective in the classroom. This was followed by
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
91
a semi-structured interview in which staff were asked to give feedback on why they felt
this way and how these supports were implemented in their classroom. This information
was gathered to answer the first research question regarding the value of supports in the
IEP and their implementation.
The researcher also gathered performance data for students that had IEPs. This
performance data included MAP assessments from the fall and winter of the 21-22 school
year. These are regularly administered assessments in the school. Most importantly the
MAP assessment is given multiple times during the year and demonstrates growth
between testing windows. This data point allows us to see growth over time and the
possible effect student supports in the IEP may have had on student growth. Grades were
gathered as another achievement measurement that may demonstrate student success and
growth. This information was used in conjunction with the qualitative data gathered for
question one about staff perception of the value of supports in the IEP in their classroom
to answer research question number two.
Lastly, qualitative data was gathered using a semi-structured interview with staff
regarding the movement of students from the LRE to a pull-out environment. This data
was meant to help answer the third research question about student movement and the
relationship to perceptions of student supports in the IEP and the implementation of those
supports. The purpose was to identify factors or patterns that may exist that could
potentially lead to a student’s movement from the regular education classroom
environment to more restrictive pull-out settings. As stated in the literature review, the
LRE mandate from the federal government states plainly that the regular education
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
92
environment is the starting point for students with disabilities and that is why it is
important to understand the context of movement throughout the year.
Participant Description
There were 18 eligible teachers that could participate in this research study. Out
of the 18 eligible candidates, 16 agreed to participate. The eligibility criteria for the
group required that the staff member taught either Language Arts, Math, Reading, or
Special Education. Table 3 demonstrates how many teachers in each content area
participated.
Table 3
Staff Participation Demographic
Discipline
Number of staff
Language Arts
4 Staff
Reading
3 Staff
Math
5 Staff
Special Education
4 Staff
These teachers, as explained in the methodology chapter of this Doctoral
Research Capstone Project, are a part of middle school teams. Each team shares the same
students amongst themselves, which is a hallmark of the middle school model.
While there were not any individual students invited to participate in this study,
aggregate data was collected for students who receive supports outlined in the student’s
IEP. Table 4 demonstrates the number of students for which the aggregate data is
represented in each subject area.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
93
Table 4
Number of Students by Subject
Subject Area
Number of Students
Language Arts
77
Reading
73
Math
78
Data Analysis
The first research question gathered perception data using a Likert style survey.
The survey asked the staff to rate their agreement with SDIs listed in the IEP and whether
they Strongly Agree, Agree, Slightly Agree, Slightly Disagree, Disagree, or Strongly
Disagree that the support was helpful in the class. This was then followed up with a
semi-structured interview that yielded qualitative data regarding why they felt this way
and how the support was implemented in their classroom. The method of analysis used
to analyze the data included ranking the 27 most commonly listed SDI’s in the IEP as
most valued to the least valued as rated by the staff on the Likert survey. This ranking
was found by averaging the staff members scored responses on each SDI collectively.
This data was then broken out by content area to see what patterns existed, which could
potentially vary based on course demands. Also, the qualitative data from the semistructured interview was added to the analysis of the SDI’s that demonstrate staff’s
beliefs on why the various supports were valued, and how that support might be
implemented in the classroom.
The second question required the gathering of MAP testing data from the fall and
winter testing sessions as described in the methods chapter of this Doctoral Research
Capstone Project. The data was tabulated by each respondent in each content area. This
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
94
tabulation was done by calculating the average growth using the change in RIT scores for
all learning support students the teacher has. The mean, median, mode, standard
deviation, and percent of students making gains in the class were calculated. In addition,
the students average first semester grade was also calculated to see any trends in student
achievement that exist across classrooms.
The second part of the research question looked at the perception data that was
gathered in the Likert survey. However, for this question, it is the importance of supports
as identified by the teaching staff whose learning support students demonstrated the
highest growth that we are focused on. This is done to see what consistencies there may
be in the value placed on student supports that may lead to higher achievement in each
content area.
The third question required collecting data on student movement from the LRE
(regular classroom) to pull out settings and from pull out settings to the LRE. However,
the question requires a focus on students who leave the LRE for more restrictive pull-out
classroom settings. After collecting this data, semi-structured interviews were conducted
with staff to gain insight as to why the change was initiated, any SDI’s that proved
effective for the student and any changes to the IEP that may have occurred when these
changes were being considered. This information was used to analyze any commonality
between perception of student supports and student movement.
Results
Research Question Number 1
The first research question asked, what are teachers’ perceptions about student
supports outlined in a student’s IEP and how are those supports implemented in their
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
95
classrooms? Using the Likert survey, the researcher looked at the average score from 1-6
for the SDIs as identified by the 16 staff members who participated. Looking at Table 5,
the following results were reported by all staff that participated in the research regarding
their perceptions of the value of SDIs that could be found in the IEP.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
Table 5
Staff Perceptions of the Importance of SDIs in their Classrooms
Accommodation/Modification
Average Score of Teacher
Responses
Paraprofessional Support
5.88
Extended Time for Testing
5.44
Adapted Tests
5.31
Small Group Testing
5.06
Tests Read Aloud
5.00
Preferential Seating
4.94
Coteaching
4.81
Crisis Pass
4.81
Use of Graphic Organizer
4.67
Audio Books
4.67
Use of a Calculator
4.54
Organization Support
4.53
Getting Student Attention Prior
to Giving Instruction
4.44
Allow Movement in the
Classroom
4.44
Modifying Homework
4.38
Positive Reinforcement
4.38
Study Guides
4.33
Pairing Visual and Verbal
Directions
4.31
Extended Time for Assignments
4.25
96
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
Checks for Understanding
4.25
Directions Repeated and
Restated
4.13
Providing Visual Instructions
4.06
Chunking Assignments
3.86
Voice to Text
3.86
Opportunity to Retake Tests
3.63
Copy of Class Notes
3.50
Assignment Book Checks
3.33
97
As you can see from the survey results, the top five valued SDIs when averaged
for all staff taking the survey included Paraprofessional Support, Extended Time for
Testing, Adapted Tests, Small Group Testing, and Tests Read Aloud. In contrast, the
five least most valued supports for students were Chunking Assignments, Voice to Text,
Opportunity to Retake Tests, Copy of Class Notes, and Assignment Book Checks.
The perception data was also broken out by content area to see what trends may
exist that differ when compared to the average of all teacher responses. This helps us put
a lens on supports that may be felt to be more beneficial or less beneficial based on the
subject/content demands. Table 6 illustrates the feedback for the top five supports and
bottom five supports that Language Arts staff rated as most important and least
important.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
Table 6
Language Arts Staff Perceptions of the Importance of SDIs
Top 5 Language Arts Staff Responses
Bottom 5 Language Arts Staff Responses
Type of Support, Average Score
Type of Support, Average Score
Paraprofessional Support, 5.75
Assignment Book Checks, 4.0
Organization Support, 5.5
Extended Time for Assignments, 3.75
Crisis Pass, 5.0
Modifying Homework, 3.75
Preferential Seating, 5.25
Copy of Class Notes, 3.5
Small Group Testing, 5
Opportunity to Retake Tests, 3.25
In Table 7 we can see the reading teachers’ results as to the five most valued
supports and the five least valued supports in their content area.
Table 7
Reading Staff Perceptions of the Importance of SDIs
Top 5 Reading Staff Responses
Bottom 5 Reading Staff Responses
Type of Support, Average Score
Type of Support, Average Score
Preferential Seating, 6
Opportunity to Retake Tests, 3.67
Paraprofessional Support, 6
Copy of Class Notes, 3.67
Tests Read Aloud, 5.67
Use of a Calculator, 3.5
Adapted Tests, 5.67
Assignment Book Checks, 3.33
Extended Time for Testing, 5.3
Coteaching, 2.67
In Table 8, we can see the math teachers results as to the five most valued
supports and the five least valued supports.
98
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
Table 8
Math Staff Perceptions of the Importance of SDIs
Top 5 Math Staff Responses
Bottom 5 Math Staff Responses
Type of Support, Average Score
Type of Support, Average Score
Paraprofessional Support, 5.8
Study Guides, 3.2
Coteaching, 5.8
Copy of Class Notes, 3.2
Extended Time for Testing, 5.6
Voice to Text, 2.75
Tests Read Aloud, 5
Chunking Assignments, 2.33
Adapted Tests, 5
Assignment Book Checks, 1.5
In Table 9 we can see the special education teachers results as to the five most
valued supports and the five least valued supports.
Table 9
Special Education Staff Perceptions of the Importance of SDIs
Top 5 Special Ed. Staff Responses
Bottom 5 Special Ed. Staff Responses
Type of Support, Average Score
Type of Support, Average Score
Adapted Tests, 6
Voice to Text, 4
Paraprofessional Support, 6
Crisis Pass, 4
Extended Time for Testing, 5.75
Allow Movement in Classroom, 3.75
Study Guides, 5.67
Copy of Class Notes, 3.75
Small Group Testing, 5.5
Opportunity to Retake Tests, 3
The second part of research question number one asked staff their beliefs about
SDIs and how supports are implemented in the classroom. Each teacher was asked to
99
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
100
give feedback in a semi-structured interview to expand on the supports that they had
responded about being most important to them on the Likert survey by selecting Strongly
Agree. The following summation of information was gleaned from the staff and is
grouped by content area that expands on the trends noted in Tables 6, 7, 8, and 9. An
abridged listing of staff feedback by respondent can be found in Appendix F.
Language Arts Staff Beliefs
Multiple Language Arts staff had rated chunking assignments as an important SDI
in the IEP. The rationale behind this being an important support from their perspective
included the idea that writing assignments, which is what students spend a lot of time
doing in the LA classroom, need broken up so that students can put the pieces together on
longer term assignments and grammar units effectively. The decision of where to chunk
an assignment is very purposeful on the teacher’s part by their account. Staff also report
that chunking allows them to take advantage of the attention span of the students, getting
better quality work in finite periods of time is, for them, a best practice.
Language Arts staff also placed high value on coteaching as an SDI that students
benefit from. The staff members report that the students benefit from the strengths of
each teacher in this classroom situation. These strengths include both the understanding
of content and the understanding of accommodations and modifications that best suit
students. The staff can both bring these qualifications to the table that help the student be
successful in the classroom. These interactions are felt to be important when staff push
back on one another in positive discourse, expanding each other’s thinking on best
serving students. However, as stated by staff, it is important for teachers to have the
ability to plan together as an essential ingredient to a healthy coteaching relationship.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
101
Multiple LA staff members rated directions repeated and restated as an important
SDI in student’s IEP’s. Being mindful of a student not getting directions the first time is
important. Additionally, staff feel it is simply a good teaching practice. Staff also report
that they make sure that they make frequent visits to a student’s desk who they know will
struggle with directions or will call on students at important moments of understanding to
make sure that the comprehension is there for what the students are doing.
One member of the LA staff had rated extended time on assignments as being
very important. This staff member made a comment where they said, “processing delays
are real” and that getting their best work requires some flexibility on timelines. This
same teacher did say that they particularly believe in giving students extended time when
they can see the effort that the students are putting into the assignment. It was interesting
that there was only one staff member that rated this SDI as highly important in the LA
staff group.
Another single LA teacher had noted their strong belief in allowing for movement
in the classroom. They felt as though kinesthetic opportunities help students “galvanize”
their thoughts and understanding of concepts. Also, the teacher felt that students’
attention is supported through acceptable movement in the classroom. Students with
these opportunities can better attend to the task at hand.
Organizational support shared agreement between multiple staff members. In the
Language Arts classroom, it was noted that systems of organization are essential for
student success. This was noted as especially important for executive functioning needs
students at the middle level have. The staff has noted that these organizational structures
have needed to change over time where students now have digital files that outnumber
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
102
papers students may receive. Conscious effort has had to be made in making sure that
there is organization in this area because digital files can be lost just the same as hard
copy papers. In essence, students knowing where to find things is essential to follow
through and success.
Paraprofessional support was recognized as one of the most important supports
available to a student in the LA classroom by multiple staff. The role that a para plays is
reported to be multifaceted. Within the classroom the para can cue for attention as well
as provide more feedback to students throughout the class, correcting misunderstandings.
Paras also provide 1:1 opportunity as needed during the instructional portion of class.
However, an important piece of para support as reported by the staff included what the
paraprofessional brings back to the resource room as being a very important function.
Because resource acts as an important backup to the regular class environment, the
precious minutes that staff have are optimized when the para knows what the student
needs to accomplish or where the misunderstandings were for the student on the content
to further aid the student in their comprehension of the subject matter. Lastly, staff
appreciate the timely support for items like small group testing that paras assist with.
Also, small group testing is an SDI that one of the LA staff also strongly agreed with,
making it understandable the para’s importance to staff in meeting this need.
Finally, a support that the LA staff valued was preferential seating. This support
was felt to have high return for very little effort on the teacher’s part. The staff noted that
preferential seating could mean different things for different students. Some students
need to be closer to the source of instruction while other students need a spot where they
can be provided room for movement. Still other students may respond by being near the
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
103
teacher’s desk where redirection may be more frequently necessary during seatwork time.
The opportunity to sit near a peer role model was another example of what the best use of
preferential seating might be. The Language Arts staff clearly have many approaches
when it comes to preferential seating in the classroom.
Math Staff Beliefs
The math staff had expanded upon their Likert survey feedback in the semistructured interview process as well. One of the SDIs that the staff valued was that of
adapted tests. Staff feedback states that changing the format of tests, such as bolding
essential words or providing simple hints to help the student access their prior
understandings, help them be successful and is a good strategy. Staff also report that this
helps in getting the student started so that they are not behind as the testing session moves
on due to being stuck. Teachers also report that the elimination of distracting information
supports students and their success on tests. Finally, the reading level of tests can be
difficult for some students, which is another method of adapting tests so that reading is
not a barrier to student success on the assessment.
Coteaching was a widely recognized support that staff valued as important to
student success. Staff cite that the students benefit from receiving more facetime
throughout the class period. The ability to group and regroup students between the two
staff is helpful in meeting the diverse needs that the students may have while also giving
students varied viewpoints on the content at hand. While challenges were noted by staff
such as overcoming egos and matching personalities, the benefit of playing off one
another and utilizing each of the staff member’s strengths and expertise was felt to be an
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
104
advantage to the students. Staff report that this comes by employing the various
coteaching models flexibly in the classroom.
Math staff expanded on directions repeated and restated as being essential
elements in an effective classroom due to student struggles with focus. They state that
this is good to do as a general teaching practice and not just with students who have
IEP’s. Sometimes staff note that the directions may need rephrased in clearer language
for students as a part of this process. Staff knowing their students helps target this
intervention according to feedback from the teachers.
Extended time on tests and assignments was an accommodation that was felt to be
important for students in the math classroom, particularly on tests. Staff note that
allowing more processing time for students is important, and with assignments, doing the
work is the most important thing, not strictly the time that it is done in. A word of
caution for extended time from staff is keeping it within reason so that there isn’t a
snowball effect for the student where work and tests compile on one another.
Interestingly, one teacher cited the importance for this accommodation for all students, so
that the accommodation is a natural part of the fabric of instruction in the classroom.
Paraprofessional support was expanded upon in the semi-structured interview for
math teachers based on their feedback on the Likert survey. Similar to other subject
areas, staff report that the value extends beyond their classroom and to the information
brought back to the resource room. In this environment, the paraprofessional having a
strong grasp of what students need extra help on or what pieces of work need finished is
very beneficial. Importance was placed on the quality of the para that is in the math
classroom due to the complexity of content that needs to be understood well by the staff
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
105
member to support the student. Still other benefits include variation on the way things
are explained to the students. These beliefs are cited by math staff as important points to
effective para support.
While not as widely supported by math staff, but by one staff member was the
importance of retaking tests. The value system placed on this was because it was more
important for the teacher to know that the student could do it in order to move forward.
Related to testing, one other staff member had stated that small group testing was highly
valued as well. This was for the purposes of reading the test aloud and allowing for
clarifications that supported students who just need a little boost to get started.
Reading Staff Beliefs
Reading staff feedback on their beliefs varied more than most other subject areas.
Three staff provided feedback through the semi-structured interview regarding the
supports that they valued as most important. One staff member had given feedback about
adapted tests and its importance saying it “really makes a difference”. The strategies that
the staff member employed included use of graphic organizers, adapting written portions
that are often hard for students, and reducing volume of content, focusing in on the key
information. Also related to testing was the value placed on extended time for tests by
another staff member. This particular staff member cited that students who are anxious
benefit from extended time a great deal because they often work slower than most of the
other students and struggle to demonstrate all that they know. Also associated with
testing was the importance of tests being read aloud because of the auditory modality was
felt to be very effective for students. Other singleton responses rated highly by staff
members included checking for understanding, especially as the lesson ends to make sure
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
106
that they are “concluding” with the correct information. Movement in the classroom was
felt to be important by another staff member who stated that they purposefully create
these opportunities, often off to the side for students who have attention difficulties.
Lastly, pairing visual and verbal directions was targeted by a staff member as important
because they state that this improves the chances that the student will give back what it is
that the staff member is looking for.
There was more agreement amongst staff when it came to paraprofessional
support and preferential seating. Regarding paraprofessional support, similar to other
subject areas, staff state that it matters who that paraprofessional is. However, as a
function, paras support redirecting students when they are off task by using proximity
control or verbalizations. Staff also cite the importance of being able to pull students
together in small groups to help with misunderstandings of content. A similar theme that
played out in other subject areas about this support was the importance that the para
played in bringing the information back to the resource room where additional time could
be given to the student on concepts that were not understood or to complete tasks.
Finally, preferential seating was in agreement with multiple staff members as being
effective. Like other subject areas, this was not merely putting a student in the front of
the room but in the place that most benefited the student. This included away from
distractors, near the source of instruction, near the board, or where students could be
easily accessed throughout the class period.
Special Education Staff Beliefs
Special education staff had given feedback in the semi-structured interview with
regard to their beliefs and implementation of the most important supports to them as rated
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
107
on the Likert survey. There were multiple staff who rated adapted tests as very important
but that each class required different adaptations. Subjects such as social studies, that had
the potential for a lot of content, may need paired down. Whereas math may require the
opportunity to reteach and retest as a primary consideration. Staff also state the
importance of having students zero in on the most essential information to improve the
outcome where they know what the essential information is going into a testing situation.
Still other more traditional thoughts included eliminating responses from multiple choice
items.
Directions repeated and restated was felt by multiple special education staff as
being important. Staff feedback included the importance of students knowing how to get
started. Eliminating this problem is supported by rephrasing or restating directions to
ensure that the student isn’t stuck, being unproductive. Staff report that students don’t
always get it the first time, particularly those who have attention difficulties. Restating
and repeating is an effective way for staff to be sure that students who have attention
difficulties are on task.
Paraprofessional support was broadly supported by special education staff as
benefiting students. Again, like the other subject areas, staff cite paraprofessionals
bringing the information back to the resource room with information about what students
need help with and what work needs completed is felt to be paramount. They go on to
report that the natural communication that occurs in this dynamic is what is so helpful.
One quote from special education staff states that they are the “bridge to success” for
students in the least restrictive environment. Other time periods where paraprofessional
support is valued are in classrooms that require a lot of classroom notes.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
108
Paraprofessionals keeping copies of notes for students and assisting students with
notetaking is felt to be a helpful role.
There were also some singleton supports that staff valued and gave feedback on.
One staff member cited the importance of audio books as being important for their
students. Because so many students have reading levels that are below grade level that
have IEP’s, materials that can’t be adapted for one reason or another benefit students
when they are in an audio format. The teacher states that students have the ability to
access/understand much of the material. However, reading is often a barrier for them in a
class such as social studies as an example. Another staff cited extended time on
assignments as being essential. Feedback from staff included the idea that workload can
ebb and flow. Students with special needs sometimes require that flexibility that comes
with extended time when the ebb and flow becomes overwhelming. This is another way
resource is helpful for students in completing items that they owe where the
paraprofessional communicates those needs.
Other singleton supports included guided notes that were stated by a staff member
as being important to student success. This staff member articulated that this is
especially important in a class like social studies where a lot of notes are given. A barrier
for students is often the legibility of their writing when taking notes. Therefore students
often do not find the notes helpful to them after they take them, which is a primary
function of notetaking. Having guided notes eliminates some of the intensive writing that
notetaking requires, letting them key in on essential information. Closely related to
guided notes are study guides that one staff member also felt was very important. The
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
109
emphasis from the staff member was the narrowing of information so that the student was
getting the greatest benefit from their study time on what content was most essential.
Additionally, a staff member held small group testing and tests read aloud as two
important SDIs. This staff member stated that both help students who are easily
distracted or who have anxiety. Students who have decoding concerns also benefit from
having tests read aloud. Finally, a staff member stated that use of a calculator was very
important saying that students need to understand process and concepts at this stage and
not focus on the calculation skills of the student.
Research Question Number 2
The second research question asked, what relationship, if any, is there between
teacher perceptions/implementation of student support and student achievement? To
answer this question, data was gathered on student growth using the MAP assessment.
Students were assessed in the fall of the 2021-2022 school year and again in January of
the 2021-2022 school year. The MAP test by NWEA, as referenced in the literature
review, is an adaptive test, which means it responds to the test taker based on their
success at answering questions. This is done to find the student’s instructional level for
the content area being assessed. This data was used to try and isolate the highest
performing classrooms where we could then pair those staff members’ perceptions of
student supports to see if any correlations may exist in their beliefs and implementation
of those supports.
The Language Arts staff had four participants in this research study. Table 10
displays the mean, median, and mode for students in the class regarding their MAP
110
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
growth scores. It also includes the standard deviation, the percent of students making
gains, number of students with data, and the average first semester grade.
Table 10
Language Arts Performance Results
Respondent
Subject
Mean
Median
Mode
Standard
Deviation
Percent of
Students
Making
Gains
15
11
13
5
LA
LA
LA
LA
0.85
1.3
3.4
3.73
0
2.5
3
2
0
-5, 3
3, 9
0
9.67
5.8
7.53
7.9
43
70
70
64
Number
of
Students
7
10
10
11
Average
1st
Semester
Grade
84
86.5
82.6
81.5
The second research question sought to find any relationships that exist between
achievement and perceptions of student supports in the IEP. For the purposes of
answering this question, respondents 5 and 13 demonstrated a mean growth of more than
3 points, showing the highest growth by the learning support students in their classes.
Looking at the survey results regarding perceptions of supports, Table 11 shows the
supports rated as Strongly Agree by each respondent with the highest growth to see what,
if any, common beliefs the staff had regarding supports in the classroom. Common
responses are listed first. We see that only one support was shared between them that
was rated as Strongly Agree, which was Organization Support.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
111
Table 11
Language Arts Teacher Perceptions for Staff with the Highest Growth
Respondent 5
Respondent 13
Organization Support
Organization Support
Chunking Assignments
Small Group Testing
Directions Repeated
Preferential Seating
Extended Time for
Assignments
Allow Movement in the
Classroom
Use of Graphic Organizer
Paraprofessional Support
Study Guides
Coteaching
Positive Reinforcement
Crisis Pass
Checks for Checks for
Understanding
Going one step further in this line of inquiry, we can look at the top 5 rated
supports as reported by these staff members where there was agreement between the
staff, rating the support Strongly Agree OR Agree. In doing so, we can draw some
additional comparisons in what staff value as strong supports for their students as seen in
Table 12.
112
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
Table 12
Top 5 Most Commonly Valued Supports for High Achieving LA Staff
Support
Respondent 5
Respondent 13
Organization Support
Strongly Agree
Strongly Agree
Small Group Testing
Agree
Strongly Agree
Preferential Seating
Agree
Strongly Agree
Allow Movement in the
Classroom
Agree
Strongly Agree
Paraprofessional Support
Agree
Strongly Agree
The Math staff had four participants in this research study. Table 13 displays the
mean, median, and mode for students in the class regarding their MAP growth scores. It
also includes the standard deviation, the percent of students making gains, number of
students with data, and the average first semester grade.
Table 13
Math Performance Results
Respondent
9
8
2
17
Subject
Math
Math
Math
Math
Mean
1.4
3.3
4.92
6.6
Median
1.5
4
4.5
6
Mode
-2, 1, 4,
7
-5
1
Standard
Deviation
Percent of
Students
Making
Gains
Number
of
Students
5.1
6.97
7.11
3
57
56
75
100
14
9
12
5
Average
1st
Semester
Grade
76
79.4
78.4
83.5
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
113
Using the results in Table 13, respondents 2, 8, and 17 demonstrated a mean
growth of more than 3 points, showing the highest growth by the learning support
students in their classes. Looking at the survey results regarding perceptions of supports,
Table 14 shows the supports rated as Strongly Agree by each respondent to see what, if
any, common beliefs they have regarding support in the classroom. Common supports
are displayed in order for ease of reference.
Table 14
Math Teacher Perceptions for Staff with the Highest Growth
Respondent 2
Respondent 8
Respondent 17
Extended Time for
Testing
Extended Time for
Testing
Extended Time for
Testing
Coteaching
Coteaching
Coteaching
Paraprofessional
Support
Paraprofessional
Support
Paraprofessional
Support
Adapted Tests
Adapted Tests
Opportunity to
Retake Tests
Tests Read Aloud
Positive
Reinforcement
Allow Movement
in the Classroom
Going one step further in this line of inquiry we can look at the top-rated supports
as reported by these staff members where there was agreement between the staff, rating
the support Strongly Agree OR Agree. In doing so we can draw some additional
comparisons in what staff do value that are most in common between the staff as seen in
Table 15.
114
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
Table 15
Math Most Common Supports Rated Agree or Strongly Agree
Support
Respondent 2
Respondent 8
Respondent 17
Extended Time
for Testing
Strongly Agree
Strongly Agree
Strongly Agree
Paraprofessional
Support
Strongly Agree
Strongly Agree
Strongly Agree
Coteaching
Strongly Agree
Strongly Agree
Strongly Agree
Adapted Tests
Strongly Agree
Strongly Agree
Agree
Crisis Pass
Agree
Agree
Agree
The reading staff had three participants in this research study. Table 16 displays
the mean, median, and mode for students in the class regarding their MAP growth scores.
It also includes the standard deviation, the percent of students making gains, number of
students with data, and the average first semester grade.
Table 16
Reading Performance Results
Respondent
Subject
Mean
Median
Mode
Standard
Deviation
Percent of
Students
Making
Gains
12
7
16
Rdg.
Rdg.
Rdg.
-2.25
3.67
4.5
3
3.5
3
3
0, 14
3, 9
12.05
8.92
6
66
58
73
Number
of
Students
12
12
11
Average
1st
Semester
Grade
81
79
84
Using the results in Table 16, respondents 7 and16 demonstrated a mean growth
of more than 3 points, showing the highest growth by the learning support students in
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
115
their classes. Looking at the survey results regarding perceptions of supports, Table 17
shows the supports rated as Strongly Agree by respondents 7 and 16 to see what, if any,
common beliefs they have regarding support in the classroom. Common supports have
been listed together for ease of reference.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
Table 17
Reading Teacher Perceptions for Staff with the Highest Growth
Respondent 7
Respondent 16
Tests Read Aloud
Tests Read Aloud
Preferential Seating
Preferential Seating
Adapted Tests
Adapted Tests
Paraprofessional Support
Paraprofessional Support
Directions Repeated and
Restated
Extended Time for
Assignments
Extended Time for Testing
Small Group Testing
Organization Support
Providing Visual
Instructions
Chunking Assignments
Getting Student Attention
Prior to Instruction
Pairing Visual and Verbal
Directions
Modifying Homework
Voice to Text
Crisis Pass
Use of a Calculator
Positive Reinforcement
Checks for Understanding
116
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
117
Going one step further in this line of inquiry we can look at the top-rated supports
as reported by these staff members where there was agreement between the staff, rating
the support Strongly Agree OR Agree. In doing so we can draw some comparisons in
what these staff do value that are most in common as seen in Table 18.
Table 18
Reading Most Common Supports Rated as Agree or Strongly Agree
Support
Respondent 7
Respondent 16
Tests Read Aloud
Strongly Agree
Strongly Agree
Preferential Seating
Strongly Agree
Strongly Agree
Adapted Tests
Strongly Agree
Strongly Agree
Paraprofessional Support
Strongly Agree
Strongly Agree
Extended Time for Testing
Agree
Strongly Agree
Crisis Pass
Agree
Strongly Agree
Use of Graphic Organizer
Agree
Agree
Audio Books
Agree
Agree
The Special Education staff had four participants in this research study. Table 19
displays the mean, median, and mode for students in the class regarding their MAP
growth scores. It also includes the standard deviation, the percent of students making
gains, number of students with data, and the average first semester grade.
118
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
Table 19
Special Education Performance Results
Respondent
Subject
Mean
Median
4
SpEd
-0.06
0
10
6
SpEd
SpEd
0.45
0.56
1
1
18
SpEd
2.63
2
Mode
-5, 1, 1,
2
-9, 2,
14
-5
0, 1,
2, 8
Standard
Deviation
Percent of
Students
Making
Gains
Number
of
Students
Average
1st
Semester
Grade
7.1
47
17
78
9.1
5.25
45
56
11
9
73.2
79.2
7.33
69
16
89
Using the results in Table 19, the respondents that demonstrated a mean growth of
more than 3 points did not exist as it did in the other content areas. The respondent
whose learning support students achieved the highest growth was respondent 18 with a
mean growth of 2.63 points. Looking at the survey results regarding perceptions of
supports, Table 20 shows the supports rated as Strongly Agree by this respondent.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
119
Table 20
Special Education Teacher Perceptions for Staff with the Highest Growth
Respondent 18
Small Group Testing
Tests Read Aloud
Extended Time for Assignments
Extended Time for Testing
Adapted Tests
Use of Graphic Organizer
Paraprofessional Support
Coteaching
In the case of the Special Education staff, because there aren’t any other staff with
significant evidence of progress, we do not have the ability to show the top supports
where staff agree as either Strongly Agree OR Agree.
Research Question Number 3
The third question asked, what movement from regular education classes to more
restrictive pull-out classes occur over the course of a year and is there any correlation to
perception and implementation of student supports? As mentioned, in the Data Analysis
section, the focus was on students who moved from the LRE to more restrictive pull-out
class settings. However, in analyzing the data, it was apparent that there was value to
look at how many students moved from pull-out settings to the regular classroom
environment, as this was more frequent in its occurrence than was movement to pull-out
settings. The data is represented accordingly in the following paragraphs and tables.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
120
Table 21 represents the number of students who had a change in placement
throughout the school year. This includes students moving from the LRE to pull-out
classes and from pull-out to the LRE. This table includes the respondents where the
movement occurred to look at perceptions for student supports in the classroom and what,
if any common themes there were as to the reason for the movement.
Table 21
Student Movement Throughout the Year
Reg Ed.
Respondent
15
16
5
7
8
5
7
8
Special Ed.
Respondent
18
6
4
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Number of Students
1 Student Exited Special Education
2 Students Moved to Reg. LA
1 Student Moved to Reg. Reading
4 Students Moved to Reg. LA
4 Students Moved to Reg. Reading
2 Students Moved to Reg. Math
1 Student Moved to Pull-Out LA
3 Students to Pull-Out Reading
1 Student to Pull-Out Math
1 Student Moved from LS Reading to LSS
Reading
Looking at the table we can see that there were 13 movements from pull-out
classes to regular education environments throughout the year. There were 6 movements
that occurred where students went from regular education settings to more restrictive
pull-out settings. It is also important to note that students can count for multiple moves.
In the examples given, the total number of movements were attributed to 11 different
students. In fact, the total number of moves from the LRE to pull-out settings did not
involve more than 4 total students.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
121
Teachers were interviewed in a semi-structured interview and were asked to
respond to four questions regarding the movement of students to and from their
classrooms. When asked, what the factors were that led to the student’s change in
placement in their class, staff responded by stating that students who moved from pullout classes to the regular education classroom were consistently outscoring their peers on
assessments and classroom performance tasks in the pull-out setting. Respondents also
had similarities in their description of these students as hard workers. This compelled
staff to communicate with parents as to moving the student up the continuum of support.
These same staff state that students who had moved to a more restrictive setting were
noted as having additional factors that led to the change in placement. Staff reported that
attendance was a primary factor for one of the students that moved to pull-out classes and
that mental health concerns was a primary factor in the movement of another student to a
smaller learning environment. Ability, in and of itself, was not a primary factor in the
movement of these students. However, in the two other cases, the factors were academic.
Staff had agreement that they felt they had modified the curriculum to such an extent,
with the students still not meeting with success, that a change in placement was
warranted to provide a smaller learning environment that might benefit the students with
pacing and curriculum modifications. Another factor that was also common in the
reported cases was the Lexile level of the students moved to pull-out classes. They were
noted as being lower than their other special education peers.
The staff were also asked if there were any supports that were in place that the
students did respond to, and if so, what they were. For those students who moved from
regular education settings to more restrictive environments, staff stated that the extent of
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
122
the struggle for the student after modifications and accommodations was the primary
factor in their decision making. Despite having adapted tests, adapted homework
assignments, extended time for assessments, and coteaching models the students were
still underperforming. In one case, a staff member had explained that a student was given
a graphic organizer as a modification for a writing assignment. The teacher was willing
to grade the student on the thoughts in the graphic organizer rather than the paper itself.
As the respondent stated, “Often the thoughts are there for the student but getting those
thoughts to paper in paragraph form can be a challenge.” However, the student was still
not on topic with the thoughts in the graphic organizer. In this example, it was an
indicator that, despite the modification, the student still was struggling with the concepts
and would require smaller group support.
In yet another example, the teacher allowed for a retest and the special education
staff member went back through the material with the student to try and reteach the
content. Even after this modification the student could not perform on the adapted
assessment. This was, again, another example of a decision made to pull the student back
to a more restrictive setting based on the consistent lack of response to modifications
being made such as this. Staff cited that it does take time to make these decisions and
that it shouldn’t be rushed so that an accurate placement can be recommended. One
teacher cited that originally, with one of the students that was moved back, that it seemed
like a motivation issue. However, after consistent review and changes to the
modifications being done in the LRE, it became clear that what seemed like a motivation
issue was really a lack of understanding.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
123
Staff did report the importance of some of the remediation coursework that
occurred to improve students’ reading levels as an important factor to success as well.
The remediation coursework is done above and beyond the coursework done in the
regular or pull-out class, occupying a different slot in the schedule. This supported the
students in not losing time on grade level topics in the learning support environment
because the remediation class took care of the remediation need. In addition to
remediation classes, one teacher stated that the inclusion of two resource periods to allow
for more individualized attention and back up instruction also was a positive support for
the students. This increase in individual attention allowed the teacher to attack
misunderstandings, helping the student keep up.
On the other hand, though, students who demonstrated readiness for the regular
education environment were responding to the adaptations being put in place. All the
students, except for one, had the use of adapted tests that made the transition manageable
for them to the regular education classroom. For the student who did not have adapted
tests, they had demonstrated that they did not need this modification to their program and
could perform using the regular classroom assessment. In an interesting case, a student
consistently demonstrated delays in processing speed. However, given extended time,
the student could demonstrate understanding. This same student had the highest grade in
the class after being given the accommodation of extended time on a recent test. The
staff noted that it is sometimes difficult balancing how much extended time is acceptable,
where sometimes it is time to move on for the sake of the new learning. Still in other
examples, staff reported modifications to the length of written work as a primary SDI
implemented that supported students in the regular education environment.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
124
Staff were also asked if there were any revisions to the IEP that could be recalled,
and if so, what they were. Staff commonly cited that the SDI’s that come from the
preceding school are often very robust and that there aren’t many more to add to IEP’s
once they get to Independence Middle School. In the examples of students moving
backwards, it was more a question of trying different aspects of modifications on
assignments and tests since this SDI was already listed in the IEP. Staff cited that the real
benefit in these situations has been the co-teacher’s ability to make changes as instruction
unfolds based on how students are responding to the situation beyond what was already
planned for by the staff. In another comment, a regular education teacher stated that “in
17 years this year was the best year that I have had in supporting students” due to the
continuum of support that is provided. It appeared that most staff felt that the SDI’s as
listed were not in need of changing, but that the implementation was what was being
examined based on student needs.
In a different example, a staff member reported that the initial placement in the
regular classroom did not start well. The teacher stated that the student was not willing to
use the tools that had been provided, even though they had shown a readiness for being in
the regular class. The teacher revised the IEP to provide for the student taking pictures of
their assignments and directions on the board. This was to help with the student’s
reading disability and executive functioning needs. The teacher did report that over time
there was improvement in the student’s performance in class.
Finally, staff were also asked to look at the student’s supports in the IEP and
explain how the accommodations were implemented for students who had moved from
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
125
the LRE to pull out settings. As stated in the previous question, many staff cited that
changes in the way modifications were made on tests and assignments were what was
refined for the student since the SDI existed allowing for the modifications. Examples of
these changes included the complexity of problems being answered, or the length of the
assignment being further reduced, or the amount of time given to complete a task. Also,
as explained previously, one teacher was willing to adapt the grading of the student who
was eventually moved to a pull-out class based on her ability to put forward thoughts in a
graphic organizer rather than in paragraph form. However, in all of these cases,
modifications could not be made that provided for a level of understanding and success
that made remaining in the LRE a viable option.
Interpretation of Data for Research Question Number 1
Research question number one, what are teachers’ perceptions about student
supports outlined in a student’s IEP and how are those supports implemented in their
classrooms, was supported by the data that was returned on the Likert survey and
subsequent semi-structured interview. This revealed that there are trends by subject for
SDI’s that are found to be most effective by staff. Staff overall felt as though the top 5
supports available to students in the IEP were Paraprofessional Support, Extended Time
for Testing, Adapted Tests, Small Group Testing, and Tests Read Aloud. One
immediately can note that there is a common word in four out of the five supports in this
case, that is “tests”. This may be the case because this is where students earn much of
their grade and where success and failure in the class is mostly hinged upon. However,
when we look at the various subjects there is not necessarily agreement with the top 5,
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
126
which would be logical based on the type of content that you teach and how those SDI’s
effect your content area. Let us take a closer look at this.
As seen in Table 6, the top five SDIs in Language Arts were Paraprofessional
Support, Organization Support, Crisis Pass, Preferential Seating, and Small Group
Testing. These valued supports are shared by small group testing and paraprofessional
support with the overall feelings of the staff on the survey. It also highlights three
supports not in agreement with the overall feelings of the staff that include the use of a
crisis pass, preferential seating, and organization support. Looking at the feedback for
organizational support, it is apparent that the nature of Language Arts requires a high
level of organization due to longer term projects and writing assignments. The staff seem
to value the purposeful effort placed into organizational structures in the class that help
students be successful due to the many parts that writing projects contain. This is a
natural place where students with special needs do tend to falter due to executive
functioning deficits and is logical to have higher value placed upon it.
When looking at the implementation and beliefs by the Language Arts staff, we
see statements for Paraprofessional Support that indicate the importance of providing 1:1
support as needed, providing back up instruction, assisting with small group testing, and
providing redirection to students. As stated in the previous paragraph, looking at the SDI
of Organizational Support the staff reports that having structure helps with executive
functioning and finding the items that are needed for the class. Staff also report the
importance of digital organization support in a digital age as a key consideration for
organizational support. The use of a Crisis Pass was ranked high on the list for Language
Arts teachers but was not commented on in regard to the reasons for why in the interview
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
127
process. However, preferential seating was noted by staff to provide a large return for
something that is easy to do. Staff report that there are different ways in which
preferential seating is implemented based on what the student needs in the class. This
could include sitting close to the teacher, near the board, away from distractions, or in a
spot that allows for movement. Lastly, Small Group testing was noted as being a good
opportunity to clarify for students while also providing for scaffolding to access what
they know about the content when testing.
Looking at the math staff responses, the top five responses included
paraprofessional support, coteaching, extended time for testing, tests read aloud, and
adapted tests. In contrast to the overall list, the math staff shared agreement with four out
of the five with paraprofessional support, extended time for testing, adapted tests and
tests read aloud being the common items. The SDI that the math department felt strongly
about that was not in complete alignment with some of the other subject areas was
coteaching, which had strong agreement amongst the math staff as a top five support.
Looking at the overall list of supports and their value, coteaching was number seven on
the list when averaged by all staff. This would indicate that there is some agreement
amongst staff of its value overall but still was not in the top five as it was for the math
staff.
When looking at the beliefs and implementation of these supports the math staff
gave feedback regarding paraprofessional support stating that in many cases the support
is best in the resource class to provide back up to what the student was learning in class.
Teachers also report that the support is best when it is present throughout the class if it is
available, where the para can serve as an extra set of eyes on the situation as well as
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
128
provide a different perspective of the work that needs done. Lastly, staff report that it is
beneficial to have the additional voice of encouragement for the students in the class.
Coteaching was a support that the staff felt was important. Their beliefs and
implementation of this support included comments such as the increased face time that is
allotted the students in the class, the ability to group students and work with them based
on their needs, and the ability to employ different coteaching delivery options. Face time
was the most prevalent similarity in how the staff describe this support being effective.
Staff also see value in the co-teacher’s presence to make adaptations for the students.
Math staff supported the importance of extended time for testing. Words and
phrases that describe the beliefs and implementation of this support include that this is
something that needs to be afforded all students in the classroom. Staff report that
students need to be given time for processing purposes, as not all students are as fast as
each other. Staff do cite that it is important to put limitations on this accommodation as
well though, so that the student can eventually “move forward” from the assessment.
Test read aloud was considered an important SDI by the math staff. The feedback
regarding this support however was not commented on in the interview as to why.
Adapted Tests were commented on, though. Those comments included that adapted tests
are given to students that include a change in reading level, formatting of the tests such as
bolding key words, and giving a simple hint to help them access what they know. Still
other practices include eliminating distractor responses on the test.
Looking at the reading staff feedback, the top 5 supports listed were preferential
seating, paraprofessional support, tests read aloud, adapted tests, and extended time for
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
129
testing. In contrast to the overall feedback of staff, the common SDI’s were
paraprofessional support, tests read aloud, adapted tests, and extended time for testing.
The only SDI that varied was preferential seating that the reading staff felt was important.
So, there was strong agreement with the reading staff to the overall feeling of teachers
regarding SDIs found in the IEP.
When we look at the feedback from reading staff about their beliefs and
implementation of preferential seating teachers report that there are many ways in which
this support is implemented. Like what is reported by other staff who value this support,
the ability to move a student away from distractors, near the source of instruction, or near
the board all can mean preferential seating. Sometimes teachers report that it is important
for them to have easy access to the students, which constitutes preferential seating.
Paraprofessional support was, again, one of the most popular supports in the SDI
section of the IEP as reported by the reading teachers and shared with the other staff
members. Feedback from the staff include the quality of the para being a primary
determining factor to the effectiveness of this support as well as knowing the students
they are working with. The reading staff value the ability to have paras use proximity
control to keep students on task. Some state that this is even the number one purpose to
having the paraprofessional in the room. Staff also state that the ability to pull the
students into small groups is also helpful. Lastly, the staff report that the para is really
important in the communication area to the resource teacher in order to help students’
complete assignments.
Tests read aloud, while rated highly by the staff on the Likert survey, was not
commented on by the staff in the semi-structured interview. However, adapted tests were
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
130
discussed, and staff reported that this makes a difference for students. One reading
teacher states that written portions are in special need of adaptations, with graphic
organizers being helpful. Staff also report the reduction of multiple-choice options as a
valuable strategy when adapting tests. Additionally, reading teachers report that
extended time for testing is an important accommodation for students. Staff report that
this is important for students who are having anxiety about testing that slows them down
and which requires that additional time.
The special education staff has as their top 5 rated SDIs adapted tests,
paraprofessional support, extended time for testing, study guides, and small group testing.
When compared with the results of the overall staff there are four in common that include
paraprofessional support, extended time for testing, small group testing, and adapted
tests. One SDI that was different included the use of study guides. This was not in the
top five for all staff. In fact, this was one of the lower rated supports by staff where it
ranked at number 17.
Special Education staff feedback with regard to adapted tests included the
importance of acknowledging the differences between the content areas and the types of
modifications that were necessary due to course demands. As an example, math often
requires reteaching and retesting, whereas science and social studies require a reduction
in the amount of content. This also requires being very clear in what content will be
tested. Another teacher noted the importance of minimizing the amount of content on the
assessment to help keep the student motivated and minimizing distraction. Common with
other staff member reports, the importance of eliminating some response items from tests
was also valued.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
131
Paraprofessional Support was again a top choice for the special education staff
members as it was for all staff. Special education staff feedback regarding this support
draws from their experiences as resource teachers as well. This is reflected in the
comments that the para is crucial in bringing back information about student needs to the
special education teacher. There is natural communication that occurs between the
special education teacher and the para that eliminates delay in communicating needs to
the teacher. This is a common report by special education staff. They also report that
this support helps with getting copies of notes given where note taking is often a struggle
for students. One staff member went as far as to say they are the “bridge to success in the
regular classroom”.
Staff did not provide feedback on extended time for testing even though it was a
top-rated support collectively. However, they did provide feedback on study guides as an
important SDI. Staff who provided feedback on this support indicated the importance of
narrowing the information for the students. They report the importance of having a
predefined outline because the students can learn the information but need to know what
is essential to help with their focus. Lastly, staff placed value on small group testing as a
support that they value. Feedback on the beliefs and implementation of this support were
stated as providing focus and reducing anxiety through the testing session.
Interpretation of Data for Research Question Number 2
Looking at the data returned from the MAP testing, the Likert survey, and the
semi-structured interview feedback on the beliefs and implementation of student
supports, we can look at any similarities by subject that exist based on student
performance and the perception/implementation of supports in the highest performing
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
132
classrooms. It makes the most sense to look at these similarities and differences by
content area since we have already established that there are sometimes differences in
how each content area values SDI’s. We will first look at Language Arts.
Two Language Arts respondents had a mean RIT growth of more than 3 points
from the fall to winter testing. In analyzing the similarities that exist for these two
respondents based on the value placed on SDI’s in the classroom there was very little
agreement on SDI’s that were rated as strongly agree on the Likert survey. The one in
common was organizational support. This support was stated as important due to the
lengthy assignments that can exist in Language Arts, including digital structures that are
important with the proliferation of digital technologies. In addition, highlighting key
information for students to help them focus was also stated as important for
organizational purposes.
One additional step that was taken in this research included the top-rated SDI’s
where the highest performing staff had agreement on the support as strongly agree OR
agree. This creates a broader picture of common feelings regarding supports in the
Language Arts classroom where greater growth was measured. Using this lens as a
backdrop, we can see that the highest performing Language Arts staff, in addition to
organizational support, value small group testing, preferential seating, allowing for
movement in the classroom, and paraprofessional support. These supports were reported
as agree or strongly agree by the staff. However, the semi-structured interview, at the
time it was given, focused on qualitative feedback on supports rated as strongly agree.
There were three math staff that had a mean RIT growth greater than 3 points. In
analyzing the similarities that exist for these three respondents based on the value placed
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
133
on SDI’s in the classroom, there was much agreement on SDI’s that were rated as
Strongly Agree on the Likert survey. These common SDI’s were extended time for tests,
adapted tests, paraprofessional support, and coteaching. The staff’s comments regarding
adapted tests in these higher performing classes included changing the format of tests
such as bolding essential words, simple hints to remind students of what they had learned,
eliminating responses, and changing the reading level on the test. Staff comments about
coteaching included the ability to group and regroup students, increase in facetime with
the students, help with adaptations in the classroom, importance of additional viewpoints,
and varying instruction/models of coteaching. Extended time for tests was an area that
the three staff rated highly as well. Comments regarding this SDI included the
importance of understanding differences in students’ processing times, keeping extended
time within reason, and that this support is important for all students, not just students
with IEP’s. Finally, paraprofessional support shared agreement amongst the highest
performing staff where comments included the importance of carryover by the
paraprofessional to the resource class of information from math class, the ability to
support repetition, the importance of a qualified para, and the ability to vary what is said
to students to help them comprehend information. In table 19, one additional support that
shared a rating of Agree was the use of a Crisis Pass. This support was rated as Agree by
all three staff members. However, it was not commented on by the respondents in the
interview.
Two reading teachers had an increase in mean RIT score of more than 3 points.
These staff had responded similarly on the SDI’s tests read aloud, preferential seating,
adapted tests and paraprofessional support. Staff had commented regarding adapted tests
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
134
that they use graphic organizers for students and reduce multiple choice options on tests.
Also, these two staff report that they use paraprofessional support for proximity control
of students during class, the ability to work individually as needed with students, the
importance of the para knowing the student in depth, paras regrouping students during
independent time, and the importance of paras bringing information back to the resource
room. Two additional supports were rated as either agree or strongly agree. Those two
supports were extended time for testing and crisis pass. The only comment made by the
staff regarding these additional two supports was for the use of extended time where the
respondent had stated the importance of this for students who get anxious with testing.
Finally, the special education staff did not have any respondents whose students
had a mean RIT score gain over 3 points. The closest respondent to this was a staff
member whose students had a mean gain of 2.63 points. As seen in table 20, this staff
member rated small group testing, tests read aloud, extended time for assignments,
extended time for testing, adapted tests, use of graphic organizers, paraprofessional
support, and coteaching as strongly agree. This teacher stated that for extended time on
assignments that workload can come and go, making this important at times when the
student has a heavy load of work to do. For paraprofessional support, the staff member
sites this as the most important afforded to students as it brings back vital information to
resource class where students get support for their core classes. For small group testing
the teacher expressed the importance of providing focus and reducing test anxiety. For
tests read aloud the staff member felt it was essential to eliminate decoding concerns and
distractions.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
135
Interpretation of Data for Research Question Number 3
The third research question asked, what movement from regular education classes
to more restrictive pull-out classes occur over the course of a year and is there any
correlation to perception and implementation of student supports? When we look at the
data that came back in analyzing movement to and from the LRE it was reassuring to see
that the trend was to move students up the continuum towards the LRE. In fact, there
were 19 moves made this past school year to and from the LRE. 13 of those moves were
to the regular classroom and 6 of those moves were to pull out settings. This is more than
double the amount of movement up the continuum in fulfillment of the federal mandate
for reinforcing the least restrictive environment. In addition, only 4 of the 11 students
were involved in the 6 moves to pull-out settings. That means that 7 students moved up
the continuum to lesser restrictive settings.
What we also find in this scenario is that the majority of moves to and from the
LRE were with teachers who had students that displayed some of the highest growth in
their classrooms. It is important to note that the vast number of these moves came within
one team of teachers. This team of teachers, throughout the semi-structured interview,
mentioned that they regularly look at placements, accommodations, and modifications in
order to find a best fit for the students on the team.
The second part of research question number 3 asked if there was any correlation
between student movement and perception of student supports. Looking at the data, the
movement from the LRE to pull-out classes was relegated to one team as mentioned.
However, the vast majority of moves from this same team were to the LRE. Also, these
moves were across subject areas making it harder to draw a correlation since we already
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
136
have established that the various disciplines’ view supports differently at times based on
the content taught. However, a correlation could be made using the Likert survey when
looking at the highest rated supports that the staff had in common when responding agree
and strongly agree. Looking at Table 22 you can see that the only supports that were in
common with one another where staff said strongly agree to the importance of the SDI
were adapted tests and paraprofessional support. However, this was only for respondents
7 and 8. Only when you take into account Table 23 for those supports that the staff agree
OR strongly agree do you begin to get agreement on what supports are most important.
Those supports were paraprofessional support, adapted tests, audiobooks, and crisis pass.
It was very evident in the interview process that the staff puts a great deal of effort into
adapting tests for their students based on need. It was also evident that the staff values
the support of the paraprofessional, not only in the classroom but more importantly in the
bringing back of information to the resource room where students receive backup
instruction and support.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
137
Table 22
Supports Rated as Strongly Agree for Staff with Student Movement
Respondent 5 Lang. Arts
Respondent 7 Reading
Respondent 8 Math
Chunking Assignments
Adapted Tests
Adapted Tests
Directions Repeated
Paraprofessional Support
Paraprofessional Support
Extended Time for
Assignments
Preferential Seating
Extended Time for Tests
Organization Support
Tests Read Aloud
Coteaching
Use of Graphic Organizer
Study Guides
Positive Reinforcement
Checks for Understanding
Table 23
Supports Rated as Strongly Agree and Agree for Staff with Student Movement
SDI
Respondent 5
Respondent 7
Respondent 8
Adapted Tests
Agree
Strongly Agree
Strongly Agree
Audiobooks
Agree
Agree
Agree
Paraprofessional
Support
Agree
Strongly Agree
Strongly Agree
Crisis Pass
Agree
Agree
Agree
Looking at the semi-structured interview feedback, the consistent themes that
were obtained by staff where students moved from the LRE to pull-out environments that
were not related to non-academic factors such as attendance or mental health concerns
were relegated to the lack of response that students had when modifications were made to
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
138
assignments and tests. Staff feedback gave examples as to how assignments and tests
were modified, how extensions to time were given, and modifications to grading were
made with little results. This showed a correlation when considering student movement
and the implementation of supports rated as agree and Strongly Agree, however, there
was not broad agreement to supports where staff Strongly Agree with the importance of
those supports.
Discussion
The data analysis process that was followed for the three research questions to
draw conclusions for the next chapter required the researcher to blend the various data
points as was described in the methods chapter of this Doctoral Capstone Research
Project and as given in its raw form in this chapter. Specifically, question number 1 took
into account two data points that included the Likert survey and the semi-structured
interview. In taking those two pieces of data into account, the researcher first analyzed
the Likert survey feedback by averaging all respondents scores for each SDI that was
measured. These SDI’s were then placed in rank order so that they could be viewed from
most important to least important. Additionally, the Likert survey data was broken out by
subject area in the same way, averaging the feedback from each respondent by subject
area and ranking those 27 supports. In this way, the researcher could look at differences
that demonstrate themselves in staff perceptions about supports by subject area when
compared to the whole group.
The second piece of data was qualitative from the semi-structured interview
regarding their beliefs and implementation of their top-rated supports. The researcher
compiled this information into a grid based on the notes from the interview in order to
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
139
code the information, looking for familiar themes that came from staff regarding the
SDIs. The researcher broke out the qualitative data by subject area so that, again, any
trends by content could be noted. The first research question really seeks to find staff
perceptions and beliefs about the most important specially designed instruction elements.
This was presented in narrative form in this chapter. However, in the conclusions
portion, we will look at pairing the top-rated supports on the Likert scale with the
qualitative feedback by subject area.
For research question number 2, the researcher compiled the information from
three data points, that being the Likert survey, the semi-structured interview, and
performance data on the MAP assessment in the fall and winter testing sessions. The
data analysis process for this question was to first determine what staff, who had learning
support students in their class, saw the most growth in their students based off the MAP
testing. This included looking at the mean, median, mode, standard deviation, percent of
students making gains, and average first semester grades. Then, identifying those
classrooms, the Likert survey data was pulled for only those respondents to determine
what commonality existed. In addition, an added layer was done to look at supports that
were in common where the teacher rated them as agree and not only strongly agree. This
allowed the researcher to look at any additional belief systems that the teachers shared
where there was generally strong agreement on effective specially designed instruction.
Lastly, the data analysis process for this question pulled the comments made about the
supports rated as strongly agree by those staff members with the highest performance.
The third research question utilized the tracking of student movement throughout
the year from least restrictive to more restrictive environments and vice versa. The
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
140
researcher looked at trends in where this student movement occurred. Where this
movement occurred, a follow up interview was conducted with the staff members to
gather feedback on various aspects of IEP implementation, looking for any common
feedback that could be found. This led to some encouraging trends with student
movement to lesser restrictive environments while also highlighting some of the practices
that were proving effective for students.
Summary
This Doctoral Research Capstone Project was meant to look at teacher perception
of the importance of SDI’s written into the IEP’s of students as well as insight into their
beliefs and practices with those supports. Also, the project sought to find any similarities
that could be found in teachers’ perceptions, beliefs, and practices for those classrooms
where students show greater growth. Lastly, the project sought to identify student
movement to and from the LRE and what correlation to perception, beliefs, and practices
might be found amongst teachers where student movement occurs. Utilizing a series of
datapoints that included a Likert survey, semi-structured interviews, standardized testing
data, and grades, insight into teacher perception, beliefs and practices could be analyzed.
The perceptions and practices were found to vary from content area to content
area slightly due to the nature of what students are asked to do. However, when you look
at content areas in isolation, there are patterns of value systems that begin to emerge in
both beliefs and implementation. Furthermore, when you look at how staff who have
students that demonstrate higher growth and compare their perception, beliefs, and
practice other patterns emerge, particularly if you consider specially designed instruction
that the staff rated as Agree or Strongly Agree in their perceptions.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
141
Lastly, when looking at student movement to and from the LRE, it was gratifying
to see that the overall trend of student movement was from more restrictive to lesser
restrictive environments. Themes that emerged with staff where student movement went
to more restrictive settings centered around the lack of response to accommodations and
modifications that were made for the student, sometimes significant modifications that
did not result in the type of progress that one would want to see when such adjustments
are made. The movement that occurred to more restrictive environments also happened
with some of the staff whose students showed the highest growth overall. On one hand
one could suggest that this could account for some of the increase in the mean average
RIT gain of the class. However, we should be quick to remember that these same staff
members moved other students from more restrictive placements to their class. So, it is
unlikely that this movement had significant impact on the mean scores. However, there
was correlation between the staff’s feedback on SDIs and movement to more restrictive
environments.
In the next chapter we will attempt to draw some conclusions regarding the data
for the research questions that were framed for this project. These conclusions can
hopefully be used to influence future in-service for staff on the types of SDI’s and their
implementation that has the greatest effect on student performance. We will also attempt
to address the fiscal implications of the research, as well as identify areas that may need
further investigation due to the findings. Lastly, we will attempt to identify any
limitations that may have existed in the design or implementation of this research project
that could have affected the results.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
142
Chapter V
Conclusions and Recommendations
This chapter is designed to bring together the data into conclusions and
recommendations regarding the three research questions proposed in this Doctoral
Research Capstone Project. This mixed methods research project was constructed to
shed light on the practices and beliefs of staff about specially designed instruction for
students with IEPs. The conclusions are drawn from varied sources of data that involve
both qualitative and quantitative points including Likert survey results, semi-structured
interviews, and contemporary and historical student performance data. This chapter will
also look at potential implications for future practice at Independence Middle School and
what fiscal implications that this may entail. As with all research there are limitations to
the design and implementation of the project. This chapter will also look at those
limitations to transparently put forward the conclusions and recommendations, taking the
shortcomings into account. This will give way to thoughts about future research topics
surrounding students with IEPs and structures meant to support the mandate of Least
Restrictive Environment.
The review of literature that was provided in this research project clearly
demonstrates the evolution of legal mandates that started with the inclusion of special
education students in schools themselves, to a much more inclusive environment of
students with special needs in the regular education classroom in the modern day. The
literature review also demonstrated the special education process being structured in a
way that strives for inclusion in the least restrictive environment, starting with a multidisciplinary evaluation, culminating in an Individualized Education Program meant to
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
143
make use of supplementary aides and services written in the form of specially designed
instruction that have both accommodations and modifications to the educational program
targeted for the students’ success. This chapter ties these concepts together, along with
the results, to paint a picture of the status of inclusion and LRE at Independence Middle
School as well as what next steps may entail.
Conclusions
There were three research questions that the researcher was attempting to answer
in this project. Those research questions will be listed in order followed by conclusions
drawn from the data for each.
Research Question Number One
The first question was, what are teachers’ perceptions about student supports
outlined in a student’s IEP and how are those supports implemented in their classrooms?
This question looks to simply find what the value system and implementation of supports
looks like for staff. The Likert survey and first semi-structured interview were used to
answer this question.
It was clear early on that there was great value in looking at the supports as
grouped by the various content areas in addition to the overall responses. This was
because the structure of the disciplines affected teacher response in various content areas
making it important to acknowledge this line of inquiry rather than at a macro level for
the entire group of teachers’ view on accommodations and modifications. However, the
focus on the overall staff’s thoughts for these supports was still felt to be important as it
allowed us to see what was common and what was different.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
144
Looking at all staff first we see that, almost universally, paraprofessional support
was rated as a key inclusion in a student’s IEP regardless of discipline. This support was
the only SDI that was included in the top 5 of the aggregate scores in each of the content
areas as well as in the overall top 5. Staff clearly desire the flexibility that another adult
in the room provides. The staff feedback demonstrates the multi-faceted role that the
paraprofessional provides in their eyes, both in real time while the class is unfolding and
outside of the classroom during backup instructional time. During classroom time, staff
report the importance of having another point of view, an additional set of eyes on the
needs of the students, providing 1:1 or small group support during the class, support for
small group testing, tests read aloud, and in helping focus the students during class.
Outside of class, multiple staff report the importance that the paraprofessional plays in
communicating student needs to the resource room where backup instruction and
organizational support are provided.
Additionally, for all staff, was the importance placed on supports surrounding
testing. Four of the top five supports that were rated highest by the staff overall included
extended time for testing, adapted tests, small group testing, and tests read aloud. While
the type of support valued by staff around testing may vary, all disciplines valued some
sort of support in a student’s IEP around this subject. It seems apparent that this focus on
testing parallels the barriers that sometimes arise with the LRE when students are not
“passing”. In other words, when students are not achieving the grades in the regular
classroom, a more restrictive environment is often the result. Hence, any accommodation
or modification that affects the most impactful factor for placement in the LRE (grades)
is given a lot of attention. Language Arts was the only real exception to this because a
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
145
larger portion of the assessment practices in this class involve written work more often
than formal testing. This is an example of a content area that diverges from the overall
trend in perception data measured by the survey where test accommodations and
modifications are so highly rated.
As stated, staff by content area varied sometimes slightly and sometimes largely
from the overall list. Language Arts staff varied the most from the overall feelings of the
staff sharing only paraprofessional support and small group testing with the feelings of
the collective group. The other supports that they felt were important were preferential
seating, organization support, and the use of the crisis pass. When you look at the
qualitative data for these supports that diverge from the overall feelings of the group, you
understand the staffs’ focus on practices that keep the students focused and engaged
through organizational structures in their classrooms, including digital structures due to
the project type content that occurs in their area. While there are certainly organizational
structures in other content areas, learning is largely compartmentalized to isolated pieces
of work. In a persuasive essay, as an example, if you have lost your prewriting work and
graphic organizer it is hard to start your rough draft. However, homework for math class
is not viewed in that same way where once the assignment is done, a student can be
successful without finding that homework assignment again or referring to it directly in
many cases. So, one can understand the divergence in the feelings of the Language Arts
staff in this way. Also, the importance placed on a crisis pass and preferential seating by
the Language Arts staff were not far off from the top 5 supports for all staff. They were
number 6 and number 8 respectively in the list of 27. This indicates that the feelings of
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
146
the overall staff are similar in this regard but are more strongly felt by the Language Arts
staff.
The math content area was predominantly in line with the feedback from the staff.
The exception to this was the higher value that the staff had placed on the coteaching
support. The overall feelings of the staff were that coteaching ranked 7th in the list of 27
SDIs. There is some agreement amongst staff overall for this support. However, the fact
that the math staff felt this support was in the top 5 was notable. In looking at the
qualitative feedback from the staff it was apparent that the staff looked upon this support
favorably due to the additional support it gives the classroom, where constant formative
assessment is even more essential. Having the extra set of trained eyes is valued by the
staff. Staff report valuing the ability to group and regroup students, increased facetime,
provide different perspectives to students, and assistance with adaptations for the work
that is assigned or tests that are taken.
Reading staff were also largely in agreement with the overall feelings of the
group. The value placed on preferential seating practices was the only difference in the
top 5 supports as rated by the reading staff. However, overall, preferential seating was
rated sixth by all staff. The reading staff’s value placed on supports that help with testing
as well as paraprofessional support also indicate the acknowledgement that, at the end of
the day, the grade is the validating factor that keeps students in the LRE and why they
value this support so much.
Lastly, the special education staff was also largely in agreement with the feelings
of the rest of the staff. The SDI that varied for the special education staff was the use of
study guides. This was the real outlier when answering research question one for the four
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
147
content areas. Study guides as ranked by the entire staff was seventeenth out of the 27
SDIs. In the cases of the other content areas, any variability in the value placed on SDIs
in their top 5 list was generally found to be ranked very close to the top in the overall
standings. When looking at the special education staff feedback about this support it is
not hard to understand why special education staff value this, though. In their world it is
important to know what students need to be successful on a test. Also, staff indicate that
they need their students to be able to focus in on the need-to-know content using a
predefined outline so that they can be efficient in their studying, increasing their chances
for a higher grade. It would be interesting to know why content area staff do not feel the
same way about this item since it directly affects success on tests, which, as indicated on
the Likert survey feedback, is where the most value is placed.
There are multiple implications to answering research question number one as it
relates to future practice at Independence Middle School. First, it is important to have a
starting point for current realities surrounding student supports in the school. When
students are not doing well in class, knowing the type of supports that are valued by staff
can help an IEP team ask essential questions to improve that situation for the student. As
an example, knowing that organizational support is of high importance in the Language
Arts classroom will assist the IEP team in looking into how that system is working or not
working for the student, if implicit instruction is needed in the organizational framework,
or if tweaks to the framework are needed. Additionally, seeing how coteaching ranks so
highly for math and Language Arts staff, but not as much in reading, enables us to ask the
question why and to potentially divert more support to the development of this
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
148
relationship. So, understanding the perceptions, beliefs and practices in this area has
important information we can learn from to generate conversation for growth.
In summary, supports found in the IEP and their value to staff carried many
similarities from content area to content area with a few exceptions. The staff places a
high degree of value on supports that are meant to accommodate or modify testing for
students with disabilities, which has the greatest effect on a student’s grade and
placement in the least restrictive environment. Staff also universally support the use of a
paraprofessional to support students across settings, including the resource room where
backup instruction occurs. In places where the staff varied in their responses it seemed
tied to the constraints of the subject area such as organizational support for Language
Arts and study guides for special education staff. Finally, the implication to the school in
answering this question is that it provides a necessary understanding of “what is” in
regard to the value of supports by staff. This allows the IEP team to better understand
how that support may affect the student in the classroom and how that support may need
explicit instruction or modified to better meet the needs of the student in the LRE.
Research Question Number Two
The second research question asked, what relationship, if any, is there between
teacher perceptions/implementation of student support and student achievement? The
purpose of this question was to find if there was any correlation in perception and
implementation of SDIs so that, if a correlation existed, the practice could be replicated
across classroom settings. Looking at Language Arts you can see that there was not
agreement in the most highly rated supports on the Likert survey by the two staff
members that showed more than 3 points of growth. Organization support was the only
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
149
SDI that the staff shared as strongly agree. However, when we looked at the supports
that the two staff members rated as agree we do see that there are some common shared
values. Those supports were small group testing, preferential seating, allowing for
movement in the classroom, and paraprofessional support. While the interview of the
staff focused on those supports that were rated as strongly agree the commonality
between supports rated as agree still has importance and would benefit from future lines
of inquiry about why those staff members feel the way that they do about those supports
and how those supports are implemented.
There were three staff members that showed growth of more than three points in
the math content area. There was agreement between the three staff members that shared
values on extended time for tests, paraprofessional support, and coteaching. These
supports were all rated as strongly agree by the three staff members. If you also consider
supports rated as agree you would add adapted tests and crisis pass to the list. Qualitative
feedback from staff with these supports demonstrate common patterns of thought with
coteaching where staff note that the students benefit from having multiple perspectives
and increased facetime with students to correct misunderstandings. Paraprofessional
support, that was rated so highly by all staff, ranked highly with math staff as well. It
was stated by the highest performing math teachers that the importance of having a
qualified paraprofessional was paramount due to the technical nature of their content
area. However, divergent in the qualitative feedback was the value that some had placed
on the para support in the class vs. support that is provided in the resource room. In either
case, the complexity of math content seems to have an “all hands-on deck” approach
when it comes to coteaching and paraprofessional support.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
150
A common theme as well with the math staff is the willingness to adapt tests for
the students. The method of the adaptations may vary slightly, but the flexibility that the
staff are willing to make for students in adapting the tests is notable. Lastly, the staff’s
flexibility is further noted in their willingness to extend time on the testing. Common
themes for this from staff include the understanding that not all students process in the
same amount of time and that what you really want to know is what students can do, not
how fast they can do it. This approach is different than more traditional math teacher
mindsets when it comes to belief systems on test taking procedures.
There were two reading staff that had demonstrated growth of greater than 3
points in their classrooms with their students with IEPs. Those two staff members shared
a high degree of commonality in values placed on SDIs. Those two staff rated 4 supports
as Strongly Agree on the Likert survey which included tests read aloud, preferential
seating, adapted tests, and paraprofessional support. Additionally, extended time for
testing and crisis pass were rated as either strongly agree or agree by the reading staff as
important to student success. Common themes that come out in staff feedback regarding
these supports include flexibility for tests, in not only adapting them, but also in
extending time for students when needed. Staff also talk about the importance of the
ways in which preferential seating is conducted in their classes. This practice is based on
needs of the student and is not synonymous with sitting in the front of the classroom as
many people might first assume. This approach seems to highlight that a lot of thought
on what students need to be successful in the classroom occurs with these staff and is not
a one size fits all approach.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
151
Special education staff, when looking at the growth data, showed one staff
member whose students achieved a growth score of almost three points. The other staff
were not close in this area. While we can’t come to conclusions about common practices
in a special education teacher’s classroom as it relates to SDIs, we can take the highest
performing staff member’s thoughts in this case at face value. The staff member with the
highest growth had indicated that they valued small group testing, tests read aloud,
extended time for assignments, extended time for testing, and adapted tests. When we
look at the qualitative data surrounding these supports, we find that the teacher is flexible
in extending time on assignments and needs this flexibility for the staff teaching students
on their caseload. The respondent also commented on the importance of the
paraprofessional stating it is “the most important afforded to students” of all the supports
listed in the IEP. The paraprofessional is noted as being a key communicator between
those involved with the student. The respondent also uses words and phrases such as
focus, reduce anxiety, and keeping students from distraction as the reason for the
importance of testing supports such as small group and reading tests aloud. This, as it
does for the other highest performing teachers, demonstrates intensive thought about each
student’s needs.
The implication for answering this question is perhaps the most important of the
three that this Doctoral Research Capstone Project sought to answer. In knowing what
the highest performing teachers value and what their beliefs and implementations are for
those supports, we can potentially look to mirror that in other classrooms where students
are not making the same gains. This has a direct effect on the student’s placement in the
LRE and improves outcomes for students with IEP’s when we can define or demonstrate
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
152
best practices. As was seen in the data surrounding this question, the highest performing
staff afford a lot of flexibility in how they handle students regarding accommodations and
modifications on tests as well as assignments. It was also clear that staff levy resources
such as coteaching and paraprofessional support to provide an umbrella of support
throughout the school day.
In summary, except for Language Arts, there was much agreement on the
supports that were rated as Strongly Agree on the Likert Survey amongst the highest
achieving staff in the study. In most cases, three or four out of the top five supports were
common amongst the respondents. However, when you add supports that the staff also
rated as Agree a broader picture of commonly valued supports reveals itself. In addition
to what those supports are by name are the beliefs and implementation of those practices
in the classroom. Staff in this higher performing category seem to commonly make
adjustments for students on assignments and tests in order to achieve best results and
feelings of success in their students. This is important for the implications for this
research that can attempt to support the replication of those practices in the other
classrooms where growth is not as prevalent. Building on the consistency of these
practices across classrooms provides for more consistent success in the LRE.
Research Question Number 3
The third research questions asked, what movement from regular education
classes to more restrictive pull-out classes occur over the course of a year and is there any
correlation to perception and implementation of student supports? This question was put
into the line of inquiry due to the federal mandate of the LRE and our responsibility to
keep this movement in the forefront of our minds as a school. In addition, the District, in
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
153
prior years had been noted as being higher than the state average in their placement of
students outside of the LRE. This led to initiatives such as coteaching to try and support
the LRE as the first consideration for students with special education needs. The
encouraging information that came back from this question was the limited movement
that had occurred for students moving from the LRE to more restrictive pull-out settings.
In fact, it was quite the opposite where students moved from more restrictive settings to
the LRE. The data captured made it clear that the trends in belief systems where students
moved up the continuum included a lot of flexibility.
What was also important to recognize in this case was that most of the student
movement happened within one middle school team. In fact, they were the only team
that moved students down the continuum with a total of 6 moves to a more restrictive
environment that affected 4 different students. This same team had 10 moves to the
regular education classroom that included 4 different students as well i.e. one student
moving to regular education Language Arts and regular education math counts as two
moves by one student. So, the net movement was zero when looking at numbers of
students on this team that had moved down or up the continuum of support.
What was also evident in the faculty feedback where students made a backwards
move was the fact that the staff had put a lot of effort into adapting work and tests to help
the students be successful in the LRE, to little effect. This is important because it
documents effort made to prevent the movement which validates to a higher degree the
need for the change in placement. The one thing that we also see with student movement
to more restrictive environments include non-academic factors such as attendance and
mental health concerns. While attendance has often been associated with lower
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
154
achievement, the effects of the pandemic on mental health have led to greater concerns
for student success in school to a degree not felt before.
When looking at the correlation for beliefs and practice of student supports in the
IEP where student movement to and from the LRE exists, it was apparent that student
movement to more restrictive environments were grounded in the fact that students were
not responding to accommodations and modifications made in the classroom. In all
instances, the staff were able to name ways in which they modified homework and tests.
Some went so far as to admit that they had misread student misunderstanding for
laziness, but through constant reflection and modifications concluded that the student was
having comprehension difficulties that could not be met in the regular education
classroom and a change was made.
Conversely, on the other side of student movement, students who moved from the
pull out setting to the LRE were noted as far outpacing their peers in the pull-out
classroom. Correlation could also be found in the staff feedback that students were
responding to adapted tests to the extent that they could be successful in the regular
education environment. Staff also reported that the use of extended time for testing and
modifications to written work were helpful in assisting students transition to the regular
education environment. Lastly, staff reported the support of co-teachers and
paraprofessionals in the role they play in supporting students in the LRE as being
consistent factors that help students remain in the regular classroom. So, what started out
as an attempt to see if there was any correlation to SDI implementation for students who
moved down the continuum, quickly became a parallel inquiry to see what correlations
there were for students moving up the continuum.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
155
The implications for the school regarding this question deal with the practices that
occur when a student is being considered for movement from the LRE. The increased
focus on keeping students in the LRE has had positive effect with the proliferation of
coteaching and the focus on adaptations to tests and assignments. The fact that the pace
of movement into the LRE outpaces movement to more restrictive environments is very
favorable. The implication is that the school is meeting the federal mandate of LRE to a
higher degree with the practices outlined.
In summary, student movement to the LRE far outpaced movement to more
restrictive environments. This is a positive trend in meeting the federal legislation of
inclusive practices of students in the least restrictive environment. Correlation could be
found in the belief systems of staff in movement to more restrictive environments where
adaptations had been made to the content and to testing where students still showed high
degrees of lack of progress. Conversely, students moving to the LRE were showing the
highest grades in the pull-out class as well as responding to the adapted tests and work in
the regular education environment. The implication to these outcomes is a school that
seemingly is moving students up the continuum of support rather than in the other
direction. This is due, in part, to a willingness of staff to review supports and adapt or
modify work and tests. The continuation of this practice should yield positive results for
the school.
From a fiscal perspective, the results of this study may help us refine practices
and uses of resources that affect the financial expenditures for the school and district.
The single biggest cost in the budget is personnel costs associated with salary and
benefits. When we are more efficient in educating students with special education needs,
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
156
our costs for salary and benefits could theoretically be less over time (not counting
inflation factors). However, an important thought that came from this research project is
the importance that staff place on the human capital that is needed to support students in
the LRE. However, when we build consistency in how supports are implemented based
in data that highlights successful practice, we most assuredly will decrease the demand on
personnel, including exiting students from special education as a possible outcome. The
results of this study that show progress in pushing students up the continuum of services
illustrates how this could be possible. In fact, we saw one student exited from special
education this year during the study. Ideally, we will hit critical mass movement when
our exiting students outpace our placed students in the school. This will undoubtedly
affect the budget in a positive way.
Limitations
There are always factors that create limitations in the research design and
methodology. Often these factors are unforeseen or don’t become readily as clear when
the researcher first designs the project. One such factor that is noted in this project was
that there were two long terms substitutes in core content positions at the onset of this
study. One of the classrooms was not used for the study at all due to this factor.
However, not having this class could have influenced some of the data to a certain extent.
In addition to this, one of the teachers involved in the study, whose classroom was
originally staffed by a long-term substitute, was not directly responsible for all of the
student content that was taught and initially tested using the MAP data. This teacher’s
student scores did not show enough growth to be used in research question number 2. It
is possible that the teacher’s data, if they were the teacher of record for the entire time of
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
157
the study, could have yielded additional feedback to consider. I would quickly say,
though, that the data was not used in determining an answer to the second research
question and therefore did not negatively impact the use of data where staff did show the
greatest growth. This is simply an acknowledgement of the fact that the classrooms
could have contributed more information to the research had that staffing been intact.
Another aspect of this project that one must consider is the role that the art of
teaching plays on student skill acquisition. Certainly, the implementation of SDIs in the
student’s IEP is important, and the merit of the work is obvious. However, student
growth in classrooms are also greatly attributable to the skills of the teacher, the
engagement that they provide, the depth of knowledge of their content area, and the
design of the lesson. Therefore, when we measure student progress and draw correlations
to teacher perception, beliefs, and implementation of student supports we need to also
consider the role that the art of teaching plays in student achievement.
One last factor to consider regarding this study is the mere fact that I was the
principal of the building for almost 17 years. While great care was taken to be objective
about the study and what I know about teachers and the students there, having
relationships and knowing the inner workings of the school can certainly influence
thinking, processes, and conclusions, not always for the worse. However, again, great
care was taken so that this knowledge did not affect any results. The staff were given
numbers so that when data was analyzed, anonymity was there so that the researcher did
not know who had responded in what way to protect against assumptions and
predetermined thoughts. This was an effective safeguard against making assumptions
that could bleed their way into the findings.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
158
Recommendations for Future Research
This Doctoral Research Capstone Project led the researcher to ponder many
concepts for further review. First and foremost, the majority of student supports that
were discussed involved accommodations and modifications surrounding testing. One of
the areas that would have great benefit to students is looking in greater detail how student
assessments are modified. Staff did go into some detail about how they implement
adapted tests certainly. However, this topic could certainly warrant a research study in
and of itself to understand how modifications such as these affect student performance
and what modifications help teachers the most in getting students to produce what they
know on formal assessments.
Also, with so much focus on testing accommodations and the fact that the
majority of supports in the IEP are accommodation driven, greater research could be done
on the modifications of day-to-day learning that leads up to the assessment, or even the
use of different methods of demonstrating competency. The effects of Universal Design
for Learning principles and their effect on the day-to-day engagement and learning of
material would certainly be a topic that would place in greater detail how modifications
or rethinking learning could support students rather than focusing on “the test” within the
specially designed instruction framework.
Another aspect of future research would be to look more in depth at how the MAP
assessment data can inform instruction for students with IEP’s and how to use the
information to flexibly group students, perhaps making better use of coteaching supports
and paraprofessional supports. The MAP assessment process is still new to the staff at
Bethel Park School District. There is a wealth of information in the assessment that is
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
159
given three times throughout the year. The assessment itself does much more than just
measure growth and predict proficiency. The assessment gives feedback on the readiness
level for various skills that groups of students can be instructed upon. This tool allows
staff to think about flexible grouping and pre-teaching strategies when approaching units
of instruction. Certainly, this tool has much promise that can be used to improve
planning and instruction for students with IEPs and would be worthy of greater research.
Lastly, a great deal of credibility was given to paraprofessional support and
coteaching from the staff in this research study as a meaningful SDI for students.
Additional research would be very worthwhile to study the function of these individuals
in the classroom in greater detail to highlight the best practices to assist in training for
staff. The literature is rich in the area of coteaching and the modalities of coteaching.
The literature is much less substantial in the effect of paraprofessional practice.
However, regardless of the extent of the literature, local norms and belief systems can
affect the implementation of these supports. In addition to this, the reading staff in this
research study did not rate coteaching highly in their Likert survey results. Time spent
investigating the relationship that exists in this situation and what is happening in other
scenarios where coteaching is highly rated and supported would be time well spent. The
nuances of successfully integrating individuals into the support structure at school is
complex. Relationships, training, skills, and mindsets all play roles in the success of this
integration. However, highlighting things going well within the local context can be
helpful. Lastly, regarding paraprofessional support, there is a constant struggle in the
district as to the number of paraprofessionals needed. This struggle occurs from all
angles including parent desire to have para support, teacher desire for para support, and
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
160
administration trying to sort through the merit of the financial outlay with ever more
complex funding constraints. This additional research could help support best practices
for implementation of this support to try and relieve some of this strain.
Summary
Chapter V has presented the conclusions that were found in the data for the three
research questions. The findings reveal the perceptions, beliefs and implementation of
specially designed instruction that supports students in the least restrictive environment.
These perceptions are affected to some extent by the content that the staff member
teaches and what constraints their subject may present.
Additionally, the data revealed staff who have fostered a learning environment
that has yielded greater results in their learning support population. In highlighting these
classrooms, correlations were noted that named the supports and practices that were
similar and could be considered local best practices to support students with special
needs. While there were some variabilities in some of the subjects, the highest
performing staff by content area did share many common ideas about support
implementation.
Lastly, the data revealed that movement from the LRE to more restrictive
environments was not pervasive. In fact, movement from pull-out settings to the LRE
outpaced movement to pull-out settings. In answering the third research question there
were correlations that could be made regarding teacher perceptions, beliefs, and
implementation of student supports when movement is made to more restrictive
environments and when movement is made to the LRE. These perceptions and beliefs
centered around adapting tests and assignments, and how students responded to these
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
161
accommodations and modifications as determining factors for movement. It was
important to note that modifications were experimented with prior to student movement
being made. One can imagine that this is not always the case in a traditional classroom
where the mindset may be rigid in what a student must be able to do to be successful in
the classroom.
The results and conclusions made in this research study allow us to understand
where staff are in their perceptions, beliefs, and implementation of student supports. This
is helpful to a school in establishing what the status is in support implementation. The
results also help us determine what practices are getting better results in classrooms by
content area and how to structure future discussions with staff that drive support
implementation. Lastly, it is important to understand what effect student movement to
and from the LRE has on the learning environment of a school and fulfillment of state
mandates. Understanding how structures affect this movement helps administration
move supports and structure conversations that help the school in its fulfillment of federal
mandates to educate students in the LRE. It is my hope that the school and District will
continue its focus on practices that support students equitably across settings. This
requires focus and data mining so that the correct determinations can be made for a
process of continuous growth.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
162
References
Albrecht, S. F., & Joles, C. (2003). Accountability and access to opportunity: Mutually
exclusive tenets under a high-stakes testing mandate. Preventing School Failure:
Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 47(2), 86–91.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10459880309604435
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & the
National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for
educational & psychological testing.
Assistance to States for the Education of Students with Disabilities, 34 C.F.R. § 300
(2012). https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-34/subtitle-B/chapter-III/part-300
Ball, C., & R., O'Connor, E. (2016). Predictive utility and classification accuracy of oral
reading fluency and the measures of academic progress for the Wisconsin
Knowledge and Concepts Exam. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 41(4),
195-208. https://doi:10.1177/1534508415620107
Bell, L. (2011). Faculty conversation: Carol Tomlinson on differentiation. Curry
Magazine. https://education.virginia.edu/news/faculty-conversation-caroltomlinson-differentiation
Burns, E. (2007). The essential special education guide for the regular education teacher
Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED497333). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED497333
Carter, E. W., Austin, D., & Trainor, A. A. (2012). Predictors of postschool employment
outcomes for young adults with severe disabilities. Journal of Disability Policy
Studies, 23, 50-63. https://doi.org/10.1177/1044207311414680
Causton-Theoharis, J. Theoharis, G. Orsati, F. Cosler, M. (2011). Does self-contained
special education deliver on its promises? A critical inquiry into research and
practice. Journal of Special Education Leadership. Vol. 24 (2), 61-78
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
163
Choi, J. McCart, A. Sailor, W. (2020). Reshaping educational systems to realize the
promise of inclusive education. Fire: Forum for International Research in
Education. 6(1), 8-23.
Cordray, D. P. (2012, November 30). The impact of the measures of Academic Progress
(MAP) program on student reading achievement. final report. NCEE 2013-4000.
National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Retrieved
October 10, 2021, from
https://eric.ed.gov/?q=exit+survey+questions+Focus+group+questions&ff1=pubR
eports++Research&ff2=souNational+Center+for+Education+Evaluation+and+Regional+
Assistance&id=ED537982.
Data USA. (n.d.). Bethel Park, PA Census Place. https://datausa.io/profile/geo/bethelpark-pa - category_race-and-ethnicity
Dixson, D. D., & Worrell, F. C. (2016). Formative and summative assessment in the
classroom. Theory Into Practice, 55(2), 153–159.
Dymond, S. K., & Russell, D. L. (2004). Impact of grade and disability on the
instructional context of inclusive classrooms. Education and Training in
Developmental Disabilities, 39, 127-140.
Education Law Center. (n.d.). Education Law Center’s statement of student rights - elcpa.org. Retrieved October 10, 2021, from https://www.elc-pa.org/wpcontent/uploads/2017/08/ELC-Statement-Student-Rights-11-17-2016.pdf.
Finn, J. E., & Kohler, P. D. (2009). A compliance evaluation of the transition outcomes
project. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 32(1), 17-29.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0885728808315332
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., & Fernstrom, P. (1993). A conservative approach to special
education reform: Mainstreaming through transenvironmental programming and
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
164
curriculum-based measurement. American Educational Research Journal, 30(1),
149–177.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Compton, D. L., Wehby, J., Schumacher, R. F., Gersten, R., &
Jordan, N. C. (2015). Inclusion versus specialized intervention for very-lowperforming students: What does access mean in an era of academic challenge?
Exceptional Children, 81, 134- 157.
Gokbulut, O. D., Akcamete, G., & Güneyli, A. (2020). Impact of co-teaching approach in
inclusive education settings on the development of reading skills. International
Journal of Education and Practice, 8(1), 1–17.
Harmon, S., Street, M., Bateman, D., & Yell, M. L. (2020). Developing present levels of
academic achievement and functional performance statements for IEPS. Teaching
Exceptional Children, 52(5), 320–332.
Hawpe, J. (2013, February 4). Secondary teachers’ attitudes toward and willingness to
provide accommodations and modifications for students with disabilities.
[Doctorate of Education. Baker University]. PDQT Open.
https://media.proquest.com/media/hms/ORIG/2/eivhI?_s=mZoiL3qklv2y30b75vo
0I%2B4QM%2B4%3D
Hedin, L., & DeSpain, S. (2018). SMART or not? writing specific, measurable IEP goals.
Teaching Exceptional Children, 51(2), 100–110.
Hendricks, C. (2017). Improving schools through action research: A reflective practice
approach. Pearson.
Horowitz, S. H., Rawe, J., & Whittaker, M. C. (2017). The state of learning disabilities:
Understanding the 1 in 5. National Center for Learning Disabilities.
Hurd, E., & Weilbacher, G. (2017). “You want me to do what?” the benefits of coteaching in the middle level. Middle Grades Review, 3(1). 1-14.
Hurt, J. M. (2012). A Comparison of Inclusion and Pullout Programs on Student
Achievement for Students with Disabilities [ProQuest LLC]. In ProQuest LLC.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
165
Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged; Assistance to States for the
Education of Children with Disabilities 2015, 80 F.R. 50773. (August 21, 2015)
(To be codified with 34CFR Parts 200 and 300)
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (1990).
https://sites.ed.gov/idea/about-idea/
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (1997).
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-105publ17/html/PLAW105publ17.htm
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004).
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-108publ446/html/PLAW108publ446.htm
Iris Center. (2021). The IQ Discrepancy Model. Iris Peabody Vanderbuilt.
https://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/module/rti01/cresource/q1/p02/
Kauffman, J.M., Landrum, T.J., Mock, D.R., Sayeski, B., & Sayeski, K.L. (2005).
Diverse knowledge and skills require diversity of instructional groups: A position
statement. Remedial and Special Education, 26 (1), 2–6.
Klingbeil, D. A., McComas, J. J., Burns, M. K., & Helman, L. (2015). Comparison of
predictive validity and diagnostic accuracy of screening measures of reading
Skills. Psychology In the Schools, 52(5), 500-514. https://doi:10.1002/pits.21839
Knight, P.T. (2002). Summative assessment in higher education: Practices in disarray.
Studies in Higher Education, 27(3), 275-286.
Kurth, J.A., & Mastergeorge, A.M. (2010). Academic and cognitive profiles of students
with autism: Implications for classroom practice and placement. International
Journal of Special Education, 25(2), 8-14.
Lazarus, S. S., Thompson, S. J., & Thurlow, M. L. (2006). How students access
accommodations in assessment and instruction: Results of a survey of special
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
166
education teachers. EPRRI Issue Brief Seven. Educational Policy Reform
Research Institute.
LDOnline. (2021). Highlights of key provisions and important changes in the final
regulations for IDEA 2004. http://www.ldonline.org/article/54711/
Lee, S., Amos, B.A., Gragoudas, S., Lee, Y, Shogren, K.A., Theoharis, R., (2006).
Curriculum augmentation and adaptation strategies to promote access to the
general curriculum for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities.
Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 41(3). 199-212.
Lee, S.-H., Wehmeyer, M. L., Soukup, J. H., & Palmer, S. B. (2010). Impact of
curriculum modifications on access to the general education curriculum for
students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 76(2), 213–233.
Leedy, P.D., & Ormrod, J.E. (2013). Practical research: Planning and design (10th ed.).
Pearson.
LeDoux, C., Graves, S. L., & Burt, W. (2012). Meeting the needs of special education
students in inclusion classrooms. Journal of the American Academy of Special
Education Professionals, Winter 2012. 20–34.
Lovette, B. Nelson, J. (2020, July 31). Educational accommodations for children and
adolescents with Attention-Deficit/ Hyperactivity Disorder. Journal of the
American Academy of Child Adolescent and Adolescent Psychiatry. Systematic
Review. 69(4), 448-457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2020.07.891
Morningstar, M. E., Shogren, K. A., Lee, H., & Born, K. (2015). Preliminary lessons
about supporting participation and learning in inclusive classrooms. Research and
Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 40(3), 192–210.
Murawski, W. W., & Swanson, H. L. (2001). Meta-analysis of co-teaching research:
Where are the data? Remedial and Special Education, 22, 258-267.
National Center for Learning Disabilities. (2006, April). IDEA parent guide: A
comprehensive guide to your rights and responsibilities under the Individuals with
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
167
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA 2004). NCLD.org. https://www.ncld.org/wpcontent/uploads/2014/11/IDEA-Parent-Guide.pdf
National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (2011). Comprehensive assessment
and evaluation of students with learning disabilities: A paper prepared by the
National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. Learning Disability
Quarterly, 34(1), 3-16. https://doi.org/10.1177/073194871103400101
Northwest Evaluation Association. (2021a). Empowering school leaders. Improve student
outcomes. NWEA. https://www.nwea.org/resource-center/factsheet/36677/school-imrpovement-empower-school-leaders_NWEA_factsheet.pdf/
Northwest Evaluation Association. (2021b). MAP growth. NWEA.
https://www.nwea.org/resource-center/fact-sheet/29446/mapgrowth_NWEA_factsheet.pdf/
PACER Center Champions for Children with Disabilities. (2013). School accommodation
and modification ideas for students who receive special education services. The
Center on Technology and Disabilities Institute.
https://www.ctdinstitute.org/sites/default/files/file_attachments/School
Accommodation and Modification Ideas for Students who Receive Special
Education Services English.pdf
Pennsylvania Area Training and Technical Assistance Network. (2018a). Evaluation
report annotated. https://www.pattan.net/assets/PaTTAN/aa/aab2daae-1366425a-85e3-5dc087cae4bd.pdf
Pennsylvania Area Training and Technical Assistance Network. (2018b). What is
secondary transition. https://www.pattan.net/Graduation-Post-SecondaryOutcomes/Educational-Initiatives/What-is-Secondary-Transition
Pennsylvania Area Training and Technical Assistance Network. (2018c). Individualized
education program annotated.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
168
https://www.pattan.net/assets/PaTTAN/2b/2bc7d2b3-1bb2-42a4-a372c81fe4cba007.pdf
Pennsylvania Code. Title 22 § 1.2, 14.102 (2021).
http://www.pacodeandbulletin.gov/Display/pacode?titleNumber=022&file=/secur
e/pacode/data/022/022toc.html
Pennsylvania Department of Education. (2022). Pennsylvania System of School
Assessment. https://www.education.pa.gov/K12/Assessment%20and%20Accountability/PSSA/Pages/default.aspx
Project 10 Transition Network. (2021). IDEA indicators.
http://project10.info/DPage.php?ID=310
Rosati, M. L. (2009). Student, Teacher, and Administrator Perceptions of a Co-Teaching
Inclusion Model in One Virginia High School [ProQuest LLC]. ED514070
Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal
design for learning. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., & McDuffie, K. A. (2007). Co-teaching in inclusive
classrooms: A meta-synthesis of qualitative research. Exceptional Children,
73(4), 392-416.
Sinclair, A. C., Bray, L. E., Wei, Y., Clancy, E. E., Wexler, J., Kearns, D. M., & Lemons,
C. J. (2018). Coteaching in content area classrooms: Lessons and guiding
questions for administrators. NASSP Bulletin, 102(4), 303–322.
Thurlow, M. L., Lazarus, S. S., Thompson, S. J., & Morse, A. B. (2005). State policies on
assessment participation and accommodations for students with disabilities. The
Journal of Special Education, 38(4), 232 – 240.
United States Department of Education. (2020, November 24). A history of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. https://sites.ed.gov/idea/IDEAHistory#1975
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
169
VanSciver, J. Conover, V. (2009). Making accommodations work in the special
education setting. Teaching Exceptional Children Plus. 6(2), 2-10
Wagner, J, (2020). Using formative assessment of map data to shape instructional
practices. [Doctoral Dissertation, Walden University]. WU Scholarworks.
https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=10564&context=di
ssertations
Wehmeyer, M. L., Lance, G. D., & Bashinski, S. (2002). Promoting access to the general
curriculum for students with mental retardation: A multi-level model. Education
and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 37(3), 223–
234.
Wiggins, G. (1998). Educative assessment: Designing assessments to inform and improve
student performance. Jossey-Bass.
Whitaker, Megan. Ortiz, Samuel. (2019). What a specific learning disability is not:
Examining exclusionary factors. National Center for Learning Disabilities.
https://www.ncld.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/What-a-Specific-LearningDisability-Is-Not-Examining-Exclusionary-Factors.12192019.pdf
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
Appendices
170
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
171
Appendix A
IRB Letter of Approval
Institutional Review Board
California University of Pennsylvania
Morgan Hall, 310
250 University Avenue
California, PA 15419
instreviewboard@calu.edu
Melissa Sovak, Ph.D.
Dear David,
Please consider this email as official notification that your proposal titled “
Establishing Effective Supports Across Classrooms that Allow Equity and Access to
High Quality Instruction” (Proposal #20-038) has been approved by the California
University of Pennsylvania Institutional Review Board as submitted.
The effective date of approval is 8/10/21 and the expiration date is 8/9/22. These dates
must appear on the consent form.
Please note that Federal Policy requires that you notify the IRB promptly regarding any
of the following:
(1) Any additions or changes in procedures you might wish for your study (additions or
changes must be approved by the IRB before they are implemented)
(2) Any events that affect the safety or well-being of subjects
(3) Any modifications of your study or other responses that are necessitated by any
events reported in (2).
(4) To continue your research beyond the approval expiration date of 8/9/22 you must
file additional information to be considered for continuing review. Please contact
instreviewboard@calu.edu
Please notify the Board when data collection is complete.
Regards,
Melissa Sovak, PhD.
Chair, Institutional Review Board
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
172
Appendix B
Informed Consent
TITLE OF STUDY
Establishing Effective Supports Across Classrooms that Allow Equity and Access to High
Quality Instruction
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
David Michael Muench
California University of Pennsylvania School of Education Administration and Leadership
3282 Forest Road, Bethel Park, PA 15102
412-760-9443
mue6400@calu.edu
INTERNAL COMMITTEE CHAIR
Dr. Kevin Lordon
Professor at California University of Pennsylvania School of Education Administration
and Leadership
lordon@calu.edu
PURPOSE OF STUDY
You are being asked to take part in a research study. The reason why you are being asked
is that you are a teacher of either ELA, Math, or a special education teacher. Before you
decide to participate in this study, it is important that you understand why the research is
being done and what it will involve. Please read the following information carefully.
Please ask the researcher if there is anything that is not clear or if you need more
information.
The purpose of this study is to look at student supports outlined in IEP’s and their effect
on success in the regular classroom, specifically in ELA and math. The researcher is
specifically looking at teachers’ perceptions and thoughts on what supports are most
helpful and how they are implemented in the classroom. The purpose would be to build
upon this feedback to better build supports for special education students at Independence
Middle School.
This study has been approved by the California University of Pennsylvania Institutional
Review Board. This approval is effective 08/10/21 and expires 08/09/22
STUDY PROCEDURES
The first step for this study will be for staff to complete a survey regarding student
supports in the IEP and their perceived effectiveness in their classroom. The researcher
will then follow up with a semi-structured interview to gather additional insight into the
feelings that made the staff member feel this way about those supports. Third, the
researcher will be looking at how students perform and grow over the year to see how the
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
173
supports were helpful or not. Lastly, when students are moved between regular education
and pull-out classrooms, a follow up interview may be conducted to gather thoughts on
what was not working in the IEP to support this placement decision.
The amount of time for this study will be approximately 60-90 minutes over the course of
the school year. The majority of this time will take place in the first quarter of the year.
The initial survey should take approximately 20-30 minutes and the follow up interview
should take approximately 30 minutes. If a follow up interview is to be conducted
regarding a student change in placement, that interview would take approximately 10-15
minutes. Interviews will be dictated by the interviewer and at no time will video or audio
recording be used in the interview process.
RISKS
There are minimal risks in taking part in this study. As with any research study, no
matter how minimal the risks, there are unforeseen outcomes that participants may feel.
To be clear, this study is not evaluative of teachers and in no way is incorporated in any
evaluation instrument. In step one of the study, your answers will not be shared with
anyone and remain anonymous throughout except to the researcher. Your survey will be
given a number and not a name. In step 2 of the research study, the interview data will
also remain anonymous to all but the researcher, applying the same number used in step
one to analyze the data. In step 3 of the research study, the students will be supplied a
number in order to analyze the data. Finally, in step 4, where a follow up interview may
exist, the same staff number will be applied to the interview form. Please remember that
you may decline to answer any or all questions and you may terminate your involvement
at any time if you choose. Should the participant feel any distress be it physical or
emotional, the researcher would be fully supportive of discontinuing participation.
BENEFITS
The benefits of this study include a better understanding of how supports help the
educational process for students in our school and in what content areas they may be
most effectively done. This will help us replicate the most effective supports while also
potentially eliminating or changing supports that are less effective. To you as the teacher,
the benefit would be a more supportive IEP in your classroom that helps you serve the
student population to the best of your ability. The potential benefit to the student would
be replicating services that have the most benefit in supporting their academic
achievement in the ELA and math content areas, keeping them in the richest educational
placement possible, that is also the least restrictive as defined by the law.
CONFIDENTIALITY
Your responses to the perception survey will be kept confidential. Please do not write any
identifying information on your perception survey. Again, your survey will be supplied a
number in order to maintain confidentiality to the greatest extent possible. This number
will also be applied to the interview form, and any follow up interview form. Every
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
174
effort will be made by the researcher to preserve your confidentiality including the
following:
•
•
•
Never including the participant’s name in any document other than the initial number
association document.
Reporting data in the research report will never list any identifiable information.
Keeping notes, interview transcriptions, and any other identifying participant
information in a locked file cabinet in the personal possession of the researcher as
well as password protecting any digital files.
COMPENSATION
There isn’t any compensation in participating in this study.
CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have questions at any time about this study, or you experience adverse effects as
the result of participating in this study, you may contact the researcher whose contact
information is provided on the first page. If you have questions regarding your rights as a
research participant, or if problems arise which you do not feel you can discuss with the
Primary Investigator, please contact the Institutional Review Board at
instreviewboard@calu.edu .
VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION
Your participation in this study is voluntary. It is up to you to decide whether or not to
take part. If you decide to take part in this study, you will be asked to sign a consent
form. After you sign the consent form, you are still free to withdraw at any time and
without giving a reason. Withdrawing from this study will not affect the relationship you
have, if any, with the researcher. If you withdraw from the study before data collection is
completed, your data will be returned to you or destroyed. To withdraw from the study
simply email the researcher at mue6400@calu.edu with your withdrawal.
CONSENT
I have read and I understand the provided information and have had the opportunity to
ask questions. I understand that my participation is voluntary and that I am free to
withdraw at any time, without giving a reason and without cost. I understand that I will
be given a copy of this consent form. I voluntarily agree to take part in this study.
Participant's signature ______________________________ Date __________
Investigator's signature _____________________________ Date __________
175
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
Appendix C
Likert Survey
Participant #_____________
Thank you for agreeing to take this survey. Remember that you are not obligated to answer all
of the questions in this survey, and you are able to opt out of the research project at any time.
Please also remember that any responses are not evaluative of the teacher. Please do not
write any identifying information on the form. The following 27 items are
accommodations/modifications listed in various IEP’s in the building. Please rate each
accommodation/modification on how helpful they are in keeping students successful in your
classroom. The scale ranges from a numeric value of 1 which equals “Strongly Disagree” to 6
which equals “Strongly Agree”. The last question is open-ended and would include any
accommodation not listed that you think is important to your students’ success.
1. The accommodation of “small group testing” is highly effective in helping my students be
successful in my class.
1
Strongly
Disagree
2
Disagree
3
Slightly
Disagree
4
Slightly Agree
5
Agree
6
Strongly Agree
2. The accommodation of having “tests read aloud” is highly effective in helping my students be
successful in my class.
1
Strongly
Disagree
2
Disagree
3
Slightly
Disagree
4
Slightly Agree
5
Agree
6
Strongly Agree
3. The modification of “chunking assignments” is highly effective in helping my students be
successful in my class
1
Strongly
Disagree
2
Disagree
3
Slightly
Disagree
4
Slightly Agree
5
Agree
6
Strongly Agree
4. The accommodation of having “Directions Repeated and Restated” is highly effective in helping
my students be successful in my class.
1
Strongly
Disagree
2
Disagree
3
Slightly
Disagree
4
Slightly Agree
5
Agree
6
Strongly Agree
5. The accommodation of having “extended time for assignments” is highly effective in helping my
students be successful in my class.
1
2
3
4
5
6
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree
Slightly Agree
Agree
176
Strongly Agree
6. The accommodation of having “extended time for testing” is highly effective in helping my
students be successful in my class.
1
Strongly
Disagree
2
Disagree
3
Slightly
Disagree
4
Slightly Agree
5
Agree
6
Strongly Agree
7. The accommodation of “preferential seating” is highly effective in helping my students be
successful in my class.
1
Strongly
Disagree
2
Disagree
3
Slightly
Disagree
4
Slightly Agree
5
Agree
6
Strongly Agree
8. The accommodation of “Organization Support” is highly effective in helping my students be
successful in my class.
1
Strongly
Disagree
2
Disagree
3
Slightly
Disagree
4
Slightly Agree
5
Agree
6
Strongly Agree
9. The accommodation of “providing visual instructions” is highly effective in helping my students
be successful in my class.
1
Strongly
Disagree
2
Disagree
3
Slightly
Disagree
4
Slightly Agree
5
Agree
6
Strongly Agree
10. The modification of “Adapted Tests” are highly effective in helping my students be successful in
my class.
1
Strongly
Disagree
2
Disagree
3
Slightly
Disagree
4
Slightly Agree
5
Agree
6
Strongly Agree
11. The accommodation of “getting student attention prior to giving instruction” is highly effective
in helping my students be successful in my class.
1
Strongly
Disagree
2
Disagree
3
Slightly
Disagree
4
Slightly Agree
5
Agree
6
Strongly Agree
12. The accommodation to “allow movement in the classroom” is highly effective in helping my
students be successful in my class.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
1
Strongly
Disagree
2
Disagree
3
Slightly
Disagree
4
Slightly Agree
5
Agree
177
6
Strongly Agree
13. The accommodation of “pairing visual and verbal directions” is highly effective in helping my
students be successful in my class.
1
Strongly
Disagree
2
Disagree
3
Slightly
Disagree
4
Slightly Agree
5
Agree
6
Strongly Agree
14. The modification of “modifying homework” is highly effective in helping my students be
successful in my class.
1
Strongly
Disagree
2
Disagree
3
Slightly
Disagree
4
Slightly Agree
5
Agree
6
Strongly Agree
15. The accommodation of “Use of graphic organizer” is highly effective in helping my students be
successful in my class.
1
Strongly
Disagree
2
Disagree
3
Slightly
Disagree
4
Slightly Agree
5
Agree
6
Strongly Agree
16. The accommodation of “assignment book checks” is highly effective in helping my students be
successful in my class.
1
Strongly
Disagree
2
Disagree
3
Slightly
Disagree
4
Slightly Agree
5
Agree
6
Strongly Agree
17. The accommodation of “audio books” is highly effective in helping my students be successful in
my class.
1
Strongly
Disagree
2
Disagree
3
Slightly
Disagree
4
Slightly Agree
5
Agree
6
Strongly Agree
18. The accommodation of “Paraprofessional Support” is highly effective in helping my students be
successful in my class.
1
Strongly
Disagree
2
Disagree
3
Slightly
Disagree
4
Slightly Agree
5
Agree
6
Strongly Agree
19. The accommodation of allowing students the “Opportunity to retake tests” is highly effective in
helping my students be successful in my class.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
1
Strongly
Disagree
2
Disagree
3
Slightly
Disagree
4
Slightly Agree
5
Agree
178
6
Strongly Agree
20. The accommodation of “Co-teaching” is highly effective in helping my students be successful in
my class.
1
Strongly
Disagree
2
Disagree
3
Slightly
Disagree
4
Slightly Agree
5
Agree
6
Strongly Agree
21. The accommodation of allowing “Voice to Text” is highly effective in helping my students be
successful in my class.
1
Strongly
Disagree
2
Disagree
3
Slightly
Disagree
4
Slightly Agree
5
Agree
6
Strongly Agree
22. The accommodation of having “Study Guides” is highly effective in helping my students be
successful in my class.
1
Strongly
Disagree
2
Disagree
3
Slightly
Disagree
4
Slightly Agree
5
Agree
6
Strongly Agree
23. The accommodation of giving a “copy of class notes” is highly effective in helping my students
be successful in my class.
1
Strongly
Disagree
2
Disagree
3
Slightly
Disagree
4
Slightly Agree
5
Agree
6
Strongly Agree
24. The accommodation of students having a “Crisis Pass” is highly effective in helping my students
be successful in my class.
1
Strongly
Disagree
2
Disagree
3
Slightly
Disagree
4
Slightly Agree
5
Agree
6
Strongly Agree
25. The accommodation to allow “use of a calculator" is highly effective in helping my students be
successful in my class.
1
Strongly
Disagree
2
Disagree
3
Slightly
Disagree
4
Slightly Agree
5
Agree
6
Strongly Agree
26. The accommodation of using “positive reinforcement” is highly effective in helping my students
be successful in my class.
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
1
Strongly
Disagree
2
Disagree
3
Slightly
Disagree
4
Slightly Agree
5
Agree
179
6
Strongly Agree
27. The accommodation of using “checks for understanding” is highly effective in helping my
students be successful in my class.
1
Strongly
Disagree
2
Disagree
3
Slightly
Disagree
4
Slightly Agree
5
Agree
6
Strongly Agree
28. Are there any accommodations that you feel are helpful to your students that were not listed
above? Please list any that you find helpful.
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
180
Appendix D
Semi-Structured Interview #1
Participant # ______
Read to participant: Today, I am conducting an interview based off of your responses on
the perception survey that you filled out previously on student supports in your
classroom. Participation in this study and in this interview are completely voluntary and
you can withdraw at any time from the study. Also, you are not obligated to answer all
the questions being asked if you are not comfortable doing so. Remember that no
identifying information will be noted on this form by the researcher. Please also
remember that none of your responses are evaluative in any way. The interview will
take approximately 20 to 30 minutes.
Question 1: You had noted that the following accommodations were the most effective
for you and your students in the classroom. Please discuss with me why you place these
as the most effective supports for you and your content area. (List one at a time, the
strongest supported items from the perception survey)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Question 2: In looking at the supports that are most effective, can you explain how they
are implemented?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
181
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Question 3: You had noted that the following accommodations are the least effective
for you and your students in the classroom. Please discuss with me why you place these
as the least effective supports for you and your content area. (List one at a time, the
least supported items from the perception survey)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Question 4: In looking at the least effective supports, are there any changes to them
that you think would make them more effective for your students?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
182
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Question 5: If you could develop one support for students but can’t due to some
limitation whether its personnel, time, resources, support, etc. what would it be?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
183
Appendix E
Semi-Structured Interview #2
Participant # ______
Read to participant: Today, I am conducting an interview to look at some of the factors
that led to a change in placement for students in your class. Please remember that
participation in this study and in this interview are completely voluntary and you can
withdraw at any time. Also, you are not obligated to answer all the questions being asked
if you are not comfortable doing so. Remember that no identifying information will be
noted on this form by the researcher and that none of your responses are evaluative. The
interview will take approximately 10 to 20 minutes.
Question 1: What were the factors that led to the student’s change in placement in your
class?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Question 2: Were there any supports that were in place that the student did respond to, if
so, what were they?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Question 3: Were there any revisions to the IEP that you can recall, and if so, what were
they?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
184
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Question 4: Looking at the student’s supports in the IEP can you explain how the
following accommodations were implemented?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
185
Appendix F
Abridged Qualitative Feedback Interview #1
Language Arts Staff Beliefs and Implementation of Supports
Respondent
Subject
SDI
11 LA
Chunking
Assignments
5 LA
Chunking
Assignments
13 LA
Coteaching
15 LA
Coteaching
5 LA
Directions Repeated
and Restated
11 LA
Directions Repeated
and Restated
5 LA
Extended Time for
Assignments
13 LA
Movement in the
classroom
Teacher
Implementation/Beliefs
Really essential for writing
assignments, extremely
important to do this on longer
term assignments and grammar
units
Making conscious decisions of
where to break an assignment
apart, increased use of short
attention spans when chunking
is done
Enhances classroom through
strengths and weaknesses of
each other, important to push
back on one another for the
benefit of the students
Important to have someone
who understands the content,
really places value on common
planning time to address needs
of learners
One of the keys to success,
repetition is very necessary and
helpful for the students
Target students that need called
on for this purpose,
purposefully go to a student's
desk who struggles with
directions to help them get
started
Important especially when you
see the effort to produce best
work, processing delays are
real
Believes in kinesthetic learning
to galvanize concepts for
students
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
11 LA
Organization Support
13 LA
Organization Support
11 LA
Paraprofessional
Support
15 LA
Paraprofessional
Support
13 LA
Preferential Seating
15 LA
Preferential Seating
13 LA
Small Group Testing
186
Important to have a system of
organization so that they know
where everything can be found
Really focus on executive
functioning, Digital structure
has taken a top priority
compared to when students
were asked to fill out agendas,
highlighting of key information
is very important to focus the
student
Para support is important to
make sure the students are with
the rest of the class.
Can provide 1:1 at times,
Important to bring the backup
instruction to resource class,
provide small group testing
Easy to do with a high return,
means different things for
different students, an example
is a student who needs to be
able to move vs. a student who
needs to be close to source of
instruction
Student dependent on what is
needed, near the board vs near
a peer role model vs towards
source of instruction
Students need some
clarification, and this provides
some scaffolding to help them
access what they know
Math Staff Beliefs and Implementation of Supports
Respondent
Subject
2 Math
SDI
Adapted Tests
Teacher Implementation/Beliefs
Format of test such as bolding
essential words, simple hint to
remind students of skills they
know but need to get a start on,
eliminate responses that are
distracting
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
8 Math
Adapted Tests
2 Math
Coteaching
3 Math
Coteaching
8 Math
Coteaching
9 Math
Coteaching
17 Math
Coteaching
3 Math
Directions Repeated
and Restated
9 Math
Directions Repeated
and Restated
3 Math
Extended time on
assignments
2 Math
Extended Time on
Tests
8 Math
Extended Time on
Tests
187
Having coteaching has really
helped with this, more
adaptations than in the past with
this support, taking out
distractors, changing reading
level
Kids get a lot out of it, ability to
group and regroup, facetime with
students is increased each class.
Must overcome egos, very
beneficial to students,
opportunity to give different
perspectives, employ various
coteaching models based on the
need
Really think this is helpful to
increase facetime, helpful for
adaptation support
Increase of facetime with
students, being able to allow the
two teachers play off one another
Personality is very important to
match, having the additional
viewpoint is helpful for students,
more facetime with students
Absolutely necessary for students
who struggle with focus, good to
do as a general practice and not
just an SDI.
Kids that you know are struggling
benefit from the teacher knowing
the students so that directions can
be targeted and restated
Allow for more processing time
when needed, importance placed
on actually doing the work,
eliminate barriers when “life
happens”
Keep within reason so that the
student can move forward, but
recognize the importance of
students needing this at times
Teacher believes this is important
for all kids in her 7th grade math
class but not in pre-algebra or
Algebra
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
17 Math
Extended Time on
Tests
2 Math
Paraprofessional
Support
8 Math
Paraprofessional
Support
17 Math
Paraprofessional
Support
17 Math
Retake tests
9 Math
Small Group Testing
188
Students process differently,
allowing for different thinking
speeds is important to supporting
different types of learners
Not as beneficial in class as it is
during the resource period to
provide repetition, really matters
who the para is
Qualified para makes the
difference, most beneficial when
they are there from beginning to
end of the period
Encouragement and enthusiasm
are key with support persons,
extra set of eyes is really helpful
during class along with a little
variation on explaining things
Ultimate point is that the student
should be able to show what they
know, should be universal for all
students
Most important for reading
purposes, allows for clarifications
which supports students who
know what to do but struggle
with the start
Reading Staff Beliefs and Implementation of Supports
Respondent
Subject
SDI
7 Reading
Adapted Tests
12 Reading
Check for
Understanding
16 Reading
Extended Time on
Tests
Teacher Implementation/Beliefs
Really makes a difference for
students, written portions
especially need adaptation with
graphic organizers, multiple
choice reduction
Comprehension checks with
specific groups making sure they
are "concluding" the lesson with
the right information
Particularly important for
students who are having a lot of
anxiety that is slowing them
down
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
16 Reading
Movement in the
classroom
12 Reading
Pairing Visual and
Verbal Directions
7 Reading
Paraprofessional
Support
12 Reading
Paraprofessional
Support
16 Reading
Paraprofessional
Support
7 Reading
Preferential Seating
12 Reading
Preferential Seating
7 Reading
Tests Read Aloud
189
Teacher purposefully creates
these opportunities off to the side
of the class
How information is presented is
key to the students giving you
what you want
Really depends on the person you
have, really need the para to
know the student individually,
proximity control support
Important to have the right
person, expect them to work with
all students, keeping students on
task is the number one thing,
small group support for students
who need caught up
Para is really helpful in keeping
students on task, on the lookout
for the glazed looks, regroup
students during independent time
between teacher and student, para
brings information back to
resource which is very helpful
Not just putting a student in the
front of the room, seating really
needs to be based on what the
student needs for example away
from distractors, near source of
instruction, near the board
Important in order to access the
student quickly for needs, could
mean closer to the projector,
could mean closer to the board or
closer to the teacher
Auditory modality is very helpful
for the students, assists students
who have processing speed
problems,
Special Education Staff Beliefs and Implementation of Support
Respondent
Subject
SDI
Teacher Implementation/Beliefs
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
Special
6 Ed.
Adapted Tests
Special
10 Ed.
Adapted Tests
Special
10 Ed.
Audio Books
Special
4 Ed.
Directions Repeated
and Restated
Special
6 Ed.
Directions Repeated
and Restated
Special
18 Ed.
Extended time on
assignments
Special
6 Ed.
Guided Notes
Special
4 Ed.
Paraprofessional
Support
190
Different need for adaptation in
each class, math reteach and
retest, science and social studies
reduce content, being very clear
on what is being tested.
Important to minimize the
amount of information the
student needs to look at,
eliminate some response items
from the test
Students are not at grade level but
can still understand content,
Important across subjects so that
students can access information
Important for students to
eliminate the barrier to
understanding how to start,
purposefully getting students
attention to minimize difficulties
starting
Students struggle getting started,
making sure they understand
what they are doing is key
Important to be flexible so
students can be successful with
the workload, Resource is a very
valuable time to keeping the
students caught up and allowing
for the extended time
This is especially important in
social studies, giving them a
completed study guide is helpful
because they can't read what they
write often when completing the
study guide.
The number one thing is bringing
the information back to resource
class for backup instruction,
provides natural daily discussion
that eliminates delay in
communicating needs to special
education teacher
SUPPORTS THAT ALLOW EQUITY AND ACCESS TO INSTRUCTION
Special
6 Ed.
Paraprofessional
Support
Special
10 Ed.
Paraprofessional
Support
Special
18 Ed.
Special
18 Ed.
Paraprofessional
Support
Special
4 Ed.
Small Group Testing
Study Guides
Special
18 Ed.
Tests Read Aloud
Special
10 Ed.
Use of Calculator
191
SS has a lot of lecture and para
support that helps keep the
student on task, in science student
need support with labs, biggest
help is in resource class for
backup instruction.
The support in resource is
invaluable for what is brought
back from the regular classroom,
keep students moving forward on
assignments, they are the bridge
to success in the regular ed
classroom
This support is felt to be one of
the most important afforded to
students, important to bring the
information back to resource
Provide focus and reduce test
anxiety
Important to narrow the
information for the student,
students must have a predefined
outline because they can learn the
information but need to know
what the essential information is
Essential to keep students from
getting distracted, eliminate
decoding concerns
The important thing is
understanding process and
concepts, not memorizing facts,
focus needs to be on how to do
the math.